10–17–06 Tuesday Vol. 71 No. 200 Oct. 17, 2006

Pages 60805–61372

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:11 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\17OCWS.LOC 17OCWS cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2 II Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.archives.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register www.gpoaccess.gov/ nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via e-mail at [email protected]. The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; or call toll free 1-866- 512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 71 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 07:55 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\17OCWS.LOC 17OCWS cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 200

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Administration on Aging Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; See Aging Administration membership, 61033

Aging Administration Energy Department NOTICES See Energy Information Administration Agency information collection activities; proposals, See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submissions, and approvals, 61060–61061 Energy Information Administration Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES RULES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Dairy products; grading and inspection: submissions, and approvals, 61033–61035 Fees and charges increase, 60805–60807 Prunes (fresh) grown in Washington and Oregon, 60807– Environmental Protection Agency 60810 RULES NOTICES Air programs: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Ambient air quality standards, national— submissions, and approvals, 61014–61016 Particulate matter, 61144–61233 Particulate matter; Regulatory Impact Analysis, 60853– Agricultural Research Service 60854 NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Meetings: Confederated Tribe of Umatilla Indian Reservation, National Animal Disease Center Scientific Review Panel, 60852–60853 61016–61017 PROPOSED RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and Agriculture Department promulgation; various States; air quality planning See Agricultural Marketing Service purposes; designation of areas: See Agricultural Research Service Maine, 60937–60952 Air quality implementation plans; approval and Commerce Department promulgation; various States: See Foreign-Trade Zones Board Arizona, 60934–60937 See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Export-Import Bank Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61031 NOTICES India; petroleum refinery and petrochemicals facility; Customs and Border Protection Bureau finance application, 61052 NOTICES IRS interest rates used in calculating interest on overdue Federal Aviation Administration accounts and refunds, 61062–61063 RULES Class E airspace, 60814–60819 Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Acquisition regulations: Bell Helicopter Textron, 60926–60927 Export-controlled information and technology, 61012 MD Helicopters, Inc., 60927–60928 Raytheon, 60924–60926 Defense Department See Defense Acquisition Regulations System Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES RULES Arms sales notification; transmittal letter, etc., 61031–61032 Flood elevation determinations: Colorado, 60869–60870 Drug Enforcement Administration Georgia, 60870–60871 RULES Kansas, 60866–60869 Schedules of controlled substances: North Carolina, 60871–60923 Sodium permanganate; control as List II chemical, South Carolina, 60917–60919 60823–60827 Various States, 60854–60917 PROPOSED RULES Education Department Flood elevation determinations: NOTICES Alabama and Kentucky, 60985–60986 Meetings: Georgia, 60983–60985 National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 61032–61033 Illinois, 60961–60963

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:58 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 IV Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Contents

Mississippi and Wisconsin, 60980–60983 Federal Transit Administration New Hampshire and North Carolina, 60988–61012 PROPOSED RULES North Carolina, 60952–60961 Charter service: North Carolina and Guam, 60986–60988 Grant recipients prohibition from providing charter bus Various States, 60963–60980 service; negotiated rulemaking advisory committee; membership and meetings, 60460, [Editorial Note: This document was inadvertantly placed under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Aviation Administration in the Federal NOTICES Register table of contents of October 13, 2006] Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 61043–61044 Financial Management Service Environmental statements; notice of intent: See Fiscal Service Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., LP, 61044–61046 Hydroelectric applications, 61046–61049 Fiscal Service Meetings: RULES California Water Resources Department, 61049–61050 Financial Management Service: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61050–61052 Judgment Fund and private relief bills; payment rules Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: and procedures, 60848–60852 Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 61035 Surety corporations; federal process agents; California Independent System Operator Corp., 61035 appointments, 60847–60848 Carolina Gas Transmission Corp. et al., 61035–61036 Dauphin Island Gathering Partners, 61036 Fish and Wildlife Service East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 61036–61037 NOTICES Egan Hub Storage, LLC, 61037 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., 61037–61038 Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 61038 TX, 61063–61064 Northern Natural Gas Co., 61038–61039 Paiute Pipeline Co., 61039 Food and Drug Administration Questar Corp. et al., 61039 NOTICES Rendezvous Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 61040 Debarment orders: SAF Hydroelectric LLC et al., 61040 Butkovitz, Anne L., 61061 Southern LNG, Inc., et al., 61040–61041 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 61041 Foreign-Trade Zones Board Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 61041–61042 NOTICES Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC, 61042–61043 Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Georgia E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.; crop protection Federal Housing Finance Board products manufacturing facilities, 61017 RULES Tennessee, 61017–61018 Privacy Act; implementation, 60810–60814 NOTICES Geological Survey Privacy Act; systems of records, 61052–61058 NOTICES Meeting: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee, 61064 NOTICES Health and Human Services Department Meetings: Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 Initiative; public See Aging Administration listening session, 61131–61137 See Food and Drug Administration Homeland Security Department Federal Railroad Administration See Customs and Border Protection Bureau NOTICES See Federal Emergency Management Agency Exemption petitions, etc.: BNSF Railway Co, 61137 Interior Department Pioneer Valley Railroad, 61137–61138 See Fish and Wildlife Service Traffic control systems; discontinuance or modification: See Geological Survey CSX Transportation, Inc., 61138 See Land Management Bureau See Minerals Management Service See National Park Service Federal Reserve System NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Banks and bank holding companies: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, 61063 Change in bank control, 61058 Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 61059–61060 Internal Revenue Service Formations, acquisitions, and mergers; correction, 61058– RULES 61059 Procedure and administration: Permissible nonbanking activities, 61060 Levy; collection due process procedures relating to notice Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61060 and hearing opportunity, 60827–60835

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:58 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Contents V

Return information disclosure by officers and employees Exempted fishing permit applications, determinations, etc., for investigative purposes 61025–61027 Correction, 60827 Marine mammals: Tax lien filing notice; collection due process procedures; Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— notice and hearing opportunity, 60835–60843 Bay Marina Management Inc.; Pier 39 Marina, San Francisco, CA; California sea lions and Pacific International Trade Administration harbor seals, 61027–61031 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Antidumping: U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Honey from—- Assessment Product Prospectus, 61031 Argentina, 61018 Pure magnesium from— National Park Service China, 61019–61021 NOTICES Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— Agency information collection activities; proposals, Germany, 61021 submissions, and approvals, 61069–61070 Justice Department National Science Foundation See Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES See Justice Programs Office Meetings: Business and Operations Advisory Committee, 61073 Justice Programs Office Cyberinfrastructure Advisory Committee, 61073 NOTICES Engineering Advisory Committee, 61073 Agency information collection activities; proposals, Material Research Proposal Review Panel, 61073 submissions, and approvals, 61070–61071 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Labor Department PROPOSED RULES See Occupational Safety and Health Administration Nuclear power plants; licenses, certifications, and NOTICES approvals, 61330–61359 Agency information collection activities; proposals, NOTICES submissions, and approvals, 61071–61072 Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Nebraska Public Power District, 61074–61075 Land Management Bureau Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61075 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Coal leases, exploration licenses, etc.: Control room envelope habitability; model safety Wyoming, 61064–61066 evaluation; consolidated line item improvement Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: process, 61075–61084 Oregon, 61066–61069 Survey plat filings: Occupational Safety and Health Administration Idaho, 61069 RULES Shipyard employment safety and health standards: Minerals Management Service Fire protection, 60843–60847 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Shipyard employment safety and health standards: Outer Continental Shelf— Fire protection, 60932–60934 Oil and gas leasing; 2007-2012 program; hearing, 61069 Personnel Management Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 61084–61085 submissions, and approvals, 61072 Health benefits, Federal employees: Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Medically underserved areas (2007 CY), 61086 Advisory Council, 61072 Presidential Documents National Credit Union Administration PROCLAMATIONS NOTICES Special observances: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61072 National Energy Awareness Month (Proc. 8068), 61361– 61364 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration White Cane Safety Day (Proc. 8069), 61365–61366 PROPOSED RULES EXECUTIVE ORDERS Fishery conservation and management: Sudan; blocking property of and prohibiting transactions Northeastern United States fisheries— with the Government (EO 13412), 61367–61371 Atlantic herring; correction, 61012 Meetings: Public Debt Bureau Pacific Fishery Management Council, 61012–61013 See Fiscal Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Securities and Exchange Commission Black abalone; status review, 61021–61022 NOTICES Species of concern list; revision, additions and deletions, Investment Company Act of 1940: and candidate species definition, 61022–61025 MONY Life Insurance Co. of America et al., 61086–61111

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:58 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 VI Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Contents

Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration American Stock Exchange LLC, 61111–61112 See Federal Railroad Administration National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 61112– See Surface Transportation Board 61116 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc, 61116–61117 Treasury Department See Fiscal Service Small Business Administration See Internal Revenue Service NOTICES See Thrift Supervision Office Disaster loan areas: NOTICES Arizona, 61117 Agency information collection activities; proposals, Social Security Administration submissions, and approvals, 61140 Foreign ownership of U.S. securities survey; reporting RULES requirements, 61140–61141 Social security benefits and supplemental security income: Federal old age, survivors, and disability insurance, and aged, blind, and disabled— Veterans Affairs Department Disability benefits; suspension during continuing NOTICES disability reviews, 60819–60823 Meetings: NOTICES Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development Grants and cooperative agreements, availability, etc.: and Clinical Science Research and Development Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Program, Services Scientific Merit Review Board, 61141–61142 61117–61129 Meetings: Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Program; pre- Separate Parts In This Issue application teleconference seminars, 61129–61130 Special Counsel Office Part II NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency, 61144–61233 Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Retaliation Act (No FEAR Act); implementation, Part III 61130–61131 Environmental Protection Agency, 61236–61328

State Department Part IV PROPOSED RULES Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 61330–61359 Passports: Card format passport; fee schedule changes, 60928–60932 Part V NOTICES Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition: Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, Masterpieces of Russian Art, 61131 61361–61366 Surface Transportation Board Part VI NOTICES Executive Office of the President, Presidential Documents, Meetings: 61367–61371 Grain; rail transportation; hearing, 61138–61139 Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Coast Belle Rail, LLC, 61139 Reader Aids Santa Maria Valley Railroad Co., 61139–61140 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for Thrift Supervision Office phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, NOTICES and notice of recently enacted public laws. Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Citizens Community Federal et al., 61141 LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Transportation Department archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change See Federal Aviation Administration settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:58 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\17OCCN.SGM 17OCCN hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR 235...... 61012 252...... 61012 Proclamations: 8068...... 61363 50 CFR 8069...... 61365 Proposed Rules: Executive Orders: 648...... 61012 13067 (See EO 660...... 61012 13412) ...... 61369 13412...... 61369 7 CFR 58...... 60805 924...... 60807 944...... 60807 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 2...... 61330 50...... 61330 51...... 61330 52...... 61330 12 CFR 910...... 60810 913...... 60810 14 CFR 71 (7 documents) ...... 60814, 60815, 60816, 60817, 60818 Proposed Rules: 39 (3 documents) ...... 60924, 60926, 60927 20 CFR 404...... 60819 416...... 60819 21 CFR 1310...... 60823 22 CFR Proposed Rules: 22...... 60928 51...... 60928 26 CFR 301 (3 documents) ...... 60827, 60835 29 CFR 1915...... 60843 Proposed Rules: 1915...... 60932 31 CFR 224...... 60847 256...... 60848 40 CFR 49...... 60852 50 (2 documents) ...... 60853, 61144 53...... 61236 58...... 61236 Proposed Rules: 52 (2 documents) ...... 60934, 60937 81...... 60937 44 CFR 65...... 60854 67 (8 documents) ...... 60864, 60866, 60869, 60870, 60871, 60884, 60917, 60919 Proposed Rules: 67 (8 documents) ...... 60952, 60961, 60963, 60980, 60983, 60985, 60986, 60988 48 CFR Proposed Rules: 204...... 61012

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:08 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCLS.LOC 17OCLS cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 60805

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 200

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER This rule will not preempt any State or automate its business practices. Progress contains regulatory documents having general local laws, regulations, or policies to date has been significant and has applicability and legal effect, most of which unless they present an irreconcilable resulted in savings equal to two staff are keyed to and codified in the Code of conflict with this rule. There are no years to the program. Further Federal Regulations, which is published under administrative procedures which must enhancements in automated business 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. be exhausted prior to any judicial practices will continue to improve the The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by challenge to the provisions of this rule. efficiency and timeliness of providing inspection and grading services and the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Regulatory Flexibility Act and new books are listed in the first FEDERAL information to users of these services. Paperwork Reduction Act REGISTER issue of each week. Employee salaries and benefits now Pursuant to the requirement set forth account for nearly 73 percent of the in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, AMS operating costs of the Dairy Grading DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE has considered the economic impact of Branch. Grading fees were adjusted last this action on small entities. It has been in 2004 (69 FR 8797). Salary increases Agricultural Marketing Service determined that its provisions would and locality adjustments, effective not have a significant economic effect January 2005 and January 2006, have 7 CFR Part 58 on a substantial number of small resulted in an increase in employee cost [Docket Number DA–05–04] entities. For the purpose of the of 6.1 percent. As a result, annual salary Regulatory Flexibility Act, a dairy and benefit costs to the program for RIN 0581–AC55 products manufacturer is a ‘‘small Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 are approximately Increase in Fees for Federal Dairy business’’ if it has fewer than 500 $240,000 more than for the same Grading and Inspection Services employees. If a plant is part of a larger number of employees in FY 2004. company operating multiple plants that Inflation raised non-salary costs AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, collectively exceed the 500 employee approximately 6.8 percent for the two- USDA. limit, the plant will be considered a year period ending December 2005. It is ACTION: Final rule. large business even if the local plant has expected that non-salary operating fewer than 500 employees. expenses will continue to increase at a SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Under the Agricultural Marketing Act rate of 3.0 percent per year. Current Service (AMS) will increase, by of 1946, the Dairy Grading Branch, revenue projections using Dairy Grading approximately 10 percent, the hourly AMS, provides voluntary Federal Branch’s current fee schedule will not fees charged for Federal dairy grading inspection and dairy product grading provide income sufficient to cover these and inspection services. Dairy grading services to about 350 plants. About 210 escalating program operation costs and and inspection services are voluntary of these users are small businesses maintain reserves (4 months of costs) and are financed through user-fees under the criteria established by the according to AMS policy (AMS assessed to participants in the program. Small Business Administration (13 CFR Directive 408.1). These revisions are necessary in order to 121.201). Manufacturing plants Since projected revenues will not recover, as nearly as practicable, the participating in the voluntary plant cover program costs while maintaining increase in salaries of Federal inspection program have their facility an adequate reserve, the Dairy Grading employees and increases in Agency inspected against established USDA Branch will be put in an unstable costs, and to ensure that the Dairy ‘‘General Specifications for Dairy Plants financial position that will adversely Grading Branch operates on a Approved for USDA Inspection and affect the ability to provide dairy financially self-supporting basis. Grading Service’’ construction and inspection and grading services. DATES: Effective October 18, 2006. sanitation requirements. Dairy products Without a fee increase, total revenue FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: manufactured in facilities complying projections for FY 2006 are $4.980 Dana H. Coale, Deputy Administrator, with the USDA inspection requirements million. Total costs for the same period Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing are eligible to have their output graded of time are projected to be $5.778 Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, against official quality standards and million. The shortfall will reduce the Stop 0225, room 2968-South, 1400 specifications established by AMS and trust fund balance to $1.578 million or Independence Avenue, SW., certain contract provisions between 3.3 months of operating reserve at the Washington, DC 20250–0225, or call buyer and seller. Products tested and end of FY 2006 which is below Agency (202) 720–4392. graded by the Dairy Grading Branch policy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: have certificates issued describing the AMS estimates these fee increases product’s quality and condition. will provide the Dairy Grading Branch Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 AMS continually reviews its cost an additional $504,000 annually to This rule has been determined to be structure to assure it is operating recover program costs and to provide for ‘‘not significant’’ for purposes of efficiently while maintaining the continued automation of business Executive Order 12866, and therefore, resources necessary to meet industry’s practices. has not been reviewed by the Office of demand for services. Periodically, fees This rule will raise the fees charged Management and Budget (OMB). must be adjusted to ensure that the to businesses for voluntary plant This rule has been reviewed under program remains financially self- inspections, grading services for dairy Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice supporting. To reduce costs, the Dairy and related products, and the evaluation Reform. This action is not retroactive. Grading Branch has continued to of food processing equipment. However,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60806 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the impact on all businesses, including To reduce costs, the Dairy Grading continuous resident and $6.00 per hour small entities is very similar. Even Branch has continued to automate its (9.7 percent) for non-resident services. though fees will be increased business practices. Progress to date has The fee for non-resident services approximately 9.7% for non-resident been significant and has resulted in between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. services and 10.5% for continuous savings equal to two staff years to the would be $74.80 per hour. For services resident services, these fee increases program. Further enhancements in performed in excess of 8 hours per day should not significantly affect these automated business practices will and for services performed on Saturday, entities. Adjusted for inflation, the new continue to improve the efficiency and Sunday, and legal holidays, 11⁄2 times fee schedule is actually less than in timeliness of providing inspection and the base fees would apply and result in 1998. These businesses are under no grading services and information to increases to $94.50 per hour for resident obligation to use these voluntary user- users of these services. grading and to $102.00 per hour for non- fee based services and any decision on Employee salaries and benefits now resident grading services. their part to discontinue the use of the account for nearly 73 percent of the AMS estimates these fee increases services would not prevent them from operating costs of the Dairy Grading will provide the Dairy Grading Branch marketing their products. Branch. Grading fees were last adjusted an additional $504,000 annually to A review of reporting requirements in 2004 (69 FR 8797). Salary increases recover program costs including was completed under the Paperwork and locality adjustments, effective providing for continued automation of Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. January 2005 and January 2006, have business practices. Chapter 35). It was determined that this resulted in an increase in employee cost A notice of proposed rulemaking was rule would have no impact on reporting, of 6.1 percent. As a result, annual salary published in the Federal Register on recordkeeping, or other compliance and benefit costs to the program for FY April 20, 2006 (70 FR 20351). Dairy requirements for entities currently using 2006 are approximately $240,000 more Programs received two comments voluntary Federal dairy inspection and than for the same number of employees during this period. grading services because they would in FY 2004. Inflation raised non-salary The first comment received was a remain identical to the current costs approximately 6.8 percent for the public submission in opposition to the requirements. two-year period ending December 2005. fee increase. The commenter expressed This action does not require It is expected that non-salary operating concern that these fee increases would additional information collection that expenses will continue to increase at an increase dairy product prices, and requires clearance by OMB. The primary annual rate of 3.0 percent and that suggested that other methods of sources of data used to complete the salary and benefits will increase by 2.1 increasing revenue, such as increased forms are routinely used in most percent in January 2007. Current use of appropriated funds, be explored. business transactions. Forms require revenue projections using Dairy Grading Dairy inspection and grading services only a minimal amount of information Branch’s current fee schedule will not are voluntary, and while they are used which can be supplied without data provide income sufficient to cover these extensively by manufacturers of certain processing equipment or a trained escalating program operation costs and dairy products, they are not used by all statistical staff. Thus, the information maintain reserves (4 months of costs) segments of the dairy industry. This collection and reporting burden is according to AMS policy (AMS modest increase in fees is not likely to relatively small. Requiring the same Directive 408.1). generate substantial price increases. information from all participating dairy Since projected revenues will not Further, dairy inspection and grading plants does not significantly cover program costs while maintaining programs are supported entirely by disadvantage any plant that is smaller an adequate reserve, the Dairy Grading these user fees, not through than the industry average. Branch will be put in an unstable appropriated funds. This fee increase is financial position that will adversely necessary for the program to remain Action affect the ability to provide dairy self-sufficient and maintain reasonable The Secretary of Agriculture is inspection and grading services. operating reserves. authorized by the Agricultural Without a fee increase, total revenue The second comment was received Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA), as projections for FY 2006 are $4.980 from the American Butter Institute amended (7 U.S.C. 1621, et seq.), to million. Total costs for the same period (ABI). ABI expressed concern that the provide voluntary Federal dairy of time are projected to be $5.778 rate of increase in grading and inspection and grading services to million. The shortfall, if allowed to inspection fees exceeds the rate of facilitate the orderly marketing of dairy continue, would have reduced the trust inflation since 2004, and that when products and to enable consumers to fund balance to $1.578 million or 3.3 combined with the 2004 fee increase, obtain the quality of dairy products they months of operating reserve at the end constitutes fees that are 25 percent desire. The AMA also provides for the of FY 2006 which is below Agency higher than they were 30 months ago. collection of reasonable fees from users policy. ABI also encourages that further of the Federal dairy inspection and In view of the above considerations, automation of business practices be grading services to cover the cost of AMS proposed to increase the hourly explored to offset a larger portion of the providing these services. The hourly fees associated with Federal dairy projected revenue shortfall, rather than fees are established by distributing the grading and inspection services. a large increase in fees. By our program’s projected operating costs over Currently the fees are $57.00 per hour calculation, this increase will result in the estimated service-revenue hours for continuous resident services and grading fees that are about 21 (resident provided to users. AMS continually $62.00 per hour for non-resident grader) to 24 percent (non-resident reviews its cost structure to assure it is services. The proposed increases result grader) higher than that in March 2004. operating efficiently while maintaining in fees of $63.00 per hour for Prior to the April 2004 increase, grading the resources necessary to meet continuous resident services and $68.00 fees had remained unchanged for 75 industry’s demand for services. per hour for non-resident services months. Thus on average, grading fees Periodically, fees must be adjusted to between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. will have increased only about 2.4 to 2.7 ensure that the program remains The proposed fees represent increases of percent annually since 1998, when this financially self-supporting. $6.00 per hour (10.5 percent) for increase becomes effective. This longer

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60807

term rate of increase is lower than Dated: October 10, 2006. regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, average rate of inflation since 1998. Lloyd C. Day, Marketing Order Administration Adjusted for inflation, grading fees after Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, this increase will be lower in real Service. AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence dollars than they were in 1998. Dairy [FR Doc. E6–17191 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, Programs continues to evaluate the BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– business practices of its grading and 2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or e-mail: inspection programs, and will [email protected]. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE implement, as they are identified, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule measures that should result in increased Agricultural Marketing Service is issued under Marketing Agreement program efficiency. and Order No. 924, as amended (7 CFR Each of the comments received was 7 CFR Parts 924 and 944 924), regulating the handling of fresh carefully considered. Nevertheless, prunes grown in designated counties in Dairy Programs’ current grading and [Docket No. FV06–924–1 FIR] Washington and in Umatilla County, inspection fees are not adequate, and Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the Fresh Prunes Grown in Designated this increase in fees is necessary. Dairy ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under the Counties in Washington and in Programs has and continues to seek cost Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act Umatilla County, OR; Suspension of savings by reducing overhead and travel of 1937, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 601– Handling Regulations, Establishment costs, and increasing program efficiency 674), hereinafter referred to as the of Reporting Requirements, and through enhanced automation of ‘‘Act.’’ This rule is also issued under Suspension of the Fresh Prune Import business practices. section 8e of the Act regarding the Regulation Pursuant to the Administrative establishment of inspection and quality, Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), good AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, grade, size, or maturity requirements on cause is found to make this effective less USDA. imports of commodities that are than 30 days after publication in the ACTION: Final rule. similarly regulated under Federal Federal Register. This rule will take marketing orders. effect the next day following publication SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of USDA is issuing this rule in to minimize financial losses for dairy Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a conformance with Executive Order grading and inspection services. final rule, without change, an interim 12866. Revenues are not sufficient to cover final rule suspending the handling This rule has been reviewed under program costs or allow the Dairy regulations prescribed under the Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Grading Branch to maintain adequate Washington-Oregon fresh prune Reform. This rule is not intended to operating reserves. The Branch is marketing order for the 2006 and future have retroactive effect. This rule will currently operating with a monthly seasons. The marketing order regulates not preempt any State or local laws, revenue loss of $42,000, which will the handling of fresh prunes grown in regulations, or policies, unless they adversely affect its ability to provide designated counties in Washington and present an irreconcilable conflict with inspection and grading services. in Umatilla County, Oregon, and is this rule. administered locally by the Washington- The Act provides that administrative List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 58 Oregon Prune Marketing Committee proceedings must be exhausted before (Committee). This rule continues in Dairy products, Food grades and parties may file suit in court. Under effect the action that suspended the section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any standards, Food labeling, Reporting and minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, recordkeeping requirements. handler subject to an order may file and inspection requirements for fresh with USDA a petition stating that the I For the reason set forth in the prune handlers under the marketing order, any provision of the order, or any preamble, 7 CFR part 58 is amended as order. During the suspension of the obligation imposed in connection with follows: handling regulations, reports from the order is not in accordance with law handlers will continue to be required to and request a modification of the order PART 58—GRADING AND obtain information necessary to or to be exempted therefrom. A handler INSPECTION, GENERAL administer the marketing order. In is afforded the opportunity for a hearing SPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVED addition, this rule continues in effect on the petition. After the hearing USDA PLANTS AND STANDARDS FOR the suspension of fresh prune import would rule on the petition. The Act GRADES OF DAIRY PRODUCTS inspection and minimum quality, grade, provides that the district court of the size, and maturity requirements. I United States in any district in which 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR DATES: Effective Date: November 16, part 58 continues to read as follows: the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 2006. or her principal place of business, has Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on Subpart A—[Amended] Barry Broadbent or Gary Olson, the petition, provided an action is filed Northwest Marketing Field Office, not later than 20 days after the date of § 58.43 [Amended] Marketing Order Administration the entry of the ruling. Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, There are no administrative I 2. In § 58.43, ‘‘$62.00’’ is removed and AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, procedures that must be exhausted prior ‘‘$68.00’’ is added in its place, and Suite 385, Portland, OR 97204; to any judicial challenge to the ‘‘$68.20’’ is removed and ‘‘$74.80’’ is Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) provisions of import regulations issued added in its place. 326–7440, or e-mail: under section 8e of the Act. § 58.45 [Amended] [email protected] or This rule continues in effect the [email protected]. action that suspended the handling I 3. In § 58.45, ‘‘$57.00’’ is removed and Small businesses may request regulations prescribed under the order ‘‘$63.00’’ is added in its place. information on complying with this for the 2006 and future seasons.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60808 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Specifically, this rule suspends the The Committee meets regularly to appropriate action to recommend minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, consider recommendations for reinstating regulation. and inspection requirements under the modification, suspension, or This final rule enables Washington- order. In addition, this rule continues in termination of the regulatory Oregon fresh prune handlers to continue effect the suspension of regulation of requirements for Washington-Oregon to ship prunes without regard to fresh prune import under section 8e of fresh prunes which have been issued on minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, the Act. a continuing basis. Committee meetings and inspection requirements. This Furthermore, this rule continues in are open to the public and interested allows handlers to decrease their total effect the action that established a new persons may express their views at these costs by eliminating the expenses handler reporting requirement. The new meetings. The USDA reviews associated with mandatory inspection. handler report provides the Committee Committee recommendations, This rule does not restrict handlers from with information that has previously information submitted by the seeking product inspection on a been available from the Federal-State Committee, and other available voluntary basis if they find inspection Inspection Service (Inspection Service). information, and determines whether desirable. The Committee will evaluate As a result of suspending the handling modification, suspension, or the effect the suspension of the handling regulations, including mandatory termination of the regulatory regulations has on market conditions inspections, information from the requirements would tend to effectuate and on producer returns each year the Inspection Service is no longer available the declared policy of the Act. suspension is in effect, and, if to the Committee to compile industry At its February 16, 2006, meeting, the necessary, make recommendations to statistics and to assess handlers. The Committee unanimously recommended USDA for changes. new handler reporting requirement suspending the handling regulations The suspension of the handling allows the Committee to obtain and establishing a new handler regulation and mandatory inspections information directly from handlers reporting requirement for the 2006 and also results in the elimination of the similar to the information that has been future seasons. inspection certificates that have been obtained previously from the Inspection The objective of handling regulation generated by the Inspection Service and Service. has been to ensure that only acceptable forwarded to the Committee. The Section 924.52 of the order authorizes quality fresh prunes enter fresh market Committee used these certificates as the the issuance of regulations for grade, channels, thereby ensuring consumer basis for assessment billing from size, quality, maturity, and pack for satisfaction, increasing sales, and handlers and for compiling prune fresh prunes grown in the production improving returns to producers. While industry statistics. In the absence of the area. Section 924.53 authorizes the the industry continues to believe that inspection certificates, handlers are now modification, suspension, or quality is an important factor in required to submit reports directly to termination of regulations issued under maintaining sales, the Committee the Committee to facilitate the § 924.52. believes the cost of inspection and collection of assessments and the Section 924.55 provides that certification (mandated when the compilation of industry statistics. whenever the handling of any variety of handling regulations are in effect) Therefore, a new § 924.160 Reports fresh prunes is regulated pursuant to currently exceeds the benefits derived. has now been added which requires § 924.52 or § 924.53, such prunes must Fresh prune prices have been at low each handler to submit to the be inspected by the Inspection Service, levels in recent seasons, and many Committee, on or before October 30 of and certified as meeting the applicable producers have faced difficulty covering each year, a ‘‘Handler Statement for requirements. The cost of the inspection their production costs. Consequently, Washington-Oregon Fresh Prunes’’ and certification is borne by handlers. the Committee has, for a number of containing the following information: Section 924.60 authorizes the years, explored the possibility of (a) The handler’s name and address; (b) Committee, with the approval of USDA, reducing the industry’s costs through the name and address of each producer; to require reports and other information the elimination of mandatory (c) the quantity, in field run tons, of from handlers that are necessary for the inspections and the accompanying fees. early and late fresh prunes handled by Committee to perform its duties. The Committee is concerned, however, each handler; (d) the assessment due Minimum grade, size, quality, that the elimination of current handling and enclosed; (e) the name, telephone maturity, and inspection requirements and inspection requirements could number, and signature of the authorized for fresh prunes regulated under the possibly result in lower quality fresh person completing the form; and (f) the order are specified in § 924.319 (the prunes being shipped to fresh markets, date the form is signed. section suspended by this rule). When thereby affecting consumer demand. Authorization to assess handlers effective, § 924.319, with exemptions for Also, there is some concern that, should enables the Committee to incur certain varieties and types of shipments, overall quality decline, the Washington- expenses that are reasonable and provides that all fresh prunes grade at Oregon fresh prune industry could lose necessary to administer the program. least U.S. No. 1, except that at least two- sales to other prune producing regions. The new reporting requirement thirds of the surface of the prune is After much consideration, the facilitates the Committee’s ability to required to be purplish in color, and Committee recommended the collect assessments needed to cover such prunes measure not less than 11⁄4 suspension of the handling regulations necessary program costs. Even though inches in diameter as measured by a for the 2006 and future seasons, but reporting requirements are increased, rigid ring. The regulation includes a stipulated that the Committee would this final rule, through the elimination minimum quantity exemption, as well assess marketing conditions annually to of inspection and certification as specific tolerances for prunes that fail determine if lifting the suspension is requirements, is expected to reduce to meet color, minimum diameter, and warranted. The suspension enables the overall industry expenses. quality requirements. industry to realize needed cost savings Consistent with the suspension of Regulation regarding the importation while the impact of the suspension is § 924.319, this final rule also suspends of fresh prunes into the United States evaluated, on an ongoing basis, by the § 924.110 of the rules and regulations in under Section 8e of the Act is set forth Committee. Should the market situation effect under the order. Section 924.110 in § 944.700. so dictate, the Committee may take contains provisions for handlers to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60809

apply for waivers from mandatory producers in the regulated area. Small Fresh prune prices have been at low inspection when such inspection is not agricultural service firms are defined by levels in recent years, and many readily available from the Inspection the Small Business Administration (13 producers have faced difficulty covering Service. With the suspension of CFR 121.201) as those having annual their production costs. In response to regulation, such waivers are no longer receipts of less than $6,500,000, and the adverse economic conditions being necessary. small agricultural producers are defined experienced by the industry, the Contained within the handling as those having annual receipts of less Committee discussed the possibility of regulations (§ 924.319(b)) is a provision than $750,000. reducing costs through the elimination allowing the handling of any individual Fresh prune production has been of mandatory inspection and the related shipment which, in the aggregate, does approximately 5,000 to 7,000 tons per fees. The Committee is concerned, not exceed 500 pounds net weight of year for the past several years. The however, that the elimination of current Stanley or Merton variety prunes, or 350 Committee estimates that all handling and inspection requirements pounds net weight of any other variety Washington-Oregon fresh prune could possibly result in lower quality of prunes, without regard to the handlers combined ship less than fresh prunes being shipped to fresh inspection and assessment requirements $6,500,000 worth of prunes on an markets. Also, should fruit quality issued under the order. Regardless of annual basis. In addition, based on decline, there is some concern among the suspension of handling regulations, acreage, production, and producer Committee members that the the Committee desires that this prices reported by the National Washington-Oregon fresh prune provision remain effective for the Agricultural Statistics Service, and the industry could lose sales to other prune purpose of providing a minimum total number of Washington-Oregon producing regions. quantity exemption from assessments. fresh prune producers, average annual While acknowledging these concerns, Thus, a new § 924.121 Minimum producer receipts are approximately the Committee believes that the benefits quantity exemption is established. This $13,000, which is considerably less than derived from suspending the regulations section essentially continues the the $750,000 threshold. In view of the outweigh the potential costs. The provision with the same minimum foregoing, it can be concluded that all of Committee also believes that the current quantity exemption threshold as in the handlers and producers of marketing situation makes regulation 924.319(b), but in regards to the Washington-Oregon fresh prunes may unnecessary, that the cost of regulation assessment requirements contained in be classified as small entities. outweighs the benefits, and that the § 924.41 only. This final rule continues in effect the conditions leading to the suspension Section 8e of the Act requires that suspension of the handling regulations will perpetuate well into the future. whenever grade, size, quality, or specified in § 924.319, as well as the Therefore, the Committee recommended maturity requirements are in effect for fresh prune import regulations specified that the suspension of the handling certain commodities under a domestic in § 944.700. Furthermore, this rule regulations be effective not only for the marketing order, including fresh prunes, continues in effect the modified upcoming season, but for future seasons imports of that commodity must meet minimum quantity exemption as a new as well. The indefinite suspension will the same or comparable requirements. § 924.121 and the addition a new alleviate the need for annual rulemaking Section 944.700 contains the regulations reporting requirement as § 924.160. The to maintain the suspension while for fresh prune imports. Since this final suspension of the handling regulation allowing the Committee to monitor the rule indefinitely suspends the handling will allow the Washington-Oregon fresh impacts of the suspension and consider regulation for domestic fresh prunes, prune industry to market fresh prunes appropriate actions for ensuing seasons. including grade, size, quality, and without regard to minimum grade, size, If and when the industry experiences maturity requirements, the regulation of quality, maturity, and inspection changes in the marketing environment imported fresh prunes is suspended requirements. Authority for this action that would make reinstating the indefinitely as well. is provided in §§ 924.53 and 924.60. handling regulations necessary, the The handling regulations help ensure Committee has the ability to quickly Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that only acceptable quality fresh respond. Pursuant to requirements set forth in prunes enter fresh market channels, This final rule enables handlers to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the thereby ensuring consumer satisfaction, ship prunes without regard to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) increasing sales, and improving returns minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, has considered the economic impact of to producers. While the industry and inspection requirements of the this action on small entities. continues to believe that quality is an order for the 2006 and future seasons. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this important factor in maintaining sales, This allows handlers to decrease costs final regulatory flexibility analysis. the Committee believes the cost of by eliminating the costs associated with The purpose of the RFA is to fit inspection and certification exceeds the mandatory inspection but does not, regulatory actions to the scale of benefits derived. The Committee however, restrict handlers from seeking business subject to such actions in order believes that the demands of wholesale inspection on a voluntary basis if they that small businesses will not be unduly buyers and consumers will drive find inspection desirable. The or disproportionately burdened. handlers and producers to maintain a Committee will evaluate the effect that Marketing orders issued pursuant to the high level of product quality without suspension of the handling regulations Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are the necessity of minimum quality has on marketing conditions and on unique in that they are brought about standards and mandatory inspections. producer returns at their annual meeting through group action of essentially The Committee will review the each spring. small entities acting on their own suspension of the handling regulations The suspension of the handling behalf. Thus, both statutes have small and all relevant related issues on an regulations results in the elimination of entity orientation and compatibility. annual basis. The handling regulations mandatory inspections and, in turn, the Currently, there are 7 handlers of can be reinstated by way of Committee inspection certificates that are generated Washington-Oregon fresh prunes who recommendation and USDA approval by the Inspection Service and are subject to regulation under the order through the informal rulemaking subsequently provided to the and approximately 100 fresh prune process. Committee. The Committee has in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60810 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

past used such certificates for small, were able to express their views E-Government Act Compliance assessment billing purposes and for on this issue. The Agricultural Marketing Service compiling industry statistics. As a result An interim final rule concerning this (AMS) is committed to complying with of the suspension of the handling action was published in the Federal the E-Government Act, to promote the regulations, the Committee will require Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26817). use of the Internet and other a report directly from each handler for Copies of the rule were mailed by the information technologies to provide the purpose of obtaining information on Committee’s staff to all Committee increased opportunities for citizen which to collect assessments and members and fresh prune handlers. In access to Government information and generate statistical information. services, and for other purposes. The Committee anticipates that this addition, the rule was made available After consideration of all relevant rule will not negatively impact small through the Internet by the Office of the material presented, including the handlers and producers because it Federal Register and the USDA. A 60- Committee’s recommendation, and suspends minimum grade, size, quality, day comment period ending July 10, other information, it is found that maturity, and inspection requirements. 2006, was provided to allow interested finalizing the interim final rule, without The total cost of inspection and persons to respond to the interim final change, as published in the Federal certification for fresh shipments of rule. Two comments were received Register (71 FR 26817, May 9, 2006) Washington-Oregon fresh prunes during during the comment period. However, will tend to effectuate the declared the 2005 marketing season is estimated as neither comment addressed the policy of the Act. by the Committee to have been $0.23 substance of this rule, they will not be The U.S. Trade Representative has per hundredweight, or approximately considered in this document. reviewed this final rule and concurs $27,000 total. This represents A small business guide on complying with its issuance. approximately $4,000 per handler. with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop Since handlers may continue to have marketing agreements and orders may List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 924 and their prunes voluntarily inspected, the be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 944 Committee expects that some handlers fv/moab.html. Any questions about the Plums, Prunes, Marketing agreements, will continue to have at least a portion compliance guide should be sent to Jay Reporting and recordkeeping of their fresh prunes inspected and Guerber at the previously mentioned requirements. certified by the Inspection Service. address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Alternatives to the suspension of the CONTACT section. PART 924—FRESH PRUNES GROWN handling regulations considered by the IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN Committee included maintaining the As mentioned previously, this action requires an additional collection of WASHINGTON AND IN UMATILLA status quo, suspending the regulations COUNTY, OREGON for one season only, and terminating the information. The information collection marketing order in its entirety. The requirements are discussed in the following section. PART 944—FRUITS; IMPORT Committee believes, however, that the REGULATIONS continuation of regulation would be a Paperwork Reduction Act financial burden on the industry, given I Accordingly, the interim final rule the current market situation and In accordance with the Paperwork amending 7 CFR parts 924 and 944 outlook. With that perspective, Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 which was published at 71 FR 26817 on continuing to regulate was not a viable et seq.), the information collection May 9, 2006, is adopted as a final rule option to the Committee. The requirements that are contained in this without change. Committee also discussed suspending rule were approved by the Office of Dated: October 10, 2006. regulation one season at a time, but Management and Budget (OMB), under Lloyd C. Day, rejected that option as well. Finally, the OMB No. 0581–0237. The information Committee considered terminating the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing collection has been merged into OMB Service. order in its entirety, but declined to take No. 0581–0189, Generic OMB Fruit [FR Doc. E6–17192 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] that action because the Committee Crops, which expires September 30, continues to believe that the order has 2007. BILLING CODE 3410–02–P purpose, even without handling regulation. In summary, the additional reporting As with all Federal marketing order requirements will enable the Committee FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD programs, reports and forms are to collect information from fresh prune periodically reviewed to reduce handlers regarding the total quantity of 12 CFR Parts 910 and 913 early and late fresh prunes handled information requirements and [No. 2006–19] duplication by industry and public during the season, which was sector agencies. In addition, as noted in previously obtained from the inspection RIN 3069–AB32 the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, certificates issued by the Inspection Privacy Act and Freedom of USDA has not identified any relevant Service. However, this source will no Information Act; Implementation Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or longer be available under the conflict with this rule. suspension of the handling regulations. AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Further, the Committee’s meeting was The Committee will use used by the Board. widely publicized throughout the Committee to compile information that ACTION: Interim final rule with request Washington-Oregon fresh prune is essential for the collection of handler for comments. industry and all interested persons were assessments, to provide production invited to attend the meeting and statistics to the industry, and to help SUMMARY: As part of a comprehensive participate in Committee deliberations. ensure compliance with the order’s review of agency practices related to the Like all Committee meetings, the provisions. In addition, the form will collection, use, and protection of February 16, 2006, meeting was a public assist the Committee and USDA with personally identifiable information, the meeting and all entities, both large and oversight and planning. Federal Housing Finance Board

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60811

(Finance Board) is updating both its Board, 1625 Eye Street NW., Home Loan Bank directors from the systems of records and implementing Washington DC 20006. Office of the Chairman to the Office of rule under the Privacy Act of 1974 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supervision. We are revising the system (Privacy Act). This interim final rule of records concerning Office of revises the agency’s Privacy Act I. Background and Analysis of the Inspector General (OIG) records to cover regulation to include new sections Interim Final Rule both audit and investigative files and, at concerning security of systems of In light of the recent theft of sensitive the request of the OIG, adding several records, use and collection of social personal information from various routine uses. We also are adding two security numbers, and employee federal agencies and in response to the new systems of records. The first covers responsibilities under the Privacy Act. Office of Management and Budget’s examination work papers a Finance Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal memorandum (M–06–15 (May 22, Board examiner uses to determine Register, the Finance Board is 2006)) directing agencies to review whether a Federal Home Loan Bank’s publishing a notice concerning updates privacy policies and processes, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) to the Finance Board’s Privacy Act Finance Board has undertaken a complies with applicable laws and systems of records. comprehensive review of agency regulations. The second covers a The Finance Board also is amending practices related to the collection, use, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) the fee schedule in its Freedom of and protection of personally identifiable Management System as a result of new, Information Act (FOIA) regulation to information. As a result of that review, government-wide identification take into account increased salary and the Finance Board has enhanced the requirements for all federal employees. operating costs. The Finance Board safeguards for sensitive information by The Finance Board also is amending determines the amount of the fee it adding two-factor authentication and the fee schedule in its FOIA regulation charges to duplicate records under the data encryption to the agency’s network to take into account increased salary Privacy Act in accordance with the infrastructure and is beginning to and operating costs. The Finance Board FOIA fee schedule. implement government-wide personal determines the amount of the fee it DATES: The interim final rule will identity verification management charges to duplicate records under the become effective on October 17, 2006. standards that will result in issuance of Privacy Act in accordance with the The Finance Board will accept new ID cards for all employees and FOIA fee schedule. More specifically, comments on the interim final rule in contractors that may include full name, the Finance Board is increasing the writing on or before November 16, 2006. date of birth, image (photograph), hourly search charge for clerical staff fingerprints, organization affiliation Comments: Submit comments to the from $28.00 to $31.00, for supervisory/ (e.g., employee or contractor), Finance Board only once, using any one professional staff from $53.00 to $72.00, organization/office of assignment, grade, of the following methods: and for computer operators from $48.00 e-mail address, United States E-mail: [email protected]. to $59.00. The hourly charge to review citizenship status, and results of Fax: 202–408–2580. records increases from $53.00 to $72.00. Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Housing background investigation. The Finance Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street NW., Board also is updating both its Privacy II. Notice and Public Participation Washington DC 20006, Attention: Public Act systems of records and implementing rule. The Finance Board is promulgating Comments. these changes as an interim final rule Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// The current Privacy Act rule, codified at 12 CFR part 913, was last revised in because it is in the public interest to www.regulations.gov. Follow the enhance the agency’s ability to protect instructions for submitting comments. If 2003. See Resolution Number 2003–08, published at 68 FR 39810 (July 3, 2003) personally identifiable information. you submit your comment to the Accordingly, the Finance Board for good Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also (interim final rule), and Resolution Number 2003–25, published at 68 FR cause finds that the notice and send it by e-mail to the Finance Board publication requirements of the at [email protected] to ensure timely 59309 (Oct. 15, 2003) (final rule) (available electronically in the FOIA Administrative Procedure Act are receipt by the agency. Include the unnecessary. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). following information in the subject line Reading Room on the Finance Board Web site at: http://www.fhfb.gov/ However, because this type of of your submission: Federal Housing Default.aspx?Page=59&Top=4). The rulemaking generally requires notice Finance Board. Interim Final Rule: substantive amendments this interim and receipt of public comment, the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information final rule makes include the addition of Finance Board will accept written Act; Implementation. RIN Number new sections concerning security of comments on the interim final rule on 3069–AB32. Docket Number 2006–19. systems of records, use and collection of or before November 16, 2006. We will post all public comments we social security numbers, and employee receive without change, including any III. Effective Date responsibilities under the Privacy Act. personal information you provide, such These amendments are modeled after For the reasons stated in part II above, as your name and address, on the the U.S. Department of Justice Privacy the Finance Board for good cause finds Finance Board Web site at http:// Act implementing rule, and are that the interim final rule should www.fhfb.gov/ intended to enhance the agency’s ability become effective on October 17, 2006. Default.aspx?Page=93&Top=93. to protect personally identifiable See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Janice A. Kaye, Privacy Act Official and Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Senior Attorney-Advisor, Office of Register, the Finance Board is The Finance Board is adopting the General Counsel, [email protected] or 202– publishing a notice updating the amendments to parts 910 and 913 in the 408–2505; or David A. Lee, Chief agency’s Privacy Act systems of records form of an interim final rule and not as Privacy Officer and Deputy Director, to reflect the new office address, a proposed rule. Therefore, the Office of Management, [email protected] or changes to certain records retention provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 202–408–2514. You can send regular periods, and the shift in responsibility Act do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), mail to the Federal Housing Finance for records related to appointed Federal 603(a).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60812 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Supervisory/Professional Staff— rules together with the Privacy Act, The interim final rule does not $72.00 per hour. which provides additional information contain any collections of information Clerical Staff—$31.00 per hour. about records maintained on under the Paperwork Reduction Act of Computer Operator—$59.00 per hour. individuals. The rules apply to all Review—$72.00 per hour. 1995. See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. records in systems of records the Duplication: Consequently, the Finance Board has Finance Board maintains that are Photocopies—$.10 per page. not submitted any information to the retrieved by an individual’s name or Diskettes—$.50 per diskette. personal identifier. They describe the Office of Management and Budget for CD–ROMs—$1.00 per CD. review. procedures by which individuals may Transcription of audio tape—$4.50 request access to records, request List of Subjects per page. amendment or correction of those Certification, seal and attestation— 12 CFR Part 910 records, and request an accounting of $5.00 per document. disclosures of those records by the Administrative practice and Delivery: Finance Board. Whenever it is procedure, Archives and records, Facsimile transmission (long appropriate to do so, the Finance Board Confidential business information, distance)—long distance charges plus automatically processes a Privacy Act Federal home loan banks, Freedom of $.25 per page. request for access to records under both information. Facsimile transmission (local)—$.25 the Privacy Act and the FOIA, following per call plus $.25 per page. 12 CFR Part 913 the rules contained in part 910 of this Express delivery service—actual cost. chapter and this part 913. The Finance Administrative practice and Board processes a request under both procedure, Archives and records, PART 913—PRIVACY ACT REGULATION the Privacy Act and the FOIA so you Freedom of information, Privacy. will receive the maximum amount of I For the reasons stated in the preamble, I 4. The authority citation for part 913 information available to you by law. the Finance Board revises 12 CFR parts continues to read as follows: * * * * * 910 and 913 to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. I 7. Revise § 913.3(e)(1) and (2)(i) to read as follows: PART 910—FREEDOM OF I 5. Revise the definition of the terms INFORMATION ACT REGULATION ‘‘Privacy Act Official’’ and ‘‘system of § 913.3 How do I make a request under the Privacy Act? I 1. The authority citation for part 910 records’’ in § 913.1 to read as follows: continues to read as follows: * * * * * § 913.1 Definitions. (e) Verification of identity. * * * Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 52 FR 10012 (Mar. * * * * * (1) Verifying your own identity. You 27, 1987). Privacy Act Official means the must state your full name, current I 2. Revise the definition of the terms Finance Board employee who is address, and date and place of birth. In ‘‘FOIA Officer’’ in § 910.1 to read as authorized to make determinations as order to help identify and locate the follows: provided in this part. The mailing records you request, you also may, at address for the Privacy Act Official is: your option, include your social § 910.1 Definitions. Privacy Act Office, Federal Housing security number. If you make your * * * * * Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., request in person and your identity is FOIA Officer means the Finance Washington DC 20006. not known to the Privacy Act Official, Board employee who is authorized to * * * * * you must provide either 2 forms of make determinations as provided in this System of records means a group of identification with photographs, or 1 part. The mailing address for the FOIA records the Finance Board maintains or form of identification with a photograph Officer is: Freedom of Information Act controls from which information is and a properly authenticated birth Office, Federal Housing Finance Board, retrieved by the name of an individual certificate. If you make your request by 1625 Eye Street NW., Washington DC or by some identifying number, symbol, mail, your signature either must be 20006. or other identifying particular assigned notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. * * * * * to the individual. You can find a 1746, a law that permits statements to I 3. Revise §§ 910.9(f)(2) and (g) to read description of the Finance Board’s be made under penalty of perjury as a as follows: systems of records as part of the substitute for notarization. You may ‘‘Privacy Act Compilation’’ published fulfill this requirement by having your § 910.9 Fees. by the Federal Register. You can access signature on your request letter * * * * * the ‘‘Privacy Act Compilation’’ in most witnessed by a notary, or including the (f) * * * large reference and university libraries following statement just before the (2) To pay fees and interest assessed or electronically at the Government signature on your request letter: ‘‘I under this section, a requester shall Printing Office’s Web site at http:// declare under penalty of perjury that the deliver to the Office of Management, www.gpoaccess.gov/privacyact/ foregoing is true and correct. Executed located at the Federal Housing Finance index.html. You also can request a copy on [date].’’ Board, 1625 Eye Street NW., of the Finance Board’s systems of (2) Verification of guardianship. Washington DC 20006, a check or records from the Privacy Act Official. *** money order made payable to the * * * * * (i) The identity of the individual who ‘‘Federal Housing Finance Board.’’ I 6. Revise § 913.2(a) to read as follows: is the subject of the record, by stating * * * * * the individual’s name, current address (g) Fee schedule. The Finance Board § 913.2 Purpose and scope. and date and place of birth, and, at your shall assess fees in accordance with the (a) This part 913 contains the rules option, the social security number of the following schedule: the Finance Board follows under the individual; Search: Privacy Act. You should read these * * * * *

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60813

I 8. Revise § 913.4(a) and (b) to read as notify all persons, organizations, or (a) Individuals may not be denied any follows: agencies to which it previously right, benefit, or privilege as a result of disclosed the record, if an accounting of refusing to provide their social security § 913.4 How will the Finance Board numbers, unless the collection is respond to your Privacy Act request? that disclosure was made, that the record has been amended or corrected. authorized either by a statute or by a (a) When will the Finance Board We will provide a copy of your regulation issued prior to 1975; and respond to my request? The Privacy Act Statement of Disagreement and its (b) They must inform individuals who Official generally will respond to you in explanation, if any, along with the are asked to provide their social security writing within 10 working days of record whenever the record is disclosed. numbers: receipt of a request that meets the I (1) If providing a social security requirements of § 913.3. The Privacy Act 10. Revise § 913.7(b)(1) introductory text to read as follows: number is mandatory or voluntary; Official may extend the response time in (2) If any statutory or regulatory unusual circumstances, such as the § 913.7 Exemptions. authority authorizes collection of a need to consult with another agency * * * * * social security number; and about a record or to retrieve a record (b) Which records are exempt? (1) (3) The uses that will be made of the shipped offsite for storage. If you make Office of Inspector General Audit and social security number. your request in person, the Privacy Act Investigative Records. Pursuant to 5 I 13. Add a new § 913.10 to read as Official may disclose records to you U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (5), a record follows: directly with a written record made of contained in the system of records titled the grant of the request. If you are § 913.10 Employee responsibilities under ‘‘Office of Inspector General Audit and the Privacy Act. accompanied by another person, we will Investigative Records’’ (FHFB–6) is At least annually, the Privacy Act require your written authorization exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), before discussing the records in the Official and/or Chief Privacy Officer (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and will inform employees about the presence of the other person. (f), to the extent that the record consists (b) What will the Finance Board’s provisions of the Privacy Act, including of audit or investigatory material response include? The written response the Act’s civil liability and criminal compiled: will include the Privacy Act Official’s penalty provisions. Unless otherwise determination whether to grant or deny * * * * * permitted by law, a Finance Board your request in whole or in part, a brief I 11. Add a new § 913.8 to read as employee shall: explanation of the reasons for the follows: (a) Collect from individuals only information that is relevant and determination, and the amount of the § 913.8 Security of systems of records. fee charged, if any, under § 913.6. If you necessary to discharge the Finance (a) Controls. Each Finance Board requested access to records, the Privacy Board’s responsibilities. office must establish administrative and Act Official will make the records, if (b) Collect information about an physical controls to prevent any, available to you. If you requested individual directly from that individual unauthorized access to its systems of amendment or correction of a record, whenever practicable. records, unauthorized or inadvertent the response will describe any (c) Inform each individual from whom disclosure of records, and physical amendments or corrections made and information is collected of: damage to or destruction of records. The (1) The legal authority to collect the advise you of your right to obtain a copy stringency of these controls should information and whether providing it is of the amended or corrected record, in correspond to the sensitivity of the mandatory or voluntary; disclosable form, under this part. records that the controls protect. At a (2) The principal purpose for which * * * * * minimum, the administrative and the Finance Board intends to use the I 9. Revise § 913.5(e)(1) and (3) to read physical controls must ensure that: information; as follows: (1) Records are protected from public (3) The routine uses the Finance Board may make of the information; and § 913.5 What can I do if I am dissatisfied view; (2) The area in which records are kept (4) The effects on the individual, if with the Finance Board’s response to my any, of not providing the information. Privacy Act request? is supervised during business hours to prevent unauthorized persons from (d) Ensure that the employee’s office * * * * * does not maintain a system of records (e) Statements of Disagreement. (1) having access to them; (3) Records are inaccessible to without public notice and notify What is a Statement of Disagreement? A unauthorized persons outside of appropriate officials of the existence or Statement of Disagreement is a concise business hours; and development of any system of records written statement in which you clearly (4) Records are not disclosed to that is not the subject of a current or identify each part of any record that you unauthorized persons or under planned public notice. dispute and explain your reason(s) for unauthorized circumstances in either (e) Maintain all records that are used disagreeing with the Finance Board’s oral or written form. in making any determination about an denial in whole or in part of your appeal (b) Limited access. Access to records individual with such accuracy, requesting amendment or correction. is restricted only to individuals who relevance, timeliness, and completeness * * * * * require access in order to perform their as is reasonably necessary to ensure (3) What will the Finance Board do official duties. fairness to the individual in the with my Statement of Disagreement? I 12. Add a new § 913.9 to read as determination. The Finance Board will place your follows: (f) Except as to disclosures made to an Statement of Disagreement in the agency or made under the FOIA, make system(s) of records in which the § 913.9 Use and collection of social reasonable efforts, prior to disputed record is maintained. The security numbers. disseminating any record about an Finance Board also may append a At least annually, the Privacy Act individual, to ensure that the record is concise statement of its reason(s) for Official and/or Chief Privacy Officer accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. denying the request to amend or correct will inform employees who are (g) When required by the Privacy Act, the record. The Finance Board will authorized to collect information that: maintain an accounting in the specified

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60814 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

form of all disclosures of records by the establishing Class E airspace extending PART 71—[AMENDED] Finance Board to persons, organizations, upward from 700 feet Above Ground I or agencies. Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR (h) Maintain and use records with Point in Space Approach to the part 71 continues to read as follows: care to prevent the unauthorized or Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, inadvertent disclosure of a record to Barre, PA, was published in the Federal 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959– anyone. Register. Interested parties were invited 1963 Comp., p. 389. (i) Notify the appropriate official of to participate in this rulemaking § 71.1 [Amended] any record that contains information proceeding by submitting written The incorporation by reference in 14 that the Privacy Act does not permit the comments on the proposal to the FAA CFR part 71.1 of Federal Aviation Finance Board to maintain. on or before May 13, 2006. No Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace comments to the proposal were Dated: October 11, 2006. Designations and Reporting Points, received. The rule is adopted as By the Board of Directors of the Federal dated September 1, 2006, and effective proposed. The coordinates for this Housing Finance Board. September 15, 2006, is amended as airspace docket are based on North Ronald A. Rosenfeld, follows: Chairman. American Datum 83. Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas [FR Doc. E6–17298 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from 700 extending upward from 700 feet or more BILLING CODE 6725–01–P above the surface of the earth. feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of * * * * * DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, AEA PA E5, WILKES BARRE, PA (New) 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, Wyoming Valley Medical Center Federal Aviation Administration which is incorporated by reference in 14 Point in Space Coordinates CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace (Lat 41°16′08″ N., long. 75°48′36″ W.) 14 CFR Part 71 designation listed in this document will That airspace extending upward from 700 be amended in the order. feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius [Docket No. FAA–2006–23908; Airspace of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the Docket No. 06–AEA–004] The Rule Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes Barre, PA. Establishment of Class E Airspace; This amendment to Part 71 of the Wilkes Barre, PA Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR * * * * * Part 71) provides controlled Class E Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, AGENCY: Federal Aviation airspace extending upward from 700 2006. Administration (FAA) DOT. feet above the surface for aircraft Mark D. Ward, ACTION: Final rule. conducting Instrument Flight Rules Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. (IFR) operations at the Wyoming Valley [FR Doc. 06–8681 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: This action establishes Class Medical Center, Wilkes Barre, PA. E airspace at Wyoming Valley Medical BILLING CODE 4910–13–M Center, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. The The FAA has determined that this development of an Area Navigation regulation only involves an established (RNAV), Helicopter Point in Space body of technical regulations for which DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Approach, for the Wyoming Valley frequent and routine amendments are Federal Aviation Administration Medical Center, has made this action necessary to keep them operationally necessary. Controlled airspace current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 14 CFR Part 71 extending upward from 700 feet Above not a ‘‘significant regulation action’’ Ground Level (AGL) is needed to under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not [Docket No. FAA–2006–23895; Airspace contain aircraft executing the approach a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Docket No. 06–AEA–01] to the Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Wilkes Barre, PA. FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Establishment of Class E Airspace; does not warrant preparation of a Tunkhannock, PA DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC Regulatory Evaluation, as the November 23, 2006. The Director of the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since AGENCY: Federal Aviation Federal Register approves this this is a routine matter that will only Administration (FAA) DOT. incorporation by reference action under affect air traffic procedures and air ACTION: Final rule. 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual navigation, it is certified that this rule SUMMARY: This action establishes Class revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and will not have significant economic E airspace at Tyler Memorial Hospital, publication of conforming amendments. impact on a substantial number of small Tunkhannock, PA. Development of an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. entities under the criteria of the Area Navigation (RNAV), Helicopter Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Regulatory Flexibility Act. Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Point in Space Approach, for the Tyler Division, Eastern Region, Federal List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Memorial Hospital Heliport, Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Tunkhannock, PA, has made this action Airspace, Incorporation by reference, necessary. Controlled airspace Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, Navigation (air). telephone: (718) 553–4521. extending upward from 700 feet Above SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Adoption of the Amendment Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft executing the approach History I In consideration of the foregoing, the to the Tyler Memorial Hospital Heliport. On March 13, 2006 a notice proposing Federal Aviation Administration DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: November 23, 2006. The Director of the Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by [06–AEA–04] Federal Register approves this

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60815

incorporation by reference action under navigation, it is certified that this rule SUMMARY: This action establishes Class 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual will not have significant economic E airspace at Nessmuk Helipad, revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and impact on a substantial number of small Wellsboro, Pennsylvania. The publication of conforming amendments. entities under the criteria of the development of an Area Navigation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Regulatory Flexibility Act. (RNAV), Helicopter Point in Space Approach, for the Nessmuk Helipad, Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Wellsboro, PA, has made this action Division, Eastern Region, Federal Airspace, Incorporation by reference, necessary. Controlled airspace Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Navigation (air). extending upward from 700 feet Above Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, Adoption of the Amendment Ground Level (AGL) is needed to telephone: (718) 553–4521. contain aircraft executing the approach I SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In consideration of the foregoing, the to the Nessmuk Helipad. Federal Aviation Administration DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC History amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: November 23, 2006. The Director of the On March 2, 2006 a notice proposing [06–AEA–01] Federal Register approves this to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation incorporation by reference action under Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by PART 71—[AMENDED] 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and establishing Class E airspace extending I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR publication of conforming amendments. upward from 700 feet Above Ground part 71 continues to read as follows: Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Point in Space Approach to the Tyler Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Memorial Hospital Heliport, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic 1963 Comp., p. 389. Tunkhannock, PA, was published in the Division, Eastern Region, Federal Federal Register. Interested parties were § 71.1 [Amended] Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation invited to participate in this rulemaking The incorporated by reference in 14 Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, proceeding by submitting written CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation telephone: (718) 553–4521. comments on the proposal to the FAA Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on or before May 2, 2006. No comments Designations and Reporting Points, History to the proposal were received. The rule dated September 1, 2006, and effective is adopted as proposed. The coordinates September 15, 2006, is amended as On March 13, 2006, a notice for this airspace docket are based on follows: proposing to amend Part 71 of the North American Datum 83. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Class E airspace areas designations for Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace airspace extending upward from 700 extending upward from 700 feet or more extending upward from 700 feet Above above the surface of the earth. feet or more above the surface of the Ground Level (AGL) for an RNAV, earth are published in paragraph 6005 of * * * * * Helicopter Point in Space Approach to FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, AEA PA E5, TUNKHANNOCK, PA (New) the Nessmuk Helipad, Wellsboro, PA, 2006 and effective September 15, 2006, Tyler Memorial Hospital was published in the Federal Register. which is incorporated by reference in 14 Point in Space Coordinates Interested parties were invited to CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace (Lat. 41°35′21″N., long. 75°58′57″W.) participate in this rulemaking designation listed in this document will That airspace extending upward from 700 proceeding by submitting written be amended in the order. feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius comments on the proposal to the FAA of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the The Rule on or before May 13, 2006. No Tyler Memorial Hospital Heliport. comments to the proposal were This amendment to Part 71 of the * * * * * received. The rule is adopted as Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, proposed. The coordinates for this part 71) provides controlled Class E 2006. airspace docket are based on North airspace extending upward from 700 Mark D. Ward, American Datum 83. feet above the surface for aircraft Class E airspace areas designations for Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. conducting Instrument Flight Rules airspace extending upward from 700 (IFR) operations at the Tyler Memorial [FR Doc. 06–8680 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] feet or more above the surface of the Hospital Heliport, Tunkhannock, PA. BILLING CODE 4910–13–M earth are published in paragraph 6005 of The FAA has determined that this FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, regulation only involves an established 2006 and effective September 15, 2006, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION body of technical regulations for which which is incorporated by reference in 14 frequent and routine amendments are Federal Aviation Administration CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace necessary to keep them operationally designation listed in this document will current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 14 CFR Part 71 be amended in the order. not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not [Docket No. FAA–2006–23909; Airspace The Rule a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Docket No. 06–AEA–005] This amendment to part 71 of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and Establishment of Class E Airspace; part 71) provides controlled Class E (3) does not warrant preparation of a Wellsboro, PA airspace extending upward from 700 Regulatory Evaluation, as the AGENCY: Federal Aviation feet above the surface for aircraft anticipated impact is so minimal. Since Administration (FAA) DOT. conducting Instrument Flight Rules this is a routine matter that will only (IFR) operations at the Nessmuk ACTION: Final rule. affect air traffic procedures and air Helipad, Wellsboro, PA.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60816 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA has determined that this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 71.1. The Class E airspace designation regulation only involves an established listed in this document will be amended body of technical regulations for which Federal Aviation Administration in the order. frequent and routine amendments are The Rule necessary to keep them operationally 14 CFR Part 71 current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is This amendment to part 71 of the [Docket No. FAA–2006–23904; Airspace Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Docket No. 06–AEA–02] under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not part 71) provides controlled Class E a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Establishment of Class E Airspace: airspace extending upward from 700 Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Jersey Shore Airport, PA feet above the surface for aircraft FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) conducting Instrument Flight Rules does not warrant preparation of a AGENCY: Federal Aviation (IFR) operations at the Jersey Shore Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Administration (FAA), DOT. Airport, PA. impact is so minimal. Since this is a ACTION: Final rule. The FAA has determined that this routine matter that will only affect air regulation only involves an established traffic procedures and air navigation, it SUMMARY: This action establishes Class body of technical regulations for which is certified that this rule will not have E airspace at Jersey Shore Airport, PA. frequent and routine amendments are significant economic impact on a Development of an Area Navigation necessary to keep them operationally substantial number of small entities (RNAV), Helicopter Point in Space current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is under the criteria of the Regulatory Approach, for the Jersey Shore Airport, not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ Flexibility Act. Jersey Shore, PA, has made this action under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not necessary. Controlled airspace a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 extending upward from 700 feet Above Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Ground Level (AGL) is needed to FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) Navigation (air). contain aircraft executing the approach does not warrant preparation of a to the Jersey Shore Airport. Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Adoption of the Amendment DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC impact is so minimal. Since this is a I In consideration of the foregoing, the November 23, 2006. The Director of the routine matter that will only affect air Federal Aviation Administration Federal Register approves this traffic procedures and air navigation it amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: incorporation by reference action under is certified that this rule will not have [06–AEA–05] 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual significant economic impact on a revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and substantial number of small entities PART 71—[AMENDED] publication of conforming amendments. under the criteria of the Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Flexibility Act. I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Mr. part 71 continues to read as follows: Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Division, Eastern Region, Federal Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Navigation (air). 1963 Comp., p. 389. Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, Adoption of the Amendment § 71.1 [Amended] telephone: (718) 553–4521. I In consideration of the foregoing, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The incorporation by reference in 14 Federal Aviation Administration CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation History amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, On March 13, 2006 a notice proposing [06–AEA–02] to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation dated September 15, 2006, and effective PART 71—[AMENDED] September 1, 2006, is amended as Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by follows: establishing Class E airspace extending I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR upward from 700 feet Above Ground part 71 continues to read as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter extending upward from 700 feet or more Point in Space Approach to the Jersey Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, above the surface of the earth. 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Shore Airport, PA, was published in the 1963 Comp., p. 389. * * * * * Federal Register. Interested parties were § 71.1 [Amended] AEA PA E5, WELLSBORO, PA (New) invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written The incorporation by reference in 14 Nessmuk Helipad comments on the proposal to the FAA Point in Space Coordinates CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation (Lat. 41°44′11″ N., long. 77°18′11″ W.) on or before May 31, 2006. No Administration Order 7400.9, Airspace comments to the proposal were That airspace extending upward from 700 Designations and Reporting Points, feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius received. The rule is adopted as dated September 1, 2006, and effective of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the proposed. The coordinates for this September 15, 2006 is amended as Nessmuk Helipad, Wellsboro, PA. airspace docket are based on North follows: American Datum 83. * * * * * Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Class E airspace areas designations for Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, extending upward from 700 feet or more airspace extending upward from 700 above the surface of the earth. 2006. feet or above the surface of the earth are * * * * * Mark D. Ward, published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. Order 7400.9, dated September 1, 2006 AEA PA E5, JERSEY SHORE, PA (New) [FR Doc. 06–8682 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] and effective September 15, 2006, which Jersey Shore Airport BILLING CODE 4910–13–M is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Point in Space Coordinates

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60817

(Lat. 41°11′54″ N., long. 77°14′22″ W.) proceeding by submitting written § 71.1 [Amended] That airspace extending upward from 700 comments on the proposal to the FAA The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius on or before May 30, 2006. No 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the comments to the proposal were Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Jersey Shore Airport. received. The rule is adopted as Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, * * * * * proposed. The coordinates for this and effective September 15, 2006 is amended as follows: Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, airspace docket are based on North 2006. American Datum 83. Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Mark D. Ward, Class E airspace areas designations for extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. airspace extending upward from 700 [FR Doc. 06–8683 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] feet or more above the surface of the * * * * * BILLING CODE 4910–13–M earth are published in paragraph 6005 of AEA PA E5, TROY, PA (New) FAA Order 7400.9, dated September 1, Hill Top Heliport 2006 and effective September 15, 2006 Point in Space Coordinates DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION which is incorporated by reference in 14 (Lat. 41°47′34″ N., long. 76°48′14″ W.) CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace That airspace extending upward from 700 Federal Aviation Administration designation listed in this document will feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius be amended in the order. of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the 14 CFR Part 71 Hill Top Heliport, Troy, PA. The Rule [Docket No. FAA–2006–24318; Airspace * * * * * Docket No. 06–AEA–007] This amendment to part 71 of the Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 2006. Establishment of Class E Airspace; part 71) provides controlled Class E Mark D. Ward, Troy, PA airspace extending upward from 700 Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. AGENCY: Federal Aviation feet above the surface for aircraft [FR Doc. 06–8684 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] conducting Instrument Flight Rules Administration (FAA) DOT. BILLING CODE 4910–13–M (IFR) operations at the Hill Top ACTION: Final rule. Heliport, Troy, PA. SUMMARY: This action establishes Class The FAA has determined that this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION E airspace at Hill Top Heliport, Troy, regulation only involves an established Pennsylvania. The development of an body of technical regulations for which Federal Aviation Administration Area Navigation (RNAV), Helicopter frequent and routine amendments are Point in Space Approach, for the Hill necessary to keep them operationally 14 CFR Part 71 Top Heliport, Troy, PA, has made this current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is action necessary. Controlled airspace not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ [Docket No. FAA–2006–23907; Airspace Docket No. 06–AEA–03] extending upward from 700 feet Above under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Ground Level (AGL) is needed to a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Establishment of Class E Airspace; contain aircraft executing the approach Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Ridgeway, PA to the Hill Top Heliport. FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC does not warrant preparation of a AGENCY: Federal Aviation November 23, 2006. The director of the Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Administration (FAA) DOT. Federal Register approves this impact is so minimal. Since this is a ACTION: Final rule. incorporation by reference action under routine matter that will only affect air 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual traffic procedures and air navigation it SUMMARY: This action establishes Class revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and is certified that this rule will not have E airspace at Ridgeway Landing Zone, publication of conforming amendments. significant economic impact on a Ridgeway, PA. Development of an Area Navigation (RNAV), Helicopter Point in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. substantial number of small entities Space Approach, for the Ridgeway Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, under the criteria of the Regulatory Landing Zone, Ridgeway, PA, has made Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Flexibility Act. this action necessary. Controlled Division, Eastern Region, Federal List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 airspace extending upward from 700 Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, Airspace, Incorporation by reference, needed to contain aircraft executing the telephone: (718) 553–4521. Navigation (air). approach to the Ridgeway Landing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Adoption of the Amendment Zone. History I In consideration of the foregoing, the DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC On March 30, 2006 a notice proposing Federal Aviation Administration November 23, 2006. The Director of the to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Federal Register approves this Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by [06–AEA–07] incorporation by reference action under establishing Class E airspace extending 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual upward from 700 feet Above Ground PART 71—[AMENDED] revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter publication of conforming amendments. Point in Space Approach to the Hill Top I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Heliport, Troy, PA, was published in the part 71 continues to read as follows: Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Federal Register. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Interested parties were invited to 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Division, Eastern Region, Federal participate in this rulemaking 1963 Comp., p. 389. Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60818 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, Adoption of the Amendment executing the approach to the Robert telephone: (718) 553–4521. Packer Hospital. I In consideration of the foregoing, the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Federal Aviation Administration Effective Date: 0901 UTC History amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: November 23, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approves this On March 13, 2006 a notice proposing PART 71—[AMENDED] incorporation by reference action under to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and establishing Class E airspace extending part 71 continues to read as follows: publication of conforming amendments. upward from 700 feet Above Ground Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Level (AGL) for an RNAV, Helicopter 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Point in Space Approach to the 1963 Comp., p. 389. Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Air Traffic Ridgeway Landing Zone, Ridgeway, PA, Division, Eastern Region, Federal was published in the Federal Register. § 71.1 [Amended] Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Interested parties were invited to The incorporation by reference in 14 Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434–4809, participate in this rulemaking CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation telephone: (718) 553–4521. proceeding by submitting written Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace comments on the proposal to the FAA Designations and Reporting Points, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on or before may 13, 2006. No dated September 1, 2006, and effective History comments to the proposal were September 15, 2006, is amended as On March 30, 2006 a notice proposing received. The rule is adopted as follows: proposed. The coordinates for this to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation airspace docket are based on North Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by extending upward from 700 feet or more establishing Class E airspace extending American Datum 83. above the surface of the earth. Class E airspace areas designations for upward from 700 feet Above Ground airspace extending upward from 700 * * * * * Level (AGL) from an RNAV, Helicopter feet or more above the surface of the AEA PA E5, RIDGEWAY, PA (New) Point in Space Approach to the Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA, was earth are published in paragraph 6005 of Ridgeway Landing Zone FAA Order 7400.9P, dated September 1, Point in Space Coordinates published in the Federal Register. 2006 and effective September 15, 2006, (Lat. 41°25′07″ N., long. 78°45′09″ W.) Interested parties were invited to which is incorporated by reference in 14 That airspace extending upward from 700 participate in this rulemaking CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius proceeding by submitting written designation listed in this document will of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the comments on the proposal to the FAA be amended in the order. Ridgeway Landing Zone, Ridgeway, PA. on or before May 30, 2006. No * * * * * comments to the proposal were The Rule received. The rule is adopted as Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, proposed. The coordinates for this This amendment to Part 71 of the 2006. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR airspace docket are based on North Mark D. Ward, part 71) provides controlled Class E American Datum 83. airspace extending upward from 700 Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. Class E airspace areas designations for feet above the surface for aircraft [FR Doc. 06–8685 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] airspace extending upward from 700 conducting Instrument Flight Rules BILLING CODE 4910–13–M feet or more above the surface of the (IFR) operations at the Ridgeway earth are published in paragraph 6005 of Landing Zone, Ridgeway, PA. FAA Order 7400.9, dated September 1, The FAA has determined that this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2006 and effective September 15, 2006, regulation only involves an established which is incorporated by reference in 14 Federal Aviation Administration body of technical regulations for which CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace frequent and routine amendments are designation listed in this document will 14 CFR Part 71 necessary to keep them operationally be amended in the order. current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is The Rule not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ [Docket No. FAA–2006–24317; Airspace Docket No. 06–AEA–006] under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not This amendment to Part 71 of the a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Establishment of Class E Airspace; Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Sayre, PA part 71) provides controlled Class E FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) airspace extending upward from 700 does not warrant preparation of a AGENCY: Federal Aviation feet above the surface for aircraft Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated Administration (FAA) DOT. conducting Instrument Flight Rules impact is so minimal. Since this is a ACTION: Final rule. (IFR) operations at the Robert Packer routine matter that will only affect air Hospital, Sayre, PA. traffic procedures and air navigation it SUMMARY: This action establishes Class The FAA has determined that this is certified that this rule will not have E airspace at Robert Packer Hospital, regulation only involves an established significant economic impact on a Sayre, Pennsylvania. The development body of technical regulations for which substantial number of small entities of an Area Navigation (RNAV), frequent and routine amendments are under the criteria of the Regulatory Helicopter Point in Space Approach, for necessary to keep them operationally Flexibility Act. the Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA, current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is has made this action necessary. not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Controlled airspace extending upward under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not Airspace, Incorporation by reference, from 700 feet Above Ground Level a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Navigation (air). (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60819

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Act, we will end the payment of cash does not warrant preparation of a benefits and terminate your period of Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 disability. impact is so minimal. Since this is a [Docket No. SSA 2006–0083] Section 1614(a)(3)(H)(iii) of the Act routine matter that will only affect air and § 416.987 of our regulations require traffic procedures and air navigation it RIN 0960–AG19 that if you are eligible for payments as a child under title XVI by reason of is certified that this rule will not have Continuing Disability Review Failure significant economic impact on a disability, we redetermine that To Cooperate Process eligibility during the one-year period substantial number of small entities beginning on your 18th birthday, or, in under the criteria of the Regulatory AGENCY: Social Security Administration. lieu of a CDR, whenever we determine ACTION: Final rules. Flexibility Act. that your case is subject to such a List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 SUMMARY: We are amending our review. We call this evaluation an age- regulations to provide that we will 18 redetermination. If the medical and Airspace, Incorporation by reference, suspend your disability benefits before other evidence shows that you are not Navigation (air). we make a determination during a disabled under the standards set out in section 1614(a)(3)(A)–(B) of the Act, we Adoption of the Amendment continuing disability review (CDR) under title II and title XVI of the Social will end the payment of cash payments and terminate your period of disability. I In consideration of the foregoing, the Security Act (the Act) when you fail to comply with our request for necessary Sections 223(f) and 1614(a)(4) of the Federal Aviation Administration Act provide that, in general, if you amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: information. Should you remain non- compliant for a period of one year receive disability benefits under titles II [06–AEA–06] following your suspension, we will then and/or XVI of the Act, we may find that terminate your disability benefits. you are no longer disabled if substantial PART 71—[AMENDED] Although our current title XVI evidence shows that there has been regulations generally provide for the medical improvement in your I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR termination of payments after 12 impairment or combination of part 71 continues to read as follows: months of suspension, we are amending impairments, and you are now able to Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, our regulations by adding this policy to do substantial gainful activity. Under 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– our title II regulations and by restating title XVI, if you are a child (an 1963 Comp., p. 389. it in the title XVI CDR regulatory individual under age 18), substantial provisions. evidence must show that there has been § 71.1 [Amended] medical improvement in your DATES: These final rules are effective impairment or combination of The incorporation by reference in 14 December 18, 2006. impairments, and the impairment(s) CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don must no longer cause marked and severe Administration Order 7400.9, Airspace Harvey, Social Insurance Specialist, functional limitations. We call this the Designations and Reporting Points, Office of Program Development and medical improvement review standard dated September 1, 2006 and effective Research, Social Security (MIRS), and we apply it whenever we September 15, 2006, is amended as Administration, 107Altmeyer Building, do a CDR for an adult or a child. The follows: 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, statute also provides, however, for Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 597–1026 several exceptions to the ‘‘medical extending upward from 700 feet or more or TTY (410) 966–5609. For information improvement’’ requirement where we above the surface of the earth on eligibility or filing for benefits, call will not apply the MIRS. One of those our national toll-free number, 1–800– exceptions to applying the MIRS is the * * * * * 772–1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or situation where you fail, without good AEA PA E5, SAYRE, PA (New) visit our Internet Web site, Social cause, to cooperate with us when we do Robert Packer Hospital Security Online, at a CDR. www.socialsecurity.gov/. Point in Space Coordinates Continuing Disability Review and Age- (Lat. 41°58′53″ N., long 76°32′06″ W.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 18 Redetermination Processes Under That airspace extending upward from 700 Electronic Version Our Current Regulations feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius The electronic file of this document is When we begin a CDR or an age-18 of a Point in Space for the SIAP serving the available on the date of publication in redetermination, we notify you that we Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA. the Federal Register at http:// are reviewing your eligibility for * * * * * www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. disability benefits and explain why we are reviewing your eligibility; what Issued in Jamaica, New York on October 2, Statutory Background 2006. standard will apply, either the MIRS in Mark D. Ward, Sections 221(i) and 1614(a)(3)(H)(ii)(I) a CDR or the initial claims criteria in an of the Act and §§ 404.1589, and 416.989 age-18 redetermination; that our review Manager, FAA, Eastern Service Center. of our regulations require that after we could result in the termination of your [FR Doc. 06–8687 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] find that you are disabled, we evaluate benefits; and that you have the right to BILLING CODE 4910–13–M your impairment(s) from time to time to submit medical and other evidence for determine if you remain disabled. We us to consider during the CDR or the call this evaluation a continuing age-18 redetermination. Before we disability review (CDR). If the medical determine whether you are still and other evidence shows that you are disabled, we develop a complete not disabled under the standards set out medical history covering at least the 12 in sections 223(f) and 1614(a)(4) of the months preceding the date that you

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60820 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

complete a report about your continuing under both titles II and XVI, implement rules could be misinterpreted to mean disability status. If our review shows a more efficient CDR process, encourage that we will not reinstate benefits until that we should stop your benefits, we beneficiaries to cooperate during the we complete the CDR process. notify you in writing and give you the CDR or age-18 redetermination process, Accordingly, the phrase was opportunity to appeal. (See §§ 404.1589 and make the process less burdensome. restructured for clarity in § 404.1587(b) and 416.989 of our regulations.) We As a result of the revisions, your and also in the parallel language in new explain when and how often we will do failure to cooperate in the CDR process §§ 404.1596(d) and 416.992. a CDR in §§ 404.1590 and 404.1591 of will result initially in a suspension Under the new § 404.1587(c), we will our title II regulations and in §§ 416.990 rather than a termination of benefits terminate your benefits following 12 and 416.991 of our title XVI regulations. based on a determination that you are consecutive months of benefit We explain when we will do an age-18 no longer entitled to benefits. To have suspension when you fail to comply redetermination in § 416.987 of our title your benefits resumed, you will only with our written request for any XVI regulations. have to contact your local Social necessary information made during a When we do a CDR or age-18 Security office and provide the CDR. This termination will be effective redetermination, §§ 404.1594(e)(2), requested information and you will with the start of the 13th month after 416.987(e)(3), 416.994(b)(4)(ii) and have up to 12 months to do so. your benefits were stopped because you 416.994a(f)(2) of our regulations set out Accordingly, during the 12 month failed to cooperate. You will have the the general principle that is reflected in period, you will not have to file an right to appeal the termination, but you sections 223(f) and 1614(a)(4) of the Act; appeal in order to have your benefits will not have benefit continuation i.e., that you have the responsibility to resumed. In addition, you will not have rights. cooperate with us, or take any required to request, prepare for, and attend a Under the revised § 404.1596, the title action that we decide is necessary to hearing for your benefits to be resumed. will reflect that your benefits may be allow us to complete the CDR or age-18 terminated as well as suspended. We are When Will We Start To Use These Final redetermination. If you do not cooperate also removing current paragraphs (c)(1) Rules? with us, and you do not have good and (c)(2) and adding new paragraphs cause as defined in §§ 404.911 and We will start to use these final rules (d) and (e) to explain that we will not 416.1411 of our regulations for not on their effective date. We will continue make a medical determination when cooperating, we will find that your to use our prior rules until the effective you do not cooperate with us by failing disability has ended. date of these final rules. When these to comply with our written request for We currently have no provision in our final rules become effective, we will any necessary information. We will regulations that allows us to suspend apply them to CDRs and age-18 suspend your benefits only after we give your benefits under title II of the Act if redeterminations that we initiate on or you advance notice as described in you fail to cooperate with us when we after the effective date. § 404.1595. The advance notice will tell request necessary information during a What Revisions Are We Making? you what you need to do so that your CDR. However, § 416.1322 of our title benefits are not suspended as outlined XVI regulations provides general We are revising §§ 404.1587 and in § 404.1595(b)(3) of our regulations. authority that allows us to suspend your 404.1596 of our title II regulations and In the new § 404.1596(d), we are payments under title XVI of the Act, adding a new § 416.992 to our title XVI adding language to explain that if we when you fail to cooperate with our regulations. With respect to § 404.1587, suspend your benefits because you fail requests for information, including we are revising the title to reflect that to cooperate and you subsequently give during a CDR or age-18 redetermination. your benefits may be terminated as well us the information that we requested, When we suspend your title XVI as suspended. In addition, we are we will reinstate your benefits and payments for such failure to cooperate designating the current paragraph as continue with the CDR process. We will under § 416.1322, we follow paragraph (a) and adding a heading to reinstate your benefits for any previous § 416.714(b) of our regulations, which it. We are also adding new paragraphs months for which they are otherwise gives you thirty days from the date of (b) and (c). Under the new payable. As noted above, as a result of our written request to comply with the § 404.1587(b), we will suspend your a public comment, we have reordered request for information. We also follow benefits during a CDR when you do not the phrases in the final regulation § 416.1336 of our regulations, which cooperate with us by failing, without § 404.1596(d) to make them consistent provides that before we suspend, good cause, to comply with our written with § 404.1587(b). reduce, or terminate your title XVI request for any necessary information. If With respect to the new § 404.1596(e), payments, we will give you advance you subsequently give us the we explain that if we suspend your notice of our intent and provide you information that we requested, we will benefits because you do not give us the with appeal rights and payment reinstate your benefits and continue information that we need and you fail continuation rights pending resolution with the CDR process. We will reinstate to respond during the subsequent 12- of the appeal. When we terminate your your benefits for any previous month for month period, we will terminate your title XVI payments due to continuous which they are otherwise payable. benefits. The termination will be suspension of payments, we follow The regulatory language in this final effective with the start of the 13th § 416.1335 of our regulations, which rule has been changed from the month after your benefits were stopped provides that we will terminate your language that appeared in the notice of because you failed to cooperate. You eligibility for payments following 12 proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (70 FR at will have the right to appeal the consecutive months of payment 72418). We have reordered the phrases termination, but you will not have suspension. in final § 404.1587(b) to state that ‘‘we benefit continuation rights. will reinstate your benefits for any We are adding a new § 416.992 to Why Are We Revising Our Regulations? previous month for which they are explain that we will suspend your We are continually exploring ways to otherwise payable, and continue with payments before we make a improve the disability process. These the CDR process.’’ This was done in determination regarding your revisions will allow us to make our response to a public comment that the continuing eligibility for disability rules consistent for all beneficiaries regulatory language in the proposed payments if you fail to comply with our

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60821

request for information for your CDR or benefits. To ensure that we have made appropriate, we will consider the age-18 redetermination. We will every reasonable effort to contact the beneficiary’s capability and/or consider suspend your payments only after we beneficiary/payee, we will attempt to the need for a new payee. Before give you advance notice as described in secure the most current address from suspending benefits, we will send a § 416.995. As outlined in § 416.1336 of the Post Office, financial institutions, notice that clearly explains that benefits our regulations, the advance notice will etc. If we suspend an individual’s will be suspended if the beneficiary/ tell you what you need to do so that benefits he or she will only have to payee does not provide the necessary your payments are not suspended. If we contact his or her local Social Security information. If we suspend an suspend your payments because you fail office and provide the requested individual’s benefits he or she will only to cooperate and you subsequently give information within the 12 month period have to contact his or her local Social us the information that we requested, to have his or her benefits resumed. Security office and provide the we will reinstate your payments and Comment: Along the same lines, one requested information within the 12 continue with the CDR or age-18 commenter related an incident in which month period to have his or her benefits redetermination process. We will her benefits had been terminated resumed. reinstate your payments for any because the Postal Service was unable to Comment: One commenter previous month for which they are locate her, despite residing at the same recommended that we send requests for otherwise payable. If we suspend your address for 13 years. The commenter information to the representative payee, payments because you do not give us suggested that all correspondences an automatic reinstatement provision be the information that we need and you relating to requests for information provided when the beneficiary/payee fail to respond during the subsequent should be sent via certified mail. provides the necessary information, and 12-month period, we will terminate Response: We did not need to make include a place on the form for the your payments. The termination will be any changes in these final rules as a individual to state they do not effective with the start of the 13th result of this comment. If a beneficiary understand a question or need month after your payments were fails to respond to our initial notice, our assistance in filling out the form. stopped because you failed to cooperate. procedures require that we send a Response: These final rules do not You will have the right to appeal the certified letter to a beneficiary’s address change our regulations on the use of termination, but you will not have of record prior to initiating a suspension representative payees. If a beneficiary payment continuation rights. action. has a representative payee, it is our In response to a public comment, the Comment: One commenter expressed policy to send all notices to the payee. regulatory language in this final rule has a view that individuals who have Additionally, as soon as the beneficiary/ been changed from the language that developmental or mental health payee provides the requested appeared in the proposed rules. We diagnoses may not be able to read and information, benefits will be reinstated, have revised the language in the final understand the information that we including any previous month for which regulation § 416.992 to reflect that send to them. The commenter said that they are otherwise payable. The payments will only be suspended if this proposal may impose a hardship on beneficiary/payee will not have to good cause has not been established. these individuals and go against the request that benefits be reinstated. The This is consistent with the language in intent of the Act. form that an individual must complete the final regulation § 404.1587(b). We Response: In all situations, we are during a CDR includes a remarks section have also reordered the phrases in final sensitive to circumstances in which an where the individual can indicate that regulation § 416.992 to make them individual, including those individuals he or she does not understand a consistent with §§ 404.1587(b) and who have developmental or mental question or needs assistance completing 404.1596(d). health diagnoses, may require assistance the form. In addition, the letter that to comply with our requests. We will advises the individual that a CDR is Public Comments consider the individual’s impairment being done also advises the individual We published these regulatory and use all available resources to obtain that he or she may contact us at any provisions in the Federal Register as a needed information, and if necessary, time if he or she has any questions or NPRM on December 5, 2005 (70 FR determine whether a representative requires assistance. 72416). We provided the public with a payee or change of representative payee Comment: One commenter applauded 60-day comment period. We received is needed. our decision to suspend rather than comments from 10 individuals and 11 Comment: Several commenters stated terminate benefits when a beneficiary organizations. Because some of the that they did not support our proposed fails to cooperate during a CDR and comments submitted were detailed, we rule changes because of the potential for urged that we continue the existing have tried to summarize or paraphrase misunderstandings about information policy that benefits be continued when the views presented in these comments being requested and vaguely worded despite a lack of cooperation the accurately and to respond to the notices. The commenters also stated that evidence establishes continued significant issues raised in the they did not support our proposed rule eligibility. comments that were within the scope of changes because of the potential for Response: We are not changing our the proposed rules. representative payees not fulfilling their existing policy that benefits be Comment: Several commenters stated reporting responsibilities. The continued when despite a lack of that they disagreed with the proposed commenters urged us to ensure that cooperation, evidence establishes rule changes because of the potential for policies are in place to make certain that continued eligibility. problems with the delivery of mail. The individuals continue to receive the Comment: Several commenters stated commenters said that we should be benefits to which they are entitled prior that the proposed language of mindful of the widespread deficiencies to implementation of these final §§ 404.1587, 404.1596 and 416.992, ‘‘we in mail delivery. regulations. will continue with the CDR process and Response: We will exhaust all efforts Response: As we stated above, we are reinstate your benefits for any month for to locate the beneficiary/payee and sensitive to situations in which an which they are otherwise payable’’ follow-up on all requests for individual may require assistance to should be reordered to make clear that information before deciding to suspend comply with our requests. When benefits will be restored immediately

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60822 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

upon the individual’s cooperation with cooperation, benefits should be chapter III of title 20 of the Code of us. The commenters further stated that reinstated only if the information Federal Regulations, as set forth below: the ‘‘without good cause’’ language that subsequently provided demonstrates appeared in §§ 404.1587 and 404.1596 that the beneficiary is still disabled. PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, in the proposed rules did not appear in Response: We did not adopt this SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY the regulatory language in § 416.992 in comment. The purpose of these final INSURANCE (1950—) the proposed rules and should be rule changes is to implement a more corrected in the final regulations. The efficient CDR process and to encourage Subpart P—[Amended] commenters also suggested that the beneficiaries to cooperate during the I 1. The authority citation for subpart P regulations should spell out what CDR process. Accordingly, if the of part 404 continues to read as follows: constitutes ‘‘good cause’’ in the beneficiary provides us with the situation where a person fails to Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)– necessary information or evidence (h), 216(i), (221(a) and (i), 222(c), 223, 225, cooperate with a CDR or an age-18 requested, benefits will be reinstated. and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 redetermination. We will then continue with the CDR U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)–(h), 416(i), Response: We agree that the order of process. 421(a) and (i), 422(c), 423, 425, and the language that appeared in the 902(a)(5)); section 211(b), Pub. L. 104–193, regulatory section of the proposed rules Regulatory Procedures 110 Stat. 2105, 2189. might be misread. We have reordered Executive Order 12866 the phrases in §§ 404.1587, 404.1596, I 2. Section 404.1587 is revised to read We have consulted with the Office of and 416.992 by changing the language to as follows: Management and Budget (OMB) and state that ‘‘when we have received the determined that these final rules meet § 404.1587 Circumstances under which we information, we will reinstate your the criteria for a significant regulatory may suspend and terminate your benefits benefits for any previous month for action under E.O. 12866, as amended by before we make a determination. which they are otherwise payable, and E.O. 13258. Thus, they were reviewed (a) We will suspend your benefits if continue with the CDR process.’’ Also, by OMB. you are not disabled. We will suspend we have rewritten § 416.992 to include your benefits if all of the information we the reference to the regulatory language Regulatory Flexibility Act have clearly shows that you are not ‘‘without good cause’’ to make it We certify that these final rules will disabled and we will be unable to consistent with §§ 404.1587 and not have a significant economic impact complete a determination soon enough 404.1596, since it was inadvertently on a substantial number of small entities to prevent us from paying you more omitted. For clarity when referring to because they affect only individuals. monthly benefits than you are entitled ‘‘good cause,’’ we are adding a Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis as to. This may occur when you are blind parenthetical to the final rules provided in the Regulatory Flexibility as defined in the law and age 55 or older referencing the ‘‘good cause’’ citations Act, as amended, is not required. and you have returned to work similar (§§ 404.911 and 416.1411) in the to work you previously performed. regulatory text of §§ 404.1587(b), Paperwork Reduction Act (b) We will suspend your benefits if 404.1596(d), and 416.992, as These final regulations impose no you fail to comply with our request for appropriate. reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessary information. We will suspend Comment: The same commenters also requiring OMB clearance. your benefits effective with the month stated that the regulations should include specific statements that we will (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in which it is determined in accordance meet with the individual on the day he Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security— with § 404.1596(b)(2)(i) that your or she first visits the Social Security Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social disability benefits should stop due to office to report that he or she did not Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, your failure, without good cause (see Social Security—Survivors Insurance; § 404.911), to comply with our request receive the monthly check. Also, the 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) commenters stated that the final for necessary information. When we have received the information, we will regulations should note that we will List of Subjects assist those who need extra help and reinstate your benefits for any previous that such provision, among others, is 20 CFR Part 404 month for which they are otherwise payable, and continue with the CDR required by our obligation under section Administrative practice and process. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, (c) We will terminate your benefits. U.S.C. 794). Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability We will terminate your benefits Response: We have not rewritten Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping following 12 consecutive months of these sections to include specific requirements, Social Security. statements that we will meet with the benefit suspension because you did not individuals on the day he or she first 20 CFR Part 416 comply with our request for information visits a Social Security office or to assist Administrative practice and in accordance with § 404.1596(b)(2)(i). individuals who need extra help procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability We will count the 12-month suspension because it is already our policy to do so. benefits, Public assistance programs, period from the start of the first month Further, we comply with all applicable Reporting and recordkeeping that you stopped receiving benefits (see laws relating to our programs to ensure requirements, Supplemental Security paragraph (b) of this section). This maximum accessibility of all our Income (SSI). termination is effective with the start of programs and proceedings. If a the 13th month after the suspension Dated: July 11, 2006. beneficiary contacts one of our field began because you failed to cooperate. offices with the necessary information, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, I 3. Section 404.1596 is amended by the field office will meet with them and Commissioner of Social Security. revising the heading, removing take action to reinstate their benefits. I For the reasons set out in the paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), Comment: One commenter suggested preamble, we are amending subpart P of redesignating paragraphs (c)(3) and that if benefits are suspended for non- part 404 and subpart I of part 416 of (c)(4) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60823

adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to effective with the month in which it is sodium permanganate shall be subject to read as follows: determined in accordance with CSA chemical regulatory control § 416.1322 that your eligibility for provisions. § 404.1596 Circumstances under which we All handlers of the List II chemical may suspend and terminate your benefits disability payments has ended due to before we make a determination. your failure to comply with our request sodium permanganate shall also be for necessary information. When we subject to the applicable civil and * * * * * have received the information, we will criminal penalty provisions found in 21 (d) When the suspension is effective. U.S.C. 841, 842, 843, 959 and 960. We will suspend your benefits effective reinstate your payments for any DATES: Effective Date: December 18, with the month in which it is previous month for which they are 2006. determined in accordance with otherwise payable, and continue with paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section that the CDR or age-18 redetermination FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: your disability benefits should stop due process. We will terminate your Christine A. Sannerud Ph.D., Chief, to your failure, without good cause (see eligibility for payments following 12 Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, § 404.911), to comply with our request consecutive months of payment Office of Diversion Control, Drug for necessary information for your suspension as discussed in § 416.1335. Enforcement Administration, continuing disability review. This [FR Doc. E6–17181 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20537 at (202) 307– review is to determine whether or not BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 7183. you continue to meet the disability SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CSA requirements of the law. When we have and its implementing regulations, received the information, we will DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE specifically 21 U.S.C. 802(35) and 21 reinstate your benefits for any previous CFR 1310.02(c), provide the Attorney month for which they are otherwise Drug Enforcement Administration General with the authority to specify, by payable, and continue with the CDR regulation, additional chemicals as ‘‘List process. 21 CFR Part 1310 II’’ chemicals if they are used in the (e) When we will terminate your [Docket No. DEA–254F] manufacture of a controlled substance benefits. We will terminate your in violation of the CSA. This authority benefits following 12 consecutive RIN 1117–AA90 has been delegated to the Administrator, months of benefit suspension because Drug Enforcement Administration you did not comply with our request for Control of Sodium Permanganate as a (DEA) by 28 CFR 0.100 and redelegated information in accordance with List II Chemical to the Deputy Administrator under 28 paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. We AGENCY: Drug Enforcement CFR 0.104 (Subpart R) Appendix section will count the 12-month suspension Administration (DEA), U.S. Department 12. period from the start of the first month of Justice. On March 1, 2005, the DEA published that you stopped receiving benefits (see ACTION: Final rule. a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70 FR paragraph (d) of this section). This 9889) which proposed the addition of termination is effective with the start of SUMMARY: On March 1, 2005, the Drug sodium permanganate as a List II the 13th month after the suspension Enforcement Administration (DEA) chemical because of its direct began because you failed to cooperate. published a Notice of Proposed substitutability for potassium Rulemaking (70 FR 9889) which permanganate (a List II chemical) in the PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL proposed the addition of sodium illicit production of cocaine. SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, permanganate as a List II chemical Additionally, the Notice of Public Rule BLIND, AND DISABLED because of its direct substitutability for Making (NPRM) proposed that a potassium permanganate (a List II threshold of 55 kilograms and 500 Subpart I—[Amended] chemical) in the illicit production of kilograms be established (respectively) I 4. The authority citation for subpart I cocaine. for domestic and international of part 416 continues to read as follows: This rulemaking finalizes control of transactions. sodium permanganate. As a List II DEA also proposed that chemical Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, chemical, handlers of sodium mixtures (containing sodium 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1) and (p), and 1633 of permanganate) having less than or equal the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), permanganate shall be subject to 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to 15 percent sodium permanganate (p), and 1383(b); secs. 4(c) and (5), 6(c)–(e), chemical regulatory controls including shall qualify for automatic exemption 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1794, recordkeeping, reporting, and import/ from CSA chemical regulatory controls 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, export requirements. DEA has pursuant to 21 CFR Part 1310. Since 423 note and 1382h note). determined that these controls are DEA recognizes that the concentration I 5. Section 416.992 is added to read as necessary to prevent the diversion of limit exemption criteria cannot identify follows: this chemical to cocaine laboratories. all mixtures that should receive This rulemaking is also establishing a exemption status, DEA has § 416.992 What happens if you fail to cumulative threshold of 55 kilograms implemented an application process to comply with our request for information. and 500 kilograms (respectively) for exempt additional mixtures (21 CFR We will suspend your payments domestic and international transactions. 1310.13). This application process was before we make a determination As such, all transactions which meet or finalized in a Final Rule published in regarding your continued eligibility for exceed these quantities (in a calendar the Federal Register May 1, 2003 (68 FR disability payments if you fail to month) shall be considered regulated 23195). Under the application process, comply, without good cause (see transactions, subject to recordkeeping, manufacturers may submit an § 416.1411), with our request for reporting and/or import/export application for exemption for those information for your continuing notification requirements. Additionally, mixtures that do not qualify for disability review or age-18 as a result of this rulemaking, chemical automatic exemption. Exemption status redetermination. The suspension is mixtures having greater than 15 percent can be granted if DEA determines that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60824 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the mixture is formulated in such a way conversion of production processes commenter stated that they believed the that it cannot be easily used in the illicit away from potassium permanganate and 55 kilogram threshold was too low, and production of a controlled substance toward the increased production and stated that they believed it would and the listed chemical cannot be distribution of sodium permanganate. increase the recordkeeping burden on readily recovered (i.e., it meets the Because of sodium permanganate’s wastewater treatment facilities. conditions in 21 U.S.C. 802(39)(A)(v)). direct substitutability for potassium DEA believes, however, that the An application may be for a single or a permanganate, this company has agreed threshold of 55 kilograms for domestic multiple number of formulations. with DEA concerns regarding the transactions will not impact these potential illicit use of sodium wastewater treatment facilities because Sodium Permanganate Industry and permanganate as a direct substitute for these facilities are end-users. As such, Legitimate Uses potassium permanganate in cocaine they are not required to maintain Sodium permanganate is an inorganic processing. This producer advised DEA records and therefore do not incur any oxidant that is a direct substitute for that it would welcome the control of regulatory burden. Their suppliers, potassium permanganate. Due to its sodium permanganate as a listed however, must maintain records of all high solubility in water, sodium chemical. distributions greater than 55 kilograms. permanganate has distinct advantages Even though production of sodium Furthermore, DEA believes that the 55 over potassium permanganate in many permanganate has historically been kilogram threshold for domestic industrial applications. It is becoming limited, sodium permanganate has been transactions is appropriate, since this is widely used for industrial purposes, seized by law enforcement at illicit the threshold that currently exists for including (1) Printed circuit board cocaine laboratories in Latin America. potassium permanganate (which is the production, (2) pharmaceutical and As reported in the 2001 and 2002 direct substitute for sodium chemical synthesis, (3) soil and Statistical Summary on Drugs, compiled permanganate in these industries.) groundwater remediation, (4) metal by the Organization of American States One comment was received from the cleaning formulations, (5) acid mine (OAS), and the Inter-American Drug sole U.S. producer of sodium drainage and (6) hydrogen sulfide odor Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), permanganate. The company stated that control. the Government of Colombia (as it supports DEA’s proposal to control DEA has identified only one domestic reported by the Colombian Ministerio sodium permanganate as a List II producer of sodium permanganate. de Justicia y del Derecho, Direccion chemical. The company further stated However, sodium permanganate is also Nacional de Estupefacientes) reported that controls on sodium permanganate imported into the United States (U.S.) the seizure of 1,400 kilograms of sodium should be exactly the same as the and there are at least three other major permanganate in 1997, 236 kilograms in controls which currently exist on suppliers of sodium permanganate in 1998 and 404 kilograms in 1999. potassium permanganate. DEA agrees. Because of its direct substitutability the U.S. What This Final Rule Does and The U.S. firm that manufactures for potassium permanganate and Regulatory Controls That Shall Apply sodium permanganate distributes it increased production, DEA sees the to This Chemical through 15–20 major authorized urgent need to regulate sodium distributors and more than 100 branch permanganate as a List II chemical to After careful consideration of all distributors. This U.S. supplier has prevent its diversion to cocaine comments, DEA has determined that all advised DEA that it is aware of ‘‘one laboratories. Hence, this rulemaking control provisions as proposed in the [sodium permanganate] manufacturer in subjects sodium permanganate to the March 1, 2005, NPRM (70 FR 9889) Germany, more than one manufacturer same CSA regulatory controls which shall become final. As such, the exact in China and at least nine suppliers in have been put forth for potassium regulatory controls which currently other countries.’’ permanganate. As such, sodium apply to potassium permanganate shall permanganate shall be subject to List II be implemented for sodium Reason for This Control Action chemical controls, including permanganate effective December 18, Sodium permanganate is directly recordkeeping, reporting, and import/ 2006. substitutable for potassium export requirements as specified in 21 As a List II chemical, sodium permanganate, an important List II CFR Parts 1310 and 1313. permanganate shall be subject to the chemical used illicitly in the production chemical regulatory control provisions of cocaine. Potassium permanganate is Comments Received in Response to the and civil and criminal sanctions of the widely used as an oxidizing agent for NPRM CSA. As such, recordkeeping, reporting removing impurities from coca base in In response to the March 1, 2005, and import/export notification the illicit production of cocaine. NPRM, DEA received four comments. requirements (as described in 21 CFR Potassium permanganate is utilized One commenter simply stated that they Parts 1310 and 1313) shall apply. As a because it produces an aesthetically supported the control of sodium List II chemical, manufacturers, pleasing, white, crystalline form of permanganate as a List II chemical. distributors, importers and exporters of cocaine hydrochloride, which is easily Another commenter stated that they sodium permanganate will not be marketed. disagreed with the exemption of required to register with DEA pursuant Because of its importance in cocaine chemical mixtures containing less than to the provisions of 21 CFR Part 1309. production, potassium permanganate 15 percent sodium permanganate, but Handlers of this chemical shall be has been the target of international did not provide any supportive reason required to maintain records and meet cooperative efforts to monitor potassium for their opposition. CSA import/export notification permanganate shipments and prevent its Two comments addressed the issue of requirements for ‘‘regulated diversion. This effort remains an the establishment of a domestic transactions’’ involving sodium international priority involving the threshold of 55 kilograms for domestic permanganate. The CSA (21 U.S.C. competent authorities of 22 countries. transactions. One commenter stated that 802(39)) defines the term ‘‘regulated Recently, the world’s largest producer the threshold was too high and instead transaction’’ as a ‘‘distribution, receipt, of potassium permanganate (a U.S. suggested that DEA establish a domestic sale, importation, or exportation of, or company) informed DEA of its recent threshold of 5 kilograms. Another an international transaction involving

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60825

the shipment of, a listed chemical, or if Administrative Inspection. Places, companies listing themselves as sources the Attorney General establishes a including factories, warehouses, or of these chemicals). threshold amount for a specific listed other establishments and conveyances, As previously stated in the NPRM, the chemical,’’ a transaction involving a where regulated persons may lawfully DEA has identified only a limited threshold amount. The CSA, therefore, hold, manufacture, or distribute, number of companies which distribute provides the Attorney General with dispense, administer, or otherwise sodium permanganate which has been authority to establish a threshold dispose of a listed chemical or where either domestically produced or amount for listed chemicals if the records relating to those activities are imported. While sodium permanganate Attorney General so elects. maintained, are controlled premises as has industrial uses, DEA has not been DEA is establishing a threshold of 55 defined in 21 CFR 1316.02(c). The CSA able to identify any ‘household’ uses for kilograms for domestic transactions and (21 U.S.C. 880) allows for administrative this chemical. Therefore, the number of 500 kilograms for international inspections of these controlled premises firms that are likely to be affected by transactions. Consequently, all as provided in 21 CFR Part 1316, this proposed regulation is relatively transactions which meet or exceed these Subpart A. small. threshold quantities shall be considered This final rulemaking is not regulated transactions and be subject to Specific Requirements That Will Apply considered to have an impact upon a recordkeeping, reporting and import/ to Regulated Chemical Mixtures substantial number of firms, given the export notification requirements of the Containing Sodium Permanganate limited distribution of this chemical. CSA. Effective December 18, 2006, a Additionally, it is likely that the CSA Regulatory Requirements for Persons chemical mixture that is regulated recordkeeping requirements are already Handling Regulated Transactions of because it contains greater than 15 being met as part of normal business Sodium Permanganate percent sodium permanganate will be practice. Since sodium permanganate is treated as a List II chemical. being added as a List II chemical there Records and Reports. The CSA (21 Transactions that meet or exceed the is no registration requirement. U.S.C. 830) requires certain records to cumulative monthly threshold of 55 Additionally, DEA is establishing a be kept and reports to be made kilograms for domestic transactions and cumulative threshold of 55 kilograms involving listed chemicals. Regulations 500 kilograms for international for domestic transactions and 500 describing recordkeeping and reporting transactions shall be regulated kilograms for international transactions. requirements are set forth in 21 CFR transactions. Therefore, small transactions involving Part 1310. A record must be made and research quantities of sodium maintained for two years after the date The regulatory requirements for permanganate will not be subject to of a regulated transaction involving a regulated chemical mixtures containing regulatory requirements. List II chemical. Only a distribution, List II chemicals are the same as for receipt, sale, importation, or exportation regulated chemical mixtures containing Regulatory Certifications of a regulated mixture at or above the List I chemicals, except that registration Regulatory Flexibility Act established threshold (e.g. 55 kilograms requirements do not apply. Therefore, for domestic transactions and 500 the same requirements for records and The Deputy Administrator hereby kilograms for international transactions) reports, imports/exports (except that certifies that this rulemaking has been is a regulated transaction (21 CFR pertaining to 21 U.S.C. 957), and drafted in accordance with the 1300.02(b)(28)). administrative inspection, as outlined Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Each regulated bulk manufacturer of a above, apply to handlers of List II 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation, regulated mixture shall submit regulated chemical mixtures. and by approving it certifies that this manufacturing, inventory and use data Persons who submit an application regulation will not have a significant on an annual basis (21 CFR 1310.05(d)). for exemption (21 CFR 1310.13) and economic impact on a substantial Bulk manufacturers producing the whose application is pending or number of small entities. As noted mixture solely for internal consumption, subsequently denied by DEA shall be previously, this rulemaking is not e.g., formulating a non-regulated required to comply with all chemical considered to have an impact upon a mixture, are not required to submit this control requirements, including substantial number of firms, given the information. Existing standard industry recordkeeping and reporting, effective limited distribution of this chemical. reports containing the required December 18, 2006. Therefore, all Further, this impact is being limited by information are acceptable, provided the transactions of the chemical mixture the fact that DEA is adding sodium information is readily retrievable from would be regulated, if above threshold, permanganate as a List II chemical, the report. while an application for exemption is rather than the more stringent 21 CFR 1310.05 requires that each pending or awaiting correction. This is requirements of a List I chemical. regulated person shall report to DEA necessary because not regulating these Additionally, it is likely that the CSA any regulated transaction involving an transactions could result in increased recordkeeping requirements are already extraordinary quantity, an uncommon diversion of chemicals desirable to being met as part of normal business method of payment or delivery, or any cocaine traffickers. practice. The cumulative threshold of 55 other circumstance that causes the Potential Impact of Regulation Upon kilograms for domestic transactions and regulated person to believe that the Industry 500 kilograms for international listed chemical will be used in violation transactions established here would of the CSA. In an effort to better estimate the remove from regulatory control small Imports/Exports. All import/exports potential impact of this action, DEA transactions involving research and brokered transactions of regulated conducted an analysis of various data quantities of sodium permanganate. mixtures shall comply with the CSA (21 sources relating to the manufacture, U.S.C. 957 and 971). Regulations for distribution, and use of the Executive Order 12866 importation and exportation of listed permanganates. This included an The Deputy Administrator further chemicals are described in 21 CFR Part analysis of current chemical producers certifies that this rulemaking has been 1313. and marketing directories (to identify drafted in accordance with the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60826 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

principles in Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12988 List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1310 section 1(b). It has been determined that Drug Traffic Control, List I and List II this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’. This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and chemicals, Reporting and Therefore, this action has been reviewed Recordkeeping Requirements. by the Office of Management and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil I Budget. DEA has identified only one Justice Reform. For reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1310 is amended as follows: U.S. firm which manufactures sodium Executive Order 13132 permanganate. This firm supports PART 1310—RECORDS AND control of sodium permanganate as a This rulemaking does not preempt or REPORTS OF LISTED CHEMICALS List II chemical. modify any provision of State law; nor AND CERTAIN MACHINES Paperwork Reduction Act does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any State; nor does it I 1. The authority citation for part 1310 This rulemaking adds sodium diminish the power of any State to continues to read as follows: permanganate as a List II chemical enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this under the CSA. As a List II chemical, Authority: 21 U.S.C. 802, 830, 871(b), 890. rulemaking does not have federalism there is no requirement of registration to I 2. § 1310.02 is amended by adding a handle this chemical. Further, as most implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. new paragraph (b)(12) to read as persons who handle this product are follows: end-users and, as such, are not required Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to maintain records or file reports, there § 1310.02 Substances Covered. is no impact on these persons. This rule will not result in the * * * * * Handlers of sodium permanganate expenditure by State, local, and tribal (b) * * * that distribute above threshold governments, in the aggregate, or by the (12) Sodium Permanganate 6588 quantities are required to maintain private sector, of $115,000,000 or more * * * * * records. Normal business records are in any one year, and will not I 3. § 1310.04 is amended by adding deemed adequate if they contain the significantly or uniquely affect small information required in 21 CFR 1310.06. new paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(H) and governments. Therefore, no actions were (f)(2)(ii)((J) to read as follows: As normal business records meet DEA’s deemed necessary under the provisions regulatory requirements, the of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act § 1310.04 Maintenance of records. maintenance of these records does not of 1995. * * * * * fall under the parameters of the (f) * * * Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement (2) * * * persons importing and exporting this Fairness Act of 1996 (i) * * * List II chemical in quantities of greater (H) Sodium permanganate ...... N/A than 500 kilograms, cumulatively, per This rule is not a major rule as ...... 500 kilograms month, must provide DEA with advance defined by Section 804 of the Small notification of these transactions. As Business Regulatory Enforcement * * * * * DEA does not have any information on Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not (ii) * * * which to base an estimate of the impact result in an annual effect on the (J) Sodium permanganate ...... of this new reporting requirement for economy of $114,000,000 or more; a N/A ...... 55 kilograms persons importing or exporting sodium major increase in costs or prices; or * * * * * permanganate in quantities greater than significant adverse effects on I 4. § 1310.12 is amended by adding an 500 kilograms, cumulatively, per month, competition, employment, investment, entry for ‘‘sodium permanganate’’ to the DEA will adjust the burden related to productivity, innovation, or on the table in paragraph (c) to read as follows: this information collection (OMB ability of United States-based control number 1117–0023 ‘‘Import/ companies to compete with foreign- § 1310.12 Exempt chemical mixtures. Export Declaration: Precursor and based companies in domestic and * * * * * Essential Chemicals’’) upon its renewal. export markets. (c) * * *

TABLE OF CONCENTRATION LIMITS

DEA chemical Concentration Special code No. (percent) conditions

******* List II Chemicals.

******* Sodium Permanganate ...... 6588 15% by Weight.

*******

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60827

* * * * * heading ‘‘Special Analyses’’, sixth line FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: September 29, 2006. from the top of the column, the language Laurence K. Williams, 202–622–3600 Michele M. Leonhart, ‘‘and because the regulation does not’’ is (not a toll-free number). corrected to read ‘‘and because the Deputy Administrator. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulations do not’’. [FR Doc. E6–16990 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Background BILLING CODE 4410–09–P PART 301—PROCEDURE AND This document contains amendments ADMINISTRATION to the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 CFR part 301) DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY I Par. 3. The authority citation for part relating to the provision of notice under 1 continues to read in part as follows: Internal Revenue Service section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Code to taxpayers of a right to a CDP 26 CFR Part 301 I Par. 4. Section 301.6103(k)(6)–1(e) is hearing (CDP Notice) before or, in revised to read as follows: limited cases, after levy. Final [TD 9274] regulations (TD 8980) were published § 301.6103(k)(6)–1 Disclosure of return on January 18, 2002, in the Federal RIN 1545–BB16 information by certain officers and employees for investigative purposes. Register (67 FR 2549) (the 2002 final Disclosure of Return Information by regulations). The 2002 final regulations Certain Officers and Employees for * * * * * implemented certain changes made by Investigative Purposes; Correction (e) Effective date. This section is section 3401 of the Internal Revenue applicable on July 6, 2006. Service Restructuring and Reform Act of AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 1998 (Pub. L. 105–206, 112 Stat. Treasury. Guy R. Traynor, 685)(RRA 1998), including the addition ACTION: Correcting amendment. Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division,Associate Chief of section 6330 to the Internal Revenue SUMMARY: This document corrects final Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). Code. regulations (TD 9274) that were [FR Doc. E6–17135 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Section 3401 of RRA 1998 also added published in the Federal Register on BILLING CODE 4830–01–P section 6320 to the Internal Revenue Tuesday, July 11, 2006 (71 FR 38985). Code. That statute provides for notice to The document contains final regulations taxpayers of a right to a hearing after the relating to the disclosure of return DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY filing of a notice of Federal tax lien information pursuant to section (NFTL). A number of the provisions in 6103(k)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. Internal Revenue Service section 6330 concerning the conduct DATES: This correcting amendment is and judicial review of a CDP hearing are 26 CFR Part 301 effective October 17, 2006. incorporated by reference in section 6320. On January 18, 2002, final FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: regulations (TD 8979) under section Helene R. Newsome, (202) 622–4570 [TD 9291] 6320 were published in the Federal (not a toll-free number). Register (67 FR 2558) along with the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RIN 1545–BB97 2002 final regulations under section Background Miscellaneous Changes to Collection 6330. The notice of final regulations (TD Due Process Procedures Relating to On September 16, 2005, the IRS and 9274) that is the subject of these Notice and Opportunity for Hearing the Treasury Department published in corrections is under section 6103(k)(6) Prior to Levy the Federal Register (70 FR 54687) a of the Internal Revenue Code. notice of proposed rulemaking and AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), notice of public hearing (REG–150091– Need for Correction Treasury. 02). The IRS received one set of written As published, TD 9274 contains errors ACTION: Final Regulations. comments responding to the notice of that may prove to be misleading and are proposed rulemaking. Because no one in need of clarification. SUMMARY: This document contains final requested to speak at the public hearing, regulations amending the regulations the hearing was cancelled. After List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 relating to a taxpayer’s right to a hearing considering each of the comments, the Employment taxes, Estate taxes, before or, in limited cases, after levy proposed regulations are adopted as Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, under section 6330 of the Internal amended by this Treasury decision. Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping Revenue Code of 1986. The final On August 17, 2006, the Pension requirements. regulations make certain clarifying Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109– changes in the way collection due Correction of Publication 280, 120 Stat. 780 (the PPA), was process (CDP) hearings are held and enacted. Section 855 of the PPA I Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 301 is specify the period during which a amended section 6330(d) of the Internal corrected by making the following taxpayer may request an equivalent Revenue Code to withdraw judicial correcting amendments: hearing. The final regulations affect review of CDP notices of determination I Paragraph 1. On page 38985, column taxpayers against whose property or from United States district court 1, in the preamble, under the caption rights to property the Internal Revenue jurisdiction, leaving review solely in the ‘‘DATES’’, second line, the language Service (IRS) intends to levy. United States Tax Court. This ‘‘are effective July 11, 2006.’’ is DATES: Effective Date: These regulations amendment to section 6330(d), effective corrected to read ‘‘are effective July 6, are effective on November 16, 2006. for notices of determination issued on or 2006.’’. Applicability Date: These regulations after October 17, 2006, requires the I Par. 2. On page 38986, column 2, in apply to requests for CDP or equivalent removal of references to district court the preamble, under the paragraph hearings on or after November 16, 2006. review in the 2002 final regulations.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60828 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

This Treasury decision removes those during which a taxpayer is allowed to give for requesting a hearing, including references. perfect an incomplete request, without requests for collection alternatives. In The IRS and the Treasury Department regard to a perfection request from the any event, the informal nature of the have determined that a notice of IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department CDP hearing permits taxpayers and proposed rulemaking and solicitation of believe that the procedure incorporated Appeals to discuss collection public comments are not required to into the final regulations is sufficient to alternatives and issues not listed in the amend the regulations to implement the permit taxpayers to ensure their hearing request if such discussion will modification to section 6330(d). These requests are complete. help resolve the case. Accordingly, the amendments are made solely to conform The comments recommended that the final regulations do not adopt these the regulations to a statutory change IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals) be recommendations. enacted by Congress. Because the given the discretion to permit a taxpayer The comments urged that the final amendments do not involve any to amend an imperfect hearing request regulations guarantee a face-to-face exercise of discretion or interpretation, after the period for perfecting the conference for each taxpayer who the notice and public comment request has expired, if the taxpayer can presents a relevant, non-frivolous reason procedures are unnecessary. demonstrate that such amendment for disagreement with the collection The comments and changes to the furthers an alternative to collection. action. If this recommendation is not proposed regulations, and the This change to the regulations is adopted, the comments suggest that the amendments required by the unnecessary because Appeals is already regulations address and provide Congressional modification to section empowered to exercise this discretion. examples of when a face-to-face 6330(d), are discussed below. Neither the current regulations nor the conference will not be granted. The final Summary of Comments and proposed amendments limits Appeals regulations do not adopt the Explanation of Changes from exercising this discretion. recommendation to guarantee a face-to- Accordingly, the final regulations do not face conference for each taxpayer raising The comments suggested that the IRS adopt this recommendation. Further a relevant, non-frivolous issue. The IRS be required to contact taxpayers who clarification, however, will be provided and the Treasury Department agree with timely file an incomplete request for in the Internal Revenue Manual. the comments that a face-to-face CDP hearing to give them the The comments suggested that where a conference can be a useful forum for opportunity to perfect the request taxpayer fails to perfect a CDP hearing resolving a taxpayer’s issues. The final within a reasonable time period and request until after the time period regulations recognize the importance of further recommended that such contact specified by the IRS, the perfected a face-to-face meeting by providing that be in writing and identify the infirmity request should be automatically treated taxpayers will ordinarily be offered an requiring perfection. The comments also as a request for an equivalent hearing. opportunity for a face-to-face recommended that the final regulations Treating untimely perfected requests as conference. There will be instances, establish a specific time period during equivalent hearing requests may unduly however, when a face-to-face conference which taxpayers may, by right, amend prolong the process in cases in which a is not practical. The final regulations or perfect their previously-filed yet taxpayer does not want an equivalent identify typical situations in which a incomplete CDP hearing request. The hearing. Accordingly, the final face-to-face conference will be neither request, according to the comments, regulations do not adopt this suggestion. necessary nor productive. Except for should be considered timely if it is The final regulations, however, provide these situations, the IRS and the perfected within the applicable time that Appeals will determine the Treasury Department anticipate that period. timeliness of CDP hearing requests. The Appeals will afford a face-to-face Currently, the practice of the IRS is to final regulations also add to the meeting to taxpayers who request one. contact taxpayers whose hearing proposed regulations that taxpayers Nonetheless, unanticipated requests fail to satisfy the requirements making an untimely request will be circumstances may arise in which specified by the existing regulations and provided the opportunity to have the granting a face-to-face conference will ask these taxpayers to perfect their request for CDP hearing treated as a not be appropriate. The final regulations requests within a specified period of request for equivalent hearing, without give Appeals the flexibility needed to time. The IRS considers requests submitting an additional request. respond to unanticipated circumstances. perfected within the time specified to be The comments requested that the final Adoption of the comment requesting timely. The intention of the IRS and the regulations give taxpayers whose guidance on when a face-to-face Treasury Department is to incorporate hearing requests might be construed as conference will not be granted is this administrative procedure into the making a frivolous argument the right to unnecessary. The final regulations proposed regulations. The final amend their hearing requests to raise retain descriptions of situations in regulations more clearly state that the relevant, non-frivolous issues. The which a face-to-face conference will not IRS will make a reasonable attempt to comments further recommended that all be granted, as illustrated in the contact taxpayers to give them a taxpayers be given the right to proposed regulations. Further guidance reasonable period of time to perfect supplement the hearing request prior to on granting face-to-face conferences will incomplete requests. However, the the conference conducted by Appeals. be provided in the Internal Revenue timeframe in which to respond to the These comments indicate concern Manual. request, and the method of delivery of that taxpayers may be unable to The comments suggested that a the request (i.e., orally or in writing) are articulate reasons for disagreeing with taxpayer who appears to be presenting more appropriately addressed in the the collection action that are satisfactory only frivolous reasons be given an Internal Revenue Manual. The final to Appeals. The reasons for disagreeing opportunity to provide relevant, non- regulations make clear that requests with the collection action need not be frivolous reasons in order to obtain a perfected within the time period detailed. To assist taxpayers in face-to-face conference. Adoption of this specified by the IRS will be considered articulating reasons, the IRS is revising recommendation is unnecessary. timely. Form 12153, ‘‘Request for a Collection Correspondence sent by Appeals to The final regulations do not adopt the Due Process Hearing,’’ to add examples taxpayers who make only frivolous suggestion to establish a period of time of the most common reasons taxpayers arguments invites them to submit

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60829

relevant, non-frivolous reasons. Appeals The final regulations provide in A–D8 conferences in the Appeals office closest offers face-to-face conferences to that Appeals in its discretion may grant to the taxpayer’s residence or principal taxpayers who respond by providing a face-to-face conference if Appeals place of business. The practice is such reasons. determines that a face-to-face retained in the final regulations. The comments also suggested that the conference is appropriate to explain to Appeals will, however, attempt to regulations define relevant and the taxpayer the requirements for accommodate reasonable requests to frivolous. The IRS and the Treasury becoming eligible for a collection hold the face-to-face conference at an Department believe that any attempt to alternative. The final regulations also Appeals office more convenient to the define these terms is unnecessary and provide that taxpayers will be given an taxpayer. could result in underinclusive opportunity to demonstrate they are The comments expressed concern that definitions. For example, the comments eligible for a collection alternative in the definition of prior involvement suggest that a frivolous issue be defined order to obtain a face-to-face conference under section 6320(b)(3) or 6330(b)(3) in as an issue that is the same or to discuss the alternative. Taxpayers the proposed regulations could be substantially similar to an issue will also be given an opportunity to construed too narrowly in two ways. identified as frivolous by the IRS in become eligible for a collection First, the definition of prior published guidance. It is not possible to alternative in order to obtain a face-to- involvement as involvement in a prior anticipate or keep pace with the face conference. For example, under the hearing or proceeding could be read to evolution of frivolous arguments final regulations, if a taxpayer appears exclude involvement in some informal through published guidance. Instead, to have failed to file all required returns settings, e.g., the Appeals officer’s taxpayers are advised to consult the lists (and thus appears not to be eligible for participation in a mediation session. In of examples of frivolous arguments in an offer to compromise or an order to clarify that no such limitation IRS Publication 2105, ‘‘Why Do I Have installment agreement), the taxpayer is intended, the final regulations to Pay Taxes’’ and on the IRS Web site will be given an opportunity to substitute matter for hearing or in a document entitled ‘‘The Truth demonstrate the inapplicability of the proceeding in A–D4 of paragraph (d)(2). about Frivolous Tax Arguments.’’ The filing requirements or to file delinquent Second, defining prior involvement to names and Web addresses of these returns, in order to obtain a face-to-face exist when the Appeals officer documents, and a toll-free number to conference. The final regulations further previously considered the same tax order Publication 2105, will be added to provide that a taxpayer’s eligibility for liability could be construed as the instructions to Form 12153 to help a collection alternative does not include excluding from the definition instances taxpayers avoid making these the taxpayer’s ability to pay the unpaid in which the Appeals officer previously arguments. tax. considered questions bearing only on The comments recommended The comments expressed concern that collection issues. The final regulations clarification of the proposed rule that a the amendment providing a face-to-face adopt the suggestion in the comments to face-to-face conference concerning a conference at an Appeals office other remove the word liability in A–D4 in collection alternative will not be granted than an office in which all officers or order to eliminate the potential unless the alternative would be employees had prior involvement could interpretation that there is a distinction available to other taxpayers in similar be construed as giving Appeals the between liability and collection issues circumstances. According to the discretion to deny a face-to-face in determining prior involvement. comments, a taxpayer should not be conference even if the taxpayer would denied a face-to-face conference because have been granted a face-to-face The comments also requested that a the requested collection alternative conference at the original location. The mediation example be added to cannot be accepted, for example, relevant sentence in A–D8 in the final paragraph (d)(3). The IRS and the because it appears from financial regulations has been rewritten to make Treasury Department believe that the information that the taxpayer can pay clear that Appeals does not have change made to A–D4 adequately the liabilities in full. This proposed rule discretion to deny a face-to-face clarifies the definition of prior was not intended to deny a face-to-face conference at an alternate location if the involvement. This example and others conference because the requested taxpayer would have been granted a will be added to the Internal Revenue collection alternative would not be face-to-face conference but for the Manual to ensure the proper accepted. The intention of this rule is to disqualification of the Appeals administration of sections 6320(b)(3) permit the denial of a face-to-face employees at the original location. and 6330(b)(3). conference to discuss a collection The comments suggested that the The comments recommended that the alternative for which the taxpayer is not regulations permit face-to-face regulations address the treatment of ex eligible. A lack of eligibility under IRS conferences to be held not only at the parte communications during CDP policy is tied to a taxpayer’s compliance Appeals office closest to the taxpayer’s hearings. The rules applicable to ex with the Federal tax laws, not to the residence or, for a business taxpayer, the parte communications during CDP taxpayer’s financial circumstances or taxpayer’s principal place of business, hearings and other Appeals proceedings ability to request the most appropriate but also at the Appeals office closest to are provided in Rev. Proc. 2000–43, alternative. For example, if the taxpayer the taxpayer’s school or place of 2000–43 I.R.B. 404. Therefore, these has not filed all required tax returns, the employment, the authorized rules are not duplicated in the taxpayer is not eligible for an offer to representative’s place of business, or regulations under sections 6320 and compromise or an installment some other location convenient to the 6330. agreement. taxpayer or the taxpayer’s The comments recommended that the In response to the concerns expressed representative. The IRS and Treasury regulations be amended to provide that in the comments, the final regulations Department believe the rules for CDP self-reported tax liabilities may be amplify the rule that a face-to-face hearings should be consistent with the disputed in a CDP hearing. The final conference to discuss a collection treatment of other proceedings in regulations adopt this recommendation. alternative will not be granted unless Appeals. The long-standing practice of See also Montgomery v. Commissioner, other taxpayers would be eligible for the Appeals in cases not docketed in the 122 T.C. 1 (2004), acq. 2005–51 I.R.B. alternative in similar circumstances. Tax Court is to grant face-to-face 1152.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60830 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

The comments also requested changes the liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B). administrative record should contain to in the existing regulations’ Appeals conferences to consider these ensure a record sufficient for judicial interpretation of preclusive events types of liabilities are rarely conditioned review. The final regulations have not under section 6330(c)(2)(B). Under upon an extension of the assessment been changed in this regard. The final section 6330(c)(2)(B), during a CDP statute of limitations. The IRS generally regulations, however, adopt the hearing, a taxpayer may challenge the makes conditional offers of a conference suggestion that the description of the existence or amount of the underlying only when a taxpayer makes an case file in A–D7 and in the definition tax liability for any tax period if the untimely request for review of a of administrative record in A–F6 of the person did not receive any statutory proposed Trust Fund Recovery Penalty proposed regulations (redesignated as notice of deficiency for such tax liability pursuant to a Letter 1153 and less than A–F4 in the final regulations) be made or did not otherwise have an one year remains on the assessment consistent. opportunity to dispute such tax liability. statute of limitations. In this The comments recommended that the According to the comments, the only circumstance, however, the opportunity final regulations require each Appeals opportunity to dispute the tax liability for an Appeals conference offered in the officer to include in the notice of that is sufficient to prevent the taxpayer Letter 1153 constitutes the opportunity determination a list of the documents from challenging the liability in a CDP to dispute the liability under section the Appeals officer believes are hearing is the prior opportunity to 6330(c)(2)(B). The conditional offer included in the administrative record. dispute the liability in a judicial forum. made after the expiration of the prior The justification for this proposed The IRS and the Treasury Department opportunity provided in the Letter 1153 requirement is that the list would assist believe that the existing regulations is irrelevant. For these reasons, the final the taxpayer in deciding whether to seek correctly include an opportunity for an regulations do not adopt this comment. judicial review. The list of documents, Appeals conference as a preclusive prior The comments objected to the according to the comments, will also opportunity. The text of section addition of a definition of assist the court and taxpayers seeking 6330(c)(2)(B) does not contain language administrative record to the regulations review to more efficiently ascertain limiting prior opportunities to judicial as an attempt to overrule the Tax Court’s whether there was an abuse of proceedings. Moreover, it is consistent decision in Robinette v. Commissioner, discretion. for a taxpayer who has had an 123 T.C. 85 (2004), rev’d, 439 F.3d 455 The final regulations do not adopt this opportunity to obtain a determination of (8th Cir. 2006). The assumption that recommendation. Requiring Appeals liability by Appeals in one Robinette eliminated any role for an officers to prepare a list of documents administrative hearing to be precluded administrative record in CDP court constituting the administrative record in from obtaining an Appeals proceedings is not supported by the each of the thousands of cases handled each year would impose a heavy burden determination in a subsequent CDP Court’s opinion. While the Tax Court on Appeals without a commensurate administrative hearing with respect to held in Robinette that it was not benefit to taxpayers. The notice of the same liability. This interpretation of required to limit its abuse-of-discretion determination issued in each case section 6330(c)(2)(B) has been upheld review to the administrative record, it describes the facts and reasons by the courts. See, e.g., Pelliccio v. did not reject the utility of an supporting the Appeals officer’s United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 258, administrative record. Subsequent to the determination and should provide an 261–62 (D. Conn. 2003). Accordingly, submission of the comments, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth adequate basis for the taxpayer’s the final regulations do not adopt this Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held decision whether to seek judicial suggestion. that abuse-of-discretion review in CDP review. Alternatively, the comments cases is limited to the administrative The IRS and the Treasury Department recommended that the regulations record. Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 acknowledge that disputes have arisen specify that a pre-CDP Appeals F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006). For these with respect to the contents of the conference is not a prior opportunity to reasons, it is important that taxpayers administrative record in CDP cases and dispute liability under section and the IRS have a common that there are no special rules in place 6330(c)(2)(B) if the receipt of the understanding of the scope of the to resolve these disputes. An conference was conditioned upon the administrative record. The definition is appropriate solution could involve the taxpayer’s agreement to extend the retained in the final regulations. Tax Court’s development of rules assessment statute of limitations with The comments suggested that the governing the preparation and respect to the liability and the taxpayer proposed definition of the submission of the administrative record declined to extend the statute. The IRS administrative record permits Appeals for abuse-of-discretion review, and Treasury Department believe this officers and employees to exclude from particularly now that the recently- addition is unnecessary. For taxes the record for judicial review issues, enacted Pension Protection Act of 2006 subject to deficiency procedures, the arguments, and evidence presented requires all CDP cases to be litigated in relevant, pre-assessment ‘‘prior orally by the taxpayer, and to exclude the Tax Court. opportunity’’ is the receipt of the notice written communications and The comments suggested removal of of deficiency. The offer of an Appeals documents. The administrative record the limitation in the existing regulations conference prior to receipt of the notice definition is not intended to suggest that that a taxpayer is precluded from of deficiency does not constitute an the reviewing court is not permitted to obtaining judicial review of an issue not opportunity to dispute the liability determine the contents of the raised with Appeals during the CDP under section 6330(c)(2)(B). This administrative record or the record’s hearing. As an alternative, the interpretation of section 6330(c)(2)(B) adequacy in an individual case. The comments recommended that a taxpayer has been added to paragraph (e)(3) A– reviewing court has the authority to only be prevented from raising those E2 to remove any uncertainty about this receive evidence concerning what issues the taxpayer could have, but matter. For liabilities not subject to happened during the CDP hearing. The failed to raise during the CDP hearing. deficiency procedures, the offer of an definition is provided to establish for The limitation in the existing Appeals conference prior to assessment the benefit of the IRS and taxpayers a regulations implements a basic constitutes an opportunity to dispute baseline description of what each principle of administrative law that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60831

those seeking review of an issue must The comments recommended that Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the first give the agency the opportunity to administrative rules similar to those Internal Revenue Code, the proposed evaluate and respond to the issue. This developed under section 6015 be added regulations were submitted to the Chief limitation has been upheld in the to the regulations. The regulations state Counsel for Advocacy of the Small courts. See Robinette v. Commissioner, that a spousal defense raised under Business Administration for comment 123 T.C. 85, 101–102 (2004), rev’d on section 66 or 6015 is governed by on its impact on small business. other grounds, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. section 66 or 6015 and the regulations 2006); Magana v. Commissioner, 118 and procedures thereunder. See Treas. Drafting Information T.C. 488, 493 (2002); Abu-Awad v. Reg. § 301.6330–1(e)(2). To the extent it The principal author of these United States, 294 F. Supp. 2d 879, 889 is determined that further guidance is regulations is Laurence K. Williams, (S.D. Tex. 2003). Accordingly, the final necessary, such guidance will be in the Office of Associate Chief Counsel, regulations do not adopt either of these form of additions to the Internal Procedure and Administration recommendations. Revenue Manual. The final regulations (Collection, Bankruptcy and The comments recommended that if do not adopt this recommendation. Summonses Division). the limitation on the taxpayer’s ability The final regulations include List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 to raise new issues during judicial amendments to the existing regulations review is retained, then the amendment to remove references to judicial review Employment taxes, Estate taxes, to A–F5 (redesignated as A–F3 in the by United States district courts. The Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, final regulations) should clarify that a Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping taxpayer need not provide the evidence Law 109–280, 120 Stat. 780, section 855 requirements. specified by Appeals with respect to an amended section 6330(d) to eliminate Adoption of Amendments to the issue in order to present ‘‘any evidence’’ the jurisdiction of the district courts to Regulations necessary to properly raise the issue. review notices of determination, leaving The IRS and the Treasury Department the Tax Court with sole jurisdiction. For I Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is believe this change is unnecessary. The this reason, Q&A–F3 and Q&A–F4 in the amended as follows: revision to A–F5 (redesignated as A–F3) existing regulations are removed by the does not suggest that the ‘‘any final regulations and Q&A–F5 and PART 301—PROCEDURE AND evidence’’ needed to avoid preclusion Q&A–F6 in the proposed regulations are ADMINISTRATION must be the evidence specified by redesignated as Q&A–F3 and Q&A–F4 I Paragraph 1. The authority citation Appeals. The revised language simply in the final regulations. In addition, for part 301 continues to read, in part, requires that the taxpayer submit some only the Tax Court is now mentioned in as follows: evidentiary support. This suggestion is A–E11, paragraph (f)(1), A–F1, not adopted in the final regulations. redesignated Q&A–F3 and Q&A–F4, Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * The comments also suggested adding Example 1 of paragraph (g)(3), Q&A–H2 I Par. 2. Section 301.6330–1 is that a taxpayer need not provide any and redesignated Q–I6. amended as follows: evidence to avoid preclusion if the case I Special Analyses 1. Paragraph (c)(2) A–C1, Q&A–C6 file already contains evidence with and A–C7 are revised. respect to that issue. This addition is It has been determined that this I 2. Paragraph (d)(2) A–D4 and A–D7 not necessary. If the case file contains Treasury decision is not a significant are revised. all the information needed for a regulatory action as defined in I 3. Paragraph (d)(2) Q&A–D8 is added. decision on an issue, an Appeals officer Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a I 4. Paragraph (d)(3) is added. will not request any additional evidence regulatory assessment is not required. It I 5. Paragraph (e)(1) is revised. and the revised language in A–F5 also has been determined that section I 6. Paragraph (e)(3) A–E2, A–E6, A–E7 (redesignated as A–F3 in the final 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure and A–E11 are revised. regulations) will not apply. In the Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply I 7. Paragraph (f)(1) is revised. unlikely event that an Appeals officer to these regulations. In particular, the I 8. Paragraph (f)(2) A–F1 is revised. making a determination on an issue IRS and the Treasury Department find I 9. Paragraph (f)(2) Q&A–F3 is requested information already in the for good cause that a notice of proposed removed. file, a reviewing court should find the rulemaking and solicitation of public I 10. Paragraph (f)(2) Q&A–F5 is revised taxpayer’s failure to provide any comments are unnecessary to amend the and redesignated Q&A–F3. I evidence does not prevent the issue existing regulations to implement the 11. Paragraph (f)(2) Q&A–F4 is modification of section 6330(d) by the revised. from being raised. The final regulations I do not adopt this recommendation. Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public 12. Paragraph (g)(3) Example 1 is The comments urged that the Law 109–280, 120 Stat. 780. These revised. I regulations make clear that the authority amendments are made solely to conform 13. Paragraph (h)(2) Q&A–H2 is revised. of Appeals officers to determine the the regulations to the statutory change I validity, sufficiency and timeliness of a enacted by Congress. The amendments 14. Paragraph (i)(2) Q–I5 is CDP notice does not alter or limit the do not involve any exercise of discretion redesignated Q–I6 and revised. I 15. Paragraph (i)(2) A–I5 is authority of the reviewing court to make or interpretation by the IRS or Treasury redesignated A–I6 the same determination. The IRS and Department and the removal of United I 16. Paragraph (i)(2) Q&A–I1 through the Treasury Department believe this States district court jurisdiction would Q&A–I4 are redesignated Q&A–I2 clarification is unnecessary. It is well- become effective even if the through Q&A–I5. settled that reviewing courts have the amendments were not made. I 17. Paragraph (i)(2) Q&A–I1 and authority to determine the validity, Accordingly, the notice and public Q&A–I7 through Q&A–I11 are added. sufficiency and timeliness of a CDP comment procedures do not apply. I 18. Paragraph (j) is revised. notice. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Because the regulations do not impose Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255 (2001). This a collection of information on small § 301.6330–1 Notice and opportunity for clarification is not adopted in the final entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act hearing prior to levy. regulations. (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. * * * * *

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60832 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

(c) * * * the CDP hearing request will be denied will ordinarily be offered an (2) * * * with respect to the non-signing opportunity for a face-to-face conference A–C1. (i) The taxpayer must make a taxpayer. at the Appeals office closest to request in writing for a CDP hearing. * * * * * taxpayer’s residence. A business The request for a CDP hearing shall Q–C6. Where must the written request taxpayer will ordinarily be offered an include the information and signature for a CDP hearing be sent? opportunity for a face-to-face conference specified in A–C1(ii) of this paragraph A–C6. The written request for a CDP at the Appeals office closest to the (c)(2). See A–D7 and A–D8 of paragraph hearing must be sent, or hand delivered taxpayer’s principal place of business. If (d)(2). (if permitted), to the IRS office and that is not satisfactory to the taxpayer, (ii) The written request for a CDP address as directed on the CDP Notice. the taxpayer will be given an hearing must be dated and must include If the address of that office does not opportunity for a hearing by telephone the following: appear on the CDP Notice, the taxpayer or by correspondence. In all cases, the (A) The taxpayer’s name, address, should obtain the address of the office Appeals officer or employee will review daytime telephone number (if any), and to which the written request should be the case file, as described in A–F4 of taxpayer identification number (e.g., sent or hand delivered by calling, toll- paragraph (f)(2). If no face-to-face or SSN, ITIN or EIN). free, 1–800–829–1040 and providing the telephonic conference is held, or other (B) The type of tax involved. taxpayer’s identification number (e.g., oral communication takes place, review (C) The tax period at issue. SSN, ITIN or EIN). of the documents in the case file, as (D) A statement that the taxpayer described in A–F4 of paragraph (f)(2), requests a hearing with Appeals * * * * * A–C7. If the taxpayer does not request will constitute the CDP hearing for concerning the proposed levy. purposes of section 6330(b). (E) The reason or reasons why the a CDP hearing in writing within the 30- day period that commences on the day Q–D8. In what circumstances will a taxpayer disagrees with the proposed face-to-face CDP conference not be levy. after the date of the CDP Notice, the taxpayer foregoes the right to a CDP granted? (F) The signature of the taxpayer or A–D8. A taxpayer is not entitled to a hearing under section 6330 with respect the taxpayer’s authorized representative. face-to-face CDP conference at a location to the unpaid tax and tax periods shown (iii) If the IRS receives a timely other than as provided in A–D7 of this written request for CDP hearing that on the CDP Notice. A written request paragraph (d)(2) and this A–D8. If all does not satisfy the requirements set submitted within the 30-day period that Appeals officers or employees at the forth in A–C1(ii) of this paragraph (c)(2), does not satisfy the requirements set location provided for in A–D7 of this the IRS will make a reasonable attempt forth in A–C1(ii)(A), (B), (C), (D) or (F) paragraph (d)(2) have had prior to contact the taxpayer and request that of this paragraph (c)(2) is considered involvement with the taxpayer as the taxpayer comply with the timely if the request is perfected within provided in A–D4 of this paragraph unsatisfied requirements. The taxpayer a reasonable period of time pursuant to (d)(2), the taxpayer will not be offered must perfect any timely written request A–C1(iii) of this paragraph (c)(2). If the a face-to-face conference at that for a CDP hearing that does not satisfy request for CDP hearing is untimely, location, unless the taxpayer elects to the requirements set forth in A–C1(ii) of either because the request was not waive the requirement of section this paragraph (c)(2) within a reasonable submitted within the 30-day period or 6330(b)(3). The taxpayer will be offered period of time after a request from the not perfected within the reasonable a face-to-face conference at another IRS. period provided, the taxpayer will be Appeals office if Appeals would have (iv) Taxpayers are encouraged to use notified of the untimeliness of the offered the taxpayer a face-to-face Form 12153, ‘‘Request for a Collection request and offered an equivalent conference at the location provided in Due Process Hearing,’’ in requesting a hearing. In such cases, the taxpayer may A–D7 of this paragraph (d)(2), but for CDP hearing so that the request can be obtain an equivalent hearing without the disqualification of all Appeals readily identified and forwarded to submitting an additional request. See officers or employees at that location. A Appeals. Taxpayers may obtain a copy paragraph (i) of this section. face-to-face CDP conference concerning of Form 12153 by contacting the IRS * * * * * a taxpayer’s underlying liability will not office that issued the CDP Notice, by (d) * * * be granted if the request for a hearing or downloading a copy from the IRS (2) * * * other taxpayer communication indicates Internet site, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- A–D4. Prior involvement by an that the taxpayer wishes only to raise pdf/f12153.pdf, or by calling, toll-free, Appeals officer or employee includes irrelevant or frivolous issues concerning 1–800–829–3676. participation or involvement in a matter that liability. A face-to-face CDP (v) The taxpayer must affirm any (other than a CDP hearing held under conference concerning a collection timely written request for a CDP hearing either section 6320 or section 6330) that alternative, such as an installment which is signed or alleged to have been the taxpayer may have had with respect agreement or an offer to compromise signed on the taxpayer’s behalf by the to the tax and tax period shown on the liability, will not be granted unless taxpayer’s spouse or other unauthorized CDP Notice. Prior involvement exists other taxpayers would be eligible for the representative by filing, within a only when the taxpayer, the tax and the alternative in similar circumstances. For reasonable period of time after a request tax period at issue in the CDP hearing example, because the IRS does not from the IRS, a signed, written also were at issue in the prior non-CDP consider offers to compromise from affirmation that the request was matter, and the Appeals officer or taxpayers who have not filed required originally submitted on the taxpayer’s employee actually participated in the returns or have not made certain behalf. If the affirmation is filed within prior matter. required deposits of tax, as set forth in a reasonable period of time after a * * * * * Form 656, ‘‘Offer in Compromise,’’ no request, the timely CDP hearing request A–D7. Except as provided in A–D8 of face-to-face conference will be granted will be considered timely with respect this paragraph (d)(2), a taxpayer who to a taxpayer who wishes to make an to the non-signing taxpayer. If the presents in the CDP hearing request offer to compromise but has not fulfilled affirmation is not filed within a relevant, non-frivolous reasons for those obligations. Appeals in its reasonable period of time after a request, disagreement with the proposed levy discretion, however, may grant a face-to-

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60833

face conference if Appeals determines involving the employment taxes of business notice of deficiency for such liability or that a face-to-face conference is entity X, which incurred the employment tax did not otherwise have an opportunity appropriate to explain to the taxpayer liability to which the TFRP assessed against to dispute such liability. Receipt of a the requirements for becoming eligible individual E relates. Appeals employee F statutory notice of deficiency for this would not be considered to have prior purpose means receipt in time to for a collection alternative. In all cases, involvement because the prior CAP hearings a taxpayer will be given an opportunity in which he participated did not directly petition the Tax Court for a to demonstrate eligibility for a involve the TFRP assessed against individual redetermination of the deficiency collection alternative and to become E. determined in the notice of deficiency. eligible for a collection alternative, in Example 5. Appeals employee G is An opportunity to dispute the order to obtain a face-to-face conference. assigned to a CDP hearing concerning a underlying liability includes a prior For purposes of determining whether a proposed levy for a TFRP assessed pursuant opportunity for a conference with face-to-face conference will be granted, to section 6672 against individual H. In Appeals that was offered either before or the determination of a taxpayer’s preparing for the CDP hearing, Appeals after the assessment of the liability. An employee G reviews the Appeals case file opportunity for a conference with eligibility for a collection alternative is concerning the prior CAP hearing involving made without regard to the taxpayer’s the TFRP assessed pursuant to section 6672 Appeals prior to the assessment of a tax ability to pay the unpaid tax. A face-to- against individual H. Appeals employee G is subject to deficiency procedures is not face conference need not be granted if not deemed to have participated in the a prior opportunity for this purpose. the taxpayer does not provide the previous CAP hearing involving the TFRP * * * * * required information set forth in A– assessed against individual H by such A–E6. Collection alternatives include, C1(ii)(E) of paragraph (c)(2). See also A– review. for example, a proposal to withhold the C1(iii) of paragraph (c)(2). (e) Matters considered at CDP proposed levy or future collection (3) Examples. The following examples hearing—(1) In general. Appeals will action in circumstances that will illustrate the principles of this determine the timeliness of any request facilitate the collection of the tax paragraph (d): for a CDP hearing that is made by a liability, an installment agreement, an Example 1. Individual A timely requests a taxpayer. Appeals has the authority to offer to compromise, the posting of a CDP hearing concerning a proposed levy for determine the validity, sufficiency, and bond, or the substitution of other assets. the 1998 income tax liability assessed against timeliness of any CDP Notice given by A collection alternative is not available individual A. Appeals employee B the IRS and of any request for a CDP unless the alternative would be previously conducted a CDP hearing hearing that is made by a taxpayer. Prior available to other taxpayers in similar regarding a NFTL filed with respect to to issuance of a determination, Appeals circumstances. See A–D8 of paragraph individual A’s 1998 income tax liability. (d)(2). Because employee B’s only prior is required to obtain verification from involvement with individual A’s 1998 the IRS office collecting the tax that the * * * * * income tax liability was in connection with requirements of any applicable law or A–E7. The taxpayer may raise a section 6320 CDP hearing, employee B may administrative procedure with respect appropriate spousal defenses, conduct the CDP hearing under section 6330 to the proposed levy have been met. The challenges to the appropriateness of the involving the proposed levy for the 1998 taxpayer may raise any relevant issue proposed collection action, and offers of income tax liability. relating to the unpaid tax at the hearing, collection alternatives. The existence or Example 2. Individual C timely requests a including appropriate spousal defenses, amount of the underlying liability for CDP hearing concerning a proposed levy for the 1998 income tax liability assessed against challenges to the appropriateness of the any tax period specified in the CDP individual C. Appeals employee D previously proposed levy, and offers of collection Notice may be challenged only if the conducted a Collection Appeals Program alternatives. The taxpayer also may raise taxpayer did not have a prior (CAP) hearing regarding a NFTL filed with challenges to the existence or amount of opportunity to dispute the tax liability. respect to individual C’s 1998 income tax the underlying liability, including a If the taxpayer previously received a liability. Because employee D’s prior liability reported on a self-filed return, CDP Notice under section 6320 with involvement with individual C’s 1998 for any tax period specified on the CDP respect to the same tax and tax period income tax liability was in connection with Notice if the taxpayer did not receive a and did not request a CDP hearing with a non-CDP hearing, employee D may not conduct the CDP hearing under section 6330 statutory notice of deficiency for that tax respect to that earlier CDP Notice, the unless individual C waives the requirement liability or did not otherwise have an taxpayer had a prior opportunity to that the hearing will be conducted by an opportunity to dispute the tax liability. dispute the existence or amount of the Appeals officer or employee who has had no Finally, the taxpayer may not raise an underlying tax liability. prior involvement with respect to individual issue that was raised and considered at * * * * * C’s 1998 income tax liability. a previous CDP hearing under section A–E11. No. An Appeals officer may Example 3. Same facts as in Example 2, 6320 or in any other previous consider the existence and amount of except that the prior CAP hearing only administrative or judicial proceeding if the underlying tax liability as a part of involved individual C’s 1997 income tax the taxpayer participated meaningfully liability and employment tax liabilities for the CDP hearing only if the taxpayer did 1998 reported on Form 941, ‘‘Employer’s in such hearing or proceeding. not receive a statutory notice of Quarterly Federal Tax Return.’’ Employee D Taxpayers will be expected to provide deficiency for the tax liability in would not be considered to have prior all relevant information requested by question or otherwise have a prior involvement because the prior CAP hearing Appeals, including financial statements, opportunity to dispute the tax liability. in which she participated did not involve for its consideration of the facts and Similarly, an Appeals officer may not individual C’s 1998 income tax liability. issues involved in the hearing. consider any other issue if the issue was Example 4. Appeals employee F is * * * * * raised and considered at a previous assigned to a CDP hearing concerning a (3) * * * hearing under section 6320 or in any proposed levy for a trust fund recovery penalty (TFRP) assessed pursuant to section A–E2. A taxpayer is entitled to other previous administrative or judicial 6672 against individual E. Appeals employee challenge the existence or amount of the proceeding in which the person seeking F participated in a prior CAP hearing underlying liability for any tax period to raise the issue meaningfully involving individual E’s 1999 income tax specified on the CDP Notice if the participated. In the Appeals officer’s liability, and participated in a CAP hearing taxpayer did not receive a statutory sole discretion, however, the Appeals

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60834 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

officer may consider the existence or A–F4. The case file, including the (D) A statement that the taxpayer is amount of the underlying tax liability, taxpayer’s request for hearing, any other requesting an equivalent hearing with or such other precluded issues, at the written communications and Appeals concerning the levy. same time as the CDP hearing. Any information from the taxpayer or the (E) The reason or reasons why the determination, however, made by the taxpayer’s authorized representative taxpayer disagrees with the proposed Appeals officer with respect to such a submitted in connection with the CDP levy. precluded issue shall not be treated as hearing, notes made by an Appeals (F) The signature of the taxpayer or part of the Notice of Determination officer or employee of any oral the taxpayer’s authorized representative. issued by the Appeals officer and will communications with the taxpayer or (iii) The taxpayer must perfect any not be subject to any judicial review. the taxpayer’s authorized representative, timely written request for an equivalent Because any decisions made by the memoranda created by the Appeals hearing that does not satisfy the Appeals officer on such precluded officer or employee in connection with requirements set forth in A–I1(ii) of this issues are not properly a part of the CDP the CDP hearing, and any other paragraph (i)(2) within a reasonable hearing, such decisions are not required documents or materials relied upon by period of time after a request from the to appear in the Notice of Determination the Appeals officer or employee in IRS. If the requirements are not satisfied issued following the hearing. Even if a making the determination under section within a reasonable period of time, the decision concerning such precluded 6330(c)(3), will constitute the record in taxpayer’s equivalent hearing request issues is referred to in the Notice of the Tax Court review of the Notice of will be denied. Determination, it is not reviewable by Determination issued by Appeals. (iv) The taxpayer must affirm any the Tax Court because the precluded (g) * * * timely written request for an equivalent issue is not properly part of the CDP (3) * * * hearing that is signed or alleged to have hearing. Example 1. The period of limitation under been signed on the taxpayer’s behalf by * * * * * section 6502 with respect to the taxpayer’s the taxpayer’s spouse or other unauthorized representative, and that (f) Judicial review of Notice of tax period listed in the CDP Notice will expire on August 1, 1999. The IRS sent a CDP otherwise meets the requirements set Determination—(1) In general. Unless Notice to the taxpayer on April 30, 1999. The forth in A–I1(ii) of this paragraph (i)(2), the taxpayer provides the IRS a written taxpayer timely requested a CDP hearing. The by filing, within a reasonable period of withdrawal of the request that Appeals IRS received this request on May 15, 1999. time after a request from the IRS, a conduct a CDP hearing, Appeals is Appeals sends the taxpayer its determination signed written affirmation that the required to issue a Notice of on June 15, 1999. The taxpayer timely seeks request was originally submitted on the Determination in all cases where a judicial review of that determination. The taxpayer’s behalf. If the affirmation is taxpayer has timely requested a CDP period of limitation under section 6502 filed within a reasonable period of time hearing. The taxpayer may appeal such would be suspended from May 15, 1999, after a request, the timely equivalent determinations made by Appeals within until the determination resulting from that hearing becomes final by expiration of the hearing request will be considered the 30-day period commencing the day time for seeking review or reconsideration timely with respect to the non-signing after the date of the Notice of before the Tax Court, plus 90 days. taxpayer. If the affirmation is not filed Determination to the Tax Court. * * * * * within a reasonable period of time, the (2) * * * (h) * * * equivalent hearing request will be A–F1. Subject to the jurisdictional (2) * * * denied with respect to the non-signing limitations described in A–F2 of this Q–H2. Is a decision of Appeals taxpayer. paragraph (f)(2), the taxpayer must, resulting from a retained jurisdiction * * * * * within the 30-day period commencing hearing appealable to the Tax Court? Q–I6. Will a taxpayer be able to obtain the day after the date of the Notice of A–H2. No. As discussed in A–H1, a Tax Court review of a decision made by Determination, appeal the taxpayer is entitled to only one CDP Appeals with respect to an equivalent determination by Appeals to the Tax hearing under section 6330 with respect hearing? Court. to the tax and tax period or periods * * * * * * * * * * specified in the CDP Notice. Only determinations resulting from CDP Q–I7. When must a taxpayer request Q–F3. What issue or issues may the an equivalent hearing with respect to a taxpayer raise before the Tax Court if hearings are appealable to the Tax Court. CDP Notice issued under section 6330? the taxpayer disagrees with the Notice A–I7. A taxpayer must submit a of Determination? (i) * * * (2) * * * written request for an equivalent A–F3. In seeking Tax Court review of Q–I1. What must a taxpayer do to hearing within the one-year period a Notice of Determination, the taxpayer obtain an equivalent hearing? commencing the day after the date of can only ask the court to consider an A–I1. (i) A request for an equivalent the CDP Notice issued under section issue, including a challenge to the hearing must be made in writing. A 6330. This period is slightly different underlying tax liability, that was written request in any form that requests from the period for submitting a written properly raised in the taxpayer’s CDP an equivalent hearing will be acceptable request for an equivalent hearing with hearing. An issue is not properly raised if it includes the information and respect to a CDP Notice issued under if the taxpayer fails to request signature required in A–I1(ii) of this section 6320. For a CDP Notice issued consideration of the issue by Appeals, paragraph (i)(2). under section 6320, a taxpayer must or if consideration is requested but the (ii) The request must be dated and submit a written request for an taxpayer fails to present to Appeals any must include the following: equivalent hearing within the one-year evidence with respect to that issue after (A) The taxpayer’s name, address, period commencing the day after the being given a reasonable opportunity to daytime telephone number (if any), and end of the five-business-day period present such evidence. taxpayer identification number (e.g., following the filing of the NFTL. Q–F4. What is the administrative SSN, ITIN or EIN). Q–I8. How will the timeliness of a record for purposes of Tax Court (B) The type of tax involved. taxpayer’s written request for an review? (C) The tax period at issue. equivalent hearing be determined?

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60835

A–I8. The rules and regulations under (j) Effective date. This section is a NFTL. Final regulations (TD 8979) section 7502 and section 7503 will applicable on or after November 16, were published on January 18, 2002, in apply to determine the timeliness of the 2006 with respect to requests made for the Federal Register (67 FR 2558) (the taxpayer’s request for an equivalent CDP hearings or equivalent hearings on 2002 final regulations). The 2002 final hearing, if properly transmitted and or after November 16, 2006. regulations implemented certain addressed as provided in A–I10 of this changes made by section 3401 of the Mark E. Matthews, paragraph (i)(2). Internal Revenue Service Restructuring Q–I9. Is the one-year period within Deputy Commissioner for Services and and Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105– Enforcement. which a taxpayer must make a request 206, 112 Stat. 685)(RRA 1998), for an equivalent hearing extended Approved: October 6, 2006. including the addition of section 6320 because the taxpayer resides outside the Eric Solomon, to the Internal Revenue Code. United States? Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Section 3401 of RRA 1998 also added A–I9. No. All taxpayers who want an Treasury (Tax Policy). section 6330 to the Internal Revenue equivalent hearing must request the [FR Doc. E6–17133 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Code. That statute provides for notice to taxpayers of a right to a hearing before hearing within the one-year period BILLING CODE 4830–01–P commencing the day after the date of or, in limited cases, after levy. A the CDP Notice issued under section number of the provisions in section 6330. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 6330 concerning the conduct and Q–I10. Where must the written judicial review of a CDP hearing are request for an equivalent hearing be Internal Revenue Service incorporated by reference in section sent? 6320. On January 18, 2002, final A–I10. The written request for an 26 CFR Part 301 regulations (TD 8980) under section 6330 were published in the Federal equivalent hearing must be sent, or [TD 9290] hand delivered (if permitted), to the IRS Register (67 FR 2549) along with the office and address as directed on the RIN 1545–BB96 2002 final regulations under section 6320. CDP Notice. If the address of the issuing Miscellaneous Changes to Collection On September 16, 2005, the IRS and office does not appear on the CDP Due Process Procedures Relating to the Treasury Department published in Notice, the taxpayer should obtain the Notice and Opportunity for Hearing the Federal Register (70 FR 54681) a address of the office to which the Upon Filing of Notice of Federal Tax notice of proposed rulemaking and written request should be sent or hand Lien notice of public hearing (REG–150088– delivered by calling, toll-free, 1–800– 02). The IRS received one set of written 829–1040 and providing the taxpayer’s AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), comments responding to the notice of identification number (e.g., SSN, ITIN or Treasury. proposed rulemaking. Because no one EIN). ACTION: Final regulations. requested to speak at the public hearing, Q–I11. What will happen if the the hearing was cancelled. After SUMMARY: This document contains final taxpayer does not request an equivalent considering each of the comments, the regulations amending the regulations hearing in writing within the one-year proposed regulations are adopted as relating to a taxpayer’s right to a hearing period commencing the day after the amended by this Treasury decision. date of the CDP Notice issued under under section 6320 of the Internal On August 17, 2006, the Pension section 6330? Revenue Code of 1986 after the filing of Protection Act of 2006, Public Law 109– A–I11. If the taxpayer does not a notice of Federal tax lien (NFTL). The 280, 120 Stat. 780 (the PPA), was request an equivalent hearing with final regulations make certain clarifying enacted. Section 855 of the PPA Appeals within the one-year period changes in the way collection due amended section 6330(d) of the Internal commencing the day after the date of process (CDP) hearings are held and Revenue Code to withdraw judicial the CDP Notice issued under section specify the period during which a review of CDP notices of determination 6330, the taxpayer foregoes the right to taxpayer may request an equivalent from United States district court an equivalent hearing with respect to hearing. The final regulations affect jurisdiction, leaving review solely in the the unpaid tax and tax periods shown taxpayers against whose property or United States Tax Court. Section on the CDP Notice. A written request rights to property the Internal Revenue 6330(d) is made applicable to section submitted within the one-year period Service (IRS) files a NFTL. 6320 hearings by section 6320(c). The that does not satisfy the requirements DATES: Effective Date: These regulations amendment to section 6330(d), effective set forth in A–I1(ii) of this paragraph are effective on November 16, 2006. for notices of determination issued on or (i)(2) is considered timely if the request Applicability Date: These regulations after October 17, 2006, requires the is perfected within a reasonable period apply to requests for CDP or equivalent removal of references to district court of time pursuant to A–I1(iii) of this hearings on or after November 16, 2006. review in the 2002 final regulations. paragraph (i)(2). If a request for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This Treasury decision removes those equivalent hearing is untimely, either Laurence K. Williams, 202–622–3600 references. because the request was not submitted (not a toll-free number). The IRS and the Treasury Department within the one-year period or not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: have determined that a notice of perfected within the reasonable period proposed rulemaking and solicitation of provided, the equivalent hearing request Background public comments are not required to will be denied. The taxpayer, however, This document contains amendments amend the regulations to implement the may seek reconsideration by the IRS to the Regulations on Procedure and modification to section 6330(d). These office collecting the tax, assistance from Administration (26 CFR part 301) amendments are made solely to conform the National Taxpayer Advocate, or an relating to the provision of notice under the regulations to a statutory change administrative hearing before Appeals section 6320 of the Internal Revenue enacted by Congress. Because the under its Collection Appeals Program or Code to taxpayers of a right to a CDP amendments do not involve any any successor program. hearing (CDP Notice) after the IRS files exercise of discretion or interpretation,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60836 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the notice and public comment request has expired, if the taxpayer can presents a relevant, non-frivolous reason procedures are unnecessary. demonstrate that such amendment for disagreement with the collection The comments and changes to the furthers an alternative to collection. action. If this recommendation is not proposed regulations, and the This change to the regulations is adopted, the comments suggest that the amendments required by the unnecessary because Appeals is already regulations address and provide Congressional modification to section empowered to exercise this discretion. examples of when a face-to-face 6330(d), are discussed below. Neither the current regulations nor the conference will not be granted. The final Summary of Comments and proposed amendments limits Appeals regulations do not adopt the Explanation of Changes from exercising this discretion. recommendation to guarantee a face-to- Accordingly, the final regulations do not face conference for each taxpayer raising The comments suggested that the IRS adopt this recommendation. Further a relevant, non-frivolous issue. The IRS be required to contact taxpayers who clarification, however, will be provided and the Treasury Department agree with timely file an incomplete request for in the Internal Revenue Manual. the comments that a face-to-face CDP hearing to give them the The comments suggested that where a conference can be a useful forum for opportunity to perfect the request taxpayer fails to perfect a CDP hearing resolving a taxpayer’s issues. The final within a reasonable time period and request until after the time period regulations recognize the importance of further recommended that such contact specified by the IRS, the perfected a face-to-face meeting by providing that be in writing and identify the infirmity request should be automatically treated taxpayers will ordinarily be offered an requiring perfection. The comments also as a request for an equivalent hearing. opportunity for a face-to-face recommended that the final regulations Treating untimely perfected requests as conference. There will be instances, establish a specific time period during equivalent hearing requests may unduly however, when a face-to-face conference which taxpayers may, by right, amend prolong the process in cases in which a is not practical. The final regulations or perfect their previously-filed yet taxpayer does not want an equivalent identify typical situations in which a incomplete CDP hearing request. The hearing. Accordingly, the final face-to-face conference will be neither request, according to the comments, regulations do not adopt this suggestion. necessary nor productive. Except for should be considered timely if it is The final regulations, however, provide these situations, the IRS and the perfected within the applicable time that Appeals will determine the Treasury Department anticipate that period. timeliness of CDP hearing requests. The Appeals will afford a face-to-face Currently, the practice of the IRS is to final regulations also add to the meeting to taxpayers who request one. contact taxpayers whose hearing proposed regulations that taxpayers Nonetheless, unanticipated requests fail to satisfy the requirements making an untimely request will be circumstances may arise in which specified by the existing regulations and provided the opportunity to have the granting a face-to-face conference will ask these taxpayers to perfect their request for CDP hearing treated as a not be appropriate. The final regulations requests within a specified period of request for equivalent hearing, without give Appeals the flexibility needed to time. The IRS considers requests submitting an additional request. respond to unanticipated circumstances. perfected within the time specified to be The comments requested that the final Adoption of the comment requesting timely. The intention of the IRS and the regulations give taxpayers whose guidance on when a face-to-face Treasury Department is to incorporate hearing requests might be construed as conference will not be granted is this administrative procedure into the making a frivolous argument the right to unnecessary. The final regulations proposed regulations. The final amend their hearing requests to raise retain descriptions of situations in regulations more clearly state that the relevant, non-frivolous issues. The which a face-to-face conference will not IRS will make a reasonable attempt to comments further recommended that all be granted, as illustrated in the contact taxpayers to give them a taxpayers be given the right to proposed regulations. Further guidance reasonable period of time to perfect supplement the hearing request prior to on granting face-to-face conferences will incomplete requests. However, the the conference conducted by Appeals. be provided in the Internal Revenue timeframe in which to respond to the These comments indicate concern Manual. request, and the method of delivery of that taxpayers may be unable to The comments suggested that a the request (i.e., orally or in writing) are articulate reasons for disagreeing with taxpayer who appears to be presenting more appropriately addressed in the the collection action that are satisfactory only frivolous reasons be given an Internal Revenue Manual. The final to Appeals. The reasons for disagreeing opportunity to provide relevant, non- regulations make clear that requests with the collection action need not be frivolous reasons in order to obtain a perfected within the time period detailed. To assist taxpayers in face-to-face conference. Adoption of this specified by the IRS will be considered articulating reasons, the IRS is revising recommendation is unnecessary. timely. Form 12153, ‘‘Request for a Collection Correspondence sent by Appeals to The final regulations do not adopt the Due Process Hearing,’’ to add examples taxpayers who make only frivolous suggestion to establish a period of time of the most common reasons taxpayers arguments invites them to submit during which a taxpayer is allowed to give for requesting a hearing, including relevant, non-frivolous reasons. Appeals perfect an incomplete request, without requests for collection alternatives. In offers face-to-face conferences to regard to a perfection request from the any event, the informal nature of the taxpayers who respond by providing IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department CDP hearing permits taxpayers and such reasons. believe that the procedure incorporated Appeals to discuss collection The comments also suggested that the into the final regulations is sufficient to alternatives and issues not listed in the regulations define relevant and permit taxpayers to ensure their hearing request if such discussion will frivolous. The IRS and the Treasury requests are complete. help resolve the case. Accordingly, the Department believe that any attempt to The comments recommended that the final regulations do not adopt these define these terms is unnecessary and IRS Office of Appeals (Appeals) be recommendations. could result in underinclusive given the discretion to permit a taxpayer The comments urged that the final definitions. For example, the comments to amend an imperfect hearing request regulations guarantee a face-to-face suggest that a frivolous issue be defined after the period for perfecting the conference for each taxpayer who as an issue that is the same or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60837

substantially similar to an issue will also be given an opportunity to construed too narrowly in two ways. identified as frivolous by the IRS in become eligible for a collection First, the definition of prior published guidance. It is not possible to alternative in order to obtain a face-to- involvement as involvement in a prior anticipate or keep pace with the face conference. For example, under the hearing or proceeding could be read to evolution of frivolous arguments final regulations, if a taxpayer appears exclude involvement in some informal through published guidance. Instead, to have failed to file all required returns settings, e.g., the Appeals officer’s taxpayers are advised to consult the lists (and thus appears not to be eligible for participation in a mediation session. In of examples of frivolous arguments in an offer to compromise or an order to clarify that no such limitation IRS Publication 2105, ‘‘Why Do I Have installment agreement), the taxpayer is intended, the final regulations to Pay Taxes’’ and on the IRS Web site will be given an opportunity to substitute matter for hearing or in a document entitled ‘‘The Truth demonstrate the inapplicability of the proceeding in A–D4 of paragraph (d)(2). about Frivolous Tax Arguments.’’ The filing requirements or to file delinquent Second, defining prior involvement to names and web addresses of these returns, in order to obtain a face-to-face exist when the Appeals officer documents, and a toll-free number to conference. The final regulations further previously considered the same tax order Publication 2105, will be added to provide that a taxpayer’s eligibility for liability could be construed as the instructions to Form 12153 to help a collection alternative does not include excluding from the definition instances taxpayers avoid making these the taxpayer’s ability to pay the unpaid in which the Appeals officer previously arguments. tax. considered questions bearing only on The comments recommended The comments expressed concern that collection issues. The final regulations clarification of the proposed rule that a the amendment providing a face-to-face adopt the suggestion in the comments to face-to-face conference concerning a conference at an Appeals office other remove the word liability in A–D4 in collection alternative will not be granted than an office in which all officers or order to eliminate the potential unless the alternative would be employees had prior involvement could interpretation that there is a distinction available to other taxpayers in similar be construed as giving Appeals the between liability and collection issues circumstances. According to the discretion to deny a face-to-face in determining prior involvement. comments, a taxpayer should not be conference even if the taxpayer would The comments also requested that a denied a face-to-face conference because have been granted a face-to-face mediation example be added to the requested collection alternative conference at the original location. The paragraph (d)(3). The IRS and the cannot be accepted, for example, relevant sentence in A–D8 in the final Treasury Department believe that the because it appears from financial regulations has been rewritten to make change made to A–D4 adequately information that the taxpayer can pay clear that Appeals does not have clarifies the definition of prior the liabilities in full. This proposed rule discretion to deny a face-to-face involvement. This example and others was not intended to deny a face-to-face conference at an alternate location if the will be added to the Internal Revenue conference because the requested taxpayer would have been granted a Manual to ensure the proper collection alternative would not be face-to-face conference but for the administration of sections 6320(b)(3) accepted. The intention of this rule is to disqualification of the Appeals and 6330(b)(3). permit the denial of a face-to-face employees at the original location. The comments recommended that the conference to discuss a collection The comments suggested that the regulations address the treatment of ex alternative for which the taxpayer is not regulations permit face-to-face parte communications during CDP eligible. A lack of eligibility under IRS conferences to be held not only at the hearings. The rules applicable to ex policy is tied to a taxpayer’s compliance Appeals office closest to the taxpayer’s parte communications during CDP with the Federal tax laws, not to the residence or, for a business taxpayer, the hearings and other Appeals proceedings taxpayer’s financial circumstances or taxpayer’s principal place of business, are provided in Rev. Proc. 2000–43, ability to request the most appropriate but also at the Appeals office closest to 2000–43 I.R.B. 404. Therefore, these alternative. For example, if the taxpayer the taxpayer’s school or place of rules are not duplicated in the has not filed all required tax returns, the employment, the authorized regulations under sections 6320 and taxpayer is not eligible for an offer to representative’s place of business, or 6330. compromise or an installment some other location convenient to the The comments recommended that the agreement. taxpayer or the taxpayer’s regulations be amended to provide that In response to the concerns expressed representative. The IRS and Treasury self-reported tax liabilities may be in the comments, the final regulations Department believe the rules for CDP disputed in a CDP hearing. The final amplify the rule that a face-to-face hearings should be consistent with the regulations adopt this recommendation. conference to discuss a collection treatment of other proceedings in See also Montgomery v. Commissioner, alternative will not be granted unless Appeals. The longstanding practice of 122 T.C. 1 (2004), acq. 2005–51 I.R.B. other taxpayers would be eligible for the Appeals in cases not docketed in the 1152. alternative in similar circumstances. Tax Court is to grant face-to-face The comments also requested changes The final regulations provide in A–D8 conferences in the Appeals office closest in the existing regulations’ that Appeals in its discretion may grant to the taxpayer’s residence or principal interpretation of preclusive events a face-to-face conference if Appeals place of business. The practice is under section 6330(c)(2)(B). Under determines that a face-to-face retained in the final regulations. section 6330(c)(2)(B), during a CDP conference is appropriate to explain to Appeals will, however, attempt to hearing, a taxpayer may challenge the the taxpayer the requirements for accommodate reasonable requests to existence or amount of the underlying becoming eligible for a collection hold the face-to-face conference at an tax liability for any tax period if the alternative. The final regulations also Appeals office more convenient to the person did not receive any statutory provide that taxpayers will be given an taxpayer. notice of deficiency for such tax liability opportunity to demonstrate they are The comments expressed concern that or did not otherwise have an eligible for a collection alternative in the definition of prior involvement opportunity to dispute such tax liability. order to obtain a face-to-face conference under section 6320(b)(3) or 6330(b)(3) in Section 6330(c)(2)(B) is made applicable to discuss the alternative. Taxpayers the proposed regulations could be to section 6320 hearings by section

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60838 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

6320(c). According to the comments, the circumstance, however, the opportunity The comments recommended that the only opportunity to dispute the tax for an Appeals conference offered in the final regulations require each Appeals liability that is sufficient to prevent the Letter 1153 constitutes the opportunity officer to include in the notice of taxpayer from challenging the liability to dispute the liability under section determination a list of the documents in a CDP hearing is the prior 6330(c)(2)(B). The conditional offer the Appeals officer believes are opportunity to dispute the liability in a made after the expiration of the prior included in the administrative record. judicial forum. The IRS and the opportunity provided in the Letter 1153 The justification for this proposed Treasury Department believe that the is irrelevant. For these reasons, the final requirement is that the list would assist existing regulations correctly include an regulations do not adopt this comment. the taxpayer in deciding whether to seek opportunity for an Appeals conference The comments objected to the judicial review. The list of documents, as a preclusive prior opportunity. The addition of a definition of according to the comments, will also text of section 6330(c)(2)(B) does not administrative record to the regulations assist the court and taxpayers seeking contain language limiting prior as an attempt to overrule the Tax Court’s review to more efficiently ascertain opportunities to judicial proceedings. decision in Robinette v. Commissioner, whether there was an abuse of Moreover, it is consistent for a taxpayer 123 T.C. 85 (2004), rev’d, 439 F.3d 455 discretion. who has had an opportunity to obtain a (8th Cir. 2006). The assumption that The final regulations do not adopt this determination of liability by Appeals in Robinette eliminated any role for an recommendation. Requiring Appeals one administrative hearing to be administrative record in CDP court officers to prepare a list of documents precluded from obtaining an Appeals proceedings is not supported by the constituting the administrative record in determination in a subsequent CDP Court’s opinion. While the Tax Court each of the thousands of cases handled administrative hearing with respect to held in Robinette that it was not each year would impose a heavy burden the same liability. This interpretation of required to limit its abuse-of-discretion on Appeals without a commensurate section 6330(c)(2)(B) has been upheld review to the administrative record, it benefit to taxpayers. The notice of by the courts. See, e.g., Pelliccio v. did not reject the utility of an determination issued in each case United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 258, administrative record. Subsequent to the describes the facts and reasons 261–62 (D. Conn. 2003). Accordingly, submission of the comments, the United supporting the Appeals officer’s the final regulations do not adopt this States Court of Appeals for the Eighth determination and should provide an suggestion. Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held adequate basis for the taxpayer’s decision whether to seek judicial that abuse-of-discretion review in CDP Alternatively, the comments also review. cases is limited to the administrative recommended that the regulations The IRS and the Treasury Department specify that a pre-CDP Appeals record. Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 acknowledge that disputes have arisen conference is not a prior opportunity to F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006). For these with respect to the contents of the dispute liability under section reasons, it is important that taxpayers administrative record in CDP cases and 6330(c)(2)(B) if the receipt of the and the IRS have a common that there are no special rules in place conference was conditioned upon the understanding of the scope of the to resolve these disputes. An taxpayer’s agreement to extend the administrative record. The definition is appropriate solution could involve the assessment statute of limitations with retained in the final regulations. Tax Court’s development of rules respect to the liability and the taxpayer The comments suggested that the governing the preparation and declined to extend the statute. The IRS proposed definition of the submission of the administrative record and Treasury Department believe this administrative record permits Appeals for abuse-of-discretion review, addition is unnecessary. For taxes officers and employees to exclude from particularly now that the recently- subject to deficiency procedures, the the record for judicial review issues, enacted Pension Protection Act of 2006 relevant, pre-assessment ‘‘prior arguments, and evidence presented requires all CDP cases to be litigated in opportunity’’ is the receipt of the notice orally by the taxpayer, and to exclude the Tax Court. of deficiency. The offer of an Appeals written communications and The comments suggested removal of conference prior to receipt of the notice documents. The administrative record the limitation in the existing regulations of deficiency does not constitute an definition is not intended to suggest that that a taxpayer is precluded from opportunity to dispute liability under the reviewing court is not permitted to obtaining judicial review of an issue not section 6330(c)(2)(B). This determine the contents of the raised with Appeals during the CDP interpretation of section 6330(c)(2)(B) administrative record or the record’s hearing. As an alternative, the has been added to paragraph (e)(3) A– adequacy in an individual case. The comments recommended that a taxpayer E2 to remove any uncertainty about this reviewing court has the authority to only be prevented from raising those matter. For liabilities not subject to receive evidence concerning what issues the taxpayer could have, but deficiency procedures, the offer of an happened during the CDP hearing. The failed to raise during the CDP hearing. Appeals conference prior to assessment definition is provided to establish for The limitation in the existing constitutes an opportunity to dispute the benefit of the IRS and taxpayers a regulations implements a basic the liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B). baseline description of what each principle of administrative law that Appeals conferences to consider these administrative record should contain to those seeking review of an issue must types of liabilities are rarely conditioned ensure a record sufficient for judicial first give the agency the opportunity to upon an extension of the assessment review. The final regulations have not evaluate and respond to the issue. This statute of limitations. The IRS generally been changed in this regard. The final limitation has been upheld in the makes conditional offers of a conference regulations, however, adopt the courts. See Robinette v. Commissioner, only when a taxpayer makes an suggestion that the description of the 123 T.C. 85, 101–102 (2004), rev’d on untimely request for review of a case file in A–D7 and in the definition other grounds, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. proposed Trust Fund Recovery Penalty of administrative record in A–F6 of the 2006); Magana v. Commissioner, 118 pursuant to a Letter 1153 and less than proposed regulations (redesignated as T.C. 488, 493 (2002); Abu-Awad v. one year remains on the assessment A–F4 in the final regulations) be made United States, 294 F. Supp.2d 879, 889 statute of limitations. In this consistent. (S.D. Tex. 2003). Accordingly, the final

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60839

regulations do not adopt either of these form of additions to the Internal Drafting Information recommendations. Revenue Manual. The final regulations The principal author of these The comments recommended that if do not adopt this recommendation. regulations is Laurence K. Williams, the limitation on the taxpayer’s ability The final regulations include Office of Associate Chief Counsel, to raise new issues during judicial amendments to the existing regulations Procedure and Administration review is retained, then the amendment to remove references to judicial review (Collection, Bankruptcy and to A–F5 (redesignated as A–F3 in the by United States district courts. The Summonses Division). final regulations) should clarify that a Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public taxpayer need not provide the evidence Law 109–280, 120 Stat. 780, section 855 List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 specified by Appeals with respect to an amended section 6330(d) to eliminate Employment taxes, Estate taxes, issue in order to present ‘‘any evidence’’ the jurisdiction of the district courts to Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, necessary to properly raise the issue. review notices of determination, leaving Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping The IRS and the Treasury Department the Tax Court with sole jurisdiction. requirements. believe this change is unnecessary. The Section 6330(d) is made applicable to revision to A–F5 (redesignated as A–F3) section 6320 hearings by section Adoption of Amendments to the does not suggest that the ‘‘any 6320(c). To make clear in the Regulations evidence’’ needed to avoid preclusion regulations that judicial review is I must be the evidence specified by available only in the Tax Court, Q&A– Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is Appeals. The revised language simply F3 and Q&A–F4 in the existing amended as follows: requires that the taxpayer submit some regulations are removed by the final PART 301—PROCEDURE AND evidentiary support. This suggestion is regulations and Q&A–F5 and Q&A–F6 ADMINISTRATION not adopted in the final regulations. in the proposed regulations are The comments also suggested adding redesignated as Q&A–F3 and Q&A–F4 I Paragraph 1. The authority citation that a taxpayer need not provide any in the final regulations. In addition, for part 301 continues to read, in part, evidence to avoid preclusion if the case only the Tax Court is now mentioned in as follows: file already contains evidence with A–E11, paragraph (f)(1), A–F1, Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * respect to that issue. This addition is redesignated Q&A–F3 and Q&A–F4, I Par. 2. Section 301.6320–1 is not necessary. If the case file contains Example 1 of paragraph (g)(3), Q&A–H2 amended as follows: all the information needed for a and redesignated Q–I6. I 1. Paragraph (c)(2) A–C1, Q&A–C6 decision on an issue, an Appeals officer Special Analyses and A–C7 are revised. will not request any additional evidence I 2. Paragraph (d)(2) A–D4 and A–D7 and the revised language in A–F5 It has been determined that this are revised. (redesignated as A–F3 in the final Treasury decision is not a significant I 3. Paragraph (d)(2) Q&A–D8 is added. regulations) will not apply. In the regulatory action as defined in I 4. Paragraph (d)(3) is added. unlikely event that an Appeals officer Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a I 5. Paragraph (e)(1) is revised. making a determination on an issue regulatory assessment is not required. It I 6. Paragraph (e)(3) A–E2, A–E6, A–E7 requested information already in the also has been determined that section and A–E11 are revised. file, a reviewing court should find the 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure I Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply 7. Paragraph (f)(1) is revised. taxpayer’s failure to provide any I 8. Paragraph (f)(2) A–F1 is revised. to these regulations. In particular, the evidence does not prevent the issue I 9. Paragraph (f)(2) Q&A–F3 is IRS and the Treasury Department find from being raised. The final regulations removed. for good cause that a notice of proposed do not adopt this recommendation. I 10. Paragraph (f)(2) Q&A–F5 is revised The comments urged that the rulemaking and solicitation of public and redesignated Q&A–F3. regulations make clear that the authority comments are unnecessary to amend the I 11. Paragraph (f)(2) Q&A–F4 is of Appeals officers to determine the existing regulations to implement the revised. validity, sufficiency and timeliness of a modification of section 6330(d) by the I 12. Paragraph (g)(3) Example 1 is CDP notice does not alter or limit the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Public revised. Law 109–280, 120 Stat. 780. These authority of the reviewing court to make I 13. Paragraph (h)(2) Q&A–H2 is the same determination. The IRS and amendments are made solely to conform revised. the regulations to the statutory change the Treasury Department believe this I 14. Paragraph (i)(2) Q–I5 is clarification is unnecessary. It is well- enacted by Congress. The amendments redesignated Q–I6 and revised. do not involve any exercise of discretion settled that reviewing courts have the I 15. Paragraph (i)(2) A–I5 is or interpretation by the IRS or Treasury authority to determine the validity, redesignated A–I6. Department and the removal of United sufficiency and timeliness of a CDP I 16. Paragraph (i)(2) Q&A–I1 through States district court jurisdiction would notice. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Q&A–I4 are redesignated Q&A–I2 become effective even if the Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255 (2001). This through Q&A–I5. amendments were not made. clarification is not adopted in the final I 17. Paragraph (i)(2) Q&A–I1 and Accordingly, the notice and public regulations. Q&A–I7 through Q&A–I11 are added. The comments recommended that comment procedures do not apply. I 18. Paragraph (j) is revised. administrative rules similar to those Because the regulations do not impose developed under section 6015 be added a collection of information on small § 301.6320–1 Notice and opportunity for to the regulations. The regulations state entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act hearing upon filing of notice of Federal tax that a spousal defense raised under (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. lien. section 66 or 6015 is governed by Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the * * * * * section 66 or 6015 and the regulations Internal Revenue Code, the proposed (c) * * * and procedures thereunder. See Treas. regulations were submitted to the Chief (2) * * * Reg. § 301.6320–1(e)(2). To the extent it Counsel for Advocacy of the Small A–C1. (i) The taxpayer must make a is determined that further guidance is Business Administration for comment request in writing for a CDP hearing. necessary, such guidance will be in the on its impact on small business. The request for a CDP hearing shall

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60840 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

include the information and signature Q–C6. Where must the written request business taxpayer will ordinarily be specified in A–C1(ii) of this paragraph for a CDP hearing be sent? offered an opportunity for a face-to-face (c)(2). See A–D7 and A–D8 of paragraph A–C6. The written request for a CDP conference at the Appeals office closest (d)(2). hearing must be sent, or hand delivered to the taxpayer’s principal place of (ii) The written request for a CDP (if permitted), to the IRS office and business. If that is not satisfactory to the hearing must be dated and must include address as directed on the CDP Notice. taxpayer, the taxpayer will be given an the following: If the address of that office does not opportunity for a hearing by telephone (A) The taxpayer’s name, address, appear on the CDP Notice, the taxpayer or by correspondence. In all cases, the daytime telephone number (if any), and should obtain the address of the office Appeals officer or employee will review taxpayer identification number (e.g., to which the written request should be the case file, as described in A–F4 of SSN, ITIN or EIN). sent or hand delivered by calling, toll- paragraph (f)(2). If no face-to-face or (B) The type of tax involved. free, 1–800–829–1040 and providing the telephonic conference is held, or other (C) The tax period at issue. taxpayer’s identification number (e.g., oral communication takes place, review (D) A statement that the taxpayer SSN, ITIN or EIN). of the documents in the case file, as requests a hearing with Appeals * * * * * described in A–F4 of paragraph (f)(2), concerning the filing of the NFTL. A–C7. If the taxpayer does not request will constitute the CDP hearing for (E) The reason or reasons why the a CDP hearing in writing within the 30- purposes of section 6320(b). taxpayer disagrees with the filing of the day period that commences on the day Q–D8. In what circumstances will a NFTL. after the end of the five-business-day face-to-face CDP conference not be (F) The signature of the taxpayer or notification period, the taxpayer granted? the taxpayer’s authorized representative. foregoes the right to a CDP hearing A–D8. A taxpayer is not entitled to a (iii) If the IRS receives a timely under section 6320 with respect to the face-to-face CDP conference at a location written request for CDP hearing that unpaid tax and tax periods shown on other than as provided in A–D7 of this does not satisfy the requirements set the CDP Notice. A written request paragraph (d)(2) and this A–D8. If all forth in A–C1(ii) of this paragraph (c)(2), submitted within the 30-day period that Appeals officers or employees at the location provided for in A–D7 of this the IRS will make a reasonable attempt does not satisfy the requirements set paragraph (d)(2) have had prior to contact the taxpayer and request that forth in A–C1(ii)(A), (B), (C), (D) or (F) involvement with the taxpayer as the taxpayer comply with the of this paragraph (c)(2) is considered provided in A–D4 of this paragraph unsatisfied requirements. The taxpayer timely if the request is perfected within (d)(2), the taxpayer will not be offered must perfect any timely written request a reasonable period of time pursuant to a face-to-face conference at that for a CDP hearing that does not satisfy A–C1(iii) of this paragraph (c)(2). If the location, unless the taxpayer elects to the requirements set forth in A–C1(ii) of request for CDP hearing is untimely, waive the requirement of section this paragraph (c)(2) within a reasonable either because the request was not 6320(b)(3). The taxpayer will be offered period of time after a request from the submitted within the 30-day period or a face-to-face conference at another IRS. not perfected within the reasonable Appeals office if Appeals would have (iv) Taxpayers are encouraged to use period provided, the taxpayer will be offered the taxpayer a face-to-face Form 12153, ‘‘Request for a Collection notified of the untimeliness of the conference at the location provided in Due Process Hearing,’’ in requesting a request and offered an equivalent A–D7 of this paragraph (d)(2), but for CDP hearing so that the request can be hearing. In such cases, the taxpayer may the disqualification of all Appeals readily identified and forwarded to obtain an equivalent hearing without officers or employees at that location. A Appeals. Taxpayers may obtain a copy submitting an additional request. See face-to-face CDP conference concerning of Form 12153 by contacting the IRS paragraph (i) of this section. a taxpayer’s underlying liability will not office that issued the CDP Notice, by * * * * * be granted if the request for a hearing or downloading a copy from the IRS (d) * * * other taxpayer communication indicates Internet site, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs- (2) * * * that the taxpayer wishes only to raise pdf/f12153.pdf, or by calling, toll-free, A–D4. Prior involvement by an irrelevant or frivolous issues concerning 1–800–829–3676. Appeals officer or employee includes that liability. A face-to-face CDP (v) The taxpayer must affirm any participation or involvement in a matter conference concerning a collection timely written request for a CDP hearing (other than a CDP hearing held under alternative, such as an installment which is signed or alleged to have been either section 6320 or section 6330) that agreement or an offer to compromise signed on the taxpayer’s behalf by the the taxpayer may have had with respect liability, will not be granted unless taxpayer’s spouse or other unauthorized to the tax and tax period shown on the other taxpayers would be eligible for the representative by filing, within a CDP Notice. Prior involvement exists alternative in similar circumstances. For reasonable period of time after a request only when the taxpayer, the tax and the example, because the IRS does not from the IRS, a signed, written tax period at issue in the CDP hearing consider offers to compromise from affirmation that the request was also were at issue in the prior non-CDP taxpayers who have not filed required originally submitted on the taxpayer’s matter, and the Appeals officer or returns or have not made certain behalf. If the affirmation is filed within employee actually participated in the required deposits of tax, as set forth in a reasonable period of time after a prior matter. Form 656, ‘‘Offer in Compromise,’’ no request, the timely CDP hearing request * * * * * face-to-face conference will be granted will be considered timely with respect A–D7. Except as provided in A–D8 of to a taxpayer who wishes to make an to the non-signing taxpayer. If the this paragraph (d)(2), a taxpayer who offer to compromise but has not fulfilled affirmation is not filed within a presents in the CDP hearing request those obligations. Appeals in its reasonable period of time after a request, relevant, non-frivolous reasons for discretion, however, may grant a face-to- the CDP hearing request will be denied disagreement with the NFTL filing will face conference if Appeals determines with respect to the non-signing ordinarily be offered an opportunity for that a face-to-face conference is taxpayer. a face-to-face conference at the Appeals appropriate to explain to the taxpayer * * * * * office closest to taxpayer’s residence. A the requirements for becoming eligible

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60841

for a collection alternative. In all cases, would not be considered to have prior statutory notice of deficiency for this a taxpayer will be given an opportunity involvement because the prior CAP hearings purpose means receipt in time to to demonstrate eligibility for a in which he participated did not directly petition the Tax Court for a involve the TFRP assessed against individual redetermination of the deficiency collection alternative and to become E. eligible for a collection alternative, in Example 5. Appeals employee G is determined in the notice of deficiency. order to obtain a face-to-face conference. assigned to a CDP hearing concerning a NFTL An opportunity to dispute the For purposes of determining whether a filed with respect to a TFRP assessed underlying liability includes a prior face-to-face conference will be granted, pursuant to section 6672 against individual opportunity for a conference with the determination of a taxpayer’s H. In preparing for the CDP hearing, Appeals Appeals that was offered either before or eligibility for a collection alternative is employee G reviews the Appeals case file after the assessment of the liability. An made without regard to the taxpayer’s concerning the prior CAP hearing involving opportunity for a conference with the TFRP assessed pursuant to section 6672 Appeals prior to the assessment of a tax ability to pay the unpaid tax. A face-to- against individual H. Appeals employee G is face conference need not be granted if not deemed to have participated in the subject to deficiency procedures is not the taxpayer does not provide the previous CAP hearing involving the TFRP a prior opportunity for this purpose. required information set forth in A– assessed against individual H by such * * * * * C1(ii)(E) of paragraph (c)(2). See also A– review. A–E6. Collection alternatives include, C1(iii) of paragraph (c)(2). (e) Matters considered at CDP for example, a proposal to withdraw the (3) Examples. The following examples hearing—(1) In general. Appeals will NFTL in circumstances that will illustrate the principles of this determine the timeliness of any request facilitate the collection of the tax paragraph (d): for a CDP hearing that is made by a liability, subordination of the NFTL, Example 1. Individual A timely requests a taxpayer. Appeals has the authority to discharge of the NFTL from specific CDP hearing concerning a NFTL filed with determine the validity, sufficiency, and property, an installment agreement, an respect to the 1998 income tax liability timeliness of any CDP Notice given by offer to compromise, the posting of a assessed against individual A. Appeals the IRS and of any request for a CDP bond, or the substitution of other assets. employee B previously conducted a CDP hearing that is made by a taxpayer. Prior A collection alternative is not available hearing regarding a proposed levy for unless the alternative would be individual A’s 1998 income tax liability. to issuance of a determination, Appeals Because employee B’s only prior is required to obtain verification from available to other taxpayers in similar involvement with individual A’s 1998 the IRS office collecting the tax that the circumstances. See A–D8 of paragraph income tax liability was in connection with requirements of any applicable law or (d)(2). a section 6330 CDP hearing, employee B may administrative procedure with respect * * * * * conduct the CDP hearing under section 6320 to the filing of the NFTL have been met. A–E7. The taxpayer may raise involving the NFTL filed for the 1998 income The taxpayer may raise any relevant appropriate spousal defenses, tax liability. Example 2. Individual C timely requests a issue relating to the unpaid tax at the challenges to the appropriateness of the CDP hearing concerning a NFTL filed with hearing, including appropriate spousal NFTL filing, and offers of collection respect to the 1998 income tax liability defenses, challenges to the alternatives. The existence or amount of assessed against individual C. Appeals appropriateness of the NFTL filing, and the underlying liability for any tax employee D previously conducted a offers of collection alternatives. The period specified in the CDP Notice may Collection Appeals Program (CAP) hearing taxpayer also may raise challenges to be challenged only if the taxpayer did regarding a NFTL filed with respect to the existence or amount of the not have a prior opportunity to dispute individual C’s 1998 income tax liability. underlying liability, including a liability the tax liability. If the taxpayer Because employee D’s prior involvement with individual C’s 1998 income tax liability reported on a self-filed return, for any previously received a CDP Notice under was in connection with a non-CDP hearing, tax period specified on the CDP Notice section 6330 with respect to the same employee D may not conduct the CDP if the taxpayer did not receive a tax and tax period and did not request hearing under section 6320 unless individual statutory notice of deficiency for that tax a CDP hearing with respect to that C waives the requirement that the hearing liability or did not otherwise have an earlier CDP Notice, the taxpayer had a will be conducted by an Appeals officer or opportunity to dispute the tax liability. prior opportunity to dispute the employee who has had no prior involvement Finally, the taxpayer may not raise an existence or amount of the underlying with respect to individual C’s 1998 income issue that was raised and considered at tax liability. tax liability. Example 3. Same facts as in Example 2, a previous CDP hearing under section * * * * * except that the prior CAP hearing only 6330 or in any other previous A–E11. No. An Appeals officer may involved individual C’s 1997 income tax administrative or judicial proceeding if consider the existence and amount of liability and employment tax liabilities for the taxpayer participated meaningfully the underlying tax liability as a part of 1998 reported on Form 941, ‘‘Employer’s in such hearing or proceeding. the CDP hearing only if the taxpayer did Quarterly Federal Tax Return.’’ Employee D Taxpayers will be expected to provide not receive a statutory notice of would not be considered to have prior all relevant information requested by deficiency for the tax liability in involvement because the prior CAP hearing Appeals, including financial statements, question or otherwise have a prior in which she participated did not involve individual C’s 1998 income tax liability. for its consideration of the facts and opportunity to dispute the tax liability. Example 4. Appeals employee F is issues involved in the hearing. Similarly, an Appeals officer may not assigned to a CDP hearing concerning a NFTL * * * * * consider any other issue if the issue was filed with respect to a trust fund recovery (3) * * * raised and considered at a previous penalty (TFRP) assessed pursuant to section A–E2. A taxpayer is entitled to hearing under section 6330 or in any 6672 against individual E. Appeals employee challenge the existence or amount of the other previous administrative or judicial F participated in a prior CAP hearing underlying liability for any tax period proceeding in which the person seeking involving individual E’s 1999 income tax specified on the CDP Notice if the to raise the issue meaningfully liability, and participated in a CAP hearing involving the employment taxes of business taxpayer did not receive a statutory participated. In the Appeals officer’s entity X, which incurred the employment tax notice of deficiency for such liability or sole discretion, however, the Appeals liability to which the TFRP assessed against did not otherwise have an opportunity officer may consider the existence or individual E relates. Appeals employee F to dispute such liability. Receipt of a amount of the underlying tax liability,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60842 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

or such other precluded issues, at the information from the taxpayer or the (E) The reason or reasons why the same time as the CDP hearing. Any taxpayer’s authorized representative taxpayer disagrees with the filing of the determination, however, made by the submitted in connection with the CDP NFTL. Appeals officer with respect to such a hearing, notes made by an Appeals (F) The signature of the taxpayer or precluded issue shall not be treated as officer or employee of any oral the taxpayer’s authorized representative. part of the Notice of Determination communications with the taxpayer or (iii) The taxpayer must perfect any issued by the Appeals officer and will the taxpayer’s authorized representative, timely written request for an equivalent not be subject to any judicial review. memoranda created by the Appeals hearing that does not satisfy the Because any decisions made by the officer or employee in connection with requirements set forth in A–I1(ii) of this Appeals officer on such precluded the CDP hearing, and any other paragraph (i)(2) within a reasonable issues are not properly a part of the CDP documents or materials relied upon by period of time after a request from the hearing, such decisions are not required the Appeals officer or employee in IRS. If the requirements are not satisfied to appear in the Notice of Determination making the determination under section within a reasonable period of time, the issued following the hearing. Even if a 6330(c)(3), will constitute the record in taxpayer’s equivalent hearing request decision concerning such precluded the Tax Court review of the Notice of will be denied. issues is referred to in the Notice of Determination issued by Appeals. (iv) The taxpayer must affirm any Determination, it is not reviewable by (g) * * * timely written request for an equivalent the Tax Court because the precluded (3) * * * hearing that is signed or alleged to have issue is not properly part of the CDP Example 1. The period of limitation under been signed on the taxpayer’s behalf by hearing. section 6502 with respect to the taxpayer’s the taxpayer’s spouse or other tax period listed in the NFTL will expire on unauthorized representative, and that * * * * * August 1, 1999. The IRS sent a CDP Notice (f) Judicial review of Notice of otherwise meets the requirements set to the taxpayer on April 30, 1999. The forth in A–I1(ii) of this paragraph (i)(2), Determination—(1) In general. Unless taxpayer timely requested a CDP hearing. The the taxpayer provides the IRS a written IRS received this request on May 15, 1999. by filing, within a reasonable period of withdrawal of the request that Appeals Appeals sends the taxpayer its determination time after a request from the IRS, a conduct a CDP hearing, Appeals is on June 15, 1999. The taxpayer timely seeks signed written affirmation that the required to issue a Notice of judicial review of that determination. The request was originally submitted on the Determination in all cases where a period of limitation under section 6502 taxpayer’s behalf. If the affirmation is would be suspended from May 15, 1999, taxpayer has timely requested a CDP filed within a reasonable period of time until the determination resulting from that after a request, the timely equivalent hearing. The taxpayer may appeal such hearing becomes final by expiration of the determinations made by Appeals within time for seeking review or reconsideration hearing request will be considered the 30-day period commencing the day before the Tax Court, plus 90 days. timely with respect to the non-signing after the date of the Notice of * * * * * taxpayer. If the affirmation is not filed Determination to the Tax Court. (h) * * * within a reasonable period of time, the (2) * * * (2) * * * equivalent hearing request will be A–F1. Subject to the jurisdictional Q–H2. Is a decision of Appeals denied with respect to the non-signing limitations described in A–F2 of this resulting from a retained jurisdiction taxpayer. paragraph (f)(2), the taxpayer must, hearing appealable to the Tax Court? * * * * * within the 30-day period commencing A–H2. No. As discussed in A–H1, a Q–I6. Will a taxpayer be able to obtain the day after the date of the Notice of taxpayer is entitled to only one CDP Tax Court review of a decision made by Determination, appeal the hearing under section 6320 with respect Appeals with respect to an equivalent determination by Appeals to the Tax to the tax and tax period or periods hearing? Court. specified in the CDP Notice. Only * * * * * * * * * * determinations resulting from CDP Q–I7. When must a taxpayer request Q–F3. What issue or issues may the hearings are appealable to the Tax an equivalent hearing with respect to a taxpayer raise before the Tax Court if Court. CDP Notice issued under section 6320? the taxpayer disagrees with the Notice (i) * * * A–I7. A taxpayer must submit a (2) * * * written request for an equivalent of Determination? Q–I1. What must a taxpayer do to hearing within the one-year period A–F3. In seeking Tax Court review of obtain an equivalent hearing? a Notice of Determination, the taxpayer A–I1. (i) A request for an equivalent commencing the day after the end of the can only ask the court to consider an hearing must be made in writing. A five-business-day period following the issue, including a challenge to the written request in any form that requests filing of the NFTL. This period is underlying tax liability, that was an equivalent hearing will be acceptable slightly different from the period for properly raised in the taxpayer’s CDP if it includes the information and submitting a written request for an hearing. An issue is not properly raised signature required in A-I1(ii) of this equivalent hearing with respect to a if the taxpayer fails to request paragraph (i)(2). CDP Notice issued under section 6330. consideration of the issue by Appeals, (ii) The request must be dated and For a CDP Notice issued under section or if consideration is requested but the must include the following: 6330, a taxpayer must submit a written taxpayer fails to present to Appeals any (A) The taxpayer’s name, address, request for an equivalent hearing within evidence with respect to that issue after daytime telephone number (if any), and the one-year period commencing the being given a reasonable opportunity to taxpayer identification number (e.g., day after the date of the CDP Notice present such evidence. SSN, ITIN or EIN). issued under section 6330. Q–F4. What is the administrative (B) The type of tax involved. Q–I8. How will the timeliness of a record for purposes of Tax Court (C) The tax period at issue. taxpayer’s written request for an review? (D) A statement that the taxpayer is equivalent hearing be determined? A–F4. The case file, including the requesting an equivalent hearing with A–I8. The rules and regulations under taxpayer’s request for hearing, any other Appeals concerning the filing of the section 7502 and section 7503 will written communications and NFTL. apply to determine the timeliness of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60843

taxpayer’s request for an equivalent 2006, with respect to requests made for ADDRESSES: You may submit written hearing, if properly transmitted and CDP hearings or equivalent hearings on comments to this direct final rule— addressed as provided in A–I10 of this or after November 16, 2006. identified by docket number S–051A or paragraph (i)(2). RIN number 1218–AC16—by any of the Mark E. Matthews, Q–I9. Is the one-year period within following methods: which a taxpayer must make a request Deputy Commissioner for Services and • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// for an equivalent hearing extended Enforcement. www.regulations.gov. Follow the because the taxpayer resides outside the Approved: October 6, 2006. instructions for submitting comments. • United States? Eric Solomon, OSHA Web site: http:// A–I9. No. All taxpayers who want an Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the ecomments.osha.gov. Follow the equivalent hearing concerning the filing Treasury (Tax Policy). instructions for submitting comments of the NFTL must request the hearing [FR Doc. E6–17140 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] on OSHA’s web page. within the one-year period commencing • Fax: If your written comments are the day after the end of the five- BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to business-day period following the filing the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693– of the NFTL. 1648. Q–I10. Where must the written DEPARTMENT OF LABOR • Regular mail, express delivery, request for an equivalent hearing be hand delivery, and courier service: sent? Occupational Safety and Health Submit three copies to the OSHA A–I10. The written request for an Administration Docket Office, Docket No. S–051A, U.S. equivalent hearing must be sent, or Department of Labor, 200 Constitution hand delivered (if permitted), to the IRS 29 CFR Part 1915 Avenue, NW., Room N–2625, office and address as directed on the [Docket No. S–051A] Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) CDP Notice. If the address of the issuing 693–2350. (OSHA’s TTY number is office does not appear on the CDP RIN 1218–AC16 (877) 889–5627). OSHA Docket Office Notice, the taxpayer should obtain the hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 address of the office to which the Updating National Consensus p.m., EST. Standards in OSHA’s Standard for Fire written request should be sent or hand FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general delivered by calling, toll-free, 1–800– Protection in Shipyard Employment. information and press inquiries, contact 829–1040 and providing the taxpayer’s Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of identification number (e.g., SSN, ITIN or AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor. Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. EIN). Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Q–I11. What will happen if the ACTION: Direct final rule. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; taxpayer does not request an equivalent telephone: (202) 693–1999. For hearing in writing within the one-year SUMMARY: On September 15, 2004, the technical inquiries, contact Jim period commencing the day after the Occupational Safety and Health Maddux, Director, Office of Maritime, end of the five-business-day period Administration (OSHA) promulgated a Directorate of Standards and Guidance, following the filing of the NFTL? new fire protection rule for shipyard A–I11. If the taxpayer does not employment that incorporated by Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S. Department request an equivalent hearing with reference 19 National Fire Protection of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, Appeals within the one-year period Association (NFPA) standards. Ten of NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: commencing the day after the end of the those NFPA standards had been (202) 693–2086 or fax (202) 693–1663. five-business-day period following the updated by NFPA since the fire Copies of this Federal Register notice filing of the NFTL, the taxpayer foregoes protection rule was proposed and an are available from the OSHA Office of the right to an equivalent hearing with additional NFPA standard has been Publications, Room N–3101, U.S. respect to the unpaid tax and tax updated since the final rule was Department of Labor, 200 Constitution periods shown on the CDP Notice. A published. In this direct final rule, Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; written request submitted within the OSHA is replacing the references to telephone: (202) 693–1888. Electronic one-year period that does not satisfy the those eleven NFPA standards by adding copies of this Federal Register notice, as requirements set forth in A–I1(ii) of this the most recent versions. well as news releases and other relevant paragraph (i)(2) is considered timely if DATES: This direct final rule will documents, are available at OSHA’s the request is perfected within a become effective on January 16, 2007 Web page at http://www.osha.gov. For access to the docket to read reasonable period of time pursuant to unless significant adverse comment is background documents or comments A–I1(iii) of this paragraph (i)(2). If a received by November 16, 2006. If received, go to http://dockets.osha.gov. request for equivalent hearing is significant adverse comment is received, Contact the OSHA Docket Office for untimely, either because the request was OSHA will publish a timely withdrawal information about materials not not submitted within the one-year of this rule. The incorporation by available through the OSHA Web page period or not perfected within the reference of certain publications listed and for assistance in using the Web page reasonable period provided, the in this rule is approved by the Director to locate docket submissions. equivalent hearing request will be of the Federal Register as of January 16, denied. The taxpayer, however, may 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: seek reconsideration by the IRS office Comments to this direct final rule Table of Contents collecting the tax, assistance from the must be submitted by the following dates: Hard copy: Your comments must I. Request for Comment National Taxpayer Advocate, or an II. Direct Final Rulemaking administrative hearing before Appeals be submitted (postmarked or sent) by III. Discussion of Changes under its Collection Appeals Program or November 16, 2006. Electronic IV. Legal Considerations any successor program. transmission and facsimile: Your V. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory (j) Effective date. This section is comments must be sent by November Flexibility Act Certification applicable on or after November 16, 16, 2006. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60844 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VII. Federalism direct incorporations of mandates from the companion proposed rule; the VIII. State Plan States new legislation. Agency will consider such comments in IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act For purposes of this direct final developing a subsequent final rule. X. List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1915 rulemaking, a significant adverse OSHA has determined that the subject XI. Authority and Signature comment is one that explains why the of this rulemaking is suitable for direct I. Request for Comment rule would be inappropriate, including final rulemaking. This direct final rule OSHA requests comments on all challenges to the rule’s underlying will enhance OSHA’s fire protection in issues related to this action. OSHA also premise or approach. In determining shipyard standard by adding the most welcomes comments on the Agency’s whether a comment necessitates current NFPA consensus standards to findings that there are not negative withdrawal of the direct final rule, the OSHA standard. OSHA’s changes economic or other regulatory impacts of OSHA will consider whether the will benefit the safety of employees by this action on the regulated community. comment raises an issue serious enough requiring employers to comply with the If OSHA receives no significant adverse to warrant a substantive response in a newer standards, which may be even comment, OSHA will publish a Federal notice-and-comment process. A more protective than the older Register document confirming the comment recommending additional standards. Furthermore, OSHA’s effective date of this direct final rule changes will not be considered a changes will not result in additional and withdrawing the companion significant adverse comment unless the compliance costs. OSHA does not proposed rule published in the comment states why the direct final rule anticipate any objections to this direct Proposed Rules section of today’s would be ineffective without the final rule. addition. If a timely significant adverse Federal Register. Such confirmation III. Discussion of Changes may include minor stylistic or technical comment is received, the Agency will changes to the document. publish a notice of significant adverse On September 15, 2004, OSHA issued Comments received will be posted comment in the Federal Register a new fire protection final rule for without change to http:// withdrawing this direct final rule no shipyard employment that incorporated dockets.osha.gov, including any later than January 16, 2007. by reference 19 National Fire Protection personal information provided. OSHA OSHA is also publishing today a Association (NFPA) standards (69 FR cautions you about submitting personal companion proposed rule, which is 55667). The purpose of this direct final information such as social security identical to this direct final rule. In the rule is to add ten recently updated numbers and birth dates. event the direct final rule is withdrawn NFPA standards to the standard for fire because of significant adverse comment, protection in shipyard employment. The II. Direct Final Rulemaking OSHA intends to proceed with the 10 NFPA standards are new versions of In direct final rulemaking, an agency rulemaking by addressing the 11 NFPA standards currently in OSHA’s publishes a final rule in the Federal comment(s) and publishing a new final standard. The reason there are only 10 Register with a statement that the rule rule. If a significant adverse comment is is because the NFPA combined two of will go into effect unless a significant received regarding certain revisions its standards, NFPA 11–1998 and NFPA adverse comment is received within a included in this direct final rule, but not 11A–1999, into the NFPA 11–2002 specified period of time. An identical others, OSHA may (1) Finalize those standard covering foam fire proposed rule is often published at the changes that did not receive significant extinguishing systems. This direct final same time. If no significant adverse adverse comment, and (2) conduct rule replaces the 11 older NFPA comments are submitted, the rule goes further rulemaking under the standards with the 10 newer NFPA into effect. If any significant adverse companion proposed rule for the standards. comments are received, the agency changes that did receive significant Table I lists the older NFPA standards withdraws the direct final rule and adverse comment. The comment period incorporated by reference in the fire treats the comments as responses to the for the proposed rule runs concurrently protection in shipyard employment proposed rule. Direct final rulemaking is with that of the direct final rule. Any standard, and lists the sections in the used where an agency anticipates that a comments received under the standard in which these NFPA rule will not be controversial. Examples companion proposed rule will be standards are referenced. It also lists the include minor substantive changes to treated as comments regarding the direct latest versions of the NFPA standards to regulations updating incorporated final rule. Likewise, significant adverse be added to the standard for fire references to the latest edition of comments submitted to the direct final protection in shipyard employment national consensus standards, and rule will be considered as comments to through this direct final rule.

TABLE I

NFPA standards incorporated by reference in Section Paragraph 29 CFR part 1915 Latest version of NFPA standard

1915.505 Fire Re- (e)(3)(v) ...... NFPA 1981–1997 Standard on Open-Circuit NFPA 1981–2002 Standard on Open-Circuit sponse. Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire Service. Fire and Emergency Services (Ex. 1–1). 1915.507 Land-side fire (b)(1), (b)(2)...... NFPA 10–1998 Standard for Portable Fire NFPA 10–2002 Standard for Portable Fire protection systems. Extinguishers. Extinguishers (Ex. 1–2). (c)(6) ...... NFPA 72–1999 National Fire Alarm Code ..... NFPA 72–2002 National Fire Alarm Code (Ex. 1–3). (b)(2), (d)(1) ...... NFPA 14–2000 Standard for the Installation NFPA 14–2003 Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose of Standpipe and Hose Systems (Ex. 1–4). Systems. (d)(2) ...... NFPA 13–1999 Standard for the Installation NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. of Sprinkler Systems (Ex.1–5).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60845

TABLE I—Continued

NFPA standards incorporated by reference in Section Paragraph 29 CFR part 1915 Latest version of NFPA standard

NFPA 750–2000 Standard on Water Mist Fire NFPA 750–2003 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems. Protection Systems (Ex. 1–6). (d)(3) ...... NFPA 11–1998 Standard for Low-Expansion NFPA 11–2005 Standard for Low-, Medium-, Foam. and High-Expansion Foam (Ex. 1–7). NFPA 11A–1999 Standard for Medium- and High-Expansion Foam Systems. (d)(5) ...... NFPA 12A–1997 Standard on Halon 1301 NFPA 12A–2004 Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems. Fire Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 1–8). NFPA 2001–2000 Standard on Clean Agent NFPA 2001–2004 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. Fire Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 1–9). NFPA 12–2000 Standard on Carbon Dioxide NFPA 12–2005 Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems. Extinguishing Systems.

OSHA has examined the latest type’’ discharge devices on Class K—fire employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A versions of the NFPA standards and extinguishers manufactured after 01/01/ standard is reasonably necessary or compared them with the versions 2002. (Class ‘‘K’’ extinguishers are used appropriate within the meaning of currently referenced in the fire for ‘‘combustible cooking media’’ fire section 652(8) if, among other things, a protection in shipyard employment hazards in commercial kitchens.) The significant risk of material harm exists standard. OSHA finds that the latest new version of NFPA 10 allows the use in the workplace and the proposed versions are as protective on the whole, of electronic equipment to monitor the standard would substantially reduce or and in certain ways more protective, status of portable fire extinguishers an eliminate that workplace risk. than the earlier versions of the same alternative that may be more effective This direct final rule, which addresses NFPA standards. The latest versions are and efficient than manual monitoring the hazard of fire in shipyard also more comprehensive than the (Ex. 1–2). employment, may enhance the earlier versions and reflect recent • National Fire Alarm Code—NFPA employee protections currently in place developments in safety technology, 72–2002 has been updated to revise fire through incorporated references to equipment, and testing. The changes to alarm power supply requirements, to NFPA consensus standards. In its final the NFPA standards include: improve the survivability of fire alarms rule on fire protection in shipyard • Standard on Open-Circuit Self- from attack by fire, and to improve the employment, OSHA discussed injuries Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire ‘‘supervising stations’’ used in larger fire and fatalities that may result from fire and Emergency Services—NFPA 1981– alarm systems. (Ex. 1–3). hazards in shipyards, and the potential 2002 has been revised to add • Standard for the Installation of for reducing those injuries and deaths requirements for heads-up displays Sprinkler Systems—NFPA 13–2002 has through adoption of the final standard (HUD) that provide the user of a self- been updated to add the sprinkler (69 FR 55668, 55669, 55699). Because contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) installation requirements found in other this direct final rule simply updates the with information regarding breathing air NFPA standards, to include criteria for NFPA standards incorporated by supply status, alert the user when the solid shelf storage areas, and to make reference in OSHA’s fire protection breathing air supply is at 50 percent of the standard easier for users to standard to their most recent versions, full, and, where the HUD is powered by reference. (Ex. 1–5). it is unnecessary to determine battery power source, warn the user The remaining NFPA standards have significant risk, or the extent to which when the HUD only has 2 more hours been updated to make minor technical the direct final rule would reduce that of battery power. The updated standard and editorial changes and to improve risk, as would typically be required by also includes new requirements for a readability by formatting them into a Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO Rapid Intervention Company/Crew standard layout. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 (RIC) Universal Air Connection (UAC) IV. Legal Considerations U.S. 607 (1980). (or RIC UAC) on all new SCBA. The RIC UAC is a standard connection device The purpose of the Occupational V. Final Economic Analysis and that allows a rescue breathing air supply Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification to be joined to the SCBA of a victim, fire 651 et seq., is ‘‘to assure so far as This action is not economically fighter or other emergency services possible every working man and woman significant within the context of responder to replenish the breathing air in the Nation safe and healthful working Executive Order 12866, or a ‘‘major in the SCBA breathing air cylinder conditions and to preserve our human rule’’ under the Unfunded Mandates when the victim cannot be rapidly resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve Reform Act or Section 801 of the Small moved to a safe atmosphere. (Ex. 1–1). this goal, Congress authorized the Business Regulatory Enforcement • Standard for Low-, Medium-, and Secretary of Labor to promulgate and Fairness Act. The rulemaking would High-Expansion Foam—NFPA 11–2005 enforce occupational safety and health impose no additional costs on any has been revised to combine the older standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 654(b). A private or public sector entity, and does NFPA 11 low-expansion foam system safety or health standard is a standard not meet any of the criteria for an requirements with the older NFPA 11A ‘‘which requires conditions, or the economically significant or major rule medium- and high-expansion foam adoption or use of one or more specified by the Executive Order or provisions. (Ex.1–7). practices, means, methods, operations, relevant statutes. • Standard for Portable Fire or processes, reasonably necessary or This action simply includes updated Extinguishers—NFPA 10–2002 has been appropriate to provide safe or healthful references to NFPA standards. The revised to prohibit ‘‘extended wand- employment and places of Agency compared the older versions of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60846 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the NFPA standards with the new limits State policy options in the same XI. Authority and Signature versions via side-by-side analyses. manner as all OSHA standards. In States This document was prepared under Based on our findings, the Agency with OSHA-approved State Plans, this the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., concludes that incorporating the new action does not significantly limit State Assistant Secretary of Labor for versions of the NFPA standards will not policy options. Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. impose any additional costs on any VIII. State Plan States Department of Labor, 200 Constitution private or public sector entity. Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. It Furthermore, because the rule The 26 States or U.S. Territories with is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and imposes no additional costs on their own OSHA approved occupational employers, OSHA certifies that it would safety and health plans must revise their 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health not have a significant impact on a standards to reflect this final standard or Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), substantial number of small entities. show OSHA why there is no need for Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2002, and Accordingly, the Agency need not action, e.g., because an existing state 29 CFR Part 1911. prepare a final regulatory flexibility standard covering this area is already Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of analysis under the Regulatory ‘‘at least as effective as’’ the new Federal October, 2006. Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). standard. The state standard must be at Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., least as effective as this final standard, Assistant Secretary of Labor. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act must be applicable to both the private This action does not impose new and public (State and local government Amendments To Standards information collection requirements for employees) sectors, and must be I OSHA amends Part 1915 of Title 29 of purposes of the Paperwork Reduction completed within six months of the the Code of Federal Regulations as set Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–30. publication date of this final Federal forth below: VII. Federalism rule. I 1. The authority citation for Part 1915 Currently only five States (California, continues to read as follows: OSHA has reviewed this direct final Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and rule in accordance with the Executive Washington) with their own State plans Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Order on Federalism (Executive Order Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); cover private sector onshore maritime secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), activities in whole or in part. Federal which requires that agencies, to the and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, OSHA enforces maritime standards 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 extent possible, refrain from limiting offshore in all States and provides (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 State policy options, consult with States onshore coverage of maritime activities FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR prior to taking any actions that would in Federal OSHA States, in the five 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5–2002 (67 FR restrict State policy options, and take States above, to the extent not covered 65008) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911. such actions only when there is clear by them, and in all the other State Plan I constitutional authority and the 2. Amend § 1915.5 to revise States: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (vi) through (x), and presence of a problem of national scope. (plan covers only State and local Executive Order 13132 provides for (xiii) through (xviii) and by removing government employees), Hawaii, paragaraph (d)(4)(xix) to read as follows: preemption of State law only if there is Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, a clear congressional intent for the Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey (plan § 1915.5 Incorporation by reference. Agency to do so. Any such preemption covers only State and local government * * * * * is to be limited to the extent possible. employees), New Mexico, New York (d) * * * Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. (plan covers only State and local (4) * * * 651 et seq.) expresses Congress’ intent to government employees), North Carolina, (i) NFPA 1981–2002 Standard on preempt State laws where OSHA has Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing promulgated occupational safety and Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands (plan Apparatus for Fire and Emergency health standards. Under the OSH Act, a covers only territorial government Services, IBR approved for State can avoid preemption on issues employees), and Wyoming. 1915.505(e)(3)(v). covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act * * * * * of, a plan for the development of such This direct final rule has been (vi) NFPA 10–2002 Standard for standards and their enforcement (State- reviewed in accordance with the Portable Fire Extinguishers, IBR Plan State). 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 approved for §§ 1915.507(b)(1) and safety and health standards developed (UMRA). 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. For the (b)(2). by such State-Plan States must, among purposes of the UMRA, the Agency (vii) NFPA 14–2003 Standard for the other things, be at least as effective in certifies that this direct final rule does Installation of Standpipe and Hose providing safe and healthful not impose any Federal mandate that Systems, IBR approved for employment and places of employment may result in increased expenditures by §§ 1915.507(b)(2) and (d)(1). as the Federal standards. Subject to State, local, or tribal governments, or (viii) NFPA 72–2002 National Fire these requirements, State-Plan States are increased expenditures by the private Alarm Code, IBR approved for free to develop and enforce under State sector, of more than $100 million in any § 1915.507(c)(6). law their own requirements for safety year. (ix) NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the and health standards. Installation of Sprinkler Systems, IBR This direct final rule complies with X. List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1915 approved for § 1915.507(d)(2). Executive Order 13132. As Congress has Fire protection, Hazardous (x) NFPA 750–2003 Standard on expressed a clear intent for OSHA substances, Incorporation by reference, Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, IBR standards to preempt State job safety Longshore and harbor workers, approved for § 1915.507(d)(2). and health rules in areas addressed by Occupational safety and health, * * * * * OSHA standards in States without Reporting and recordkeeping (xiii) NFPA 11–2005 Standard for OSHA-approved State Plans, this rule requirements, Shipyards, and Vessels. Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60847

Foam, IBR approved for for the Installation of Standpipe and updating obsolete contact information § 1915.507(d)(3). Hose Systems (incorporated by and references in the regulation. (xiv) NFPA 17–2002, Standard for Dry reference, see § 1915.5); DATES: This rule is effective on October Chemical Extinguishing Systems, IBR (2) Automatic sprinkler systems 17, 2006. approved for § 1915.507(d)(4). according to NFPA 25–2002 Standard (xv) NFPA 12–2005, Standard on for the Inspection, Testing, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, Maintenance of Water-based Fire M. Miller, Manager, Surety Bond IBR approved for § 1915.507(d)(5). Protection Systems, (incorporated by Branch, at 202–874–6850 or (xvi) NFPA 12A–2004, Standard on reference, see § 1915.5), and either (i) [email protected]; or William Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems, NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the Erle, Senior Counsel, at 202–874–6680 IBR approved for § 1915.507(d)(5). Installation of Sprinkler Systems or [email protected]. (xvii) NFPA 2001–2004, Standard on (incorporated by reference, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing § 1915.5), or (ii) NFPA 750–2003 Systems, IBR approved for Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Background § 1915.507(d)(5). Systems (incorporated by reference, see (xviii) NFPA 1403–2002, Standard on § 1915.5); 31 U.S.C. 9306 was amended Live Fire Training Evolutions, IBR (3) Fixed extinguishing systems that November 29, 1999 to allow a surety approved for § 1915.508(d)(8). use water or foam as the extinguishing corporation to appoint a State official as I 3. Amend § 1915.505 to revise agent according to NFPA 15–2001 its process agent. This means that surety paragraph (e)(3)(v) to read as follows: Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems corporations conducting business in § 1915.505 Fire response. for Fire Protection (incorporated by more than one judicial district in a state reference, see § 1915.5) and NFPA 11– can appoint a State official to receive * * * * * service of process on the corporation, (e) * * * 2005 Standard for Low-, Medium-, and (3) * * * High-Expansion Foam (incorporated by thereby saving surety corporations from (v) Provide only SCBA that meet the reference, see § 1915.5); having to appoint an agent in each judicial district of that State. Prior to the requirements of NFPA 1981–2002 * * * * * amendment, a surety did not have the Standard on Open-Circuit Self- (5) Fixed extinguishing systems using option of appointing a State official as Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire gas as the extinguishing agent according its process agent to satisfy the service of and Emergency Services (incorporated to NFPA 12–2005 Standard on Carbon process requirement. This revised rule by reference, see § 1915.5); and Dioxide Extinguishing Systems makes the regulation at 31 CFR Part 224 * * * * * (incorporated by reference, see consistent with 31 U.S.C. 9306 by I 4. Amend § 1915.507 to revise § 1915.5); NFPA 12A–2004 Standard on providing for the appointment of State paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(6), (d)(1), Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems officials as process agents. (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(5) to read as (incorporated by reference, see follows: § 1915.5); and NFPA 2001–2004 An additional change relates to the Standard on Clean Agent Fire requirement currently found in 31 CFR § 1915.507 Land-side fire protection Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by 224.2(a)(3) which requires that an agent system. reference, see § 1915.5). be appointed for service of process ‘‘in * * * * * the District of Columbia where the bond (b) * * * [FR Doc. E6–17124 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] is returnable and filed.’’ This (1) The employer must select, install, BILLING CODE 4510–26–P requirement applies to all surety inspect, maintain, and test all portable corporations whether or not the fire extinguishers according to NFPA corporation contemplates the writing of 10–2002 Standard for Portable Fire DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY bonds in favor of the United States to be Extinguishers (incorporated by undertaken within the District of Fiscal Service reference, see § 1915.5). Columbia. Requiring companies to (2) The employer is permitted to use appoint an agent in the District of 31 CFR Part 224 Class II or Class III hose systems, in Columbia, when they are not accordance with NFPA 10–2002 RIN–1510–AB08 incorporated in the District of Columbia, (incorporated by reference, see and do not write bonds in the District § 1915.5), as portable fire extinguishers Federal Process Agents of Surety of Columbia, is an unnecessary financial if the employer selects, installs, Corporations burden on the companies. FMS can see inspects, maintains, and tests those no benefit to the Federal government in systems according to the specific AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury. maintaining this requirement since, as a recommendations in NFPA 14–2003 matter of practice, Federal bonds are not ACTION: Standard for the Installation of Final rule. necessarily returnable and filed in the Standpipe and Hose Systems SUMMARY: The Financial Management District of Columbia. The revised rule (incorporated by reference, see eliminates this requirement. § 1915.5). Service (FMS) is revising its regulation (c) * * * governing the appointment of Federal The sample power of attorney form (6) Select, install, inspect, maintain, process agents of surety corporations to currently found in 31 CFR 224.4 is and test all automatic fire detection allow for the appointment of a state replaced with a reference to the Surety systems and emergency alarms official as a process agent. We are also Bond Branch Web page. Moving the according to NFPA 72–2002 National revising the regulation by removing the form to the Web page will allow the Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by requirement that all surety corporations sample power of attorney form to be reference, see § 1915.5) appoint a process agent in the District updated more easily. Also, it will (d) * * * of Columbia, regardless of whether the provide surety corporations with easy (1) Standpipe and hose systems surety corporation provides bonds in access to an electronic version of the according to NFPA 14–2003 Standard the District of Columbia. Finally, we are form.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60848 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Finally, 31 CFR 224.6 currently states 224.5 Who may a surety corporation District Court at the main office in each that a listing of the divisional offices of appoint to be a process agent? judicial district with the required the court in each judicial district may be 224.6 Where can I find a sample power of number of authenticated copies of the attorney form? obtained from the Surety Bond Branch, 224.7 Where can I find a list of United power of attorney for each divisional Financial Management Service, U.S. States district court offices? office of the court within that judicial Department of the Treasury. This 224.8 When must a surety corporation district. information is available directly from appoint a new process agent? the U.S. Courts. Therefore, the § 224.6 Where can I find a sample power Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9306 and 9307. of attorney form? regulation is revised to provide the contact information for the U.S. Courts. § 224.1 What does this part cover? The Surety Bond Branch provides a sample form on its Web page located at: Regulatory Analyses This part provides guidance on when a surety corporation must appoint a http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. While Administrative Procedure Act. We did service of process agent and how the use of the sample form is not required, not publish a Notice of Proposed surety corporation complies with this any power of attorney provided should Rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. requirement. be substantially the same as the sample Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), a rule is form. exempt from notice and comment § 224.2 Definitions. § 224.7 Where can I find a list of United rulemaking requirements if the agency For purposes of this regulation: States district court offices? finds that notice and public comment (a) Principal means the person or are unnecessary or contrary to the entity required to provide a surety bond. A list of the divisional offices of the public interest. This rule reflects (b) Process agent means a resident court in each judicial district may be provisions that are already in effect as agent for service of process. obtained from the Federal Judiciary, a matter of law. The changes will have (c) State means a State, the District of U.S. Courts Web page at http:// no substantive effect on the public; Columbia, or a territory or possession of www.uscourts.gov, or by mail by writing therefore, it is unnecessary to publish an the United States. to: Office of Public Affairs, NPRM. Likewise, for the same reasons a Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, § 224.3 When may a surety corporation Washington, DC 20544. delayed effective date is not required. provide a bond without appointing a Clarity of Regulations. Executive process agent? § 224.8 When must a surety corporation Order 12866 requires each agency to A surety corporation may provide a appoint a new process agent? write regulations that are easy to bond without appointing a process The surety corporation must understand. We invite comment on how agent when the State where the bond is immediately appoint a new process to make this rule clearer. For example, filed, the State where the principal agent whenever the authority of a you may wish to discuss: (1) Whether resides, and the State where the surety process agent is terminated by reason of we have organized the material to suit corporation is incorporated are the revocation, disability, removal from the your needs; (2) whether the same. district, or any other cause. requirements of the rule are clear; or (3) whether there is something else we § 224.4 When must a surety corporation Dated: October 11, 2006. could do to make this rule easier to appoint a process agent? Kenneth R. Papaj, understand. A surety corporation must appoint a Commissioner. Executive Order 12866. FMS has process agent when either the State [FR Doc. E6–17225 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] determined that this regulation is not a where the bond is filed or the State BILLING CODE 4810–35–P significant action as defined in where the principal resides is different Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a from the State where the surety regulatory assessment is not required. corporation is incorporated. In such a DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because no case, the surety corporation must notice of proposed rulemaking is appoint a process agent in each such Fiscal Service required, the provisions of the State that is different from the State Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 where the surety is incorporated. 31 CFR Part 256 et seq.) do not apply. § 224.5 Who may a surety corporation appoint to be a process agent? RIN 1510–AA52 List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 224 A surety corporation may appoint Obtaining Payments From the Bonding, Insurance, Insurance either of the following as process Judgment Fund and Under Private companies, Sureties, Surety bonds, agent—(a) An official of the State who Relief Bills Process agents. is authorized or appointed under the I For the reasons set forth in the law of that jurisdiction to receive AGENCY: Financial Management Service, preamble, 31 CFR part 224 is revised as service of process on the surety Fiscal Service, Treasury. follows: corporation; or ACTION: Final rule. (b) An individual who resides in the PART 224—FEDERAL PROCESS jurisdiction of the district court for the SUMMARY: The Financial Management AGENTS OF SURETY CORPORATIONS district in which a surety bond is filed Service (FMS) is revising 31 CFR part and who is appointed by the surety 256, governing how Federal government Sec. corporation by means of a power of agencies (agencies) obtain payments 224.1 What does this part cover? attorney. A certified copy of the power from the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. 224.2 Definitions. of attorney must be filed with the clerk 1304, and how individuals obtain 224.3 When may a surety corporation provide a bond without appointing a of the district court for the district in payments under private relief acts. The process agent? which a surety bond is to be provided. revision reflects current rules and 224.4 When must a surety corporation In addition, the surety corporation must procedures; it does not include any appoint a process agent? provide the clerk of the United States substantive changes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60849

DATES: This rule is effective on October we have organized the material to suit 256.34 Does the Judgment Fund pay all 17, 2006. your needs; (2) whether the litigation costs? FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requirements of the rule are clear; or (3) Subpart E—Reimbursements to the Kevin McIntrye, Manager, Judgment whether there is something else we Judgment Fund Fund Branch, at (202) 874–6664 or could do to make this rule easier to 256.40 When must an agency reimburse the [email protected]; or understand. Judgment Fund? William J. Erle, Senior Counsel, at (202) Executive Order 12866. FMS has 256.41 When is reimbursement due for 874–6680 or determined that this rulemaking is not CDA and No FEAR payments? [email protected]. a significant regulatory action as defined Subpart F—Additional Provisions in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulatory assessment is not required. 256.50 How does FMS process back pay Regulatory Flexibility Act. Because no awards? Background 256.51 Does FMS report Judgment Fund notice of proposed rulemaking is FMS is the Treasury Department payments to the IRS as income to the required, the provisions of the payee on IRS Form 1099? bureau that administers and certifies Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 payments from the Judgment Fund, 31 256.52 How does FMS issue a payment? et seq.) do not apply. 256.53 How does the submitting agency U.S.C. 1304. Pursuant to Public Law know when payment is made? 104–53 (November 19, 1995), the List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 256 256.54 What happens if FMS denies a Judgment Fund function was transferred Awards, Claims, Costs, Interest, request for payment? from the General Accounting Office Judgment Fund, Judgments, Tort claims. Subpart G—Private Relief Bills (GAO), now known as the Government I Accountability Office, to the Office of For the reasons stated in the preamble, 256.60 How do I get paid for a Private Relief Management and Budget (OMB). OMB part 256 of title 31 of the Code of Bill? delegated this responsibility to the Federal Regulations is revised as Authority: 31 U.S.C. 1304, 3728; 41 U.S.C. Treasury Department. follows: 612; 5 U.S.C. 2301 note. We are revising 31 CFR part 256, in PART 256—OBTAINING PAYMENTS Subpart A—General Information part, to clarify that Judgment Fund FROM THE JUDGMENT FUND AND payment requests are no longer UNDER PRIVATE RELIEF BILLS § 256.0 What does this part cover? submitted to GAO, to remove the This part applies to payments made reference to obsolete processing Subpart A—General Information by the U.S. Department of the Treasury requirements for awards that are above Sec. (Treasury) pursuant to the Judgment $100,000 (this statutory ceiling was 256.0 What does this part cover? Fund statute, 31 U.S.C. 1304. removed in 1977 by Public Law 95–26), 256.1 What is Treasury’s role in paying to provide guidance on the kinds of awards and settlements from the § 256.1 What is Treasury’s role in paying awards that are properly payable from Judgment Fund? awards and settlements from the Judgment the Judgment Fund, and to provide 256.2 Where can I find more information Fund? about, and forms for, Judgment Fund (a) The Judgment Fund is a information on the current procedures payments? for obtaining such payments. This rule permanent, indefinite appropriation seeks to provide guidance to agencies Subpart B—Requesting Payments which is available to pay many government-wide that submit requests 256.10 Who may request payment from the judicially and administratively ordered for payments from the Judgment Fund Judgment Fund? monetary awards against the United for paying litigative and administrative 256.11 How do agencies request payments? States. In addition, amounts owed under awards. Additionally, it provides 256.12 What supporting documentation compromise agreements negotiated by must agencies submit to FMS when the U.S. Department of Justice in direction to private attorneys regarding requesting a payment from the Judgment filing requirements necessary to Fund? settlement of claims arising under actual preserve the right to interest. 256.13 Are agencies required to supply a or imminent litigation are normally paid taxpayer identification number (TIN) from the Judgment Fund, if a judgment Regulatory Analyses when submitting a request for payment? on the merits would be payable from the Administrative Procedure Act. This 256.14 What happens if I submit an Judgment Fund. Treasury’s Financial rule reflects provisions that are already incomplete request for payment? Management Service (FMS) certifies in effect as a matter of law and provides Subpart C—Debt Collection payments from the Judgment Fund information on the current procedures 256.20 How does an agency indicate that a when the following four tests have been for obtaining payments from the debt is to be offset from a Judgment Fund met: (1) Awards or settlements are final; Judgment Fund. Under 5 U.S.C. payment? (2) Awards or settlements are monetary; 553(b)(B), this rule is exempt from 256.21 Are Judgment Fund payments offset (3) One of the authorities specified in 31 notice and comment rulemaking to collect administrative debts? U.S.C. 1304(a)(3) provides for payment requirements on the grounds that the 256.22 How does FMS set off an award of the award or settlement; and (4) amendments are non-substantive and under 31 U.S.C. 3728? Payment may not legally be made from further delay in making these Subpart D—Interest and Litigation Costs any other source of funds. amendments is unnecessary and 256.30 When does the Judgment Fund pay (b) Additionally, FMS requires that contrary to the public interest. Likewise, interest? requests for payment identify the statute for the same reasons a delayed effective 256.31 How does FMS compute interest on that forms the basis of the underlying date is not required. payments? claim. The award or settlement must Clarity of Regulations. Executive 256.32 What documentation must be comply with the statutory and Order 12866 requires each agency to submitted to the Judgment Fund Branch regulatory requirements that authorize to preserve the right to seek interest write regulations that are easy to under 31 U.S.C. 1304(b) in a case where the award or settlement. For example, understand. We invite comment on how the government has taken an appeal? interest is payable on Judgment Fund to make this rule clearer. For example, 256.33 For what period of time is interest awards only if there is an express you may wish to discuss: (1) Whether computed under 31 U.S.C. 1304(b)? statutory provision, contractual

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60850 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

agreement or constitutional waiver of payment from the Judgment Fund. The provided must be for the party entitled sovereign immunity authorizing the request for payment must be on the to the payment, whether or not that assessment of interest against the United appropriate Judgment Fund payment party is the payee. Failure to include a States. Also, a tort under the Federal request forms. required TIN results in an incomplete Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is payable from (b) Awards to minors. For awards to request for payment. the Judgment Fund only when the claimants that are minors, the award amount exceeds $2,500 (for submitting agency must include in its § 256.14 What happens if I submit an incomplete request for payment? administrative awards) and is in submission to FMS documentation compliance with the regulatory establishing that the payee, if different FMS may return, without action, any requirements at 28 CFR part 14. from the claimant, is legally authorized request for payment that is incomplete. to act on behalf of the claimant. If a request for payment is returned for § 256.2 Where can I find more information Documentation of court approvals lack of necessary information, the about, and forms for, Judgment Fund (Federal, State, or foreign) that are submitting agency may resubmit the payments? legally required for payment must be request for payment once all the Detailed information related to submitted along with the request for required information is available. Judgment Fund payments, including payment from the Judgment Fund. State Subpart C—Debt Collection copies of all forms, can be found in the law typically specifies when money Treasury Financial Manual (TFM), awards to minors require the § 256.20 How does an agency indicate that Volume I, Part 6, Chapter 3100. The appointment of a guardian. Agencies a debt is to be offset from a Judgment Fund TFM is available on the Judgment Fund must list the appropriate controlling payment? Web site at http://www.fms.treas.gov/ state law citation on the payment The submitting agency must identify judgefund. Contact information for the request forms. on the appropriate Judgment Fund form Judgment Fund Branch is also available (c) Awards of costs. For awards of any known debt owed to the United on the Web site. costs, the submitting agency must States that FMS is expected to collect by include a copy of the ‘‘bill of costs’’ or Subpart B—Requesting Payments setoff against the award. Such a debt the Court’s order awarding costs. Only will be offset pursuant to the provisions § 256.10 Who may request payment from those items expressly enumerated under of 31 U.S.C. 3728. the Judgment Fund? the cost statute, 28 U.S.C. 1920, or other governing statute specific to the award, § 256.21 Are Judgment Fund payments (a) Court judgments and settlements offset to collect administrative debts? of litigation. The Department of Justice are payable from the Judgment Fund. Yes, separate and apart from its role must normally submit the request for (d) Payments to multiple claimants/ as administrator of the Judgment Fund, payment from the Judgment Fund. payees in a single award. For awards FMS, in its capacity as disbursing Agencies that have independent where multiple payees are to receive official for the executive branch, offsets litigating authority may submit a request separate payments, the submitting Judgment Fund payments to collect for payment themselves if the agency must complete separate delinquent, nontax Federal debts Department of Justice is not responsible Judgment Fund Vouchers for Payment through the Treasury Offset Program for the case. for each payee. When there are multiple (TOP). This rule applies only to the (b) Administrative awards. The claimants in an administrative tort setoff of Judgment Fund payments prior program agency that is authorized to matter, each claimant’s award must to payment certification, pursuant to 31 approve the award must submit the independently exceed the mandatory U.S.C. 3728, and not to disbursing request for payment. $2,500 threshold in order for payment to be made from the Judgment Fund. A official offsets pursuant to other § 256.11 How do agencies request claimant’s threshold can be satisfied by authorities. (See 31 CFR 285.5 for payments? combining amounts awarded for requirements for disbursing official Agencies must submit requests for personal and property damage under the offset of past-due delinquent, nontax payments from the Judgment Fund on FTCA. debts pursuant to the authority set forth FMS’s Judgment Fund payment request (e) Awards of back pay. For awards of in 31 U.S.C. 3716.) back pay where the judgment does not forms or by using other approved § 256.22 How does FMS set off an award methods as provided for on the specifically state the principal amounts under 31 U.S.C. 3728? Judgment Fund Web site at http:// to be paid and withholdings to be made, The setoff statute establishes a two- www.fms.treas.gov/judgefund. FMS the submitting agency must include a step process to collect debts that are provides forms and detailed information spreadsheet indicating precisely which owed to the United States. If an agency about Judgment Fund payments in the amounts are allocable to net pay, notifies FMS of a debt for which a court TFM, Volume I, Part 6, Chapter 3100. deductions, and interest. has issued a judgment against a debtor The TFM is also available on the § 256.13 Are agencies required to supply a in favor of the United States, or for Judgment Fund Web site. The taxpayer identification number (TIN) when which the IRS has issued a tax levy submitting agency must complete and submitting a request for payment? pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6331, then FMS sign all required Judgment Fund forms Yes, agencies must include a valid will automatically set off the debt from and must attach all required supporting TIN on all requests for payments, unless the payment. If the debt owed to the documents. the situation meets one of the United States has not been judicially § 256.12 What supporting documentation exceptions listed in the FMS TIN Policy, determined, then FMS must notify the must agencies submit to FMS when which may be found on the FMS Web claimant of the debt and request the requesting a payment from the Judgment site at: http://www.fms.treas.gov/ debtor’s consent to a setoff. If the debtor Fund? tinpolicy/regulations.html. For an consents, then FMS will set off the debt. (a) All payments. The submitting individual, the TIN is the Social If the debtor does not consent, then FMS agency must submit a copy of the Security Number. For a business, the will withhold from payment an amount judgment or settlement agreement, as TIN is the Employer Identification equal to the debt. FMS also may applicable, in addition to the request for Number issued by IRS. The TIN withhold an amount sufficient to pay

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60851

the cost of litigating the debt to § 256.33 For what period of time is interest from the net back pay. The third part is judgment. FMS then will consult with computed under 31 U.S.C. 1304(b)? a payment of attorney fees, which is the underlying agency and the Interest is computed from the date sent directly to the attorney. Department of Justice regarding the that FMS receives the copy of the (b) Under the second method, FMS necessity for a civil action to reduce the judgment until the date preceding the pays the entire back pay award to the debt to judgment. If litigation proceeds appellate court’s affirmative ruling. If agency out of whose actions the claim and is successful, FMS will set off the the United States files a Notice of arose. The agency then issues amounts debt. If the suit is unsuccessful, FMS Appeal which it later withdraws, representing back pay (and interest if will pay the withheld amount with interest is paid on the award through authorized) to the plaintiff and retains interest accruing from the date when the date before the withdrawal of the amounts representing deductions. FMS pays the attorney fees directly to the payment would have been made. Notice of Appeal. attorney. § 256.34 Does the Judgment Fund pay all Subpart D—Interest and Litigation litigation costs? § 256.51 Does FMS report Judgment Fund Costs FMS certifies for payment only those payments to the IRS as income to the payee on IRS Form 1099? costs that are enumerated in the cost § 256.30 When does the Judgment Fund No, FMS does not report Judgment pay interest? statute, 28 U.S.C. 1920, or as set forth under a statute that specifically governs Fund payments as potential taxable Interest is paid when it is ordered in payment of the award. income to the IRS. FMS does not have the judgment pursuant to a statutory, sufficient information about the contractual or constitutional waiver of Subpart E—Reimbursements to the payment to determine if a Form 1099 sovereign immunity. Such waivers may Judgment Fund must be issued or to prepare such a form include interest as set forth under 41 when required. To the extent any Form § 256.40 When must an agency reimburse 1099 needs to be issued, it is the U.S.C. 611 (Contract Disputes Act), 5 the Judgment Fund? U.S.C. 5596 (Back Pay Act), or Title VII, responsibility of the agency submitting Agencies are required to reimburse 42 U.S.C. 2000e–16 (Civil Rights Act of the payment request to do so. the Judgment Fund for payments made 1991). In addition, post-judgment pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act § 256.52 How does FMS issue a payment? interest is paid on awards eligible for (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 612, and payments Pursuant to 31 CFR part 208, interest under 31 U.S.C. 1304(b) made pursuant to the Notification and Judgment Fund payments are to be (unsuccessful appeal by the Federal Employees Antidiscrimination made by electronic funds transfer (EFT). Government). and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR), FMS will issue an electronic payment to § 256.31 How does FMS compute interest 5 U.S.C. 2301 note. The TFM, available the payee’s account as specified on the on payments? on the Judgment Fund Web site at appropriate Judgment Fund form. If a http://www.fms.treas.gov/judgefund, submitting agency determines that a FMS computes interest according to contains more information about how waiver (in accordance with 31 CFR part the terms of the statute that waives FMS bills agencies and collects such 208) to the requirement for payment by sovereign immunity for interest to be reimbursements. EFT is appropriate, FMS will issue a awarded against the Federal payment by check. The Voucher for government. The statute that allows § 256.41 When is reimbursement due for Payment must direct payment to the interest must be cited on the appropriate CDA and No FEAR payments? payee designated in the judgment or Judgment Fund form. Reimbursement for a CDA or No settlement agreement. FEAR payment should be made § 256.32 What documentation must be promptly upon notification from FMS of § 256.53 How does the submitting agency submitted to the Judgment Fund Branch to the amount due. If the agency is unable know when payment is made? preserve the right to seek interest under 31 to timely reimburse FMS, the agency FMS will e-mail the agency contact U.S.C. 1304(b) in a case where the must contact FMS to establish a when payment is disbursed, if the government has taken an appeal? reimbursement plan. Under Office of agency contact has provided an email 31 U.S.C. 1304(b) specifies that a Personnel Management (OPM) address on the appropriate Judgment ‘‘transcript of the judgment’’ must be regulations, No FEAR reimbursements Fund form. Also, FMS maintains an on- filed with the Secretary of the Treasury. or payment reimbursement plans must line payment status system that the This means that a copy of the judgment be made within 45 days of the request submitting agency can access to must be filed with the Judgment Fund for reimbursement. See 5 CFR part 724. determine the status of a payment. The Branch for interest to accrue on a Agencies that do not meet this payment reporting system can be judgment of a federal district court, the requirement will be listed on FMS’s accessed from the Judgment Fund Web Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, public Web site. site at http://www.fms.treas.gov/ or the United States Court of Federal judgefund. Subpart F—Additional Provisions Claims. By practice, the successful § 256.54 What happens if FMS denies a plaintiff files a copy of the judgment. § 256.50 How does FMS process back pay request for payment? Whoever submits the judgment should awards? FMS must deny any request for include a cover letter explaining that it (a) The submitting agency may payment that fails to satisfy the is being submitted to preserve interest request one of two methods to process requirements of 31 U.S.C. 1304. The rights under 31 U.S.C. 1304. A copy of back pay awards. One method has three submitting agency may request the judgment and cover letter must be parts. The first part is a payment of net reconsideration of a payment denial. sent to the Financial Management back pay (and interest if authorized), The submitting agency must provide an Service, Judgment Fund Branch, at the which is sent to the plaintiff or to the explanation of how the request for address indicated on the Judgment Fund plaintiff’s attorney, as directed by the payment meets the four tests contained Web site at http://www.fms.treas.gov/ submitting agency. The second part is a in section 256.1 of this part. If judgefund. payment to the agency of deductions applicable, requests for reconsideration

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60852 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

must contain a reference to the agency’s No. R10–OAR–2005–TR–0001. The permits; and 49.11020(l) Section 49.137 program authority and include specific delegation agreement and other docket Rule for air pollution episodes. funding provisions that pertain to the materials are available electronically in Section 553 of the Administrative program activity that resulted in the EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic public Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), claim. If, upon reconsideration, FMS docket and comment system, found at provides that, when an agency for good determines that payment from the www.regulations.gov or in hard copy cause finds that notice and public Judgment Fund is appropriate, and the from Steve Body at EPA Region 10, procedure are impracticable, agency has already made payment to the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– unnecessary or contrary to the public plaintiff or claimant, FMS will 107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, interest, the agency may issue a rule reimburse the agency from the Judgment Washington 98101, or via e-mail at without providing notice and an Fund. [email protected]. Additional opportunity for public comment. EPA information may also be obtained from has determined that there is good cause Subpart G—Private Relief Bills the CTUIR by contacting Dr. John Cox, for making today’s rule final without § 256.60 How do I get paid for a Private Air Quality Project Coordinator, prior proposal and opportunity for Relief Bill? Environmental Science and Technology comment because EPA is merely informing the public of partial You may apply for payment by Program, P.O. Box 638, Pendleton, delegation of administrative authority to sending a request letter along with Oregon 97801. the CTUIR and making a technical supporting documentation, to include a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: amendment to the Code of Federal copy of the private relief act and proof Steve Body at telephone number: (206) Regulations (CFR) by adding a note of your identity, to the address specified 553–0782, e-mail address: announcing the partial delegation. Thus, on the FMS Web site at http:// [email protected], or the above EPA, notice and public procedure are www.fms.treas.gov/privaterelief. Region 10 address. unnecessary. EPA finds that this Dated: October 11, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. Kenneth R. Papaj, purpose of this action is to announce 553(b)(B). Commissioner. that on August 21, 2006, EPA Region 10, Moreover, since today’s action does [FR Doc. E6–17229 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] delegated partial administrative not create any new regulatory authority for implementation of certain BILLING CODE 4810–35–P requirements, EPA finds that good cause provisions of the Umatilla FIP to the exists to provide for an immediate CTUIR. See 40 CFR part 49, subpart M, effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 11011 through 11040, as ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 553(d)(3). AGENCY authorized by 40 CFR 49.122 of the Federal Air Rules for Reservations, III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 40 CFR Part 49 (FARR), 40 CFR part 49, subpart C. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR [R10–OAR–2005–TR–0001; FRL–8230–8] I. Authority To Delegate 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is Federal regulation 40 CFR 49.122 not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and Announcement of the Delegation of provides EPA authority to delegate to therefore is not subject to review by the Partial Administrative Authority for Indian Tribes, partial administrative Office of Management and Budget. For Implementation of Federal authority to administer provisions of the this reason, this action is also not Implementation Plan for the Umatilla Federal Air Rules for Reservations subject to Executive Order 13211, Indian Reservation to the Confederated (FARR), 40 CFR part 49, subpart C. ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Tribes must submit a request to the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Reservation Regional Administrator that meets the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May AGENCY: Environmental Protection requirements of 40 CFR 49.122. 22, 2001). This action merely makes a Agency (EPA). technical amendment and gives notice II. Partial Delegation of Administrative of a partial delegation of administrative ACTION: Delegation of authority; Authority technical amendment. authority. Accordingly, the On August 21, 2006, EPA entered into Administrator certifies that this rule SUMMARY: This action announces that on an ‘‘Agreement for Partial Delegation of will not have a significant economic August 21, 2006, EPA Region 10 and the the Federal Implementation Plan for the impact on a substantial number of small Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Umatilla Indian Reservation by the entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Indian Reservation (CTUIR) entered into United States Environmental Protection Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule does a Partial Delegation of Administrative Agency, Region 10, to the Confederated not contain any unfunded mandate or Authority to carry out certain day-to-day Tribes of the Umatilla Indian.’’ The significantly or uniquely affect small activities associated with administration Delegation Agreement provides governments, as described in the of the Federal Implementation Plan for authority for the CTUIR to administer Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 the Umatilla Indian Reservation the following rules that are part of the (Pub. L. 104–4). (Umatilla FIP). A note of this partial Federal Implementation Plan for the Executive Order 13175, entitled delegation is being added to the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, 40 CFR ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Umatilla FIP. 49.11011 through 49.11040: 49.11020(a) Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR DATES: The partial delegation of Section 49.123 General provisions; 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA administrative authority was effective 49.11020(g) Section 49.131 General rule to develop an accountable process to on August 21, 2006. The date of for open burning; 49.11020(h) Section ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by delegation can be found in the 49.132 Rule for general open burning tribal officials in the development of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of permits; 49.11020(i) Section 49.133 Rule regulatory policies that have tribal this document. for agricultural burning permits; implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 49.11020(j) Section 49.134 Rule for implications’’ is defined in the docket for this action under Docket ID forestry and silvicultural burning Executive Order to include regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60853

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on promulgating the rule must submit a paragraphs (a), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (l) of this one or more Indian tribes, on the rule report, which includes a copy of section. relationship between the Federal the rule, to each House of the Congress [FR Doc. E6–17223 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] government and the Indian tribes, or on and to the Comptroller General of the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P the distribution of power and United States. EPA will submit a report responsibilities between the Federal containing this rule and other required government and Indian tribes.’’ Under information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, House of Representatives, and the AGENCY EPA may not issue a regulation that has Comptroller General of the United tribal implications, that imposes States prior to publication of the rule in 40 CFR Part 50 substantial direct compliance costs, and the Federal Register. A major rule [EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0834; FRL–8230–9] that is not required by statute, unless cannot take effect until 60 days after it the Federal government provides the is published in the Federal Register. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the funds necessary to pay the direct This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Review of the Particulate Matter compliance costs incurred by tribal defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). National Ambient Air Quality governments, or EPA consults with Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Standards tribal officials early in the process of Air Act, petitions for judicial review of developing the proposed regulation. AGENCY: Environmental Protection this action must be filed in the United Under section 5(c) of Executive Order Agency (EPA). States Court of Appeals for the 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation appropriate circuit by December 18, ACTION: Notice of availability of that has tribal implications and that 2006. Filing a petition for documents. preempts tribal law, unless the Agency reconsideration by the Administrator of consults with tribal officials early in the SUMMARY: On October 6, 2006, EPA this final rule does not affect the finality process of developing the regulation. released the Regulatory Impact Analysis EPA has concluded that this rule may of this rule for the purposes of judicial (RIA) for the revised particulate matter have tribal implications. EPA’s action review nor does it extend the time national ambient air quality standards. fulfills a requirement to publish a notice within which a petition for judicial This RIA provides EPA’s estimates of announcing partial delegation of review may be filed, and shall not the range of the monetized human administrative authority to the CTUIR postpone the effectiveness of such rule health benefits, control costs, and net and noting the partial delegation in the or action. This action may not be benefits associated with meeting the CFR. However, it will neither impose challenged later in proceedings to revised suite of standards for fine enforce its requirements. (See section substantial direct compliance costs on particles (PM2.5) that are published tribal governments, nor preempt tribal 307(b)(2).) elsewhere in this issue of the Federal law. Thus, the requirements of sections List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 Register, as well as for meeting a more 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do stringent alternative. The final rule not apply to this rule. Administrative practice and established a 24-hour standard of 35 g/ This action also does not have procedure, Air pollution control, m3 and retained the annual standard of Federalism implications because it does Indians, Intergovernmental relations, 15 g/m3. The EPA also promulgated a not have substantial direct effects on the Reporting and recordkeeping final decision to retain the current 24- states, on the relationship between the requirements. hour PM10 standards and to revoke the national government and the states, or Dated: September 28, 2006. current annual PM10 standards, in order on the distribution of power and Ronald A. Kreizenbeck, to maintain protection against the health responsibilities among the various Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. and welfare effects of thoracic coarse levels of government, as specified in particles (PM10¥2.5). Data and modeling Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, I Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of limitations preclude EPA from assessing August 10, 1999). This technical Federal Regulations is amended as the costs and benefits of retaining the amendment merely notes that partial follows: existing PM10 24-hour standard. delegation of administrative authority to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. the CTUIR is in effect. This rule also is PART 49—[AMENDED] Ron Evans, Mail Code C439–02, Health not subject to Executive Order 13045, and Environmental Impacts Division, ‘‘Protection of Children from I 1. The authority citation for Part 49 Office of Air Quality Planning and Environmental Health Risks and Safety continues to read as follows: Standards, U.S. Environmental Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Protection Agency, Research Triangle because it is not economically Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone: significant. Subpart M—[Amended] This action does not involve technical (919) 541–5488, e-mail: [email protected]. standards; thus, the requirements of I 2. Section 49.11020 is amended by section 12(d) of the National adding a note to the end of the section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technology Transfer and Advancement to read as follows: A. How Can I Get Copies of This Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an § 49.11020 Federally-promulgated Document and Other Related information collection burden under the regulations and Federal implementation Information? provisions of the Paperwork Reduction plans. 1. Docket. The EPA has established a Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The * * * * * docket for this action under Docket ID Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 Note to § 49.11020: EPA entered into a No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0834. et seq., as added by the Small Business Partial Delegation of Administrative Publicly available docket materials are Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of Authority Agreement with the Confederated available either electronically through 1996, generally provides that before a Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation on www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at rule may take effect, the agency August 21, 2006 for the rules listed in the Air and Radiation Docket and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60854 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Information Center in the EPA Docket adopt to meet the revised standards. request through the community that the Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, These strategies are subject to a number Mitigation Division Director reconsider 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., of important assumptions, uncertainties the changes. The modified BFEs may be Washington, DC. The EPA Docket and limitations, which EPA documents changed during the 90-day period. Center Public Reading Room is open in the relevant portions of the analysis. ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday The EPA presents this analysis community are available for inspection through Friday, excluding legal pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and at the office of the Chief Executive holidays. The telephone number for the the guidelines of OMB Circular A–4.1 Officer of each community. The Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, These documents present guidelines for respective addresses are listed in the and the telephone number for the Air EPA to assess the incremental benefits table below. and Radiation Docket and Information and costs of the selected regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Center is (202) 566–1742. approach as well as one less stringent, William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering 2. Electronic Access. You may access and one more stringent, option. In this Management Section, Mitigation this Federal Register document RIA, the 1997 standards represent the Division, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., electronically through the EPA Internet less stringent option, and the alternative Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at suite of standards including a tighter SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. The EPA annual standard of 14 g/m3 together The also has posted the RIA on its Web site with the revised 24-hour standard of 35 modified BFEs are not listed for each for particle pollution and the revised g/m3 represents the more stringent community in this interim rule. PM standards at http://www.epa.gov/ option. However, the address of the Chief pm. Note: The EPA Docket Center Executive Officer of the community Dated: October 5, 2006. suffered damage due to flooding during where the modified BFE determinations the last week of June 2006. The Docket Jeffrey S. Clarke, are available for inspection is provided. Center is continuing to operate. Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning Any request for reconsideration must However, during the cleanup, there will and Standards. be based on knowledge of changed be temporary changes to Docket Center [FR Doc. E6–17011 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] conditions or new scientific or technical telephone numbers, addresses, and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P data. hours of operation for people who wish The modifications are made pursuant to visit the Public Reading Room to to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster view documents. Consult EPA’s Federal DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, SECURITY and are in accordance with the National 2006) or the EPA Web site at http:// Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for Federal Emergency Management 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR Part 65. current information on docket status, Agency For rating purposes, the currently locations and telephone numbers. effective community number is shown In setting primary ambient air quality 44 CFR Part 65 and must be used for all new policies standards, EPA’s responsibility under [Docket No. FEMA–B–7467] and renewals. the law is to establish standards that The modified BFEs are the basis for protect public health. The Clean Air Act Changes in Flood Elevation the floodplain management measures (CAA) requires EPA, for each criteria Determinations that the community is required to either pollutant, to set a standard that protects adopt or to show evidence of being public health with ‘‘an adequate margin AGENCY: Federal Emergency already in effect in order to qualify or of safety.’’ As interpreted by the Agency Management Agency (FEMA), to remain qualified for participation in and the courts, the CAA requires EPA to Department of Homeland Security, the National Flood Insurance Program base this decision on health Mitigation Division. (NFIP). considerations; economic factors cannot ACTION: Interim rule. These modified BFEs, together with be considered. the floodplain management criteria SUMMARY: This interim rule lists Although EPA cannot consider costs required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the communities where modification of the in setting the primary air quality minimum that are required. They Base (1% annual-chance) Flood standards, consideration of costs and should not be construed to mean that Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because benefits is essential to the efficient the community must change any of new scientific or technical data. New implementation of these standards. The existing ordinances that are more flood insurance premium rates will be impacts of cost, benefits, and efficiency stringent in their floodplain calculated from the modified BFEs for are considered by the States when management requirements. The new buildings and their contents. making decisions regarding what community may at any time enact timelines, strategies, and policies make DATES: These modified BFEs are stricter requirements of its own, or the most sense. currently in effect on the dates listed in pursuant to policies established by the the table below and revise the Flood This PM2.5 NAAQS RIA is focused on other Federal, State, or regional entities. development and analyses of illustrative Insurance Rate Maps in effect prior to The changed BFEs are in accordance control strategies to meet alternative this determination for the listed with 44 CFR 65.4. National suites of standards in 2020, the latest communities. Environmental Policy Act. This rule is year by which the CAA generally From the date of the second categorically excluded from the requires full attainment of the new publication of these changes in a requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, standards. Because the States are newspaper of local circulation, any Environmental Consideration. No ultimately responsible for implementing person has ninety (90) days in which to environmental impact assessment has strategies to meet the revised standards, been prepared. 1 For a copy of these requirements, see:http:// the RIA provides insights and analysis www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/inforeg/eo12866.pdf Regulatory Flexibility Act. The of a limited number of illustrative and http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/ Mitigation Division Director for the control strategies that States might a004/a–4.html. FEMA certifies that this rule is exempt

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60855

from the requirements of the Regulatory federalism implications under Executive PART 65—[AMENDED] Flexibility Act because modified BFEs Order 13132, Federalism. I are required by the Flood Disaster Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 1. The authority citation for Part 65 Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, Reform. This rule meets the applicable continues to read as follows: and are required to maintain community standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory Order 12988. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, flexibility analysis has been prepared. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Regulatory Classification. This List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Flood insurance, Floodplains, § 65.4 [Amended] Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of Reporting and recordkeeping September 30, 1993, Regulatory requirements. I 2. The tables published under the Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. authority of § 65.4 are amended as I Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 65 is Executive Order 13132, Federalism. follows: This rule involves no policies that have amended to read as follows:

Alabama: Houston ...... City of Dothan (05–04– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; The Honorable Pat Thomas, Mayor, City of A105P). Dothan Eagle. Dothan, P.O. Box 2128, Dothan, Alabama 36302. Jefferson ...... City of Trussville (06– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Bir- The Honorable Eugene A. Melton, Mayor, City of 04–B139P). mingham News. Trussville, Trussville City Hall, 131 Main Street, Trussville, Alabama 35173. Jefferson ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Bir- The Honorable Larry Langford, President, Jeffer- Jefferson County (06– mingham News. son County Commission, Jefferson County 04–B139P). Courthouse, Room 240, 716 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Jefferson ...... Unincorporated Areas of July 27, 2006; August 3, 2006; Bir- The Honorable Larry Langford, President, Jeffer- Jefferson County (06– mingham News. son County Commission, Jefferson County 04–B748P). Courthouse, Room 240, 716 Richard Arrington Jr., Boulevard North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Madison ...... City of Huntsville (06– July 14, 2006; July 21, 2006; Madi- The Honorable Loretta Spencer, Mayor, City of 04–136P). son County Record. Huntsville, P.O. Box 308, Huntsville, Alabama 35804. Mobile ...... Unincorporated Areas of July 20, 2006; July 27, 2006; Mobile Mr. John Pafenbach, County Administrator, Mo- Mobile County (06– Press Register. bile County, 205 Government Street, Mobile, 04–A402P). Alabama 36644. Shelby ...... City of Pelham (06–04– July 12, 2006; July 19, 2006; Shelby The Honorable Bobby Hayes, Mayor, City of B342P). County Reporter. Pelham, P.O. Box 1419, Pelham, Alabama 35124. Tuscaloosa ...... City of North Port (05– January 18, 2006; January 25, 2006; The Honorable Harvey Fretwell, Mayor, City of 04–1187P). The Northport Gazette. Northport, City Hall, 3500 McFarland Boule- vard, Northport, Alabama 35476. Tuscaloosa ...... City of North Port (05– May 17, 2006; May 24, 2006; The The Honorable Harvey Fretwell, Mayor, City of 04–A392P). Northport Gazette. Northport, City Hall, 3500 McFarland Boule- vard, Northport, Alabama 35476. Tuscaloosa ...... City of Tuscaloosa (05– May 17, 2006; May 24, 2006; The The Honorable Walter Maddox, Mayor, City of 04–A392P). Northport Gazette. Tuscaloosa, P.O. Box 2089, Tuscaloosa, Ala- bama 35403–2089 Tuscaloosa ...... Unincorporated Areas of January, 18 2006; January 25, 2006; The Honorable W. Hardy McCollum, Chairman, Tuscaloosa County The Northport Gazette. Tuscaloosa County Board of Commissioners, (05–04–1187P). 714 Greensboro Avenue, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401. Tuscaloosa ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 17, 2006; May 24, 2006; The The Honorable W. Hardy McCollum, Chairman, Tuscaloosa County, Northport Gazette. Tuscaloosa County Board of Commissioners, (05–04–A392P)). 714 Greensboro Avenue, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401. Benton ...... City of Rogers (05–06– June 21, 2006; June 28, 2006; Ar- The Honorable Steve Womack, Mayor, City of 0683P). kansas Democrat Gazette, Rogers Rogers, 300 West Poplar Street, Rogers, Ar- Hometown News. kansas 72756. Benton ...... City of Rogers (05–06– August 30, 2006; September 6, The Honorable Steve Womack, Mayor, City of A559P). 2006; Arkansas Democrat Ga- Rogers, 300 West Poplar Street, Rogers, Ar- zette, Rogers Hometown News. kansas 72756. Crawford ...... City of Van Buren (05– May 17, 2006; May 24, 2006; Press The Honorable John Riggs, Mayor, City of Van 06–A486P). Argus Courier. Buren, 1003 Broadway, Van Buren, Arkansas 72956. Pulaski ...... City of Jacksonville (05– December 21, 2005; December 28, The Honorable Tommy Swaim, Mayor, City of 06–1464P). 2005; Jacksonville Patriot. Jacksonville, One Municipal Drive, Jackson- ville, Arkansas 72076. Pulaski ...... City of North Little Rock April 13, 2006; April 20, 2006; North The Honorable Patrick H. Hays, Mayor, City of (05–06–1777). Little Rock Times. North Little Rock, 300 Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60856 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Pulaski ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 13, 2006; April 20, 2006; North The Honorable Floyd G. Villines, Pulaski County Pulaski County (05– Little Rock Times. Judge, Pulaski County Courthouse 201 South 06–1777P). Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. Coconino ...... City of Flagstaff (05–09– December 8, 2005; December 15, The Honorable Joseph Donaldson, Mayor, City of 1103P). 2005; Arizona Daily Sun. Flagstaff, 211 West Aspen Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001. Maricopa ...... City of Avondale (06– July 13, 2006; July 20, 2006; Arizona The Honorable Marie Lopez-Rogers, Mayor, City 09–B472P). Business Gazette. of Avondale, 525 North Central Avenue, Avondale, Arizona 85323. Maricopa ...... City of Chandler (04– November 10, 2005; November 17, The Honorable Boyd W. Dunn, Mayor, City of 09–1562P). 2005; Arizona Business Gazette. Chandler, P.O. Box 4008, Mail Stop 603, Chandler, Arizona 85244–4008. Maricopa ...... City of Glendale (06– July 20, 2006; July 27, 2006; Arizona The Honorable Elaine Scrugss, Mayor, City of 09–B380P). Business Gazette. Glendale, 5850 West Glendale Avenue, Glen- dale, Arizona 85301 Maricopa ...... Town of Gilbert (04–09– May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Ari- The Honorable Steve Berman, Mayor, Town of 1717P). zona Business Gazette. Gilbert, 50 West Civic Center Drive, Gilbert, Ar- izona 85296 Maricopa ...... Town of Gilbert (06–09– June 29, 2006; July 6, 2006; Arizona The Honorable Steve Berman, Mayor, Town of B885X). Business Gazette. Gilbert, 50 West Civic Center Drive, Gilbert, Ar- izona 85296 Maricopa ...... City of Goodyear (05– June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Ari- The Honorable Jim Cavanaugh, Mayor, City of 09–0791P). zona Business Gazette. Goodyear, 190 North Litchfield Road, Good- year, Arizona 85338 Maricopa ...... City of Litchfield Park June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Ari- The Honorable J. Woodfin Thomas, Mayor, City (05–09–0791P). zona Business Gazette. of Litchfield Park, 214 West Wigman Boule- vard, Litchfield Park, Arizona 85340 Maricopa ...... Town of Paradise Valley December 8, 2005; December 15, The Honorable Ron Clarke, Mayor, Town of Par- (05–09–1284P). 2005; Arizona Business Gazette. adise, 6401 East Lincoln Drive, Paradise Val- ley, Arizona 85253 Maricopa ...... City of Peoria (06–09– July 20, 2006; July 27, 2006; Arizona The Honorable John Keegan, Mayor, City of Peo- B380P). Business Gazette. ria, 8410 West Monroe Street, Peoria, Arizona 85345 Maricopa ...... City of Phoenix (05–09– December 8, 2005; December 15, The Honorable Phil Gordon, Mayor, City of Phoe- 1284P). 2005; Arizona Business Gazette. nix, 200 West Washington Street, 11th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003–1611 Maricopa ...... City of Phoenix (06–09– April 27, 2006; May 4, 2006; Arizona The Honorable Phil Gordon, Mayor, City of Phoe- B520P). Business Gazette. nix, 200 West Washington Street, 11th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003–1611 Maricopa ...... Town of Queen Creek May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Ari- The Honorable Mark Schnepf, Mayor, Town of (04–09–1717P). zona Business Gazette. Queen Creek, P.O. Box 650, Queen Creek, Ar- izona 85242 Maricopa ...... Town of Queen Creek June 29, 2006; July 6, 2006; Arizona The Honorable Mark Schnepf, Mayor, Town of (06–09–B885X). Business Gazette. Queen Creek, P.O. Box 650, Queen Creek, Ar- izona 85242 Maricopa ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Ari- The Honorable Max Wilson, Chairman, Maricopa Maricopa County (04– zona Business Gazette. County, 301 West Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, 09–1717P). Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Maricopa ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Ari- The Honorable Max Wilson, Chairman, Maricopa Maricopa County (05– zona Business Gazette. County, 301 West Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, 09–0394P). Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Maricopa ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 29, 2006; July 6, 2006; Arizona The Honorable Max Wilson, Chairman, Maricopa Maricopa County (06– Business Gazette. County, 301 West Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, 09–B885X). Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Pima ...... City of Tucson (05–09– February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tuc- A160P). 2006; Daily Territorial. son, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, Arizona 85726 Pima ...... City of Tucson (05–09– March 30, 2006; April 6, 2006; Daily The Honorable Bob Walkup, Mayor, City of Tuc- A090P). Territorial. son, P.O. Box 27210, Tucson, Arizona 85726 Pima ...... Unincorporated Areas of December 8, 2005; December 15, The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Pima Pima County (05–09– 2005; Daily Territorial. County, Board of Supervisors, 130 West Con- 0847P). gress, 11th Floor, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Pima ...... Unincorporated Areas of February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Pima Pima County (05–09– 2006; Daily Territorial. County, Board of Supervisors, 130 West Con- A160P). gress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Pima ...... Unincorporated Areas of March 30, 2006; April 6, 2006; Daily The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Pima Pima County (05–09– Territorial. County, Board of Supervisors, 130 West Con- A090P). gress, 11th Floor, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Pinal ...... Unincorporated Areas of February 8, 2006; February 15, The Honorable Sandie Smith, Chair, Pinal Coun- Pinal County (05–09– 2006; Copper Basin News. ty, Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 827, Flor- A319P). ence, Arizona 85232 Pinal ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; Cop- The Honorable Sandie Smith, Chair, Pinal Coun- Pinal County (06–09– per Basin News. ty, Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 827, Flor- B339P). ence, Arizona 85232 California:.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60857

Marin ...... City of Novato (05–09– January 11, 2006; January 18, 2006; The Honorable Carole D. Knutson, Mayor, City of A080P). Novato Advance. Novato, 75 Rowland Way, Suite 200, Novato, California 94945–5054. Merced ...... City of Atwater (05–09– February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable Rudy Trevino, Mayor, City of 0622P). 2006; Merced Sun-Star. Atwater, 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, Cali- fornia 95301. Merced ...... Unincorporated Areas of February 16, 2006; February 23, Mr. Demetrios O. Tatum, County Executive Offi- Merced County (05– 2006; Merced Sun-Star. cer, Merced County, 2222 M Street, Merced, 09–0622P). California 95340. Monterey ...... City of Marina (05–09– May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; The The Honorable Ila Mettee-McCutchon, Mayor, A506P). Salinas Californian. City of Marina, 211 Hillcrest Avenue, Marina, California 93933. Placer ...... City of Roseville (05– June 21, 2006; June 28, 2006; Press The Honorable Gina Garbolino, Mayor, City of 09–1257P). Tribune. Roseville, 311 Vernon Street, Roseville, Cali- fornia 95678. Riverside ...... City of La Quinta (04– February 9, 2006; February 16, The Honorable Donald Adolph, Mayor, City of La 09–1145P). 2006; Press Enterprise. Quinta, P.O. Box 1504, La Quinta, California 92247–1504. Riverside ...... City of Lake Elsinore June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Press The Honorable Robert Magee, Mayor, City of (06–09–B090P). Enterprise. Lake Elsinore, Administrative Office, City Hall, 130 South Main Street, Lake Elsinore, Cali- fornia 92530. Riverside ...... City of Norco (04–09– November 16, 2005; November 23, Mr. Jeff Allred, City Manager, City of Norco, 2870 1444P). 2005; Press Enterprise. Clark Avenue, Norco, California 92860. Riverside ...... City of San Jacinto (05– February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable Dale Stubblefield, Mayor, City of 09–A244P). 2006; Press Enterprise. San Jacinto, 201 East Main Street, San Jacinto, California 92583. Riverside ...... Unincorporated Areas of February 8, 2006; February 15, The Honorable Marion Ashley, Chairman, River- Riverside County (05– 2006; Press Enterprise. side County Board of Supervisors, 4080 09–A213P). Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, California 92501. San Diego ...... City of San Diego (06– March 16, 2006; March 23, 2006; 09–B001P). San Diego Daily Transcript The Honorable Jerry Sanders, Mayor, City of San Diego, 202 C Street, 11th Floor, San Diego, California 92101.. San Diego ...... City of San Diego (06– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; San The Honorable Jerry Sanders, Mayor, City of San 09–B048P). Diego Daily Transcript. Diego, 202 C Street, 11th Floor, San Diego, California 92101. San Diego ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 3, 2006; August 10, 2006; The Honorable Bill Horn, Chairman, San Diego San Diego County San Diego Daily Transcript. County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific (06–09–B14P). Highway, San Diego, California 92123. San Joaquin ...... City of Lathrop (06–09– April 27, 2006; May 4, 2006; The The Honorable Apolinar Sangalang, Mayor, City B114P). Record. of Lathrop, 16775 Howland Road, Suite 1, Lathrop, California 95330. Santa Clara ...... City of Palo Alto (06– July 19, 2006; July 26, 2006; Palo The Honorable Judy Kleinberg, Mayor, City of 09–A606P). Alto Weekly. Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301. Santa Clara ...... City of San Jose (05– March 16, 2006; March 23, 2006; The Honorable Ron Gonzales, Mayor, City of 09–0938P). San Jose Mercury News. San Jose, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California 95113. Santa Clara ...... City of San Jose (05– March 23, 2006; March 30, 2006; The Honorable Ron Gonzales, Mayor, City of 09–A216P). San Jose Mercury News. San Jose, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California 95113. Santa Clara ...... City of San Jose (06– July 19, 2006; July 26, 2006; San The Honorable Ron Gonzales, Mayor, City of 09–B378P). Jose Mercury News. San Jose, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California 95113. Santa Clara ...... City of Santa Clara (06– July 19, 2006; July 26, 2006; San The Honorable Patricia Mahan, Mayor, City of 09–B378P). Jose Mercury News. Santa Clara, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050. Ventura ...... City of Simi Valley (05– February 2, 2006; February 9, 2006; The Honorable Paul Miller, Mayor, City of Simi 09–0780P). Ventura County Star. Valley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, California 93063. Ventura ...... City of Simi Valley (06– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Ven- The Honorable Paul Miller, Mayor, City of Simi 09–A639P). tura County Star. Valley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, California 93063. Colorado:. Adams ...... City of Thornton (06– December 16, 2005; December 23, The Honorable Noel Busck, Mayor, City of Thorn- 08–A627X). 2005; Eastern Colorado News. ton, 9500 Civic Center Drive, Thornton, Colo- rado 80229. Arapahoe ...... City of Centennial (05– January 19, 2006; January 26, 2006; The Honorable Randy Pye, Mayor, City of Cen- 08–0333P). Littleton Independent. tennial, 12503 East Euclid Drive, Suite 200, Centennial, Colorado 80111.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60858 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Arapahoe ...... Unincorporated Areas of January 19, 2006; January 26, 2006; The Honorable Lynn Myers, Chair, Arapahoe Arapahoe County (05– Littleton Independent. County Board of Commissioners, 5334 South 08–0333P). Prince Street, Littleton, Colorado 80166–0001. Douglas ...... Town of Parker (06–08– March 30, 2006; April 6, 2006; Doug- The Honorable David Caiano, Mayor, Town of B014P). las County News—Press. Parker, 20120 East Mainstreet, Parker, Colo- rado 80138 . Douglas ...... Town of Parker (06–08– August 10, 2006; August 17, 2006; The Honorable David Caiano, Mayor, Town of B338P). Douglas County News—Press. Parker, 20120 East Mainstreet, Parker, Colo- rado 80138. Douglas ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Doug- The Honorable Walter Maxwell, Chairman, Doug- Douglas County (06– las County News—Press. las County Board of Commissioners, 100 Third 08–B010P). Street, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104. Douglas ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 10, 2006; August 17, 2006; The Honorable Walter Maxwell, Chairman, Doug- Douglas County (06– Douglas County News—Press. las County Board of Commissioners, 100 Third 08–B338P). Street, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104. El Paso ...... City of Colorado Springs February 22, 2006; March 1, 2006; The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Col- (06–08–B006P). El Paso County News. orado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901. El Paso ...... City of Colorado Springs March 1, 2006; March 8, 2006; El The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Col- (05–08–0586P). Paso County News. orado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901. El Paso ...... City of Colorado Springs April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; El The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Col- (04–08–0651P). Paso County News. orado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901. El Paso ...... City of Colorado Springs May 17, 2006; May 24, 2006; El The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, City of Col- (05–08–0575P). Paso County News. orado Springs, P.O. Box 1575, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901. El Paso ...... City of Fountain (05–08– November 16, 2005; November 23, The Honorable Ken Barela, Mayor, City of Foun- 0089P). 2005; El Paso County News. tain, 116 South Main Street, Fountain, Colo- rado 80817. El Paso ...... Unincorporated Areas of November 16, 2005; November 23, The Honorable Jim Bensberg, Chairman, El Paso El Paso County (05– 2005; El Paso County News. County Board of Commissioners, 27 East 08–0089P). Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903. El Paso ...... Unincorporated Areas of March 1, 2006; March 8, 2006; El The Honorable Jim Bensberg, Chairman, El Paso El Paso County (05– Paso County News. County, Board of Commissioners, 27 East 08–0586P). Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903. El Paso ...... Unincorporated areas of April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; El The Honorable Jim Bensberg, Chairman, El Paso El Paso County (04– Paso County News. County Board of Commissioners, 27 East 08–0651P). Vermijo Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903. Jefferson ...... City of Arvada (05–08– June 1, 2006; June 8, 2006; Golden The Honorable Ken Fellman, Mayor, City of Ar- 0531P). Transcript. vada, 8101 Ralston Road, Arvada, Colorado 80002. Jefferson ...... City of Golden (06–08– April 20, 2006; April 27, 2006; Gold- The Honorable Charles J. Baroch, Mayor, City of A676P). en Transcript. Golden, 701 Ridge Road,Golden, Colorado 80403. Jefferson ...... Unincorporated areas of June 1, 2006; June 8, 2006; Golden The Honorable Jim Congrove, Chairman, Jeffer- Jefferson County (06– Transcript. son County Board of Commissioners, 100 Jef- 08–0531P). ferson County Parkway, Golden, Colorado 80419. Jefferson ...... City of Westminster (04– December 7, 2005; December 14, The Honorable Nancy McNally, Mayor, City of 08–0439P). 2005; Brighton Standard Blade. Westminster, 4800 West 92nd Avenue, West- minster, Colorado 80031. Larimer ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 20, 2006; April 27, 2006; Fort The Honorable Kathay Rennels, Chair, Larimer Larimer County (05– Collins Coloradoan. County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 08–0587P). 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522. Larimer ...... Town of Wellington (05– December 22, 2005; December 29, The Honorable Larry Noel, Mayor, Town of Wel- 08–0379P). 2005; Fort Collins Coloradoan. lington, P.O. Box 127, Wellington, Colorado 80549. Summit ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 16, 2006; June 23, 2006; Sum- The Honorable Tom Long, Chairman, Summit Summit County (05– mit County Journal. County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 68, 08–0618P). Breckenridge, Colorado 80424. Weld ...... Town of Erie (05–08– November 2, 2005; November 9, The Honorable Andrew J. Moore, Mayor, Town of 0364P). 2005; Erie Review. Erie, P.O. Box 750, Erie, Colorado 80516– 0100. Weld ...... Town of Pierce (06–08– January 19, 2005; January 26, 2005; The Honorable Craig Cleveland, Mayor, Town B003P). Greeley Tribune. Pierce, P.O. Box 57, Pierce, Colorado 80650. Weld ...... Town of Severance (05– March 16, 2006; March 23, 2006; The Honorable Pierre DeMilt Mayor, Town of 08–0378P). Greeley Tribune. Severance, P.O. Box 122, Severance, Colo- rado 80546. Weld ...... Unincorporated Areas of January 19, 2005; January 26, 2005; The Honorable William Jerke Chairman, Weld Weld County (06–08– Greeley Tribune. County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box B003P). 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632. Connecticut:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60859

Fairfield ...... Town of Greenwich (05– February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable Jim Lash, First Selectman, Town 01–0751P). 2006; Greenwich Tine. of Greenwich, Town Hall, 101 Field Point Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830. New Haven ...... Town of Madison (05– August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; The Honorable Thomas S. Scarpati Selectman, 01–0798P). New Haven Register. Town of Madison, Town Hall, Eight Campus Drive, Madison, Connecticut 06443. New Castle ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 14, 2006; April 21, 2006; New- The Honorable Christopher A. Coons New Castle New Castle County ark Post. County Executive, New Castle County Gov’t (05–03–1010P). Center, 87 Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720. New Castle ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; News The Honorable Christopher A. Coons New Castle New Castle County Journal. County Executive, New Castle County Gov’t (05–03–0955P). Center, 87 Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720. New Castle ...... Unincorporated Areas of July 27, 2006; August 3, 2006; News The Honorable Christopher A. Coons New Castle New Castle County Journal. County Executive, New Castle County Gov’t (05–03–0432P). Center, 87 Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720. New Castle ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; The Honorable Christopher A. Coons New Castle New Castle County News Journal. County Executive, New Castle County Gov’t (05–03–0872P). Center, 87 Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720. Sussex ...... Town of Dagsboro (05– December 28, 2005; January 4, The Honorable Brad Conner Mayor, Town of 03–0353P). 2006; Delaware Wave. Dagsboro, P.O. Box 420, Dagsboro, Delaware 19939. Sussex ...... Unincorporated Areas of December 28, 2005; January 4, Mr. Robert L. Stickels County Administrator, Sus- Sussex County (05– 2006; Delaware Wave. sex County, P.O. Box 589, Georgetown, Dela- 03–0353P). ware 19947. Florida: Duval ...... City of Jacksonville (05– November 14, 2005; November 21, The Honorable John Peyton Mayor, City of Jack- 04–1679P). 2005; Daily Record. sonville, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202–373. Duval ...... City of Jacksonville (05– May 15, 2006; May 22, 2006; Daily The Honorable John Peyton Mayor, City of Jack- 04–A260P). Record. sonville, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202–373. Duval ...... City of Jacksonville (06– May 15, 2006; May 22, 2006; Daily The Honorable John Peyton, Mayor, City of Jack- 04–B326P). Record. sonville, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202–373. Duval ...... City of Jacksonville (05– June 19, 2006; June 26, 2006; Daily The Honorable John Peyton, Mayor, City of Jack- 04–A259P). Record. sonville, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202–373. Duval ...... City of Jacksonville (06– June 19, 2006; June 26, 2006; Daily The Honorable John Peyton Mayor, City of Jack- 04–A703P). Record. sonville, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202–373. Duval ...... City of Jacksonville (06– August 21, 2006; August 28, 2006; The Honorable John Peyton Mayor, City of Jack- 04–BF40P). Daily Record. sonville, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202–373. Hillsborough ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; Ms. Patricia G. Bean County Administrator, Hillsborough County St. Petersburg Times. Hillsborough County, County Center, 26th (05–04–1536P). Floor, 601 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33602. Lake ...... City of Mount Dora (05– June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Daily The Honorable James E. Yatsuk Mayor, City of 04–3654P). Commercial. Mount Dora, P.O. Box 176, Mount Dora, Flor- ida 32756. Lake ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 16, 2006; June 23, 2006; Daily The Honorable Catherine C. Hanson Chairman, Lake County (05–04– Commercial. Lake County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. 3652P). Box 7800, Tavares, Florida 32778. Manatee ...... Unincorporated Areas of March 16, 2006; March 23, 2006; The Honorable Joe McClash Chairman, Manatee Manatee County (05– Bradenton Herald. County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 04–0296P). 1000, Bradenton, Florida 34206–1000. Manatee ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Bra- The Honorable Joe McClash Chairman, Manatee Manatee County (05– denton Herald. County, Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 04–A393P). 1000, Bradenton, Florida 34206–1000. Marion ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Ocala The Honorable Patrick G. Howard, County Ad- Marion County (05– Star Banner. ministrator, Marion County, 601 Southeast 25th 04–A236P). Avenue, Ocala, Florida 34471. Miami Dade ...... City of Miami (06–04– July 20, 2006; July 27, 2006; New The Honorable Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor, City of BL20P). Times. Miami, Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida 33133. Leon ...... City of Tallahasee (05– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; The Honorable John Marks, Mayor, City of Talla- 04–2969P). Tallahasee Democrat. hassee, 300 South Adams Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Orange ...... City of Orlando (06–04– June 29, 2006; July 6, 2006; Orlando The Honorable Buddy Dyer, Mayor, City of Or- BH16P). Weekly. lando, P.O. Box 4990, Orlando, Florida 32802.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60860 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Orange ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 29, 2006; July 6, 2006; Orlando The Honorable Richard T. Crotty, Mayor, Orange Orange County (06– Weekly. County, 201 South Rosalind Avenue, Fifth 04–BH16P). Floor, Orlando, Florida 32801. Orange ...... City of Winter Park (06– June 29, 2006; July 6, 2006; Orlando The Honorable Kenneth Marchman, Mayor, City 04–BH16P). Weekly. of Winter Park, 401 Park Avenue South, Winter Park, Florida 32789. Polk ...... Village of Highland Park July 27, 2006; August 3, 2006; Polk The Honorable Earl Sehi, Mayor, Village of High- (06–04–BP16). County Democrat. land Park, 1317 North Highland Park Drive, Lake Wales, Florida 33853. Polk ...... City of Lakeland (05– November 10, 2005; November 17, The Honorable Ralph L. Fletcher, Mayor, City of 04–2888P). 2005; The Polk County Democrat. Lakeland, 228 South Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33801–5012. Polk ...... City of Lakeland (04– January 5, 2006; January 12, 2006; The Honorable Ralph L. Fletcher, Mayor, City of 04–B007P). Polk County Democrat. Lakeland, 228 South Massachusetts Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33801–5012. Polk ...... Unincorporated Areas of November 14, 2005; November 21, Mr. Michael Herr, County Manager, Polk County, Polk County (05–04– 2005; The Polk County Democrat. P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, Florida 1899P). 33831–9005. Polk ...... Unincorporated Areas of January 5, 2006; January 12, 2006; Mr. Michael Herr, County Manager, Polk County, Polk County (04–04– Polk County Democrat. P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, Florida B007P). 33831–9005. Polk ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 5, 2006; June 12, 2006; Polk Mr. Michael Herr, County Manager, Polk County, Polk County (05–04– County Democrat. P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, Florida 1186P). 33831–9005. Polk ...... Unincorporated Areas of July 27, 2006; August 3, 2006; Polk Mr. Michael Herr, County Manager, Polk County, Polk County (05–04– County Democrat. P.O. Box 9005, Drawer BC01, Bartow, Florida 1186P). 33831–9005. Pasco ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; Mr. John J. Gallagher, County Administrator, Pasco County (05– St. Petersburg Times. Pasco County, West Pasco Government Cen- 04–1536P). ter, 7530 Little Road, Suite 340, New Port Richey, Florida 34654. Pinellas ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; Mr. Steve Spratt, County Administrator, Pinellas Pinellas County (05– St. Petersburg Times. County, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida 04–1536P). 33756. Putnam ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Mr. Rick Larry, County Administrator, Putnam Putnam County (06– Palatka Daily News. County, P.O. Box 758, Palatka, Florida 32178. 04–B037P). Santa Rosa ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 17, 2006; May 24, 2006; Santa The Honorable Robert A. Cole, Chairman, Santa Santa Rosa County Rosa’s Press Gazette. Rosa County Board of Commissioners, 6495 (06–04–BA86P). Caroline Street, Suite M, Milton, Florida 32570. Georgia: Barrow ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 5, 2006; April 12, 2006; Barrow The Honorable Douglas H. Garrison, Chairman, Barrow County (05– County News. Barrow County Board of Commissioners, 233 04–3757P). East Broad Street, Winder, Georgia 30680. Bartow ...... City of Cartersville (05– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Daily The Honorable Michael G. Fields, Mayor, City of 04–1806P). Tribune News. Cartersville, P.O. Box 1390, Cartersville, Geor- gia 30120. Bartow ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Daily The Honorable Clarence Brown, Bartow County Bartow County (05– Tribune News. Commissioner, 135 West Cherokee Avenue, 04–1806P). Suite 251, Cartersville, Georgia 30120. Cherokee ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 25, 2006; September 1, The Honorable J. Michael Byrd, Chairman, Cher- Cherokee County (05– 2006; Cherokee Tribune. okee County, 90 North Street, Suite 310, Can- 04–A211P). ton, Georgia 30114. Columbia ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 23, 2006; August 30, 2006; The Honorable Ron C. Cross, Chairman, Board Columbia County (05– Columbia County News-Times. of Commissioners, Columbia County, 908 04–2889P). Nerium Trail, Evans, Georgia 30809. Forsyth ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 12, 2006; April 19, 2006; The Honorable Jack Conway, Commission Chair- Forsyth County (05– Forsyth County News. man, Forsyth County, 110 East Main Street, 04–2202P). Suite 210, Cumming, Georgia 30040. Forsyth ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 24, 2006; May 31, 2006; Mr. Jeff L. Quesenberry, County Manager, Forsyth County (05– Forsyth County News. Forsyth County, 110 East Main Street, Suite 04–1738P). 210, Cumming, Georgia 30040. Harris ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Har- Mr. Kim W. Russell, Executive Director, Harris Harris County (05–04– ris County Journal. County, P.O. Box 426, Hamilton, Georgia A568P). 31811. Thomas ...... City of Thomasville (06– March 24, 2006; March 31, 2006; The Honorable David Lewis, Mayor, City of 04–B168P). Thomasville Times Enterprise. Thomasville, P.O. Box 1540, Thomasville, Georgia 31799. Hawaii: Maui ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; Maui The Honorable Alan M. Arakaw, Mayor, County Maui County (06–09– News. of Maui, 200 South High Street, Wailuku, Ha- A607P). waii 96793. Idaho: Canyon ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 20, 2006; April 27, 2006; Idaho The Honorable Matt Beebe, Chairman, Canyon Canyon County (05– Press Tribune. County Board of Commissioners, 1115 Albany 10–0594P). Street, Caldwell, Idaho 83605.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60861

Caribou ...... City of Bancroft (06–10– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Car- The Honorable William Lester, Mayor, City of B109P). ibou County Sun. Bancroft, P.O. Box 549, Bancroft, Idaho 83217. Illinois: Adams ...... City of Quincy (05–05– August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; The Honorable John A. Spring, Mayor, City of 2307P). Quincy Herald-Whig. Quincy, 730 Maine Street, Quincy, Illinois 62301. Adams ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; The Honorable Mike McLaughlin, Chairman, Adams County (05– Quincy Herald-Whig. Adams County Board, 521 Vermont Street, 05–2307P). Quincy, Illinois 62301. Cook ...... Unincorporated Areas of February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable John H. Stronger, Jr., President, Cook County (05–05– 2006; Daily Herald. Cook County Board of Commissioners, 118 1222P). North Clark Street, Room 537, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Kankakee ...... Village of Manteno (06– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Daily The Honorable Timothy Nugent, Mayor, Village of 05–BE61P). Journal. Manteno, 269 North Main Street, Manteno, Illi- nois 60950. Kendall ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 13, 2006; April 20, 2006; Ken- The Honorable Paul Anderson, County Clerk, Kendall County (06– dall County Record. Kendall County, 111 Fox Street, Yorkville, Illi- 05–B570P). nois 60560. La Salle ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; The Honorable Glen (Joe) Dougherty, Chairman, La Salle County (05– Mendota Reporter. La Salle County Board of Commissioners, 707 05–1524P). Etna Road, Ottawa, Illinois 61350. Will ...... Village of Bolingbrook July 14, 2006; July 21, 2006; The Honorable Roger C. Claar, Mayor, Village of (06–05–B595P). Bolingbrook Sun. Bolingbrook, 375 West Briarcliff Road, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440. Will ...... Village of Plainfield (06– August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; The Honorable James A. Waldorf, Village Presi- 05–B013P). Daily Southtown. dent, Village of Plainfield, 14000 West Lockport Street, Plainfield, Illinois 60544. Will ...... Unincorporated Areas of March 23, 2006; March 30, 2006; The Honorable Lawrence M. Walsh, Will County Will County (05–05– Daily Southtown. Executive, 302 North Chicago Street, Joliet, Illi- 3131P). nois 60432. Will ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 24, 2006; August 31, 2006; The Honorable Lawrence M. Walsh, Will County Will County (06–05– Daily Southtown. Executive, 302 North Chicago Street, Joliet, Illi- B013P). nois 60432. Indiana:. Bartholomew ...... Unincorporated Areas of May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Bar- The Honorable Fred L. Armstrong, Mayor, City of Bartholomew County tholomew Republic. Columbus, Columbus City Hall, 123 Wash- (06–05–BD86P). ington Street, Columbus, Indiana 47201. Lake ...... Town of St. John (05– July 20, 2006; July 27, 2006; Post Mr. Stephen Z. Kil, Town Manager, Town of St. 05–A422P). Tribune. John, 10955 West 93rd Avenue, St. John, Indi- ana 46373. Laporte ...... City of Michigan City July 20, 2006; July 27, 2006; News The Honorable Chuck Oberlie, Mayor, City of (06–05–B876P). Dispatch. Michigan City, 100 East Michigan Boulevard, Michigan City, Indiana 46360. Marion ...... City of Indianapolis (05– February 10, 2006; February 17, The Honorable Bart Peterson, Mayor, City of In- 05–0743P). 2006; Indianapolis Recorder. dianapolis, 2501 City-County Building, 200 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Marion ...... City of Indianapolis (05– April 20, 2006; April 27, 2006; Indi- The Honorable Bart Peterson, Mayor, City of In- 05–2979P). anapolis Newspaper Daily Star. dianapolis, 2501 City-County Building, 200 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Iowa: Black Hawk ...... City of Cedar Falls (04– February 23, 2006; March 2, 2006; The Honorable Jon Crews, Mayor, City of Cedar 07–A141P). Waterloo Courier. Falls, 220 Clay Street, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613. Linn ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 20, 2006; April 27, 2006; Cedar The Honorable Linda Langston, Chairperson, Linn County (05–07– Rapids Gazette. Linn County, Board of Supervisors, 930 First 0212P). Street Southwest, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404. Story ...... City of Ames (04–07– November 10, 2005; November 17, The Honorable Ted Tedesco, Mayor, City of A685P). 2005; The Tribune. Ames, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50010. Kansas: Cowley ...... City of Arkansas City March 15, 2006; March 22, 2006; Ar- The Honorable Joel Hockenbury, Mayor, City of (04–07–A497P). kansas City Traveler. Arkansas City, 118 West Central Avenue, Ar- kansas City. Kansas 67005. Cowley ...... Unincorporated Areas of March 15, 2006; March 22, 2006; Ar- The Honorable Gary Wilson, Chairman, Cowley Cowley County (04– kansas City Traveler. County Board of Commissioners, 311 East 07–A497P). Ninth Avenue, Winfield, Kansas 67156. Harvey ...... City of Sedgwick (04– January 26, 2006; February 2, 2006; The Honorable Keith Dehaven, Mayor, City of 07–A502P). The Newton Kansan. Sedgwick, 511 North Commercial, Sedgwick, Kansas 67135. Harvey ...... Unincorporated Areas of January 26, 2006; February 2, 2006; The Honorable Ron Krehbiel, Chairman, Harvey Harvey County (04– The Newton Kansan. County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 07–A502P). 687, Newton, Kansas 67114.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60862 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Johnson ...... City of Overland Park February 9, 2006; February 16, The Honorable Carl Gerlach, Mayor, City of (05–07–A066P). 2006; Overland Park Sun. Overland Park, 8500 Santa Fe Drive, Overland Park, Kansas 66212. Sedgwick ...... Unincorporated Areas February 9, 2006; February 16, The Honorable Dave Unruh, Chairman, Sedgwick Sedgwick County (05– 2006; Derby Reporter. County Board of Commissioners, 525 North 07–0176P). Main Street, Suite 320, Wichita, Kansas 67203. Sedgwick ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 8, 2006; June 15, 2006; Wich- The Honorable Dave Unruh, Chairman, Sedgwick Sedgwick County (05– ita Eagle. County Board of Commissioners, 525 North 07–B015P). Main Street, Suite 320, Wichita, Kansas 67203. Sedgwick ...... City of Wichita (05–07– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Wich- The Honorable Carlos Mayans, Mayor, City of 0752P). ita Eagle. Wichita, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202. Sedgwick ...... City of Wichita (06–07– June 8, 2006; June 15, 2006; Wich- The Honorable Carlos Mayans, Mayor, City of B015P). ita Eagle. Wichita, 455 North Main, Wichita, Kansas 67202. Wyandotte ...... City of Kansas City (04– May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; Kansas The Honorable Joe Reardon, Mayor, Unified 07–A556P). City Daily Record. Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 701 North Seventh Street, Kansas City, Kan- sas 66101. Kentucky: Warren ...... City of Bowling Green March 30, 2006; April 6, 2006; Park The Honorable Elaine Walker, Mayor, City of (05–04–1251P). City Daily News. Bowling Green, P.O. Box 430, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42101. Louisiana: St. Tammy Parish ..... St. Tammy Parish (06– August 2, 2006; August 9, 2006; St. The Honorable Kevin Davis, Parish President, St. 06–BA65P). Tammy News. Tammy Parish, P.O. Box 628, Covington, Lou- isiana 70434. St. Tammy Parish ..... St. Tammy Parish (06– September 13, 2006; September 20, The Honorable Kevin Davis, Parish President, St. 06–BD86P). 2006; St. Tammy News. Tammy Parish, P.O. Box 628, Covington, Lou- isiana 70434. Massachusetts: Barnstable ...... Town of Barnstable (05– March 30, 2006; April 6, 2006; Cape Mr. John C. Klimm, Town Manager, Town of 01–0764P). Cod Times. Barnstable, Barnstable Town Hall, 369 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601. Barnstable ...... Town of Bourne (05–01– May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; Cape Mr. Thomas Guerino, Town Administrator, Town A062P). Cod Times. of Bourne, Town Hall, 24 Perry Avenue, Bourne, Massachusetts 02532. Barnstable ...... Town of Provincetown May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Cape Mr. Keith A. Bergman, Town Manager, Town of (05–01–0580P). Cod Times. Provincetown, Provincetown Town Hall, 260 Commercial Street, Provincetown, Massachu- setts 02657. Plymouth ...... Town of Duxbury (05– December 1, 2005; December 8, The Honorable John J. Tuffy, Chairman, Board of 01–0410P). 2005; The Enterprise. Selectman, Town of Duxbury, Town Hall, 878 Tremont Street, Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332. Worcester ...... Town of Milford (05–01– December 8, 2005; December 15, The Honorable Dino B. DeBartolomeis, Chair- 0129P). 2005; Milford Daily News. man, Board of Selectman, Town of Milford, 52 Main Street, Milford, Massachusetts 01757. Maine: Cumberland ...... City of Falmouth (05– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Fal- Mr. John D. Harris, Town Manager, Town of Fal- 01–0287P). mouth Community Leader. mouth, 271 Falmouth Road, Falmouth, Maine 04105. Cumberland ...... City of Falmouth (06– August 17, 2006; August 24, 2006; Mr. John D. Harris, Town Manager, Town of Fal- 01–B534P). Falmouth Community Leader. mouth, 271 Falmouth Road, Falmouth, Maine 04105. Cumberland ...... Town of Harpswell (05– June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Port- The Honorable Gordon L. Wei, Chair, Board of 01–B113P). land Press Herald. Selectmen, Town of Harpswell, P.O. Box 39, Harpswell, Maine 04079. Cumberland ...... Town of Standish (05– May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Port- Mr. Gordon F. Billington, Town Manager, Town of 01–A566P). land Press Herald. Standish, 175 Northeast Road, Standish, Maine 04084. Cumberland ...... Town of Standish (05– August 31, 2006; September 7, Mr. Gordon F. Billington, Town Manager, Town of 01–B168P). 2006; Portland Press Herald. Standish, 175 Northeast Road, Standish, Maine 04084. Cumberland ...... Town of Windham (06– September 14, 2006; September 21, The Honorable John MacKinnon, Chairman, 01–B270P). 2006; Portland Press Herald. Windham Town Council, Eight School Road, Windham, Maine 04062. Washington ...... Town of Milbridge (05– May 11, 2006; May 18, 2006; Ban- Mr. Fred Ventresco, Town Manager, Town of 01–0691P). gor Daily News. Milbridge, P.O. Box 66, Milbridge, Maine 04658. York ...... Town of Alfred (05–01– February 23, 2006; March 2, 2006; The Honorable John Sylvestor, Chair, Board of B101X). York County Coast Star. Selectman, Town of Alfred, P.O. Box 667, Al- fred, Maine 04002. York ...... Town of Lyman (05–01– February 23, 2006; March 2, 2006; The Honorable Norman Hutchins, Chair, Board of B101X). York County Coast Star. Selectman, Town of Lyman, 11 South Waterboro Road, Lyman, Maine 04002. Maryland:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60863

Carroll ...... Unincorporated Areas of August 31, 2006; September 7, The Honorable Julia W. Gouge, President, Car- Carroll County (05– 2006; Carroll County Times. roll County Board of Commissioners, 225 North 03–0321P). Center Street, Westminster, Maryland 21157. Frederick ...... City of Frederick (05– June 14, 2006; June 21, 2006; Fred- The Honorable William J. Holtzinger, Mayor, City 03–0831P). erick News Post. of Frederick, City Hall, 101 North Court Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701–5415. Frederick ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 14, 2006; June 21, 2006; Fred- The Honorable John L. Thompson, President, Frederick County (05– erick News Post. Frederick County Board of Commissioners, 12 03–0831P). East Church Street, Frederick, Maryland 21701. Michigan: Kalamazoo ...... City of Kalamazoo (05– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Kala- Mr. Kenneth P. Collard, City Manager, City of 05–2181P). mazoo Gazette. Kalamazoo, City Hall, 241 West South Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007. Kalamazoo ...... City of Portage (05–05– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Kala- Mr. Maurice S. Evans, City Manager, City of Por- 2181P). mazoo Gazette. tage, City Hall, 7900 South Westmedge Ave- nue, Portage, Michigan 49002. Wayne ...... Township of Canton February 16, 2006; February 23, The Honorable Thomas J. Yack, Supervisor, (05–05–3132P). 2006; Canton Eagle. Township of Canton, 1150 South Canton Cen- ter Road, Canton, Michigan 48188. Minnesota: Isanti ...... City of Isanti (04–05– January 4, 2006; January 11, 2006; The Honorable David Apitz, Mayor, City of Isanti, B083P). Isanti County News. P.O. Box 126, Isanti, Minnesota 55040. Isanti ...... Unincorporated Areas of January 4, 2006; January 11, 2006; The Honorable Tom Pagel, Chair, Isanti County Isanti County (04–05– Isanti County News. Board of Commissioners, Isanti County Gov- B083P). ernment Center, 509–555 18th Avenue South- west, Cambridge, Minnesota 55008. Ramsey ...... City of Shoreview (04– December 13, 2005; December 20, The Honorable Sandy Martin, Mayor, City of 05–B066P 06–05– 2005; The Shoreview Press. Shoreview, 4600 Victoria Street North, BD34X)). Shoreview, Minnesota 55126. Rice ...... City of Northfield (05– November 16, 2005; November 23, The Honorable Lee Lansing, Mayor, City of 05–1343P). 2005; Northfield News. Northfield, City Hall, 801 Washington Street, Northfield, Minnesota 55057. Rice ...... Unincorporated Areas of November 16, 2005; November 23, The Honorable Jim Brown, Chairperson, Rice Rice County (05–05– 2005; Northfield News. County Board of Commissioners, 320 North- 1343P). west Third Street, Faribault, Minnesota 55021. Missouri: Clay, Jackson , Platte City of Kansas City (05– January 26, 2006; February 2, 2006; The Honorable Kay Barnes, Mayor, City of Kan- 07–0483P). Kansas City Daily Record. sas City, 414 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Clay, Jackson , Platte City of Kansas City (04– May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; Kansas The Honorable Kay Barnes, Mayor, City of Kan- 07–A556P). City Daily Record. sas City, 414 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Howell ...... City of West Plains (05– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; West The Honorable Joe Paul Evans, Mayor, City of 07–A513P). Plains Daily Quill. West Plains, P.O. Box 710, West Plains, Mis- souri 65775–0710. Jackson ...... City of Grain Valley (04– February 23, 2006; March 3, 2006; The Honorable David Halphin, Mayor, City of 07–A290P). The Independence Examiner. Grain Valley, 711 Main Street, Grain Valley, Missouri 64029. Jefferson ...... City of De Soto (06–07– May 18, 2006; May 25, 2006; Jeffer- The Honorable Werner Stichling, Mayor, City of B476P). son County Leader. De Soto, 411 Lueking Drive, De Soto, Missouri 63020. Platte ...... City of Northmoor (04– May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; The The Honorable Harlan Shaver, Jr., Mayor, City of 07–A556P). Landmark. Northmoor, 4907 Northwest Waukomis Drive, Northmoor, Missouri 64151. Platte ...... City of Parkville (04–07– May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; The The Honorable Kathy Dusenbery, Mayor, City of A556P). Landmark. Parkville, 1201 East Street, Parkville, Missouri 64152. Platte ...... City of Riverside (04– May 25, 2006; June 1, 2006; The The Honorable Kathy Rose, Mayor, City of River- 07–A556P). Landmark. side, 2950 Northwest Vivion Road, Riverside, Missouri 64150. Pettis ...... City of Sedalia (05–07– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Se- The Honorable Bob Wasson, Mayor, City of Se- 0407P). dalia Democrat. dalia, P.O. Box 1707, Sedalia, Missouri 65301. Phelps ...... City of Rolla (05–07– December 15, 2005; December 22, The Honorable Joseph E. Morgan, Mayor, City of 0279P). 2005; Rolla Daily News. Rolla, 102 West Ninth Street, Rolla, Missouri 65401. St. Charles ...... City of O’Fallon (04–07– April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; St. The Honorable Donna Morrow, Mayor, City of A649P). Charles Journal. O’Fallon, 100 North Main Street, O’Fallon, Mis- souri 63366. St. Charles ...... Unincorporated Areas of April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; St. The Honorable Joe Ortwerth, County Executive, St. Charles County Charles Journal. St. Charles County, Historic Courthouse, 100 (04–07–A649P). North Third Street, St. Charles, Missouri 63301. St. Louis ...... City of Chesterfield (04– January 5, 2006; January 12, 2006; The Honorable John Nations, Mayor, City of 07–A535P) (06–07– St. Louis American. Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, B229X). Chesterfield, Missouri 63017–0670.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60864 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

St. Louis ...... City of Maryland Heights January 5, 2006; January 12, 2006; The Honorable Mike Moeller, Mayor, City of (04–07–A535P) (06– St. Louis American. Maryland Heights, 212 Millwell Drive, Maryland 07–B229X). Heights, Missouri 63043. St. Louis ...... City of Eureka (06–07– June 21, 2006; June 28, 2006; St. The Honorable Kevin M. Coffey, Mayor, City of B002P). Louis Daily Record. Eureka, P.O. Box 125, Eureka, Missouri 63025. St. Louis ...... City of Valley Park (06– April 19, 2006; April 26, 2006; West The Honorable Jeffery J. Whitteaker, Mayor, City 07–B081P). County Suburban Journal. of Valley Park, 320 Benton Street, Valley Park, Missouri 63088. St. Louis ...... City of Wildwood (06– June 21, 2006; June 28, 2006; St. The Honorable Edward L. Marshall, Mayor, City 07–B002P). Louis Daily Record. of Wildwood, City Hall 16962, Manchester Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63040. Madison ...... City of Madison (06–04– June 15, 2006; June 22, 2006; Madi- The Honorable Mary Hawkins Butler, Mayor, City BC51P). son County Journal. of Madison, P.O. Box 40, Madison, Mississippi 39130–004. Madison ...... City of Madison (06–04– June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Madi- The Honorable Mary Hawkins Butler, Mayor, City B265P). son County Journal. of Madison, P.O. Box 40, Madison, Mississippi 39130–004. Madison ...... Unincorporated Areas of June 22, 2006; June 29, 2006; Madi- The Honorable Timothy L. Johnson, President, Madison County (06– son County Journal. Madison County Board of Supervisors, P.O. 04–B265P). Box 608, Canton, Mississippi 39046. Rankin ...... City of Brandon (06–04– August 16, 2006; August 23, 2006; The Honorable Carlo Martella, Mayor, City of B977P). Rankin County News. Brandon, P.O. Box 1539, Brandon, Mississippi 39043. Simpson ...... City of Magee (05–04– December 15, 2005; December 22, The Honorable Jimmy Clyde, Mayor, City of 1476P). 2005; The Magee Courier. Magee, 123 Main Avenue North, Magee, Mis- sissippi 39111. Montana: Gallatin ...... City of Three Forks (05– March 23, 2006; March 30, 2006; The Honorable Gene Townsend, Mayor, City of 08–A579P). Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Three Forks, P.O. Box 187, Three Forks, Mon- tana 59752.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. DATES: Effective Dates: The date of proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate available at the address cited below for Dated: October 4, 2006. Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and each community. David I. Maurstad, modified BFEs for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are Director, Mitigation Division, Federal This date may be obtained by contacting made final in the communities listed Emergency Management Agency, Department the office where the maps are available below. Elevations at selected locations of Homeland Security. for inspection as indicated on the table in each community are shown. [FR Doc. E6–17253 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] below. National Environmental Policy Act. BILLING CODE 9110–12–P ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each This rule is categorically excluded from community are available for inspection the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, at the office of the Chief Executive Environmental Consideration. No DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Officer of each community. The environmental impact assessment has SECURITY respective addresses are listed in the been prepared. table below. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Federal Emergency Management FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: elevation determinations are not within Agency William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Management Section, Mitigation Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 44 CFR Part 67 Division, 500 C Street, SW., flexibility analysis is not required. Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Final Flood Elevation Determinations Regulatory Classification. This final SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA rule is not a significant regulatory action AGENCY: Federal Emergency makes the final determinations listed under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Management Agency (FEMA), below for the modified BFEs for each Executive Order 12866 of September 30, Department of Homeland Security, community listed. These modified 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, Mitigation Division. elevations have been published in 58 FR 51735. newspapers of local circulation and Executive Order 13132, Federalism. ACTION: Final rule. ninety (90) days have elapsed since that This rule involves no policies that have publication. The Mitigation Division SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) federalism implications under Executive Director has resolved any appeals Order 13132. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified resulting from this notification. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice BFEs are made final for the This final rule is issued in accordance Reform. This rule meets the applicable communities listed below. The BFEs with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster standards of Executive Order 12988. and modified BFEs are the basis for the Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, floodplain management measures that and 44 CFR Part 67. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 each community is required either to The Agency has developed criteria for adopt or to show evidence of being floodplain management in floodprone Administrative practice and already in effect in order to qualify or areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part procedure, flood insurance, reporting remain qualified for participation in the 60. and recordkeeping requirements. National Flood Insurance Program Interested lessees and owners of real Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is (NFIP). property are encouraged to review the amended as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60865

PART 67—[AMENDED] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; § 67.11 [Amended] Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, I 2. The tables published under the I 1. The authority citation for Part 67 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, authority of § 67.11 are amended as continues to read as follows: 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. follows:

*Existing Elevation in feet (NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location +Modified Elevation in feet (NAVD) Modified

City of Sundance, Wyoming Docket No.: FEMA–B–7460

WY ...... City of Sundance ...... Sundance Creek ...... 1.9 miles downstream of Sundance Pond +4,584 Confluence of North Fork and South Fork 4,759 Sundance Creek. North Fork Sundance Confluence with Sundance Creek ...... +4,759 Creek. 800 feet upstream of West Street ...... +4,799 Confluence of North Fork Sundance +4,759 Creek. South Fork Sundance 350 feet upstream of State Highway 90 ... +4,792 Creek.

#Depth in feet above ground *National Geodetic Vertical Datum +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES: Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall Send Comments to: The Honorable James Miller, Mayor, City of Sundance, 213 Main Street, Sundance, Wyoming 82729

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Lexington/ Fayette County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7456

Bryant Tributary ...... Confluence with North Elkhorn Creek ...... +942.8 Lexington/Fayette. At I–75 ...... +984.8 Bowman Mill Tributary ...... Confluence with South Elkhorn Creek ..... +890.0 Lexington/Fayette. Approximately 880 feet upstream of Pal- +940.0 omar Drive. Cave Hill Tributary ...... Confluence with Bowman Mill Tributary ... +901.9 Lexington/Fayette. Approximately 370 feet upstream of the +940.0 farm road culvert. Southpoint Tributary ...... Confluence with West Hickman Creek ..... +892.0 Lexington/Fayette. Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of +947.1 Southpoint Drive. Wolf Run Creek ...... Beacon Hill Road culvert ...... +921.8 Lexington/Fayette. Approximately 300 feet upstream of +990.9 Nicholasville Road.

– Depth in feet above ground *National Geodetic Vertical Datum +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES: Lexington Fayette Urban County Government: Maps are available for inspection at LFUCG-Division of Planning, 200 East Main Street, 10th Floor, Lexington, KY 40507 or LFUCG-Division of Engineering, 101 East Vine Street, 4th Floor, Lexington, KY 40507 Send comments to the Honorable Teresa Ann Isaac, Mayor, Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, 200 East Main St., Lexington, KY 40507

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7458

Byberry Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet downstream from *88 City of Philadelphia. Thornton Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60866 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Approximately 900 feed upstream from *136 Roosevelt Boulevard. Tributary to Poquessing Creek ...... Approximately 1,280 feet downstream *144 City of Philadelphia. from Whitney Street. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream from *180 SEPTA bridge.

#Depth in feet above ground *National Geodetic Vertical Datum +North American Vertical Datum

ADDRESSES: City of Philadelphia: Maps are available for inspection at Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA 19102 Send comments to Mr. William Erickson, City Planner, City of Philadelphia, 1515 Arch Street, 13th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102

Laramie County Wyoming, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7459

Allison Draw ...... At Confluence with Crow Creek ...... +5949 Laramie County (Uninc. Areas). At West College Drive ...... +6017 South Fork Allison Draw ...... At Confluence with Allison Draw ...... +5993 Laramie County (Uninc. Areas). At East College Drive ...... +6000

# Depth in feet above ground *National Geodetic Vertical Datum +North American Vertical Datum

ADDRESSES: Unincorporated Areas of Laramie County: Maps are available for inspection at Laramie County Planning Department, 310 West 19th Street, Suite 400, Cheyenne, WY 82001. Send comments to Commissioner Diane Humphrey, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, 310 West 19th Street, Suite 300, Cheyenne, WY 82001.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Dated: October 4, 2006. BFEs are made final for the Management Section, Mitigation David I. Maurstad, communities listed below. The BFEs Division, 500 C Street, SW., Director, Mitigation Division, Federal and modified BFEs are the basis for the Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Emergency Management Agency, Department floodplain management measures that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA of Homeland Security. each community is required either to makes the final determinations listed [FR Doc. E6–17257 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] adopt or to show evidence of being below for the modified BFEs for each BILLING CODE 9110–12–P already in effect in order to qualify or community listed. These modified remain qualified for participation in the elevations have been published in National Flood Insurance Program newspapers of local circulation and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (NFIP). ninety (90) days have elapsed since that SECURITY DATES: Effective Dates: The date of publication. The Mitigation Division issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Director has resolved any appeals Federal Emergency Management Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and resulting from this notification. Agency modified BFEs for each community. This final rule is issued in accordance This date may be obtained by contacting with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster 44 CFR Part 67 the office where the maps are available Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Final Flood Elevation Determinations for inspection as indicated on the table and 44 CFR Part 67. below. The Agency has developed criteria for AGENCY: Federal Emergency ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each floodplain management in floodprone Management Agency (FEMA), community are available for inspection areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part Department of Homeland Security, at the office of the Chief Executive 60. Mitigation Division. Officer of each community. The Interested lessees and owners of real respective addresses are listed in the property are encouraged to review the ACTION: Final rule table below. proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:33 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60867

available at the address cited below for Regulatory Classification. This final I Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is each community. rule is not a significant regulatory action amended as follows: The BFEs and modified BFEs are under the criteria of Section 3(f) of made final in the communities listed Executive Order 12866 of September 30, PART 67—[AMENDED] below. Elevations at selected locations 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, I in each community are shown. 58 FR 51735. 1. The authority citation for Part 67 Executive Order 13132, Federalism. continues to read as follows: National Environmental Policy Act. This rule involves no policies that have This rule is categorically excluded from Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; federalism implications under Executive the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, Order 13132. Environmental Consideration. No 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. environmental impact assessment has Reform. This rule meets the applicable been prepared. standards of Executive Order 12988. § 67.11 [Amended] Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 I 2. The tables published under the the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Administrative practice and authority of § 67.11 are amended as Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting follows: flexibility analysis is not required. and recordkeeping requirements.

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced (NAVD) Communities affected elevation #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Sedgwick County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas [Docket No.: FEMA–P–7911]

Armour Branch Gypsum At confluence with Gypsum Creek ...... +1,322 City of Eastborough, City of Wichita. Creek. Approximately 1,120 feet upstream of Rock- +1,368 wood Road. Big Slough South ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of confluence +1,258 City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (Unincor- with Arkansas River. porated Areas). Approximately 2,830 feet upstream of South +1,286 Meridian Avenue. Calfskin Creek ...... At confluence with Cowskin Creek ...... +1,316 City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 5,070 feet upstream of South +1,324 119th Street West. Cowskin Creek...... At confluence with Wichita Valley Center +1,279 City of Colwich, City of Maize, City of Wichita, Floodway. Sedgwick County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4,000 feet downstream of State +1,368 Highway 296. Dry Creek of Gypsum At confluence with Gypsum Creek ...... +1,290 City of Wichita. Creek. Approximately 150 feet upstream of the con- +1,290 fluence with Gypsum Creek. Dry Creek North of At confluence with Cowskin Creek ...... +1,347 Sedgwick County (Unincorporated Areas). Cowskin Creek. At West 167th Street North ...... +1,386 Dry Creek South of At confluence with Cowskin Creek ...... +1,292 Sedgwick County (Unincorporated Areas). Cowskin Creek. At South Maize Road ...... +1,317 Dry Creek of Spring Just downstream of East Madison Avenue ...... +1,266 City of Derby, Sedgwick County (Unincor- Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 50 feet upstream of East 55th +1,331 Street South. East Branch Gypsum At confluence with Gypsum Creek ...... +1,334 City of Wichita. Creek. Approximately 100 feet upstream of East Cen- +1,343 tral Parkway. East Branch Gypsum At convergence with East Branch Gypsum +1,340 City of Wichita. Creek (Splitflow). Creek. At divergence from East Branch Gypsum +1,342 Creek. East Fork Chisholm At confluence with Wichita Drainage Canal ...... +1,306 City of Wichita. Creek. At Interstate Highway 135 Access Road ...... +1,306 Fabrique Branch Gyp- At confluence with Gypsum Creek ...... +1,317 City of Wichita. sum Creek. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Pedestrian +1,325 Bridge/East Zimmerly Avenue.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60868 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced (NAVD) Communities affected elevation #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Frisco Ditch ...... Approximately 140 feet upstream of Interstate +1,300 City of Wichita. Highway 135. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Northeast +1,366 Cemetery Road. Gypsum Creek ...... At confluence with Wichita Drainage Canal ...... +1,278 City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (Unincor- porated Areas). At confluence of Middle and West Branches of +1,338 Gypsum Creek. Little Arkansas River Approximately 2,400 feet downstream of Wich- +1,340 Sedgwick County (Unincorporated Areas). (Upper Reach). ita Valley Center Floodway Control Structure. At County Boundary ...... +1,372 Middle Branch Gypsum At confluence with Gypsum Creek ...... +1,339 City of Wichita. Creek. Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of East +1,352 Tipperary Street. Middle Fork Calfskin Approximately 70 feet upstream of the con- +1,325 City of Wichita. Creek. fluence with North Fork Calfskin Creek. Approximately 3,375 feet upstream of con- +1,340 fluence with North Fork Calfskin Creek. North Fork Calfskin At confluence with Calfskin Creek...... +1,322 City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (Unincor- Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 4,350 feet upstream of North +1,370 135th Street West. Rock Road South Tribu- Approximately 650 feet upstream of South +1,326 City of Wichita. tary Gypsum Creek. Rock Road. Approximately 3,730 feet upstream of East +1,347 Harry Street. Spring Creek ...... Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the con- +1,237 City of Derby, Sedgwick County (Unincor- fluence with Arkansas River. porated Areas). Approximately 50 feet upstream of East 63rd +1,309 Street South/South Greenwich Road. Tributary to North Fork At confluence with North Fork Calfskin Creek .. +1,346 City of Wichita, Sedgwick County (Unincor- Calfskin Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 3,930 feet upstream of North +1,381 151st Street West. West Branch Gypsum At confluence with Gypsum Creek ...... +1,338 City of Wichita. Creek. Approximately 175 feet upstream of East +1,382 Farmview Lane.

*National Geodetic Vertical Datum: #Depth in feet above ground +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES: City of Colwich: Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, City Hall, 310 South Second Street, Colwich, Kansas. City of Derby: Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, City Hall, 611 Mulberry Street, Derby, Kansas. City of Eastborough: Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, City Hall, 1 Douglas Street, Wichita, Kansas. City of Maize: Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, City Hall, 123 Khedive, Maize, Kansas. Sedgwick County, Kansas (Unincorporated Areas): Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, Office of Stormwater Management, 455 North Main Street, 8th Floor, Wichita, Kansas. City of Wichita: Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, Office of Stormwater Management, 455 North Main Street, 8th Floor, Wichita, Kansas.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:21 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60869

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. the office where the maps are available the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) for inspection as indicated on the table Environmental Consideration. No Dated: October 4, 2006. below. environmental impact assessment has David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17258 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This final William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering rule is not a significant regulatory action DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation under the criteria of Section 3(f) of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Executive Order 12866 of September 30, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, Federal Emergency Management 58 FR 51735. Agency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA makes the final determinations listed Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have 44 CFR Part 67 below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified federalism implications under Executive Final Flood Elevation Determinations elevations have been published in Order 13132. newspapers of local circulation and Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice AGENCY: Federal Emergency ninety (90) days have elapsed since that Reform. This rule meets the applicable Management Agency (FEMA), publication. The Mitigation Division standards of Executive Order 12988. Department of Homeland Security, Director has resolved any appeals List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Mitigation Division. resulting from this notification. ACTION: Final rule. This final rule is issued in accordance Administrative practice and with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster procedure, flood insurance, reporting SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and recordkeeping requirements. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified and 44 CFR part 67. I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is BFEs are made final for the The Agency has developed criteria for amended as follows: communities listed below. The BFEs floodplain management in floodprone and modified BFEs are the basis for the areas in accordance with 44 CFR part PART 67—[AMENDED] floodplain management measures that 60. each community is required either to Interested lessees and owners of real I 1. The authority citation for part 67 adopt or to show evidence of being property are encouraged to review the continues to read as follows: already in effect in order to qualify or proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM remain qualified for participation in the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; available at the address cited below for Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, National Flood Insurance Program each community. The BFEs and (NFIP). 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, modified BFEs are made final in the 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. DATES: Effective Dates: The date of communities listed below. Elevations at issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate selected locations in each community § 67.11 [Amended] Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and are shown. I 2. The tables published under the modified BFEs for each community. National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.11 are amended as This date may be obtained by contacting This rule is categorically excluded from follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NAVD) #Depth in feet above ground modified

Clear Creek County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7458

Chicago Creek ...... Confluence With Clear Creek 2.24 miles up- +7,546 Clear Creek County stream of state Highway 103. +7,898 (Unincorporated Areas) and City of Idaho Springs. Clear Creek ...... Upstream side of I–70 (Alvorado Road) ...... +8,275 Town of Georgetown. The bottom spillway of the Georgetown Dam ..... +8,430 Clear Creek...... 0.27 miles upstream of the confluence with +7,836 Clear Creek County Spring Gulch. (Unincorporated Areas). 3.77 miles upstream of the confluence with +8,180 Spring Gulch. Fall River ...... Confluence with Clear Creek ...... +7,716 Clear Creek County Three miles upstream of confluence with Clear +8,394 (Unincorporated Creek. Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60870 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NAVD) #Depth in feet above ground modified

# Depth in feet above ground. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES: Unincorporated Areas of Clear Creek County: Maps are available for inspection at: The County Courthouse. Send Comments to: Mr. Harry Dale, Chairman, Clear Creek County Commissioners, 405 Argentine Street, Georgetown, Colorado 80444. Town of Georgetown: Maps are available for inspection at: Town Hall. Send comments to The Honorable Robert C. Smith, Mayor, Town of Georgetown, 404 6th Street, Georgetown, Colorado 80444. City of Idaho Springs: Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall. Send comments to: The Honorable Dennis Lundery, Mayor, City of Idaho Springs, 1711 Miner Street, Idaho Springs, Colorado 80452.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. for inspection as indicated on the table environmental impact assessment has 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) below. been prepared. Dated: October 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood David I. Maurstad, community are available for inspection elevation determinations are not within Director, Mitigation Division, Federal at the office of the Chief Executive the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Emergency Management Agency, Department Officer of each community. The Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory of Homeland Security. respective addresses are listed in the flexibility analysis is not required. [FR Doc. E6–17259 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] table below. Regulatory Classification. This final BILLING CODE 9110–12–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering rule is not a significant regulatory action Management Section, Mitigation under the criteria of Section 3(f) of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Executive Order 12866 of September 30, SECURITY DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Federal Emergency Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Agency makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each This rule involves no policies that have 44 CFR Part 67 community listed. These modified federalism implications under Executive elevations have been published in Order 13132. Final Flood Elevation Determinations newspapers of local circulation and Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice ninety (90) days have elapsed since that AGENCY: Federal Emergency Reform. This rule meets the applicable publication. The Mitigation Division standards of Executive Order 12988. Management Agency (FEMA), Director has resolved any appeals Department of Homeland Security, resulting from this notification. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Mitigation Division. This final rule is issued in accordance ACTION: Final rule. with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Administrative practice and Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, procedure, flood insurance, reporting SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) and 44 CFR Part 67. and recordkeeping requirements. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified The Agency has developed criteria for BFEs are made final for the I Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is floodplain management in floodprone amended as follows: communities listed below. The BFEs areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part and modified BFEs are the basis for the 60. PART 67—[AMENDED] floodplain management measures that Interested lessees and owners of real each community is required either to property are encouraged to review the I 1. The authority citation for Part 67 adopt or to show evidence of being proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM continues to read as follows: already in effect in order to qualify or available at the address cited below for remain qualified for participation in the each community. The BFEs and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; National Flood Insurance Program modified BFEs are made final in the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, (NFIP). communities listed below. Elevations at 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. DATES: Effective Dates: The date of selected locations in each community issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate are shown. § 67.11 [Amended] Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and National Environmental Policy Act. modified BFEs for each community. This rule is categorically excluded from I 2. The tables published under the This date may be obtained by contacting the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, authority of § 67.11 are amended as the office where the maps are available Environmental Consideration. No follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60871

+Elevation in feet (NGVD) *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground modified

Athens—Clark County, Georgia Docket No.: FEMA–B–7463

Brooklyn Creek Tributary A ..... At the confluence with Brooklyn Creek ...... *697 Athens—Clark County. Approximately 40 feet upstream of the confluence with *697 Brooklyn Creek. McNutt Creek ...... At the confluence with Middle Oconee River ...... *558 Athens—Clark County/ Approximately 1,230 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 441/ *559 U.S. Highway 129/State Highway 15 and Macon Highway. Trail Creek ...... At the confluence with North Oconee River ...... *615 Athens—Clark County. Approximately 550 feet downstream of Broad Street ...... *615 Tributary A–1 ...... At the confluence with Tributary A ...... *659 Athens—Clark County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence with Trib- *659 utary A. Tributary A–2 ...... At the confluence with Tributary A ...... *695 Athens—Clark County. Approximately 260 feet upstream of the confluence with Trib- *698 utary A. Tributary H ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... *607 Athens—Clark County. Approximately 870 feet upstream of the confluence with Big *609 Creek. #Depth in feet above ground. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. 1 The existing elevation data included on the effective FIRM is printed in the elevation datum of the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). In order to convert this printed elevation data from the NGVD29 datum to the NAVD88 datum, please subtract 0.194 feet. ADDRESSES: Maps are available for inspection at the Athens-Clark County Public Works Department, 120 West Dougherty Street, Athens, Georgia. Send comments to The Honorable Heidi Davison, Mayor, City of Athens-Clark County, 301 College Avenue, Athens, Georgia 30601.

Bibb County, Georgia (Unincorporated Areas) Docket No.: FEMA–B–7463

Walnut Creek ...... Approximately 400 feet upstream of Interstate Highway 16 ... *299 Bibb County (Unincorporated Areas). Just downstream of the Norfolk Southern Railway ...... *300 #Depth in feet above ground. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +North American Vertical Datum. 1 The existing elevation data included on the effective FIRM is printed in the elevation datum of the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). In order to convert this printed elevation data from the NGVD29 datum to the NAVD88 datum, please subtract 0.4 feet. ADDRESSES: Maps are available for inspection at the Bibb County Engineering Office, 780 Third Street, Macon, Georgia. Send comments to The Honorable Charles Bishop, Chairman, Bibb County Board of Commissioners, 601 Mulberry Street, Macon, Georgia 31201.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND and modified BFEs are the basis for the 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) SECURITY floodplain management measures that Dated: October 6, 2006. each community is required either to Federal Emergency Management adopt or to show evidence of being David I. Maurstad, Agency already in effect in order to qualify or Director, Mitigation Division, Federal remain qualified for participation in the Emergency Management Agency, Department 44 CFR Part 67 National Flood Insurance Program of Homeland Security. (NFIP). [FR Doc. E6–17260 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Final Flood Elevation Determinations DATES BILLING CODE 9110–12–P : Effective Dates: The date of AGENCY: Federal Emergency issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Management Agency (FEMA), Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and Department of Homeland Security, modified BFEs for each community. Mitigation Division. This date may be obtained by contacting ACTION: Final rule. the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) below. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each BFEs are made final for the community are available for inspection communities listed below. The BFEs at the office of the Chief Executive

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60872 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Officer of each community. The Interested lessees and owners of real federalism implications under Executive respective addresses are listed in the property are encouraged to review the Order 13132. table below. proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: available at the address cited below for Reform. This rule meets the applicable William R. Blanton, Jr. CFM, Acting each community. standards of Executive Order 12988. Section Chief, Engineering Management The BFEs and modified BFEs are Section, Mitigation Division, 500 C made final in the communities listed List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 below. Elevations at selected locations Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, Administrative practice and (202) 646–3151. in each community are shown. National Environmental Policy Act. procedure, flood insurance, reporting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA This rule is categorically excluded from and recordkeeping requirements. makes the final determinations listed the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, below for the modified BFEs for each I Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is Environmental Consideration. No amended as follows: community listed. These modified environmental impact assessment has elevations have been published in been prepared. PART 67—[AMENDED] newspapers of local circulation and Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood ninety (90) days have elapsed since that elevation determinations are not within I 1. The authority citation for Part 67 publication. The Mitigation Division the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility continues to read as follows: Director has resolved any appeals Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory resulting from this notification. flexibility analysis is not required. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; This final rule is issued in accordance Regulatory Classification. This final Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster rule is not a significant regulatory action 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, under the criteria of Section 3(f) of 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. and 44 CFR Part 67. Executive Order 12866 of September 30, § 67.11 [Amended] The Agency has developed criteria for 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, floodplain management in floodprone 58 FR 51735. I 2. The tables published under the areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part Executive Order 13132, Federalism. authority of § 67.11 are amended as 60. This rule involves no policies that have follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Chatham County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas FEMA Docket Nos. D–7646 and D–7660

B. Everett Jordan Lake ...... For its entire shoreline ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Bear Creek ...... Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Edwards +456 Chatham County (Unincor- Hill Church Road. porated Areas). Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of con- +479 fluence of Bear Creek Tributary 1. Bear Creek (into Indian Creek) ...... At the confluence of Indian Creek (into Deep +242 Chatham County (Unincor- River). porated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Bonlee +391 Carbonton Road. Bear Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Bear Creek ...... +457 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of confluence +459 with Bear Creek. Beaver Creek ...... At the Chatham and Wake County boundary ... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Beaver Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek and B. +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Everett Jordan Lake. porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Tody +275 Goodwin Road. Beaver Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek and B. +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Everett Jordan Lake. porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Tody +251 Godwin Road. Beaver Creek Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek and B. +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Everett Jordan Lake. porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the con- +263 fluence with Beaver Creek and B. Everett Jordan Lake.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60873

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Blood Run Creek ...... At Chatham and Randolph County boundary ... +495 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of U.S. 64 .... +594 Brooks Creek ...... Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the con- +383 Chatham County (Unincor- fluence with Haw River. porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Old +444 Graham Road. Brooks Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Brooks Creek ...... +384 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 970 feet upstream of Russells +397 Chapel Church Road. Brush Creek ...... At the Chatham and Randolph County bound- +499 Chatham County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas), Town of Siler City. At the Chatham and Randolph County bound- +552 ary. Buckhorn Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +155 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Harris Reservoir Dam ...... +177 Buckhorn Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Buckhorn Creek ...... +168 Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the con- +237 Chatham County (Unincor- fluence with Buckhorn Creek. porated Areas). Buckhorn Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Buckhorn Creek ...... +175 Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the con- +222 Chatham County (Unincor- fluence with Buckhorn Creek. porated Areas). Buckhorn Creek Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Buckhorn Creek ...... +177 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.1 mile upstream of the Rail- +191 road. Buckhorn Creek Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Harris Reservoir ...... +232 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the con- +282 fluence with the Harris Reservoir. Bush Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Big +253 Woods Road. Cape Fear River ...... At the Chatham and Harnett County boundary +152 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with Deep River and Haw +177 River. Cedar Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +233 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Henry +248 Oldham Road. Cedar Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Cedar Creek ...... +233 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Henry +252 Oldham Road. Cedar Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Cedar Creek Tributary 1 +236 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Unnamed +259 Road. Collins Creek ...... At the confluence with the Haw River ...... +402 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.45 mile upstream of the con- +451 fluence of Persimmons Nursery Branch at the Chatham and Orange County boundary. Crooked Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Chatham and Durham County boundary +239 Crows Creek ...... At the confluence with Terrells Creek ...... +369 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Approximately 550 feet upstream of Eagle +406 Point Road. Cub Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Nature +271 Trail Road. Deep River ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +177 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Chatham, Moore, and Lee County +250 boundaries. Deep River Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +240 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of Alton +274 King Road. Deep River Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Deep River Tributary 5 +240 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Alton King +252 Road. Deep River Tributary 7 ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +240 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Alton +300 King Road. Deep River Tributary 8 ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +240 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Alton King +245 Road. Dry Creek ...... At the confluence with Haw River ...... +337 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of Silk Hope +532 Gum Springs Road. East Price Creek ...... At the Chatham and Orange County boundary +402 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the Chat- +426 ham County boundary. Folkner Branch ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of Farrells +256 Creek Road. Georges Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +225 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of Rosser +260 Road. Georges Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Georges Creek ...... +225 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the con- +244 fluence with Georges Creek. Georges Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Georges Creek ...... +225 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the con- +237 fluence with Georges Creek. Greenbriar Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +586 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Alamance and Chatham County bound- +632 ary. Gulf Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +172 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Unnamed +191 Road. Harlands Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +331 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 800 feet upstream of U.S. 64 .... +428 Harlands Creek ...... Approximately 800 feet upstream of U.S. 64 .... +428 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of U.S. 64 ... +445

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60875

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Harlands Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +331 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 800 feet upstream of U.S. 64 .... +428 Harris Reservoir ...... For its entire shoreline ...... +232 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Harts Creek ...... At the confluence with Bear Creek ...... +357 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the con- +403 fluence with Bear Creek. Haw River ...... At the confluence with Deep River and Cape +177 Chatham County (Unincor- Fear River. porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the con- +400 fluence of Terrells Creek (West) at the Alamance and Chatham County boundary. Herndon Creek ...... At the confluence with Bush Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Jack Ben- +251 nett Road. Hill Creek ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek ...... +369 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 300 feet upstream of X-Camp- +511 Chatham County (Unincor- bell Road. porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Indian Creek (into Deep River) ...... At the confluence of Deep River ...... +240 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of Goldston +336 Glendon Road. Indian Creek (into Jordan Lake) ...... Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of State +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Highway 751. porated Areas). At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Kit Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At Chatham and Wake County ...... +243 Lacy Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +539 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of confluence +565 with Rocky River. Landrum Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +337 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of Pleasant +500 Hill Church Road. Landrum Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Landrum Creek ...... +456 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Jay +468 Shambley Road. Lick Branch...... Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of State +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Highway 751. porated Areas). At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Lick Creek ...... At the confluence with Terrells Creek (West) ... +424 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the con- +473 fluence with Terrells Creek (West). Line Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +250 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Goldston +271 Carbanton Road. Little Beaver Creek ...... Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the con- +238 Chatham County (Unincor- fluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake. porated Areas). At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas) Little Beaver Creek Tributary ...... Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the con- +238 Chatham County (Unincor- fluence with Little Beaver Creek. porated Areas). At the confluence with Little Beaver Creek ...... +238

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60876 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Little Brush Creek ...... At the Chatham and Randolph County bound- +454 Chatham County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas). Town of Siler City Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Jim Paige +543 Road. Little Indian Creek ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek (into Deep +240 Chatham County (Unincor- River). porated Areas). Approximately 900 feet upstream of Goldston +378 Glendon Road. Long Branch ...... At the confluence with Dry Creek ...... +448 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of State +497 Route 87. Loves Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +501 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 0.1 mile upstream of Pine For- +605 est South Drive. Loves Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Loves Creek ...... +557 Town of Siler City. Approximately 400 feet upstream of U.S. 64 .... +620 Loves Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Loves Creek Tributary 1 +585 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of West Dol- +666 phin Street. Loves Creek Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Loves Creek Tributary 1 +592 Town of Siler City. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Garden +648 Avenue. Meadow Branch ...... At the confluence with Terrells Creek ...... +381 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Jones +389 Ferry Road. Meadow Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +437 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Rives +506 Chapel Church Road. Mill Branch ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the con- +244 fluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake. Morgan Creek ...... At the Chatham and Durham County boundary +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Morris Branch ...... At the confluence with Panther Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the con- +249 fluence with Panther Creek. Mud Lick Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +544 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Silk Hope +597 Liberty Road. Nancy Branch ...... At the confluence with Panther Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the con- +239 fluence with Panther Creek. New Hope River Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of B. Everett +247 Jordan Lake. North Prong Rocky River ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +587 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Alamance and Chatham County bound- +648 ary. Northeast Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Chatham and Durham County boundary +240

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60877

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Overcup Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of B. Everett +253 Jordan Lake. Overcup Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Overcup Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Overcup +245 Creek. Panther Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the con- +244 fluence of Morris Branch. Parkers Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Big Woods +287 Road. Persimmons Nursery Branch ...... At the confluence with Collins Creek ...... +448 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 550 feet upstream of Collins +450 Mountain Road. Pokeberry Creek ...... At the confluence with Haw River ...... +297 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3.5 miles upstream of Andrews +558 Store Road. Reedy Fork ...... At the Chatham and Randolph County bound- +499 Chatham County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Wrenn +527 Smith Road. Robeson Creek ...... At the confluence with the Haw River and B. +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Everett Jordan Lake. porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the Power +481 Line Easement. Robeson Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek ...... +297 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Prince +486 Creek Road. Robeson Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek Tribu- +349 Chatham County (Unincor- tary 1. porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 475 feet upstream of Tom +502 Womble Road. Robeson Creek Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek ...... +352 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Oakwood +419 Street. Robeson Creek Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek ...... +377 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 320 feet upstream of State +497 Route 87. Robeson Creek Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek Tribu- +391 Chatham County (Unincor- tary 4. porated Areas), Town of Pittsboro. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Arthur Al- +471 ston Road. Rocky Branch (into Deep River) ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +204 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the con- +222 fluence with Deep River. Rocky Branch (into Georges Creek) ...... At the confluence with Georges Creek ...... +232 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Rosser +256 Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60878 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Rocky Ford Branch ...... At the confluence with White Oak Branch ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Luther +244 Road. Rocky River ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +209 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. At the Chatham and Randolph County bound- +643 ary. Rocky River Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +507 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Siler City +630 Snow Camp Road. Sandy Branch ...... At the confluence with Bear Creek ...... +410 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of State +425 Route 902. Shaddox Creek ...... At the confluence with Haw River ...... +177 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of U.S. +214 Route 1. South Fork ...... At the Alamance and Chatham County bound- +525 Chatham County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Moon +550 Lindley Road. Stinking Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 450 feet upstream of Talon +279 Drive. Terrells Creek ...... At the confluence with Haw River ...... +369 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Chatham and Orange County boundary +420 Terrells Creek (West) ...... At the confluence with Haw River ...... +397 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Woody +530 Store Road. Tick Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +407 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Siler City +555 Glendon Road. Tick Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Tick Creek ...... +468 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the con- +480 fluence with Tick Creek. Tick Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Tick Creek ...... +498 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Mount +531 Vernon Springs Road. Tributary A ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek (into Deep +240 Chatham County (Unincor- River). porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Little In- +258 dian Creek Road. Turkey Creek ...... At the confluence with Robeson Creek ...... +324 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Unnamed +452 Road. Tysons Creek ...... At the Chatham and Moore County boundary .. +322 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Mert +414 McManess Road. Tysons Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Tysons Creek ...... +341 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of State +386 Route 42.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60879

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Varnell Creek ...... At the confluence with Rocky River ...... +485 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Siler City. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of U.S. 64 ... +528 Weaver Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of B. Everett +297 Jordan Lake. Weaver Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Weaver Creek ...... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the con- +245 fluence with Weaver Creek. Welch Creek ...... At the confluence with Tick Creek ...... +466 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the con- +478 fluence with Tick Creek. West Price Creek ...... At the Chatham/Orange County boundary ...... +467 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,930 feet upstream of the +480 Chatham/Orange County boundary. White Oak Creek ...... At the Chatham and Wake County boundary ... +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 White Oak Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with White Oak Creek and B. +238 Chatham County (Unincor- Everett Jordan Lake. porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the con- +253 fluence with White Oak Creek and B. Everett Jordan Lake. Wilkinson Creek ...... At the confluence with the Haw River ...... +330 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Gilmore +575 Road. Windfall Creek ...... At the confluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake +238 Chatham County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the con- +248 fluence with B. Everett Jordan Lake.

*National Geodetic Vertical Datum #Depth in feet above ground +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES: Town of Pittsboro: Maps available for inspection at the Pittsboro Planning Office, Town Hall, 635 East Street, Pittsboro, North Carolina. Town of Siler City: Maps available for inspection at the Siler City Zoning Office, Town Hall, 311 North Second Avenue, Siler City, North Carolina. Chatham County (Unincorporated Areas): Maps available for inspection at the Chatham County Planning Department, 80–A East Street, Pittsboro, North Carolina.

Orange County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket Nos. D–7622, D–7640, D–7660, and D–7662)

Back Creek...... At the Alamance County/Orange County +559 Orange County (Unincor- boundary. porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet downstream of Carr +648 Store Road. Back Creek Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Back Creek ...... +575 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet downstream of Har- +646 mony Church Road. Battle Branch ...... At the confluence with Bolin Creek ...... +263 Town of Chapel Hill. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the con- +387 fluence with Bolin Creek. Bolin Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Creek and Booker +255 Orange County (Unincor- Creek. porated Areas), Town of Carrboro, Town of Chap- el Hill.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60880 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Talbryn +578 Way. Booker Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Creek and Bolin +255 Town of Chapel Hill. Creek. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Airport +479 Road. Buckhorn Branch ...... At the confluence with Jones Creek ...... +483 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Carrboro. Approximately 300 feet upstream of dam ...... +509 Cane Creek (North) ...... Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the con- +429 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with Haw River. porated Areas). Approximately 125 feet upstream of Borland +606 Road. Cane Creek (North) Tributary No. 5 ...... At the confluence with Cane Creek (North) ...... +543 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Orange +575 Grove Road. Cates Creek ...... Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the con- +499 Town of Hillsborough, Or- fluence with Eno River. ange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of U.S. High- +659 way 40. Cates Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Cates Creek ...... +595 Town of Hillsborough, Or- ange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Oak Ridge +663 Drive. Cedar Fork ...... At North Lakeshore Drive ...... +309 Town of Chapel Hill. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Kingston +554 Drive. Chapel Creek ...... Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of the con- +261 Town of Chapel Hill. fluence with Morgan Creek. Approximately 350 feet upstream of South +419 Road. Collins Creek ...... At the Orange County/Chatham County bound- +451 Orange County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Big Still +536 Road. Collins Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Collins Creek ...... +487 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 650 feet upstream of Gait Way +524 Crabtree Creek ...... At the confluence with Sevenmile Creek ...... +539 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the con- +602 fluence with Sevenmile Creek. Crow Branch ...... At the confluence with Booker Creek ...... +400 Town of Chapel Hill. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of dam ...... +500 Cub Creek ...... Approximately 250 feet downstream of the Or- +257 Orange County (Unincor- ange County/Chatham County boundary. porated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of the Or- +265 ange County/Chatham County boundary. Dry Creek ...... Approximately 250 feet upstream of the con- +552 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the con- +589 fluence with Eno River. East Fork Eno River ...... Approximately 215 feet upstream of Carr Store +628 Orange County (Unincor- Road (NC 1352). porated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of NC 86 +668 East Fork Eno River Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the con- +595 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with East Fork Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the con- +627 fluence with East Fork Eno River. East Fork Eno River Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the con- +618 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with East Fork Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Carr Store +655 Road (NC 1352).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60881

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Forrest Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of NC 57 ...... +595 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 125 feet upstream of Phelps +644 Road. Haw River ...... At the Orange/Chatham County boundary ...... +415 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of East +429 Greensboro-Chapel Hill Road. High Rock Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of the con- +561 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of North +640 Efland Cedar Grove Road. Jones Creek ...... Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the con- +482 Town of Carrboro, Orange fluence with Bolin Creek. County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Old NC 86 +571 Lake Michael Tributary ...... At the confluence with Mill Creek ...... +580 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Lan- +693 caster Road. Lake Michael Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Lake Michael Tributary +637 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 400 feet north of U.S. 70 ...... +694 Lick Creek ...... Approximately 750 feet downstream of Gray +545 Orange County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Holly +576 Ridge Road. Little Creek (Chapel Hill) ...... At the Orange County/Durham County bound- +249 Town of Chapel Hill. ary. Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of the +253 confluence with Booker Creek and Bolin Creek. Little Creek (Chapel Hill) Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Little Creek (Chapel Hill) +251 Town of Chapel Hill. At Elderberry Drive ...... +310 Little River North Fork ...... Approximately 280 feet upstream of NC 57 ...... +580 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Hester +671 Road. Little River North Fork Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Little River North Fork .. +591 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Gates +607 Road. Little River North Fork Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Little River North Fork .. +544 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Sneed +564 Road. Little River South Fork ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of NC 57 ...... +552 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 60 feet upstream of Hawkins +637 Road. McGowan Creek ...... Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the con- +549 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Frazier +690 Road. Meeting of the Waters Creek ...... At the confluence of Morgan Creek ...... +262 Town of Chapel Hill. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Woodbine +341 Drive. Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Lake Michael Tributary +580 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Mill Creek +658 Road. Mill Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Mill Creek ...... +613 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Lee Street +656

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60882 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Morgan Creek ...... Approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the Or- +238 Orange County (Unincor- ange County/Chatham County boundary. porated Areas), Town of Carrboro, Town of Chap- el Hill. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Dairyland +559 Road. Mountain Creek ...... Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the con- +474 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with New Hope Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the con- +506 fluence with New Hope Creek. New Hope Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of Old NC 86 +497 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Arthur +529 Minnis Road. New Hope Creek Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 400 feet downstream of the Or- +264 Orange County (Unincor- ange County/Durham County boundary. porated Areas), Town of Chapel Hill. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of con- +297 fluence with Dry Branch. Price Creek ...... At the confluence with University Lake ...... +358 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Damascus +359 Church Road. Rays Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River South Fork .. +593 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Walnut +632 Grove Church Road. Rays Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Rays Creek ...... +607 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Walnut +628 Grove Church Road. Rhodes Creek ...... Approximately 850 feet upstream of Cornwallis +449 Orange County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Corn- +507 wallis Road. Sevenmile Creek ...... Approximately 350 feet upstream of Interstate +533 Orange County (Unincor- 85. porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Pender +622 Drive. Sevenmile Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Sevenmile Creek ...... +539 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the con- +598 fluence with Sevenmile Creek. Sevenmile Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Sevenmile Creek ...... +591 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Bushy +642 Cook Road. South Hyco Creek ...... At the Caswell County/Orange County bound- +589 Orange County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas). Approximately 0.95 mile upstream of County +642 boundary. South Hyco Creek Tributary 8 ...... At the Person County/Orange County boundary +603 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of County +620 boundary. Stagg Creek ...... At the Alamance/Orange County boundary ...... +606 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Atkins +639 Road. Strouds Creek ...... Approximately 600 feet upstream of the con- +485 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of NC 86 ... +659 Strouds Creek Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 1,760 feet downstream of NC +590 Orange County (Unincor- 57. porated Areas). Approximately 1,080 feet upstream of Phelps +656 Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60883

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Strouds Creek Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Strouds Creek ...... +519 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Miller +574 Road. Strouds Creek Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Strouds Creek ...... +551 Town of Hillsborough, Or- ange County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of NC 57 ...... +636 Terrells Creek ...... At the Orange County/Chatham County bound- +421 Orange County (Unincor- ary. porated Areas). Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the Coun- +498 ty boundary. Tributary 1 to Sevenmile Creek ...... At the confluence with Sevenmile Creek Tribu- +627 Orange County (Unincor- tary 2. porated Areas). Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 950 feet upstream of Bushy +631 Orange County (Unincor- Cook Road. porated Areas). Toms Creek ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of NC 54 ...... +418 Town of Carrboro. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Rainbow +468 Drive. Toms Creek (Apple Pond) ...... At the confluence with Cane Creek (North) ...... +501 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Nicks +558 Road. Turkey Hill Creek ...... At the confluence with Cane Creek (North) ...... +511 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Private +610 Road. University Lake (Price Creek) ...... Entire shoreline within communities ...... +358 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Carrboro. Watery Fork ...... At the confluence with Cane Creek (North) ...... +501 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 250 feet upstream of Dairyland +553 Road. West Fork Eno River...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of North +592 Orange County (Unincor- Efland Cedar Grove Road. porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of McDade +672 Store Road. West Fork Eno River Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 600 feet upstream of the con- +579 Orange County (Unincor- fluence with Eno River. porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Harmony +650 Church Road. West Fork Eno River Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with West Fork Eno River .... +595 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Gov- +623 ernor Scott Road. West Fork Eno River Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with West Fork Eno River .... +643 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the con- +681 fluence with West Fork Eno River. Wildcat Branch ...... At the confluence with Collins Creek ...... +475 Orange County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Wildcat +506 Creek Road.

*National Geodetic Vertical Datum #Depth in feet above ground +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES: Town of Carrboro: Maps available for inspection at the Town of Carrboro Planning Department, 301 West Main Street, Carrboro, North Carolina. Town of Chapel Hill: Maps available for inspection at the Town of Chapel Hill Stormwater Management Program Office, 209 North Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Town of Hillsborough: Maps available for inspection at the Hillsborough Town Hall, 101 East Orange Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60884 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet (NAVD) Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground Modified

Orange County (Unincorporated Areas): Maps available for inspection at the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. obtained by contacting the office where the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) the maps are available for inspection as Environmental Consideration. No Dated: October 5, 2006. indicated on the table below. environmental impact assessment has David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17261 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This final William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering rule is not a significant regulatory action DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation under the criteria of Section 3(f) of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street, SW., Executive Order 12866 of September 30, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, Federal Emergency Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA 58 FR 51735. Agency makes the final determinations listed Executive Order 13132, Federalism. below for the modified BFEs for each This rule involves no policies that have 44 CFR Part 67 community listed. These modified federalism implications under Executive elevations have been published in Order 13132. Final Flood Elevation Determinations newspapers of local circulation and Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice AGENCY: Federal Emergency ninety (90) days have elapsed since that Reform. This rule meets the applicable Management Agency (FEMA), publication. The Mitigation Division standards of Executive Order 12988. Director has resolved any appeals Department of Homeland Security, List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Mitigation Division. resulting from this notification. This final rule is issued in accordance Administrative practice and ACTION: Final rule. with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and recordkeeping requirements. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified and 44 CFR Part 67. I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is BFEs are made final for the The Agency has developed criteria for amended as follows: communities listed below. The BFEs floodplain management in floodprone and modified BFEs are the basis for the areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part PART 67—[AMENDED] floodplain management measures that 60. Interested lessees and owners of real I 1. The authority citation for part 67 each community is required either to property are encouraged to review the continues to read as follows: adopt or to show evidence of being proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM already in effect in order to qualify or Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; available at the address cited below for remain qualified for participation in the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, each community. The BFEs and 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, National Flood Insurance Program modified BFEs are made final in the 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. (NFIP). communities listed below. Elevations at § 67.11 [Amended] EFFECTIVE DATES: The date of issuance of selected locations in each community the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are shown. I 2. The tables published under the showing BFEs and modified BFEs for National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.11 are amended as each community. This date may be This rule is categorically excluded from follows:

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Modified

KENTUCKY (FEMA Docket No. B–7454)

Kentucky ...... Louisville Metro ...... Anita Branch ...... At confluence with Pennsylvania Run ...... +535

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60885

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Modified

Approximately 240 feet upstream of Cedar Creek +614 Road. Louisville Metro ...... Blue Springs Ditch ...... At confluence with Northern Ditch ...... +460 Approximately 650 feet downstream of Fern Val- +462 ley Road. Just upstream of Fern Valley Road ...... +463 Approximately 80 feet downstream of Hanses +465 Drive. Approximately 330 feet downstream of Jefferson +467 Boulevard. Approximately 1,570 feet upstream of Jefferson +470 Boulevard. Louisville Metro ...... Brownsboro Ditch ...... At confluence with Little Goose Creek ...... +583 Approximately 70 feet upstream of Ten Broeck +583 Way. Louisville Metro ...... Brush Run Upper ...... At confluence with Floydes Fork ...... +597 Approximately 530 feet upstream of Polo Fields +655 Lane. City of Shively ...... City Park Ditch ...... At confluence with Upper Mill Creek ...... +448 Approximately 300 feet upstream of Olenda Way +448 Louisville Metro ...... Drews Fork ...... At confluence with Lovvorn Creek ...... +600 Approximately 280 feet upstream of Cooper +629 Chapel Road. Louisville Metro ...... Durbin Branch ...... At confluence with Lovvorn Creek ...... +595 Approximately 120 feet upstream of Cooper +633 Chapel Road. Louisville Metro ...... Fishpool Creek ...... At confluence with Southern Ditch ...... +462 Approximately 1,570 feet upstream of Blue Lick +467 Road. Approximately 950 feet Downstream of South +472 Park Road. Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of +571 Charleswood Road. Approximately 20 feet upstream of Cooper +582 Chapel Road. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Cooper +594 Chapel Road. Louisville Metro...... Floyds Fork...... Approximately 29,700 feet downstream of +475 Bardstown Road. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Broad Run +496 Road. Approximately 7,910 feet downstream of con- +521 fluence with Cane Run. Approximately 3,400 feet upstream of confluence +534 with Cane Run. Approximately 4,970 feet downstream of Taylors- +548 ville Lake Road. Approximately 1,930 feet downstream of Taylors- +552 ville Lake Road. Approximately 1,740 feet downstream of Taylors- +559 ville Road. Approximately 3,570 feet upstream of Taylors- +568 ville Road. Approximately 3,100 feet downstream of I–64 +581 East. Approximately 330 feet downstream of Shelby- +596 ville Road. Approximately 7,700 feet upstream of CSX Rail- +612 road. Approximately 12,300 feet upstream of Aiken +628 Road. Louisville Metro ...... Gene Snyder Tributary At confluence with Pennsylvania Run ...... +595 Approximately 500 feet upstream of I–265 North +608 Louisville Metro ...... Goose Creek ...... Just upstream of Lakeland Road ...... +661 Approximately 220 feet downstream of Cave +707 Spring Place.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60886 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Modified

Louisville Metro ...... Harrods Creek ...... At confluence with Ohio River ...... +452 Approximately 22,400 feet upstream of +452 Brownsboro Road. City of Shively ...... Heatherfield Ditch ...... At confluence with Upper Mill Creek ...... +447 Just downstream of Heatherfield Drive ...... +447 Louisville Metro ...... Hite Creek ...... Approximately 2,850 feet downstream of Wor- +599 thington Lane. Approximately 820 feet upstream of Collins Lane +734 Louisville Metro ...... LeFores Branch ...... At confluence with Goose Creek ...... +668 Approximately 1,140 feet upstream of confluence +677 with Goose Creek. Louisville Metro ...... Lilac Run ...... At confluence with Little Goose Creek ...... +628 Approximately 1,780 feet upstream of +667 Wynbrooke Cirle. Louisville Metro...... Little Goose Creek...... Approximately 580 feet downstream of I–71 +548 South. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Westport +651 Road. Louisville Metro ...... Long Run Creek ...... At confluence with Floyds Fork ...... +569 Approximately 830 feet upstream of Long Run +653 Road. Louisville Metro ...... Lovvorn Creek ...... At confluence with Pennsylvania Run ...... +578 Approximately 170 feet upstream of Beulah +652 Church Road. Louisville Metro ...... Northern Ditch ...... At confluence with Pond Creek ...... +455 Approximately 1,910 feet downstream of Preston +459 Highway. Approximately 1,840 feet upstream of Preston +463 Highway. Approximately of 410 feet upstream of +480 Shepherdsville Road. Louisville Metro...... Pennsylvania Run...... Approximately 900 feet downstream of Mt. +528 Washington Road. Approximately 920 feet upstream of Outer Loop +648 Louisville Metro ...... Pohlmann Branch ...... At confluence with Pennsylvania Run ...... +602 Approximately 160 feet upstream of Beulah +657 Church Road. Louisville Metro ...... Pond Creek ...... Approximately 6,500 feet downstream of Stites +430 Station Road. Approximately 870 feet upstream of Blenvins +433 Gap Road. Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of +445 Stonestreet Road. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of New Cut +455 Road. Louisville Metro ...... Rolling Hills Branch ...... At confluence with Little Goose Creek ...... +590 Approximately 180 feet upstream of Goose +608 Creek Road. Louisville Metro, City of South Fork Beargrass At pump station ...... +433 West Buechel, City of Creek. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Baxter Ave- +449 Jeffersontown. nue. Approximately 170 feet upstream of Ellison Ave- +456 nue. Approximately 6,100 feet upstream of Eastern +460 Parkway. Approximately 360 feet upstream of Goldsmith +470 Lane (1st crossing). Approximately 760 feet downstream of Bashford +472 Manor Lane. Approximately 240 feet upstream of Bashford +472 Manor Lane. Approximately 100 feet downstream of +475 Bardstown Road. Approximately 80 feet upstream of Bardstown +478 Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60887

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Modified

Approximately 40 feet downstream of Hikes +491 Lane. Approximately 260 feet upstream of +511 Breckenridge Lane. Approximately 3,270 feet upstream of Hunsinger +533 Lane. Approximately at Brybed Reservoir ...... +564 Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of Stony +564 Brook Drive. Just downstream Taylorville Road ...... +634 Louisville Metro ...... Southern Ditch ...... At confluence with Pond Creek ...... +455 Approximately 960 feet downstream of Minors +459 Lane. Approximately 1,620 feet downstream of Outer +472 Loop (1st crossing). Approximately 490 feet downstream of Gayeway +506 Drive. Approximately 310 feet upstream of Gayeway +517 Drive. Approximately 30 feet upstream of +531 Shepherdsville Road. Approximately 60 feet downstream of Michael +561 Ray Drive. Approximately 790 feet upstream of Michael Ray +576 Drive. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Michael +586 Ray Drive. Louisville Metro ...... Springhurst Creek ...... At confluence with Little Goose Creek ...... +588 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Ten Broeck +591 Way. Louisville Metro City of Weicher Creek ...... At confluence with Middle Fork Beargrass Creek +508 Matthews. Approximately 100 feet downstream of I–264 +517 West Ramp. Approximately 20 feet upstream of Blossomwood +522 Drive. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Woodmont +537 Drive. Approximately 190 feet upstream of Dannywood +545 Road. Approximately 290 feet upstream of Lincoln +550 Road. Approximately 820 feet upstream of Lincoln +555 Road. Approximately 3,870 feet upstream of Limehouse +647 Lane. Louisville Metro ...... Wet Woods Creek ...... At confluence with Southern Ditch ...... +457 Just downstream of Preston Highway ...... +461 Louisville Metro ...... Wilson Creek ...... At confluence with Southern Ditch ...... +456 Approximately 990 feet upstream of I–265 North +460 Approximately 3,290 feet upstream of National +467 Turnpike. Approximately 2,260 feet upstream of Farmers +477 Lane. Approximately 3,550 feet upstream of Farmers +480 Lane. Approximately 4,700 feet downstream of Na- +524 tional Turnpike.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60888 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Modified

ADDRESSES Louisville Metro Maps are available for inspection at Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, 700 West Liberty Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203–1911. Send comments to Mr. Randy Stambaugh, P.E., CFM, Floodplain Administrator, Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, 700 West Liberty Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40203–1911. City of Jeffersontown Maps are available for inspection at Jeffersontown City Hall, 10416 Watterson Trail, Jeffersontown, Kentucky 40299. Send comments to Honorable Clay Foreman, Mayor, Jeffersontown City Hall, 10416 Watterson Trail, Jeffersontown, Kentucky 40299. City of Shively Maps are available for inspection at Shively City Hall, 3920 Dixie Highway, Louisville, Kentucky 40216–4120. Send comments to Honorable Sherry Conner, Mayor, Shively City Hall, 3920 Dixie Highway, Louisville, Kentucky 40216–4120. City of Matthews Maps are available for inspection at St. Matthews City Hall, 3940 Grandview Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40207. Send comments to Honorable Arthur Draut, Mayor, St. Matthews City Hall, 3940 Grandview Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40207. City of West Buechel Maps are available for inspection at West Buechel City Hall, 3705 Bashford Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40218. Send comments to Honorable Sharon Fowler, Mayor, West Buechel City Hall, 3705 Bashford Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky 40218.

POLK COUNTY, OREGON FEMA Docket No. B–7453)

Oregon ...... Polk County (Uninc. North Fork Ash Creek ... Confluence with Middle Fork Ash Creek ...... +177 Areas).

At Hoffman Road ...... +180 City of Independence, Ash Creek ...... Approximately 100 feet downstream of Gun Club +167 City of Monmouth Road. Polk County (Uninc. Areas). At Confluence of Middle Fork Ash Creek and +177 North Fork Ash Creek. City of Independence Ash Creek Overflow At Confluence with Ash Creek ...... +168 City of Monmouth Channel. polk County (Uninc. Areas). At divergence from Ash Creek ...... +177

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Polk County Maps are available for inspection at the Community Development, 850 Main Street, Dallas, Oregon 97338. Send comments to Chairman, Ron Dodge, 850 Main Street, Dallas, Oregon 97338. City of Independence Maps are available for inspection at Community Development, 240 Monmouth Street, Independence, Oregon 97351 Send comments to the Honorable John McArdle, 240 Monmouth Street, Independence, Oregon 97351. City of Monmouth Maps are available for inspection at Community Development, 240 Monmouth Street, Independence, Oregon 97351. Send comments to the Honorable Larry Dalton, 151 West Main Street, Monmouth, Oregon 97361.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60889

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet (NGVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation +Elevation Communities in feet affected (NAVD). +( ) Pond Elevation in NAVD. Modified

Larimer County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. B–7458)

Big Thompson River ...... Approximately 800 feet upstream of Larimer-Weld County +4,812 Larimer County (Unincor- Line. porated Areas), City of Loveland, Town of Johns- town. Approximately 800 feet upstream of County Road 3 ...... +4,829 Just upstream of I–25 ...... +4,852 Approximately 0.4 miles upstream of County Road 3 ...... +4,880 Approximately 150 feet upstream of Boyd Lake Outlet Ditch .. +4880 Approximately 300 feet west of Lincoln Avenue and approxi- #2 mately 1,700 feet west of St. Louis Avenue. Just downstream of St. Louis Avenue ...... +4,923 Just upstream of St. Louis Avenue ...... +4,924 Just east of Taft Avenue to 900 feet west of Taft Avenue #1 Garfield Avenue. South of Dry Creek and north of Rossum Drive ...... #3 Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of confluence of Dry +5,046 Creek. Southwest of U.S. Highway 34 ...... #2 Just downstream of confluence with Buckhorn Creek ...... +5,097 Big Thompson River—South At confluence with Big Thompson River ...... +4,938 Larimer County (Unincor- Spill. porated Areas) and City of Loveland. Just upstream of Taft Avenue ...... +4,970 Big Thompson River—Gravel Pit At confluence with Big Thompson River ...... +4,888 Larimer County (Unincor- Split. porated Areas). Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of confluence with Big +4,899 Thompson River. Big Thompson River Overflow .... Just upstream of confluence with Big Thompson River ...... +5,047 Larimer County (Uninc. Areas), City of Loveland. Approximately 0.4 miles upstream of confluence with Big +5,078 Thompson River. Boxelder Creek...... Approximately 200 feet upstream above confluence with +4,868 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Cache La Poudre River. County (Uninc. Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet east of Interstate Highway 25 ...... #2 Just upstream of Vine Drive ...... +4,972 Just north of Vine Drive ...... #2 Just upstream of County Road 52 ...... +5,024 Approximately 500 feet north of County Road 52 ...... #2 Approximately 1,000 feet north of County Road 52 ...... #1 Just downstream of County Road 54 ...... +5,054 Boxelder Creek Overflow— Approximately 1,600 feet above confluence with Boxelder +4,933 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Downstream Reach. Creek. County (Unincorporated Areas). Limit of Detailed Study (Approximately 2.1 miles above con- +4,975 fluence with Boxelder Creek). Boxelder Creek Overflow—Up- Above Larimer and Weld Canal ...... +4,982 City of Fort Collins, Larimer stream Reach. County (Unincorporated Areas). Limit of Detailed Study (Approximately 2.3 miles above +5,038 Larimer and Weld Canal). Boxelder Creek I–25 Split ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of Larimer County Road 5 +4,875 City of Fort Collins, Larimer County (Unincorporated Areas). Limits of Detailed Study (Approx. 3.1 miles upstream of +4,921 Larimer County Road 5). Boxelder Creek I–25 Split Over- Approximately 600 feet upstream of confluence with Boxelder +4,890 City of Fort Collins, Larimer flow. Creek. County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of confluence with +4,894 Boxelder Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60890 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet (NGVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation +Elevation Communities in feet affected (NAVD). +( ) Pond Elevation in NAVD. Modified

Cache La Poudre River ...... Approximately 1,500 feet downstream from Shields Street ..... +4982 City of Fort Collins, Larimer County (Unincorporated Areas). Just west of Shields Street to approximately 500 feet west of +(5,000) Shields Street. Approximately 500 feet west of Shields Street ...... #2 Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Overland Trail Road +5,048 Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Overland Trail Road .... +5,063 Appoximately 1,800 feet upstream of County Road 52E ...... +5,119 Cache La Poudre River Split At Gravel Pit Access Road ...... +4,884 City of Fort Collins, Larimer RPath. County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 miles above Gravel Pit Access Road ...... +4,900 Cache La Poudre River Split Approximately 0.5 miles above Gravel Pit Access Road ...... +4,896 City of Fort Collins, Larimer LPath. County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 miles above Gravel Pit Access Road ...... +4,898 Cooper Slough ...... Approximately 800 feet upstream of State Highway 14 ...... +4,922 City of Fort Collins, Larimer County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 600 feet south of C and S Railroad ...... #2 Approximately 1,200 feet north of Vine Drive to approximately +(4964) 1,800 feet north of Vine Drive. Approximately 0.6 miles upstream of Vine Drive ...... +4,972 Cooper Slough Overflow ...... Just south of confluence with Lake Canal and just north of #3 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Cache La Poudre Inlet Ditch. County (Unincorporated Areas). At confluence with Lake Canal ...... +4,917 Approximately 0.9 miles upstream of confluence with Lake +4,936 Canal. Dry Creek ...... Just upstream of confluence with Big Thompson River ...... +5,043 City of Loveland. Approximately 0.4 miles upstream of confluence with Big +5,065 Thompson River. Glade Road Split ...... Just upstream of confluence with Big Thompson River ...... +5,047 Larimer County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Loveland. Approximately 0.9 miles upstream of confluence with Big +5,078 Thompson River. Sherry Drive Overflow ...... Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Cache La Poudre Res- +4,918 City of Fort Collins. ervoir Inlet Ditch. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Cache La Poudre Res- +4,920 ervoir Inlet Ditch. Shield Street Divided Flow Approximately 400 feet downstream of Shire Court ...... +5,010 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Path—Hill Pond Road. County (Unincorporated Areas). South of Gilgalad Way and north of Hill Pond Road ...... #1 Just west of convergence of Hill Pond Road and Windtrail #1 Swale. South of Hill Pond Road and north of Shire Court ...... #1 Approximately 100 feet downstream of Shields Street ...... +5,021 Shield Street Divided Flow Just downstream of Chetwood Court ...... +5,012 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Path—Shire Court. County (Unincorporated Areas). North of Shire court and east of Shields Street ...... #2 Just downstream of Shields Street ...... +5,024 Shield Street Divided Flow Approximately 3.8 miles upstream above confluence with +5,003 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Path—Windswale Trail. Cache La Poudre River. County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 4.2 miles upstream above confluence with +5,017 Cache La Poudre River. Spring Creek...... Approximately 700 feet upstream above confluence with +4,905 City of Fort Collins, Larimer Cache La Poudre River. County (Unincorporated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60891

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in feet (NGVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation +Elevation Communities in feet affected (NAVD). +( ) Pond Elevation in NAVD. Modified

Around intersection of Prospect Road and Sharp Point Drive #2 North of Prospect Road and East of Timberline Road ...... +(4,905) Just upstream of Lemay Avenue ...... +4,947 Around intersection of Stuart Street and Stover Street ...... #3 East of C and S Railroad and south of Prospect Court ...... #2 Just upstream of Shields Street ...... +5,018 West of Shields Street ...... #2 Approximately 2,000 feet downstream from Shields Street ..... #2 Just upstream of Taft Hill Road ...... +5,087 Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Taft Hill Road ...... +5,173 Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Taft Hill Road ...... +5,173

+ North American Vertical Datum. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + ( ) Pond Elevation in North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas Larimer County Maps are available for inspection at the Larimer County Courthouse, 200 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521. Send comments to the Honorable Kathay Rennels, Chair, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522–1190. City of Loveland Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 500 East Third Street, Loveland, Colorado 80537. Send comments to the Honorable Larry Walsh, Mayor, City of Loveland, 500 East Third Street, Loveland, Colorado 80537. City of Fort Collins Maps are available for inspection at the Fort Collins Stormwater Utilities Department, 700 Wood Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521. Send comments to the Honorable Doug Hutchinson, Mayor, City of Fort Collins, 300 LaPorte Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Colorado 80522–0580.

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Santa Rosa County, Florida and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. D–7660)

Pace Mill Creek ...... Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of U.S. Route 90 ...... +12 Santa Rosa County (Unincor- porated Areas). At downstream side of Chumuckla Highway ...... +127 Pond Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of CSX Railroad ...... +10 Santa Rosa County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Mil- ton. At upstream side of William Norris Road ...... +68

+ North American Vertical Datum. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Santa Rosa County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Santa Rosa County Public Services Department, 6051 Old Bagdad Highway, Milton, Florida 32583. City of Milton Maps available for inspection at the City of Milton Planning and Development Department, 6738 Dixon Street, Milton, Florida.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60892 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Shoshone County, Idaho and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. B–7660)

Coeur d’Alene River ...... At western Shoshone County boundary approximately 800 +2149 Shoshone County (Unincor- feet South of Interstate Highway 90. porated Areas). At western Shoshone County boundary on the landward side +2155 of the levee at community of Cataldo. Approximately 15,000 feet upstream from the western Sho- +2164 shone County boundary. South Fork Coeur d’Alene River Approximately 1500 feet downstream of Theatre Road ...... +2225 Shoshone County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Kel- logg, City of Smelterville. Just downstream of Elizabeth Park Road Bridge ...... +2343 South Fork Coeur d’Alene At west Brown Avenue west of Utah Street ...... +2295 Shoshone County (Unincor- River—North Overbank Reach porated Areas), City of Kel- through Kellogg. logg. Just north of Interstate Highway 90 after divergence from +2310 South Fork Coeur d’Alene River on Cameron Avenue East. South Fork Coeur d’Alene At the City of Kellogg western corporate limit ...... +2243 Shoshone County (Unincor- River—South Overbank North porated Areas), City of Kel- Swale Reach. logg. At divergence from South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. Just up- +2284 stream of Interstate Highway 90 Bridge. South Fork Coeur d’Alene Just South of Interstate Highway 90 bridge approximately +2198 Shoshone County (Unincor- River—South Overbank 1000 feet upstream of Pine Creek confluence. porated Areas), City of Kel- Smelterville Reach. logg, City of Smelterville. At confluence of Government Gulch ...... +2245 South Fork Coeur d’Alene Approximately 1000 feet downstream of Hill Street ...... +2284 Shoshone County (Unincor- River—South Overbank South porated Areas), City of Kel- Kellogg Reach. logg. Approximately 150 feet downstream of divergence from +2310 South Fork Coeur d’Alene River, at Division Street. South Fork Coeur d’Alene Approximately 1500 feet upstream from western corporated +2251 Shoshone County (Unincor- River—South Overbank South limit of the City of Kellogg.. porated Areas), City of Kel- Swale Reach. logg. At the confluence of South Overbank Southwest Kellogg +2282 Reach. South Fork Coeur d’Alene At confluence with South Overbank South Swale Reach ap- +2284 Shoshone County (Unincor- River—South Overbank South- proximately 200 feet downstream of Bunker Avenue. porated Areas), City of Kel- west Kellogg Reach. logg. At divergence from South Fork Coeur d’Alene River ...... +2289

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated areas of Shoshone County Maps are available for inspection at the Shoshone County Courthouse, 700 Bank Street, Suite 35, Wallace Idaho 83873. Send comments to Chairman Jim Vergobbi, Shoshone County, 700 Bank Street, Suite 120, Wallace Idaho 83873. City of Kellogg Maps are available for inspection at the City Hall, 1007 McKinley Street, Kellogg Idaho 83837. Send comments to Mayor Mac Pooler, City of Kellogg, 1007 McKinley Street, Kellogg Idaho 83837. City of Smelterville Maps are available for inspection at the City Hall, 501 Main Street, Smelterville Idaho 83868. Send comments to Mayor Tom Benson, City of Smelterville, P.O. Box 200, Smelterville Idaho 83868.

Plymouth County, Massachusetts and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. D–7662)

Plymouth Harbor/Plymouth Bay At Clarks Island ...... +10 Town of Plymouth. Approximately 500 feet north of the intersection of State +29 Route 3A and Clifford Road.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60893

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

# Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Town of Plymouth Maps available for inspection at the Plymouth Town Hall, 11 Lincoln Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Washington County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. B–7456)

Mine Breton Creek ...... Approximately 2,350 feet above confluence with Bates Creek *860 City of Potosi. At Highway P, approximately 9,700 feet above confluence *922 with Bates Creek.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Potosi Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, 121 E. High Street, Potosi, MO. Send comments to The Honorable Wayne Maulgen, Mayor of the City of Potosi, 121 E. High Street, Potosi, MO 63664.

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Bladen County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket Nos. D–7584, D–7560, and D–7660)

Bakers Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +54 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Owen Hill Road ...... +79 Barefoot Swamp ...... At the confluence with Crawley Swamp ...... +104 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Highway 41 ...... +116 Big Foot Marsh ...... At the confluence with Brown Marsh Swamp ...... +71 Town of Clarkton, Bladen County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of Business 701 ...... +78 Big Swamp ...... Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the confluence of Bryant +99 Bladen County (Unincor- Swamp. porated Areas). At the confluence with Big Marsh Swamp ...... +122 Black River ...... At the Bladen/Pender County boundary ...... +16 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with South River ...... +26 Black Swamp ...... At the Bladen-Robeson County boundary ...... +108 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Highway 131 ...... +123 Brown Marsh Swamp ...... Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Red Hill Road ...... +70 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Highway 701 ...... +86 Browns Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +48 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Elizabethtown. Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Peanut Plant Road ...... +101 Browns Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Browns Creek ...... +96 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Elizabethtown. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Cromartie Road ...... +120

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60894 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Bryant Swamp ...... At the Bladen-Robeson County boundary ...... +96 Town of Bladenboro, Bladen County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of State Route 211 Bypass +107 Cape Fear River ...... At the Bladen/Pender County boundary ...... +18 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Elizabethtown. Approximately 190 feet downstream of the Bladen/Cum- +70 berland County boundary. Carvers Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +31 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Doctor Robinson Road +61 Colly Creek ...... At the Bladen/Pender County boundary ...... +18 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of White Lake. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Susie Sand Hill Road .. +85 Crawley Swamp ...... At the Bladen-Robeson County boundary ...... +100 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile downstream from State Route 410 .... +108 Cypress Creek ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +62 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of NC 210 ...... +76 Donoho Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +35 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of State Route 87 ...... +69 Doubles Branch ...... Approximately 200 feet downstream of Burney Ford Road ..... +81 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Burney Ford Road ...... +89 Elkton Marsh ...... At the confluence with Brown Marsh Swamp ...... +75 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 150 feet downstream of Burney Ford Road ..... +81 Ellis Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +54 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3.0 miles upstream of Dowd Dairy Road ...... +75 Galberry Swamp ...... At the confluence with Big Marsh Swamp ...... +122 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Bladen-Cumberland County boundary ...... +135 Georgia Branch ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +68 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Glengerry Hill Road ...... +128 Goodman Swamp ...... At the Bladen-Robeson County boundary ...... +109 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet downstream from Tar-heel Ferry +113 Road. Hammond Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +43 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Airport Road ...... +43 Harrisons Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +59 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Camp Bowers Trial +71 Dam. Horsepen Branch ...... Approximately 1,500 feet downstream from the confluence of +89 Bladen County (Unincor- Spring Branch. porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of State Route 410 ...... +100 Kitchens Branch ...... At the confluence with Carvers Creek ...... +42 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Cord Road ...... +69 Lateral 7 Creek ...... At the confluence with Bryant Swamp ...... +105 Town of Bladenboro, Bladen County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of West Poplar Street ...... +114 Lumber River ...... At the Bladen-Robeson-Columbus County boundary ...... +89 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the confluence of Bryant +99 Swamp and Big Swamp. Middle Swamp ...... At the confluence with Elkton Marsh ...... +78 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:29 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60895

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Porterville School Road .. +96 Mines Creek ...... At the confluence with Georgia Branch ...... +68 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Dam ...... +120 Plummers Run ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +30 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 240 feet upstream of Brighten Road ...... +64 Plummers Run Tributary ...... At the confluence with Plummers Run ...... +43 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with +52 Plummers Run. Pub Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Turnbull Creek ...... +48 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Unnamed Road ...... +56 Rattlesnake Creek ...... At the confluence of Spring Branch ...... +89 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Bladen-Columbus County boundary ...... +96 Reedy Meadow Swamp ...... At the confluence with Black Swamp ...... +118 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of State Route 87 ...... +140 Saespan Branch ...... Approximately 600 feet downstream of the Bladen/Columbus +58 Bladen County (Unincor- County boundary. porated Areas) At the Bladen/Columbus County boundary ...... +59 Slender Branch ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Branch ...... +93 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with +100 Horsepen Branch. South River ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +26 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Bladen/Cumberland County boundary ...... +71 Spring Branch ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Branch ...... +89 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,700 feet upstream of State Route 242 ...... +104 Steep Run ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +28 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of NC 87 ...... +54 Turnbull Creek ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +48 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of NC 242 ...... +84 Wateree Creek ...... At the confluence of Bryant Swamp ...... +101 Town of Bladenboro, Bladen County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of State Route 211 Bypass +115 Whites Creek ...... At the confluence with Hammond Creek ...... +43 Bladen County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 470 feet upstream of Airport Road ...... +43

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Bladen County Maps are available for inspection at Bladen County Courthouse, 106 East Broad Street, Room 107, Elizabethtown, NC. Town of Bladenboro Maps are available for inspection at the Bladenboro Town Hall, 305 South Main Street, Bladenboro, NC. Town of Clarkton Maps available for inspection at the Clarkton Town Hall, 81 North Elm Street, Clarkton, NC. Town of Elizabethtown Maps are available for inspection at Elizabethtown Town Hall, 805 West Broad Street, Elizabethtown, NC. Town of White Lake Maps are available for inspection at White Lake Town Hall, 1879 White Lake Drive, White Lake, NC.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60896 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Cumberland County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket Nos. D–7636 and D–7660)

Beaver Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Rockfish Creek ...... +121 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Fay- etteville, Town of Hope Mills. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of All-American Expressway +199 Beaver Creek Tributary A ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +135 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence with +135 Beaver Creek. Beaver Dam Creek ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +74 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Spencer Road ...... +106 Big Branch ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +191 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Fay- etteville. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with +219 Beaver Creek. Big Creek ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +102 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 5.1 miles upstream of Maxwell Road+145. Black River ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +124 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Cumberland/Harnett County boundary Creek ...... +140 Bones Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Rockfish Creek ...... +146 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of Morganton Road ...... +225 Browns Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +111 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 650 feet upstream of South River School +128 Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Browns Swamp ...... +111 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 650 feet upstream of Kennel Road ...... +124 Buck Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... +108 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with Big +113 Creek. Buckhead Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Rockfish Creek ...... +112 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Fay- etteville. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Raeford Road ...... +198 Cape Fear River Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +96 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Wade. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Interstate 95 ...... +131 Cold Camp Creek ...... At the confluence with Galberry Swamp ...... +144 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 500 feet downstream of Interstate 95 ...... +165 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Cold Camp Creek ...... +145 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Canady Pond Road .... +157 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Cold Camp Creek ...... +153 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of John McMillan Road ...... +166 Cypress Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +165 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of West Manchester Road +204 Galberry Swamp ...... At the Cumberland/Bladen County boundary ...... +134 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with Cold Camp Creek and Buckhorn +144 Swamp. Gum Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +94 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Hollow Bridge Road ...... +103

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60897

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Hector Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +178 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Cumberland/Harnett County boundary ...... +194 Jumping Run Creek...... Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of NC 210 (Lillington +136 Cumberland County (Unincor- Highway). porated Areas). At the Cumberland/Harnett County boundary ...... +161 Kirks Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Willis Creek ...... +73 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of Point East Drive ...... +84 Little River Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +112 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with 138 Lower Little River. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +144 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Spring Lake. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of McCormick Road ...... +284 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Little River Tributary 2 ...... +154 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Chapel Hill Road ...... +209 Little Rockfish Creek ...... At the confluence with Rockfish Creek ...... +79 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Hope Mills. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Raeford Road ...... +172 Long Branch ...... At the confluence with Willis Creek ...... +95 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Wil- +116 lis Creek. (Lower) Little River ...... Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Mill Road ...... +103 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Spring Lake. At the Cumberland/Hoke County boundary ...... +179 Mingo Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +127 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Cumberland/Sampson/Harnett County boundary ...... +134 Muddy Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +150 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Spring Lake. At the Cumberland/Harnett County boundary ...... +175 Peters Creek ...... At the Cumberland/Bladen County boundary ...... +71 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of C.S. Faircloth Road .... +94 Reese Creek ...... Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the confluence with +84 Cumberland County (Unincor- Locks Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 320 feet upstream of Murphy Road ...... +137 Rockfish Creek ...... Approximately 10 feet downstream of Calico Street ...... +81 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Hope Mills. At the Cumberland/Hoke County boundary ...... +122 Sandy Creek ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +97 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Stedman. Approximately 375 feet upstream of Horne Farm Road ...... +120 South River ...... At the Cumberland/Bladen/Sampson County boundary ...... +71 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Falcon. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence of Black +127 River. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +117 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Smithfield Road ...... +175 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with South River Tributary 1 ...... +122 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Sambo Jackson Road .... +157 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +123 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Falcon.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60898 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with +139 South River. Tributary 4 ...... Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with +127 Cumberland County (Unincor- South River. porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Rhodes Pond Road ...... +138 Stewarts Creek ...... At the confluence with Rockfish Creek ...... +122 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Cumberland/Hoke County boundary ...... +199 Stewarts Creek (North) ...... Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Morganton Road ...... +204 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Fay- etteville. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Morgantown Road ...... +229 Swans Creek ...... At the confluence with Willis Creek ...... +95 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 470 feet upstream of Yarborough Road ...... +109 Tank Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +147 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Spring Lake. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Railroad ...... +175 Willis Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet downstream of Highway 87 ...... +69 Cumberland County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence of Swans Creek and Long Branch ...... +95

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Fayetteville Maps are available for inspection at The City of Fayetteville Zoning Department, 433 Hay Street, Fayetteville, North Carolina. Town of Falcon Maps are available for inspection at the Falcon Town Hall, 7156 South West Street, Falcon, North Carolina. Town of Hope Mills Maps are available for inspection at the Hope Mills Town Hall, 5770 Rockfish Road, Hope Mills, North Carolina. Town of Spring Lake Maps are available for inspection at the Spring Lake Town Hall, 300 Ruth Street, Spring Lake, North Carolina. Town of Stedman Maps are available for inspection at the Stedman Town Hall, 5110 Front Street, Stedman, North Carolina. Town of Wade Maps are available for inspection at the Wade Town Hall, 7128 Main Street, Wade, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Cumberland County Maps are available for inspection at the Cumberland County Mapping Department, 117 Dick Street, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Hoke County, North Caronlina (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket Nos. D–7540 and D–7642)

Beaver Creek ...... At the confluence with Black Branch ...... +164 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of US 401 ...... +239 Beaver Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +182 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Doc Brown Road ...... +239 Tributary to Beaver Creek Tribu- At the confluence with Beaver Creek Tributary ...... +235 Hoke County (Unincorporated tary. Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Bea- +246 ver Creek Tributary. Big Branch ...... Approximately 375 feet upstream of the confluence with +129 Hoke County (Unincorporated Rockfish Creek. Areas). At the Hoke/Robeson County boundary ...... +144 Big Marsh Swamp ...... At the county boundary ...... +188 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of Conoly Road ...... +230 Big Marsh Swamp Tributary ...... At the confluence with Big Marsh Swamp ...... +198 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Old Wire Road ...... +226

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60899

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Big Middle Swamp ...... At the confluence with Raft Swamp ...... +205 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,750 feet downstream of L McLaughlin Road +276 Big Middle Swamp Tributary ...... At the confluence with Big Middle Swamp ...... +244 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 680 feet downstream of Laurinburg Road ...... +254 Black Branch ...... Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence with +147 Hoke County (Unincorporated Puppy Creek. Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Saddlebred Lane ...... +192 Buffalo Creek ...... At the confluence with the Lumber River ...... +235 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence of Buf- +383 falo Creek Tributary 2. At the confluence with Buffalo Creek ...... +274 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Buf- +289 falo Creek. At the confluence with Buffalo Creek ...... +289 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Buf- +360 falo Creek. Deep Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +189 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of the confluence of Mill +266 Creek (into Deep Creek). Flat Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +195 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence of Flat +266 Creek Tributary. Flat Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Flat Creek ...... +239 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Flat +268 Creek. Gully Branch ...... Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence with +128 Hoke County (Unincorporated Rockfish Creek. Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Overlake Drive ...... +197 Gum Swamp ...... At the county boundary ...... +219 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 120 feet upstream of Spring Hill Road ...... +230 Horse Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +204 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Lit- +231 tle River. James Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +210 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Hoke/Moore County boundary ...... +300 James Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with James Creek ...... +211 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with +241 James Creek. Jordan Swamp ...... At the county boundary ...... +218 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Old Maxton Road ...... +234 Jumping Run creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +182 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Lit- +227 tle River. Little Creek ...... At the confluence with the Lumber River ...... +246 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Pendergrass Road ...... +290 Little Marsh Swamp ...... At the county boundary ...... +191 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 30 feet downstream of Golf Course Road ...... +222 Little Middle Swamp ...... At the confluence with Raft Swamp ...... +205 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of Old Maxton Road ... +230

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60900 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Little Raft Swamp ...... At the county boundary ...... +187 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Laurinburg Road ...... +258 Little Raft Swamp Tributary ...... At the confluence with Little Raft Swamp ...... +197 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Wilson Road ...... +223 LIttle River ...... At the Hoke/Cumberland County boundary ...... +178 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Hoke/Moore County boundary ...... +209 Little Rockfish Creek ...... At the Hoke/Cumberland boundary ...... +172 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 500 feet downstream of Plank Road ...... +182 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Little Rockfish Creek ...... +180 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of Plank Road ...... +211 Long Swamp ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of Bullard Road ...... +207 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Wilson Road ...... +225 Lumber River ...... At the downstream county boundary ...... +205 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). At the upstream county boundary ...... +268 Lumber River Tributary ...... At the confluence with the Lumber River ...... +259 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Ashemont Road ...... +360 McNeills Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Marsh Swamp ...... +195 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Pate Road ...... +226 Mill Creek (into Deep Creek) ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek ...... +199 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with +240 Deep Creek. Mill Creek (into Rockfish Creek) Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence with +203 Hoke County (Unincorporated Rockfish Creek. Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence with +249 Rockfish Creek. Mill Creek Tributary (into Rock- At the confluence with Mill Creek (into Rockfish Creek) ...... +248 Hoke County (Unincorporated fish Creek). Areas). Approximately 0.1 mile upstream of the confluence of Mill +260 Creek (into Rockfish Creek). Mill Creek Tributary (Hoke) ...... At the confluence with Mill Creek (Hoke) ...... +166 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Mill +190 Creek (Hoke). Mill Creek (Hoke) ...... Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence of Rock- +131 Hoke County (Unincorporated fish Creek. Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Chason Road ...... +178 Mountain Creek ...... At the confluence with the Lumber River ...... +247 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Army Road ...... +329 Mountain Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Mountain Creek ...... +280 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with +300 Mountain Creek. Nicholsons Creek ...... Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the confluence with +189 Hoke County (Unincorporated Rockfish Creek. Areas). Approximately 4.0 miles upstream of the confluence with Mott +310 Lake. Pedler Branch ...... Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of the confluence with +178 Hoke County (Unincorporated Rockfish Creek. Areas), City of Raeford. At South Main Street ...... +226 Pedler Branch Tributary ...... At the confluence with Pedler Branch ...... +215 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Raeford. Approximately 350 feet upstream of the railroad ...... +228 Quewhiffle Creek ...... At the confluence with the Lumber River ...... +255 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Calloway Road ...... +347

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60901

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Quewhiffle Creek ...... +289 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 40 feet downstream of Strother Road ...... +328 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Quewhiffle Creek ...... +289 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). At the county boundary ...... +313 Tributary to Quewhiffle Creek At the confluence with Quewhiffle Creek Tributary 1 ...... +297 Hoke County (Unincorporated Tributary 1. Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Calloway Road ...... +353 Raft Swamp ...... At the county boundary ...... +182 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet downstream of Turnpike Road ...... +279 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Raft Swamp ...... +205 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 375 feet downstream of Redsprings Road ...... +219 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Raft Swamp ...... +253 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Raft +265 Swamp. Silver Run ...... At the confluence with James Creek ...... +283 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,100 feet from the confluence with Jones +293 Creek. Stewarts Creek ...... Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with +122 Hoke County (Unincorporated Rockfish Creek. Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Lindsay Road ...... +241 Stewarts Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Stewarts Creek ...... +199 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Lindsay Road ...... +235 Toneys Creek ...... At the confluence with Raft Swamp ...... +211 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Raeford. Approximately 800 feet downstream of Turnpike Road ...... +265 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Toneys Creek ...... +215 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas), City of Raeford. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Laurinburg Road/U.S. +260 401. Tuckahoe Creek ...... At the confluence with James Creek ...... +233 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence of +289 Tuckahoe Creek. Tuckahoe Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Tuckahoe Creek ...... +277 Hoke County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with +291 Tuckahoe Creek Tributary.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Hoke County Maps available for inspection at the Hoke County Permitting Office, 227 North Main Street, Raeford, North Carolina. City of Raeford Maps available for inspection at the Raeford City Hall, Planning Department, 315 North Main Street, Raeford, North Carolina.

Moore County, North Carolina and Unincorporated Areas (FEMA Docket Nos. D–7540 and D–7626)

Aberdeen Creek ...... At the confluence with Drowning Creek ...... +273 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines, Village of Pinehurst. Approximately 250 feet downstream of Williams Drive ...... +470 Tributary 1 ...... At Plantation Drive ...... +385 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Plantation Drive ...... +442 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Aberdeen Creek ...... +386 Village of Pinehurst.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60902 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence ...... +426 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Aberdeen Creek ...... +386 Village of Pinehurst, Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 100 feet upstream of National Drive ...... +463 Pinehurst, Town of Southern Pines. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Aberdeen Creek ...... +418 Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 1,175 feet upstream of the confluence ...... +436 Bear Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +320 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Robbins. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Adams Road ...... +461 Beaver Creek (into Crane Creek) At the confluence with Crane Creek ...... +234 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Lee County boundary ...... +307 Big Governors Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek ...... +257 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the confluence with Big Governors Creek Tributary ...... +304 Big Governors Creek Tributary ... At the confluence with Big Governors Creek ...... +304 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Torchwood Road ...... +326 Big Juniper Creek ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +320 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Longleaf Lake Dam ..... +555 Board Branch ...... At the confluence with Joe’s Fork ...... +368 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Pinehurst. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Yadkin Road (State +456 Route 211). Buffalo Creek (Hoke) ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +186 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Harnett County boundary ...... +218 Buffalo Creek (Moore) ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +288 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 3.8 miles upstream of State Highway 24 ...... +502 Buffalo Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Buffalo Creek (Hoke) ...... +194 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Marks Road ...... +337 Cabin Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence with Bear +361 Moore County (Unincorporated Creek. Areas), Town of Robbins. At the Moore/Montgomery County boundary ...... +487 Carrolls Branch ...... At the confluence with James Creek ...... +252 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 4.3 miles upstream of Youngs Road ...... +365 Cotton Creek ...... At the confluence with Cabin Creek ...... +449 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Montgomery County boundary ...... +482 Crane Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +194 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Carthage, Town of Vass. Approximately 500 feet upstream of State Highway 24 ...... +369 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Carthage, Town of Vass. Crawley Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Governors Creek ...... +257 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of Old River Road ...... +318 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Crawley Creek ...... +289 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with +298 Crawley Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Crawley Creek ...... +289 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with +307 Crawley Creek. Cypress Creek ...... Just upstream of Loblolly Drive ...... +228 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Harnett County boundary ...... +228 Deep Creek ...... At the confluence with Horse Creek ...... +302 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Foxfire.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60903

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with +367 Sandy Run. Deep River ...... At the Moore/Chatham County boundary ...... +250 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Randolph County boundary ...... +352 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +265 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Deep +267 River. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +265 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Rascob Road ...... +265 Drowning Creek ...... At Moore/Hoke County boundary ...... +268 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Foxfire. Approximately 400 feet downstream of Purdue Road ...... +672 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Drowning Creek ...... +458 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas) Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Martin Road ...... +545 Dry Creek ...... At the confluence with Cabin Creek ...... +369 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 5.1 miles upstream of State Highway 24 ...... +533 Dunham Creek ...... At the confluence with Crane Creek ...... +327 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Farm Life School Road .. +354 Glade Branch ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +263 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Kelly Plantation Road ..... +274 Grassy Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +335 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 400 feet upstream of L. Moore Road ...... +544 Hector Creek ...... Just upstream of the confluence with Little River ...... +178 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Harnett/Cumberland County boundaries ...... +194 Herds Creek ...... At the confluence with Crane Creek ...... +278 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Red Hill Road ...... +357 Horse Creek ...... At the confluence with Drowning Creek ...... +284 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Pinehurst. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Linden Road ...... +374 Horse Creek (Moore) ...... At the confluence with Dry Creek ...... +393 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Alex Road ...... +474 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Horse Creek ...... +319 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with +431 Horse Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Horse Creek ...... +342 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Aberdeen, Village of Pinehurst. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence ...... +401 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Horse Creek ...... +366 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Pinehurst. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Linden Road ...... +441 Jackson Creek ...... At the confluence with Drowning Creek ...... +369 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Foxfire. Approximately 1,975 feet upstream of Currie Mill Road ...... +437 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Jackson Creek ...... +372 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Village of Foxfire. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence of Tribu- +394 tary to Jackson Creek Tributary 1. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Jackson Creek ...... +415 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with +443 Jackson Creek. James Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +209 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60904 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Den Road ...... +526 Joes Fork ...... At the confluence of Nicks Creek ...... +343 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Taylortown, Village of Pinehurst. Just downstream of Stoneykirk Drive ...... +430 Juniper Branch ...... At the confluence with Nicks Creek ...... +324 Town of Carthage, Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Meyer Farm Road ...... +437 Juniper Branch Tributary ...... At the confluence with Juniper Branch ...... +344 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Juni- +401 per Branch. Lake Auman ...... Entire shoreline of Lake Auman within community ...... +525 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Lick Creek ...... At the confluence with Scotchman Creek ...... +286 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Putnam Church Road ..... +356 Line Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +250 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Alston House Road ...... +250 Little Crane Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Crane Creek ...... +259 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Cameron. At the Moore/Lee County boundary ...... +317 Little Crane Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Little Crane Creek ...... +304 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Cameron. At the Moore/Lee County boundary ...... +317 Little Creek (into Crane Creek) .. Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with +206 Moore County (Unincorporated Crane Creek. Areas). Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Summer Creek Trail .... +275 Little Creek (Moore) ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +280 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Old Glendon Road ...... +297 Little Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Little Creek ...... +233 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Lit- +316 tle Creek on to Crane Creek. Little Governors Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Governors Creek ...... +257 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 8.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Big +360 Governors Creek. Little River ...... At the confluence with Hector Creek ...... +178 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Vass. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Beulah Hill Church +413 Road. McCallum Branch ...... At the confluence with Aberdeen Creek ...... +340 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Aberdeen, Village of Pinehurst. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of confluence ...... +340 McDeeds Creek ...... At the confluence with Mill Creek (into Little River) ...... +276 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 100 feet upstream of West New Hampshire +394 Avenue. McIntosh Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Governors Creek ...... +265 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Old River Road ...... +376 McIntosh Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with McIntosh Creek ...... +269 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with +281 McIntosh Creek. McLendons Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +263 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the confluence with +603 McLendons Creek Tributary 3. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +274 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60905

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Old Glendon Road ...... +292 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +399 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the confluence with +491 McLendons Creek. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +453 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the confluence with +597 McLendons Creek. Meadow Creek ...... At the confluence with Buffalo Creek ...... +400 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of State Highway 24/27 ... +462 Mill Creek (into Cabin Creek) ..... At the confluence with Cabin Creek ...... +411 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with Mill +547 Creek Tributary. Mill Creek (into James Creek) .... At the confluence with James Creek ...... +314 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Southern Pines. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with +364 James Creek. Mill Creek (into Little River) ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +252 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Towns of Vass and Southern Pines, Village of Whispering Pines. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of State Highway 22 ...... +360 New Lake ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +422 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Holly Grove School +537 Road. New Lake Tributary ...... At the confluence with New Lake ...... +434 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with +565 New Lake. Nicks Creek ...... Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of the confluence with Lit- +303 Moore County (Unincorporated tle River. Areas), Town of Carthage, Town of Southern Pines, Village of Pinehurst, Village of Whispering Pines. Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of Beulah Hill Church +420 Road. Seven Lakes South ...... At the confluence with Big Juniper Creek ...... +451 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Cardinal Lane ...... +525 Simlin Creek ...... Just upstream of the confluence with Bear Creek ...... +360 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas), Town of Robbins. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Trail Ridge Road ...... +375 Sings Creek ...... At the confluence with Wet Creek ...... +440 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Bensalem Church Road +529 Suck Creek ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek ...... +333 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of Mount Carmel Road ...... +360 Toms Creek ...... At the confluence with Richland Creek ...... +263 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with +289 Richland Creek. Tributary to Drowning Creek At the confluence with Drowning Creek Tributary 2 ...... +470 Moore County (Unincorporated Tributary 2. Areas). Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Eagle Branch Road ..... +516 Tributary to Jackson Creek Trib- At the confluence with Jackson Creek Tributary 1 ...... +380 Moore County (Unincorporated utary 1. Areas), Village of Foxfire. Approximately 1,750 feet downstream of Jackson Springs +402 Road. Tributary to McLendons Creek At the confluence with McLendons Creek Tributary 1 ...... +276 Moore County (Unincorporated Tributary 1. Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Brady Road ...... +290

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with McLendons Creek Tributary 2 ...... +415 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with +455 McLendons Creek Tributary 2. Tributary to Quewhiffle Creek At the confluence with Quewhiffle Creek Tributary 2 ...... +316 Moore County (Unincorporated Tributary 2. Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of confluence of Quewhiffle +343 Creek Tributary 2. Turkey Creek ...... At the confluence with Little River ...... +184 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Lit- +221 tle River. Tysons Creek ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +273 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Chatham County boundary ...... +320 Wads Creek ...... Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Little River Farm Boule- +325 Moore County (Unincorporated vard. Areas), Town of Carthage. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Murdocksville Road ...... +404 Wet Creek ...... At the confluence with Cabin Creek ...... +373 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Skill Road ...... +559 Wildcat Branch ...... At the confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +297 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Chatham County boundary ...... +297 Williams Creek ...... At the confluence with Bear Creek ...... +419 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Willie Road ...... +474 Wolf Creek ...... At the confluence with Bear Creek ...... +386 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). At the Moore/Montgomery County boundary ...... +518 Lick Creek (into Deep River) ...... At the confluence with Deep River ...... +263 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Glendon-Carthage Road +266 Mill Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Mill Creek (into Cabin Creek) ...... +547 Moore County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Mill +576 Creek (into Cabin Creek).

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES Town of Aberdeen Maps available for inspection at the Aberdeen Planning Department, 115 North Poplar Street, Aberdeen, North Carolina. Town of Cameron Maps available for inspection at the Cameron Town Clerk’s Office, 247 Carter Street, Cameron, North Carolina. Town of Carthage Maps available for inspection at the Carthage Town Clerk’s Office, 4396 Highway 15–501, Carthage, North Carolina. Village of Foxfire Maps available for inspection at the Foxfire Village Zoning Department, 1 Town Hall Drive, Foxfire Village, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Moore County Maps available for inspection at the Moore County Planning Office, 101A Monroe Street, Courthouse Square, Carthage, North Carolina. Town of Pinebluff Maps available for inspection at the Pinebluff Zoning Department, 325 East Baltimore Avenue, Pinebluff, North Carolina. Village of Pinehurst Maps available for inspection at the Village of Pinehurst Planning Office, 395 Magnolia Road, Pinehurst, North Carolina. Town of Robbins Maps available for inspection at the Robbins Town Hall, 101 North Middleton Street, Robbins, North Carolina. Town of Southern Pines Maps available for inspection at the Southern Pines Planning Department, 180 Southwest Broad Street, Southern Pines, North Carolina. Town of Taylortown Maps available for inspection at the Tarylortown Town Hall, 8350 Main Street, Taylortown, North Carolina.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60907

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Town of Vass Maps available for inspection at the Vass Town Clerk’s Office, 140 South Alma Street, Vass, North Carolina 28394. Village of Whispering Pines Maps available for inspection at the Whispering Pines Village Office, 10 Pine Ridge Drive, Whispering Pines, North Carolina.

NORTH CAROLINA Sampson County (FEMA Docket Nos. D–7660 and D–7636)

Bearskin Swamp ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +87 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Bearskin Road ...... +153 Beaverdam Creek ...... At the confluence with Clear Run ...... +57 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the confluence with +97 Clear Run. Beaverdam Run ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +99 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of High House Road ...... +168 Beaverdam Swamp ...... At the confluence with Mongo Swamp ...... +127 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of U.S. Highway 421 ...... +191 Beaverdam Swamp 1 ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +93 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Isaac Weeks Road ...... +137 Beaverdam Swamp 2 ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +106 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 260 feet downstream of Keener Road ...... +133 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Beaverdam Swamp 2 ...... +119 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Wiggins Road ...... +139 Beaverdam Swamp 3 ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +134 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Newton Grove. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence of +155 Beaverdam Swamp 3, Tributary 2. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Beaverdam Swamp 3 ...... +154 Town of Newton Grove. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Old Goldsboro Road ...... +162 Beaverdam Run Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Beaverdam Run ...... +121 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 160 feet downstream of High House Road ...... +135 Big Branch ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +42 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Harrells Highway (NC +84 Highway 411). Big Juniper Run ...... At the confluence with Mingo Swamp ...... +151 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Lee’s Chapel Church +192 Road. Big Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +77 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Minnie-Hall Road ...... +128 Bills Swamp ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +58 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Norris Road ...... +89 Black River ...... At the Bladen/Pender/Sampson County boundary ...... +23 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3.6 miles upstream of the confluence of Big +45 Branch. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +33 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of G. Shaw Road ...... +68 Buckhorn Creek ...... At the confluence with Crane Creek ...... +69 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Boney Mill Road ...... +103

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Bulltail Creek ...... At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +58 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Bull Tail Road ...... +63 Caesar Swamp ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +132 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Straw Pond School +180 Road. Canty Mill Branch ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +38 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Melvin Road ...... +57 Cat Creek ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +35 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of Private Road ...... +79 Cat Tail Branch ...... At the confluence with Williams Old Mill Branch ...... +122 City of Clinton. Approximately 1,380 feet upstream of East Johnson Street ... +138 Clear Run ...... Just upstream of Lundy Road ...... +46 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence of +70 Beaverdam Creek. Clifton Branch (formerly Kings At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +121 Sampson County (Unincor- Branch). porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Six +137 Runs Creek. Cobb Branch ...... At the confluence with Canty Mill Branch ...... +40 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of confluence with Canty +48 Mill Branch. Craddock Swamp ...... At the confluence with Ward Swamp ...... +141 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 275 feet downstream of William R. King Road +167 Crane Creek ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +57 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of West Mount Gilead +106 Church Road. Cypress Lake ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +27 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Ivanhoe Road ...... +65 Devane Branch ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +38 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Tomahawk Highway (NC +79 Highway 41). Doctors Creek ...... At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +87 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 250 feet upstream of the Sampson/Duplin +88 County boundary. Dollar Branch ...... Approximately 800 feet upstream of the confluence with Wil- +105 Sampson County (Unincor- liams Old Mill Branch. porated Areas), City of Clin- ton. Approximately 1,060 feet upstream of W. Morisey Boulevard +140 Encoh Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +31 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Dam ...... +67 Gilmore Swamp ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +100 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of King Road ...... +142 Gilmore Swamp Tributary ...... At the confluence with Gilmore Swamp ...... +115 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of King Road ...... +136 Goshen Swamp ...... At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +117 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 228 feet upstream of Preacher Henrys Road .. +167 Great Coharie Creek ...... Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Black +52 Sampson County (Unincor- River and Six Runs Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Oak Grove Church Road +182 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +67 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60909

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with +103 Great Coharie Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +67 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with +101 Great Coharie Creek. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +113 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Keener Road ...... +148 Hoe Swamp ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +118 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Hunter Road ...... +157 Hornet Swamp ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +133 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of North Salemburg High- +170 way. Johnson Mill Branch ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +68 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,240 feet upstream of Greens Bridge Road ... +109 Jones Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +110 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 810 feet upstream of Welcome School Road .. +138 Keith Branch ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +34 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 1,430 feet upstream of Firetower Road ...... +48 Kill Swamp ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +132 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Emmet Thornoton Road +176 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Kill Swamp ...... +165 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Kill +169 Swamp. Little Beaverdam Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +120 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Phillips Road ...... +155 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Little Beaverdam Swamp ...... +123 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Little +138 Beaverdam Swamp Tributary 2. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Little Beaverdam Swamp Tributary 1 .. +123 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Charles Newland Road .. +145 Little Coharie Creek ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +58 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Newton Grove Highway +192 (U.S. Highway 13). Little Coharie Creek Tributary .... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +87 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Andrews Chapel Road ... +117 Little Juniper Run ...... At the confluence with Big Juniper Run ...... +172 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Draughon Road ...... +214 Lockamy Mill ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +73 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of State Route 411 ...... +103 Marsh Swamp ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +112 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,020 feet upstream of Odom Road ...... +143 McPhail Branch ...... At the confluence with Merkle Swamp ...... +131 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of confluence with Merkle +160 Swamp. Meetinghouse Branch ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +103 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Basstown Road ...... +128 Merkle Swamp ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +116 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60910 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Joel Jones Lane ...... +155 Mill Creek ...... At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +51 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 800 feet upstream of Matthews Road ...... +66 Mill Creek 2 ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +63 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Garland Highway (High- +110 way 701). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Mill Creek ...... +61 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Sampson/Pender County boundary ...... +75 Mill Run ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +86 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Rowan Road ...... +111 Mill Swamp ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +102 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of Lake Artesia Road ...... +123 Mill Swamp Tributary ...... At the confluence with Mill Swamp ...... +122 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of confluence with Mill +125 Swamp. Mingo Swamp ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +127 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Sampson/Harnett/Johnston County boundary con- +173 fluence with Mill Swamp. Old Mill Swamp ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +113 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Church Road ...... +152 Peters Creek ...... At the confluence with Buckhorn Branch ...... +70 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of confluence with +100 Buckhorn Branch. Pharisee Creek ...... At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +58 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Wilmington Highway +67 (U.S. Highway 421). Quewiffle Swamp ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +62 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Trinity Church Road ..... +84 Railer Branch ...... At the confluence of Goshen Swamp ...... +135 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Hollingsworth Road ...... +166 Rice Swamp ...... At the confluence with Little Coharie Creek ...... +99 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Salemburg. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Zoar Church Road ...... +156 Robinson Mill Branch ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +56 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Private Road ...... +114 Rocky Marsh Creek ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +67 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Peterson Road ...... +91 Rocky Marsh Creek Tributary ..... At the confluence with Rocky Marsh Creek ...... +78 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence with +138 Rocky Marsh Creek. Rowan Branch ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +82 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Rowan Road ...... +140 Sevenmile Swamp ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +128 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Easy Street ...... +193 Shade Branch ...... At the confluence with Quewiffle Swamp ...... +80 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Rogers Mill Road ...... +95 Six Runs Creek ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +52 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60911

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of N. McCullen Road ...... +137 South River ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +26 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Autryville. At the confluence with Mingo Swamp ...... +127 South River Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with South River ...... +127 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 650 feet upstream of the confluence with +127 South River. Spearmans Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +53 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Hayes Chapel Road ...... +88 Starlins Swamp ...... At the confluence with Beaverdam Swamp ...... +138 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Staley Hall Road ...... +177 Stewarts Creek (near Carroll) ..... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +67 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +83 Stony Run ...... At the confluence with Mingo Swamp ...... +158 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence with +160 Mingo Swamp. Tarkill Branch ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +52 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Edmond Matthis Road .... +97 Tenmile Swamp ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +97 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of McGowan Road ...... +135 Tenmile Swamp Tributary ...... At the confluence with Tenmile Swamp ...... +107 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 320 feet upstream of Thompson Avenue ...... +127 Turkey Creek ...... At the confluence with Six Runs Creek ...... +90 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Turkey. At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +117 Twomile Swamp ...... At the confluence with Caesar Swamp ...... +147 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Bynum Road ...... +162 Ward Swamp ...... At the confluence with Great Coharie Creek ...... +124 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence with +159 Craddock Swamp. Tributary 1: ...... At the confluence with Ward Swamp ...... +129 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Hobbton Highway (U.S. +156 Highway 701). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Ward Swamp Tributary 1 ...... +133 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Share Cake Road ...... +158 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Ward Swamp ...... +133 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Hobbton Highway (U.S. +159 Highway 701). Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Ward Swamp Tributary 3 ...... +138 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Ward +152 Swamp Tributary 3. Williams Old Mill Branch ...... Approximately 600 feet upstream of U.S. 701 ...... +121 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Clin- ton. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Northeast Boulevard ...... +124 Williams Old Mill Branch Tribu- At the confluence with Williams Old Mill Branch ...... +121 Sampson County (Unincor- tary. porated Areas), City of Clin- ton. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of North Boulevard ...... +149 Williamson Swamp ...... At the confluence with Little Beaverdam Swamp ...... +129 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60912 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground. *Elevation in Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation feet Communities affected (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD)

Approximately 340 feet upstream of Stanley Hall Road ...... +179 Wolf Pit Branch ...... At the confluence with Buckhorn Creek ...... +85 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,640 feet upstream of Ozzie Road ...... +120 Youngs Swamp ...... At the Sampson/Duplin County boundary ...... +117 Sampson County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Suttontown Road ...... +137

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929. + North American Vertical Datum 1988. # Depth in feet above ground. ADDRESSES City of Clinton Maps available for inspection at Clinton City Hall, 227 Lisbon Street, Clinton, North Carolina. Town of Autryville Maps available for inspection at Autryville Town Hall, 215 South Gray Street, Autryville, North Carolina. Town of Newton Grove Maps available for inspection at Newton Grove Hall, 304 West Weeksdale Street, Newton Grove, North Carolina. Town of Salemburg Maps available for inspection at Salemburg Town Hall, 100 Methodist Drive, Salemburg, North Carolina. Unincorporated Areas of Sampson County Maps available for inspection at the Sampsons County Inspections Department, 383 County Complex Road, Clinton, North Carolina. Town of Turkey Maps available for inspection at Turkey Town Hall, 51 Market Street, Turkey, North Carolina.

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation in feet Communities (NAVD). affected #Depth in feet above ground

Rutherford County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas (FEMA Docket No. B–7458)

Andrews Creek ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +608 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 50 feet upstream of Hollingsworth Road ...... +657 Armstrong Branch ...... Confluence with Puckett Creek ...... +630 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Murfreesboro. Approximately 2,070 feet upstream of Yeargan Road ...... +648 Bear Branch ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +538 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Murfreesboro. Approximately 1,720 feet downstream of Compton Road ...... +538 Big Springs Creek ...... Confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +723 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,010 upstream of Jimmy C Newman Road .... +775 Bradley Creek ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +558 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 5,280 feet upstream of King Road ...... +685 Bushman Creek ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +545 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of New Lascassas Road +596 Cheatham Branch ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +724 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Eagleville. Approximately 3,420 feet upstream of South Main Street ...... +788 Christmas Creek ...... Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the confluence with +639 Rutherford County (Unincor- West Fork Stones River. porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60913

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation in feet Communities (NAVD). affected #Depth in feet above ground

Approximately 930 feet upstream of Christiana Fosterville +698 Road. Concord Branch ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +739 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Ditch Lane ...... +749 Cripple Creek ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +579 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,890 feet upstream of Big Springs Road ...... +874 Dry Branch ...... Confluence with Cripple Creek ...... +592 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of John Bragg Highway ... +652 Dry Creek ...... Confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +712 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 760 feet upstream of Cobb Road ...... +746 Dry Fork ...... Confluence with Bradley Creek ...... +603 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of Givens Road ...... +695 Dry Fork Creek ...... Confluence with West Fork Stones River ...... +685 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,640 feet upstream of Brothers Road ...... +854 East Fork Stones River ...... Approximately 2,900 feet downstream of State Route 840 ..... +506 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Murfreesboro. Approximately 4,220 feet upstream of Goochie Ford Road .... +620 Fall Creek ...... Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of Powells Chapel Road +508 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Fall Parkway ...... +556 Finch Branch ...... Approximately 990 feet downstream of Jefferson Pike ...... +580 City of Lavergne. Approximately 1,428 feet upstream of Greenwood Drive ...... +619 Harpeth River ...... Approximately 1,680 feet downstream of College Road ...... +706 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Eagleville. Approximately 680 feet upstream of North Lane ...... +737 Henry Creek ...... Confluence with Short Creek ...... +681 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,980 feet upstream of Sims Road ...... +750 Hurricane Creek ...... Confluence with Middle Forks Stones River ...... +655 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Cobb Road ...... +723 Kelly Creek ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +726 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,150 upstream of Floyd Road ...... +797 Long Creek ...... Approximately 4,910 feet upstream of confluence with Middle +636 Rutherford County (Unincor- Fork Stones River. porated Areas). Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Jacobs Bend Road ...... +672 Lytle Creek ...... Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Diton-Mankin Road ...... +657 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of Cedar Grove Road ...... +722 McElroy Branch ...... Confluence with Cripple Creek ...... +629 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,020 upstream of Murray Kittrell Road ...... +670 McKnight Branch ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +606 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.6 miles upstream of E. Trimble Road ...... +658 Middle Fork Stones River ...... Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Epps Mill Road ...... +651 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,730 upstream of Interstate 24 ...... +774 Murray Branch ...... Confluence with McElroy Branch ...... +653 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Floration Road ...... +710 Olive Branch ...... Approximately 2,950 feet upstream of Rocky Ford Road ...... +584 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.6 miles upstream of Rocky Ford Road ...... +684 Overall Creek ...... Approximately 530 feet downstream of South Windrow Road +634 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 9,910 feet upstream of South Windrow Road .. +703

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60914 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation in feet Communities (NAVD). affected #Depth in feet above ground

Panther Creek ...... Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the confluence with +647 Rutherford County (Unincor- West Fork Stones River. porated Areas). Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of Midland Road ...... +702 Puckett Creek ...... Just upstream of Old Salem Road ...... +627 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,300 feet upstream of Old Salem Road ...... +636 Reed Creek ...... Confluence with Cripple Creek ...... +715 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Bradyville Pike ...... +892 Rocky Fork Creek ...... Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of Almaville Road ...... +559 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of Laddie Lane ...... +649 Short Creek ...... Confluence with Long Creek ...... +672 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3,310 feet upstream of Millersburg Road ...... +840 Stewart Creek ...... Approximately 60 feet upstream of Almaville Road ...... +603 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 940 feet upstream of Almaville Road ...... +605 Stinking Creek ...... Approximately 410 feet upstream of Hollandale Road ...... +506 City of Lavergne. Approximately 1,220 feet upstream of Bill Stewart Blvd ...... +584 Unnamed Tributary 007 ...... Confluence with McKnight Branch ...... +624 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with +650 McKnight Branch. Unnamed Tributary 009 ...... Confluence with Wades Branch ...... +574 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 570 feet upstream of Dunaway Chapel Road .. +616 Unnamed Tributary 011 ...... Confluence with Unnamed Tributary 009 ...... +574 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,720 upstream of Dunaway Chapel Road ...... +605 Unnamed Tributary 014...... Approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence with +572 Rutherford County (Unincor- Stewart Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 4,210 feet upstream of State Route 96 ...... +658 Unnamed Tributary 018 ...... Confluence with Cripple Creek ...... +598 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3,540 feet upstream of Cranor Road ...... +605 Unnamed Tributary 026...... Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with +560 Rutherford County (Unincor- Stewart Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 3,100 feet upstream of Almaville Road ...... +632 Unnamed Tributary 028 ...... Approximately 1,150 downstream of Almaville Road ...... +566 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,850 feet upstream of Woodland Trail ...... +630 Unnamed Tributary 046 ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +714 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 970 feet upstream of N Highway 41A ...... +731 Unnamed Tributary 047 ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +719 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 5,510 feet upstream of Rocky Glade Road ...... +759 Unnamed Tributary 049 ...... Approximately 3,670 feet downstream of N Highway 41A ...... +706 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 373 feet upstream of N Highway 41A ...... +724 Unnamed Tributary 051 ...... Confluence with Unnamed Tributary 052 ...... +689 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,620 feet upstream of Manus Road ...... +703 Unnamed Tributary 052 ...... Confluence with Murray Branch ...... +686 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,980 feet upstream of Manus Road ...... +723 Unnamed Tributary 055 ...... Confluence with Middle Fork Stones River ...... +670 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 250 feet upstream of Broyles Road ...... +730 Unnamed Tributary 056 ...... Confluence with Unnamed Tributary 055 ...... +693 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of Christiana Hoovers +716 Gap Road. Unnamed Tributary 057 ...... Confluence with Unnamed Tributary 055 ...... +702 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60915

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation in feet Communities (NAVD). affected #Depth in feet above ground

Approximately 680 feet upstream of the confluence with +704 Unnamed Tributary 057. Unnamed Tributary 058 ...... Confluence with Middle Fork Stones River ...... +691 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of confluence with Middle +706 Fork Stones River. Unnamed Tributary 069 ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +726 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 5,400 feet upstream of Swamp Road ...... +734 Unnamed Tributary 081 ...... Confluence with Long Creek ...... +672 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 930 feet upstream of Johnson Road ...... +678 Unnamed Tributary 092 ...... Confluence with Panther Creek ...... +680 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,420 feet upstream of Panther Creek Road ... +689 Unnamed Tributary 116 ...... Confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +673 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,310 feet upstream of Jacobs Road ...... +743 Unnamed Tributary 118 ...... Confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +711 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3,350 feet upstream of confluence with Hurri- +730 cane Creek. Unnamed Tributary 119 ...... Confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +722 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,240 feet upstream of confluence with Hurri- +732 cane Creek. Unnamed Tributary 124 ...... Confluence with Murray Branch ...... +676 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,000 feet upstream of confluence with Murray +708 Branch. Unnamed Tributary 126 ...... Confluence with Murray Branch ...... +709 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,670 feet upstream of Gum Puckett Road ..... +751 Unnamed Tributary 133 ...... At the Rutherford/Cannon County Boundary ...... +614 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,960 feet upstream of the Rutherford/Cannon +625 County Boundary. Unnamed Tributary 141 ...... Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the confluence with +567 Rutherford County (Unincor- Stewart Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 2,130 feet upstream of E. North Creek Road .. +594 Unnamed Tributary 143 ...... Approximately 800 feet downstream of Almaville Road ...... +571 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1 mile upstream of Almaville Road ...... +640 Unnamed Tributary 144...... Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence with +578 Rutherford County (Unincor- Stewart Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of Almaville Road ...... +713 Unnamed Tributary 150 ...... Confluence with Christmas Creek ...... +698 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 610 feet upstream of confluence with Christ- +698 mas Creek. Unnamed Tributary 177 ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +721 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,970 feet upstream of confluence with +733 Harpeth River. Unnamed Tributary 179 ...... Confluence with Harpeth River ...... +722 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,710 feet upstream of confluence with +729 Harpeth River. Unnamed Tributary 182 ...... Confluence with Finch Branch ...... +585 City of Lavergne. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Akin Street ...... +610 Unnamed Tributary 183 ...... Approximately 490 feet upstream of confluence with Finch +544 City of Lavergne. Branch. Approximately 1,790 feet upstream of Louisville and Nashville +585 Railroad. Unnamed Tributary 184 ...... Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of E Sam Ridley Parkway +513 Town of Smyrna. Approximately 3,700 feet upstream of E Sam Ridley Parkway +524 Unnamed Tributary 185 ...... Confluence with Cheatham Branch ...... +778 City of Eagleville.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60916 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation in feet Communities (NAVD). affected #Depth in feet above ground

Approximately 450 feet upstream of Spring Street ...... +812 Unnamed Tributary to West Fork Approximately 1,010 feet downstream of Kimbro Road ...... +626 Rutherford County (Unincor- Stones River. porated Areas). Approximately 1,460 feet upstream of Kimbro Road ...... +632 Wades Branch ...... Confluence with East Fork Stones River ...... +527 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3.1 miles upstream of State Route 102 ...... +593 West Fork Stones River ...... Approximately 360 feet downstream of Walnut Grove Road ... +675 Rutherford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Midland Fosterville +765 Road.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Eagleville Maps are available for inspection at P.O. Box 68, Eagleville, TN 37060. Send comments to the Honorable Nolan Barham Sr., Mayor, City of Eagleville, P.O. Box 68, Eagleville, TN 37060. City of Lavergne Maps are available for inspection at 5093 Murfreesboro Road, La Vergne, TN 37068. Send comments to the Honorable Sherry Green, Mayor, City of La Vergne, 5093 Murfreesboro Road, La Vergne, TN, 37086. City of Murfreesboro Maps are available for inspection at P.O. Box 1139, Murfreesboro, TN 37133. Send comments to the Honorable Tommy Bragg, Mayor, City of Murfreesboro, P.O. Box 1139, Murfreesboro, TN 37133. Town of Smyrna Maps are available for inspection at 315 South Lowery Street, Smyrna, TN 37167. Send comments to the Honorable Bobby Spivey, Mayor, Town of Smyrna, 315 South Lowery Street, Smyrna, TN 37167. Unincorporated Areas of Rutherford County Maps are available for inspection at 1 Public Square South, Murfreesboro, TN 37130. Send comments to the Honorable Nancy Allen, Mayor, Rutherford County, 1 Public Square, Room 101, Murfreesboro, TN 37130.

Salt Lake County, Utah and Incorporated Areas Docket B–7454

Big Cottonwood Creek ...... Approximately 140 feet upstream of confluence with Jordan +4,246 Salt Lake County (Unincor- River. porated Areas). Approximately 60 feet upstream of Holladay Cottonwood +4,642 Road. Approximately 120 feet upstream of Wasatch Boulevard ...... +4,896 Little Cottonwood Creek ...... At confluence with Jordan Road ...... +4,252 Salt Lake County (Unincor- porated Areas). Just upstream of 2000 East Street ...... +4,593 Approximately 600 feet upstream of Route 209 ...... +5,384 Little Willow Creek ...... At confluence with Willow Creek ...... +4,610 City of Draper, City of Sandy. Approximately 1500 feet upstream of Hidden Brook Drive ...... +5,094 Midas Creek ...... At 11800 South Street ...... +4,562 City of Herriman, City of Riv- erton, Salt Lake County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 430 feet upstream of 6000 West Street ...... +4,920

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Salt Lake County Maps are available for inspection at the Public Works Department, Engineering, 451 South State Street, Suite N3100 Salt Lake City, UT 84190. Send comments to Honorable Peter Corroon, Salt Lake County, 2001 South State Street, Suite N2100, Salt Lake City, UT 84190. City of Draper Maps are available for inspection at 12441 South 900 East, Draper, UT 84020. Send comments to Honorable Darrell H. Smith, Mayor, City of Draper, 12441 South 900 East, Draper, UT 84020. City of Herriman Maps are available for inspection at 13011 South Pioneer Street, Herriman, UT 84065.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60917

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation in feet Communities (NAVD). affected #Depth in feet above ground

Send comments to Honorable J. Lynn Crane, Mayor, City of Herriman, 13011 South Pioneer Street, Herriman, UT 84065. City of Riverton Maps are available for inspection at 12765 South 1400 West, Riverton, UT 84065. Send comments to Honorable R. Mont Evans, Mayor, City of Riverton, 12765 South 1400 West, Riverton, UT 84065. City of Sandy City Maps are available for inspection at 10000 Centennial Parkway, Sandy, UT 84070. Send comments to Honorable Tom Dolan, Mayor, City of Sandy City, 10000 Centennial Parkway, Sandy, UT 84070.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. the office where the maps are available the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) for inspection as indicated on the table Environmental Consideration. No Dated: October 4, 2006. below. environmental impact assessment has David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17271 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This final William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering rule is not a significant regulatory action DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation under the criteria of Section 3(f) of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street, SW., Executive Order 12866 of September 30, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, Federal Emergency Management 58 FR 51735. Agency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA makes the final determinations listed Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have 44 CFR Part 67 below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified federalism implications under Executive Final Flood Elevation Determinations elevations have been published in Order 13132. newspapers of local circulation and Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice AGENCY: Federal Emergency ninety (90) days have elapsed since that Reform. This rule meets the applicable Management Agency (FEMA), publication. The Mitigation Division standards of Executive Order 12988. Department of Homeland Security, Director has resolved any appeals List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Mitigation Division. resulting from this notification. ACTION: Final rule. This final rule is issued in accordance Administrative practice and with section 110 of the Flood Disaster procedure, flood insurance, reporting SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and recordkeeping requirements. Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified and 44 CFR part 67. BFEs are made final for the I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is The Agency has developed criteria for amended as follows: communities listed below. The BFEs floodplain management in floodprone and modified BFEs are the basis for the areas in accordance with 44 CFR part PART 67—[AMENDED] floodplain management measures that 60. each community is required either to Interested lessees and owners of real I 1. The authority citation for part 67 adopt or to show evidence of being property are encouraged to review the continues to read as follows: already in effect in order to qualify or proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; remain qualified for participation in the available at the address cited below for Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, National Flood Insurance Program each community. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, (NFIP). The BFEs and modified BFEs are 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. DATES: Effective Dates: The date of made final in the communities listed § 67.11 [Amended] issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate below. Elevations at selected locations Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and in each community are shown. I 2. The tables published under the modified BFEs for each community. National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.11 are amended as This date may be obtained by contacting This rule is categorically excluded from follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60918 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

#Depth in feet above ground *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) +Elevation in feet (NAVD) Modified

Sumter County, South Carolina Docket No.: FEMA–B–7454

South Carolina...... Sumter County...... Beech Creek...... Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of *180 Barnwell Drive. Approximately 100 feet downstream of *225 Edgehill Road. Beech Creek Tributary 1 .. At the confluence with Beech Creek ...... *168 Approximately 150 feet downstream of *193 Raccoon Road. Brunson Branch ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Branch .. *133 Approximately 700 feet upstream of *144 Oswego Highway. Brunson Branch ...... At the confluence with Brunson Branch ... *134 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the *143 confluence of Cut Through 1. Cane Savannah Creek ..... Approximately 200 feet downstream of *138 Kolb Road. Approximately 250 feet upstream of *164 Wedgefield Highway. Cut Through 1 ...... At the confluence with Brunson Branch *140 Tributary 1. Just downstream of Jerry Street ...... *144 Cut Through 2 ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Branch .. *134 Just downstream of Jerry Street ...... *144 Green Swamp ...... Approximately 250 feet downstream of *169 Mason Road. Approximately 50 feet downstream of *189 Brewington Road. Hatchet Camp Branch ...... At confluence with Cane Savannah Creek *160 Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of *256 Bronco Road. Hope Swamp ...... At the confluence with Pudding Swamp ... *108 Approximately 100 feet downstream of *116 Narrow Paved Road. Horsepen Branch ...... At the confluence with Green Swamp ...... *181 Approximately 250 feet downstream of *203 Stamey Livestock Road. Long Branch ...... Approximately 330 feet downstream of *173 Broad Street. Approximately 350 feet downstream of *223 Frierson Road. Lynches River ...... Approximately 7.7 miles downstream of *99 Amwell Church Road. Approximately 1000 feet downstream of *120 Interstate 95. Mile Branch ...... At the confluence with Brunson Branch ... *140 Approximately 0.2 mile downstream of *143 U.S. Route 378 and 76. Mulberry Branch...... At the confluence with Rocky Bluff *133 Swamp. Approximately 150 feet downstream of *167 Main Street. Mulberry Branch ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Branch .. *134 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the *143 confluence with Mulberry Branch. Mush Swamp...... Approximately 850 feet downstream of *162 Loring Mill Pond Road. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Eagle *204 Road. Nasty Branch ...... At the confluence with Cane Savannah *128 Creek. Approximately 250 feet downstream of *175 Bethel Church Road. Noyts Branch ...... At the confluence of Green Swamp ...... *129 Approximately 350 feet upstream of Main *159 Street. Pocalla Creek ...... At the confluence with Pocotaligo River ... *121

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60919

#Depth in feet above ground *Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) +Elevation in feet (NAVD) Modified

Approximately 250 feet downstream of *168 South Guignard Drive. Pudding Swamp ...... Approximately 300 feet downstream of *103 Forge Road. Approximately 200 feet downstream of *125 Trinity Road. Rocky Bluff ...... Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the *134 confluence of Mulberry Branch. Approximately 900 feet downstream of *168 Westbury Mill Road. Shot Pouch Branch ...... At the confluence with Green Swamp ...... *138 Approximately 450 feet downstream of *176 Jefferson Road. Sooks Branch ...... At the confluence of Green Swamp ...... *133 Approximately 75 feet upstream of Coun- *157 cil Lane.

#Depth in feet above ground *National Geodetic Vertical Datum +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES: City of Sumter: Maps are available for inspection at 33 North Main Street, Sumter, SC 29150. Send comments to The Honorable Joseph T. McElveen Jr., Mayor, City of Sumter, P.O. Box 1449, Sumter, SC 29151. Unincorporated Areas of Sumter County: Maps are available for inspection at 33 North Main Street, Sumter, SC 29150. Send comments to Mr. William T. Noonan, Sumter County Administrator, 13 East Canal Street, Sumter, SC 29150.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. adopt or to show evidence of being Director has resolved any appeals 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) already in effect in order to qualify or resulting from this notification. Dated: October 4, 2006. remain qualified for participation in the This final rule is issued in accordance David I. Maurstad, National Flood Insurance Program with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Director, Mitigation Division, Federal (NFIP). Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Emergency Management Agency, Department and 44 CFR part 67. DATES: Effective Dates: The date of The Agency has developed criteria for of Homeland Security. issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate [FR Doc. E6–17262 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] floodplain management in floodprone Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and areas in accordance with 44 CFR part BILLING CODE 9110–12–P modified BFEs for each community. 60. This date may be obtained by contacting Interested lessees and owners of real the office where the maps are available DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND property are encouraged to review the for inspection as indicated on the table SECURITY proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM below. available at the address cited below for Federal Emergency Management ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each each community. Agency community are available for inspection The BFEs and modified BFEs are at the office of the Chief Executive made final in the communities listed 44 CFR Part 67 Officer of each community. The below. Elevations at selected locations respective addresses are listed in the in each community are shown. Final Flood Elevation Determinations table below. National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY: Federal Emergency the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Management Agency (FEMA), William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Environmental Consideration. No Department of Homeland Security, Management Section, Mitigation environmental impact assessment has Mitigation Division. Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, been prepared. DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. ACTION: Final rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA elevation determinations are not within SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) makes the final determinations listed the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified below for the modified BFEs for each Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BFEs are made final for the community listed. These modified flexibility analysis is not required. communities listed below. The BFEs elevations have been published in Regulatory Classification. This final and modified BFEs are the basis for the newspapers of local circulation and rule is not a significant regulatory action floodplain management measures that ninety (90) days have elapsed since that under the criteria of Section 3(f) of each community is required either to publication. The Mitigation Division Executive Order 12866 of September 30,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60920 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 58 FR 51735. Administrative practice and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, Executive Order 13132, Federalism. procedure, flood insurance, reporting 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. This rule involves no policies that have and recordkeeping requirements. federalism implications under Executive I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is § 67.11 [Amended] Order 13132. amended as follows: I 2. The tables published under the Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice PART 67—[AMENDED] authority of § 67.11 are amended as Reform. This rule meets the applicable follows: standards of Executive Order 12988. I 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD). Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground. Modified

Pender County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA–D–7626 and D–7662

Angola Creek ...... At the confluence with Holly Shelter Creek ...... +20 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.2 mile downstream of the Pender/Duplin +31 County boundary. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Angola Creek ...... +23 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of Cypress Creek Road ..... +33 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Angola Creek ...... +26 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of NC Highway 50 ...... +42 Ashes Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +17 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.8 miles upstream of Southwest Lake ...... +35 Bear Branch ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +16 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Blueberry Road ...... +28 Beckys Creek ...... Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the Intracoastal Water- +8 Pender County (Unincor- way. porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of State Route 210 ...... +29 Bee Branch ...... At the confluence with Cypress Creek (near Wards Corner) .. +45 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Shiloh Road ...... +55 Big Branch ...... At the confluence with Colvins Creek ...... +14 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 875 feet upstream of the confluence with Big +24 Branch Tributary. Big Branch Tributary ...... At the confluence with Big Branch ...... +23 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.37 mile upstream of the confluence with Big +33 Branch. Black River ...... At the confluence with Cape Fear River ...... +9 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Beattys Bridge Road ...... +24 Burgaw Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +15 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Burgaw. Approximately 400 feet upstream of West Wilmington Street +50 Cape Fear River ...... Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of the confluence with +8 Pender County (Unincor- Black River. porated Areas). At the Bladen/Pender County boundary ...... +23 Catskin Creek ...... At the confluence with Merricks and Players Creek ...... +9 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 6.6 miles upstream of the confluence with +34 Merricks and Players Creek. Colvins Creek ...... At the confluence with Black River ...... +16 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Beattys Bridge Road ...... +70 Tributary ...... At the confluence with Colvins Creek ...... +25 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Slocum Trail ...... +44

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60921

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD). Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground. Modified

Cypress Creek (near Stag Park) At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +13 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas), Village of Saint Helena. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Front Street ...... +57 Cypress Creek (near Wards Cor- At the confluence with Long Creek ...... +25 Pender County (Unincor- ner). porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Shiloh Road ...... +53 Doctors Creek ...... At the confluence with Rockfish Creek ...... +39 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.25 mile upstream of Katie Ford Road ...... +51 Dry Branch ...... Approximately 20 feet upstream of NC Highway 421 ...... +51 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of NC Highway 421 ...... +55 Godfrey Creek ...... At the confluence with Harrisons Creek ...... +16 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Har- +32 risons Creek. Guffords Branch ...... At the confluence with Rileys Creek ...... +10 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Just downstream of Highway 210 ...... +11 Harrisons Creek ...... At State Route 210 ...... +8 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 300 feet upstream of Holiday Drive ...... +29 Holly Shelter Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +17 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Pender/Onslow County boundary ...... +37 Island Creek Tributary ...... Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Is- +9 Pender County (Unincor- land Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the confluence with Is- +27 land Creek. Jones Creek ...... At the confluence with Colvins Creek ...... +34 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Beattys Bridge Road ...... +36 Kellys Creek ...... At the confluence with Rileys Creek ...... +25 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of Little Kelly Road ...... +29 Lillington Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +13 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of Shaw Highway ...... +29 Long Creek ...... Approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the confluence with +7 Pender County (Unincor- Northeast Cape Fear River. porated Areas). At NC Highway 53 ...... +31 Lillington Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Lillington Creek ...... +13 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Vogler Drive ...... +17 Long Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Long Creek ...... +26 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Long +30 Creek. Lewis Creek ...... Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with +23 Pender County (Unincor- Northeast Cape Fear River. porated Areas). Approximately 600 feet downstream of U.S. Highway 117 ..... +24 Merricks Creek ...... At State Route 210 ...... +8 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with Catskin Creek ...... +9 Mill Branch (of Moores Creek) ... Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of NC Highway 53 ...... +43 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of At- kinson. At Church Street (NC Highway 53) ...... +64 Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Rileys Creek ...... +27 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of Highsmith Road ...... +30 Mill Pond ...... At the confluence with Holly Shelter Creek ...... +17 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Highway 53 ...... +17

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60922 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD). Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground. Modified

Moores Creek ...... At the confluence with Holly Shelter Creek ...... +27 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Pender/Onslow County boundary ...... +43 Moores Creek (near Atkinson) ... Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Highway 210 ...... +16 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of John Henry Store +20 Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Moores Creek ...... +33 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas)...... At the confluence with Moores Creek ...... +51 At the Pender/Onslow County boundary ...... +39 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Moores Creek ...... +46 At the confluence with Moores Creek ...... +37 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Moores Creek Tribuatory 6...... +42 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Tributary 7 ...... At the confluence with Moores Creek Tributary 6 ...... +42 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Cypress Creek Road ...... +74 Northeast Cape Fear River ...... At the upstream side of State Route 210 ...... +8 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Pender/Duplin County boundary ...... +26 Pike Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +10 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Interstate 40 ...... +34 Players Creek ...... At the confluence with Merricks Creek ...... +9 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the confluence with +25 Merricks Creek. Rileys Creek ...... At the confluence with Long Creek ...... +9 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with Mill Creek and Rizzo Creek ...... +27 Rizzo Creek ...... At the confluence with Rileys Creek ...... +27 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with Ril- +29 eys Creek. Rockfish Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +26 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence with Doctors Creek ...... +39 Sandy Run Swamp ...... At the confluence with Holly Shelter Creek ...... +21 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the Pender/Onslow County boundary ...... +29 Sawyer Creek ...... At the confluence with Sills Creek ...... +29 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 125 feet downstream of Highway 11 ...... +42 Shaken Creek ...... At the confluence with Holly Shelter Creek ...... +18 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of the Pender/Onslow +34 County boundary. Shelter Swamp Creek ...... At the confluence with Sandy Run Swamp ...... +25 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of the Onslow Pender +34 County boundary. Sills Creek ...... At the confluence with Sawyer Creek ...... +29 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 600 feet downstream of Old Mill Road ...... +33 Trumpeter Swamp ...... At the confluence with Catskin Creek ...... +16 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of J. A. Drive ...... +42 Turkey Creek ...... At the upstream side of State Route 133 ...... +8 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of State Route 133 ...... +22 Tributary ...... At the confluence with Turkey Creek ...... +11 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 850 feet upstream of Arvida Spur Road ...... +28

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60923

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation (NAVD). Communities affected #Depth in feet above ground. Modified

Washington Creek ...... At the confluence with Northeast Cape Fear River ...... +25 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Interstate 40 ...... +27 Tributary ...... At the confluence with Washington Creek ...... +27 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with +44 Washington Creek. White Oak Branch ...... At the confluence with Tuckahoe Branch ...... +43 Pender County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Shiloh Road ...... +53

ADDRESSES City of Burgaw Maps available for inspection at the Burgaw City Hall, 109 North Walker Street, Burgaw, North Carolina. Pender County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Pender County Planning Department, 805 South Walker Street, Burgaw, North Carolina. Village of Saint Helena Maps available for inspection at the Saint Helena Village Hall, 330 Main Street, Burgaw, North Carolina. # Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Dated: October 4, 2006. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) David I. Maurstad, Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6–17274 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–12–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 02:22 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR1.SGM 17OCR1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 60924

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 200

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER ADDRESSES: Use one of the following tube assembly on RAC Models 58 and contains notices to the public of the proposed addresses to comment on this proposed G58 airplanes. The damage occurs when issuance of rules and regulations. The AD: the left engine manifold pressure hose purpose of these notices is to give interested • DOT Docket Web site: Go to and its metal identification tags rubs persons an opportunity to participate in the http://dms.dot.gov and follow the against the tube assembly. Included in rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. instructions for sending your comments these reports was an in-flight oil leak on electronically. an RAC Model G58 airplane. • Government-wide rulemaking Web The RAC issued Safety Communique´ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov No. 271, dated May 2006, that and follow the instructions for sending recommended an inspection for possible Federal Aviation Administration your comments electronically. chafing between the left engine • Mail: Docket Management Facility; manifold pressure hose and its metal 14 CFR Part 39 U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 identification tags and the left propeller Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, accumulator oil tube assembly. [Docket No. FAA–2006–25739; Directorate Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– This condition, if not corrected, could Identifier 2006–CE–46–AD] 0001. result in loss of engine oil. Loss of • Fax: (202) 493–2251. RIN 2120–AA64 engine oil may lead to fire or smoke in • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the engine compartment, inability to Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon the plaza level of the Nassif Building, unfeather the propeller, engine damage, Aircraft Company Models 58 and G58 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, or loss of engine power. Airplanes DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Relevant Service Information AGENCY: Federal Aviation For service information identified in We have reviewed RAC Mandatory Administration (FAA), Department of this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Service Bulletin No. SB 61–3806, Transportation (DOT). Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, issued: August 2006. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085; telephone: The service information describes (NPRM). (800) 429–5372 or (316) 676–3140. procedures for: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff • Inspecting the left engine manifold SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new Pretz, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita pressure hose and its metal airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 identification tags for proper clearance Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, to avoid any chafing with the propeller Models 58 and G58 airplanes with Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946– accumulator oil tube assembly; optional propeller unfeathering 4153; facsimile: (316) 946–4407. • Inspecting the left propeller accumulators installed. This proposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: accumulator oil tube assembly for AD would require you to inspect the left chafing damage and replacing if any propeller accumulator oil tube assembly Comments Invited chafing damage is found; and for any chafing; replace the propeller We invite you to send any written • Relocating and securing with accumulator oil tube assembly if any relevant data, views, or arguments clamps the manifold pressure hose and chafing is found; and reposition and regarding this proposed AD. Send your its metal identification tags to ensure secure with clamps both the left engine comments to an address listed under the clearance between it and all tubes, manifold pressure hose and its metal ADDRESSES section. Include the docket hoses, electrical wires, parts, identification tags to avoid contact with number, ‘‘FAA–2006–25739; Directorate components, and structure. other tubes, hoses, electrical wires, Identifier 2006–CE–46–AD’’ at the FAA’s Determination and Requirements parts, components, and structure. This beginning of your comments. We of the Proposed AD proposed AD results from several specifically invite comments on the reports on the affected airplanes of overall regulatory, economic, We are proposing this AD because we chafing damage on the left propeller environmental, and energy aspects of evaluated all information and accumulator oil tube assembly. This the proposed AD. We will consider all determined the unsafe condition includes an in-flight oil leak from the comments received by the closing date described previously is likely to exist or left engine on an RAC Model G58 and may amend the proposed AD in develop on other products of the same airplane. We are proposing this AD to light of those comments. type design. This proposed AD would detect, correct, and prevent any chafing We will post all comments we require you to inspect the left propeller damage of the left propeller accumulator receive, without change, to http:// accumulator oil tube assembly for any oil tube assembly, which could result in dms.dot.gov, including any personal chafing; replace the propeller loss of engine oil. Loss of engine oil may information you provide. We will also accumulator oil tube assembly if any lead to fire or smoke in the engine post a report summarizing each chafing is found; and reposition and compartment, inability to unfeather the substantive verbal contact we receive secure with clamps the left manifold propeller, engine damage, or loss of concerning this proposed AD. pressure hose and its metal engine power. identification tags to ensure clearance DATES: We must receive comments on Discussion between it and all tubes, hoses, this proposed AD by December 18, We received several reports of chafing electrical wires, parts, components, and 2006. damage to the propeller accumulator oil structure.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60925

Costs of Compliance We estimate the following costs to do We estimate that this proposed AD the proposed inspection: would affect 49 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

Total cost per Total cost on Labor cost Parts cost airplane U.S. operators

1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 ...... N/A ...... $119 $5,831

We estimate the following costs to do be required based on the results of the determining the number of airplanes any necessary replacements that would proposed inspection. We have no way of that may need this replacement:

Total cost per Labor cost Parts cost airplane

1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 ...... $39 $119

RAC will provide warranty credit as 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS specified in RAC Mandatory Service action’’ under Executive Order 12866; DIRECTIVES Bulletin No. SB 61–3806, issued: August 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 2006. 1. The authority citation for part 39 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures continues to read as follows: Authority for this Rulemaking (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Title 49 of the United States Code 3. Will not have a significant specifies the FAA’s authority to issue economic impact, positive or negative, § 39.13 [Amended] rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, on a substantial number of small entities 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Section 106, describes the authority of under the criteria of the Regulatory the following new AD: the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Flexibility Act. Raytheon Aircraft Company: Docket No. Aviation Programs, describes in more We prepared a regulatory evaluation FAA–2006–25739; Directorate Identifier detail the scope of the Agency’s of the estimated costs to comply with 2006–CE–46–AD. authority. this proposed AD and placed it in the Comments Due Date We are issuing this rulemaking under AD docket. (a) We must receive comments on this the authority described in Subtitle VII, airworthiness directive (AD) action by Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, Examining the AD Docket December 18, 2006. ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with You may examine the AD docket that Affected ADs promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in contains the proposed AD, the (b) None. regulatory evaluation, any comments air commerce by prescribing regulations Applicability for practices, methods, and procedures received, and other information on the (c) This AD applies to Models 58 and G58 the Administrator finds necessary for Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket Management airplanes, serial numbers TH–2097 through safety in air commerce. This regulation TH–2150, with optional propeller is within the scope of that authority Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., unfeathering accumulators installed, that are because it addresses an unsafe condition Monday through Friday, except Federal certificated in any category. that is likely to exist or develop on holidays. The Docket Office (telephone Unsafe Condition products identified in this rulemaking (800) 647–5227) is located at the street action. address stated in the ADDRESSES section. (d) This AD results from several reports on the affected airplanes of chafing damage on Regulatory Findings Comments will be available in the AD the left propeller accumulator oil tube docket shortly after receipt. assembly. This includes an in-flight oil leak We have determined that this List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 from the left engine on an RAC Model G58 proposed AD would not have federalism airplane.We are issuing this AD to detect, implications under Executive Order Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation correct, and prevent any chafing damage of 13132. This proposed AD would not the left propeller accumulator oil tube safety, Safety. have a substantial direct effect on the assembly, which could result in loss of States, on the relationship between the The Proposed Amendment engine oil. Loss of engine oil may lead to fire national Government and the States, or or smoke in the engine compartment, on the distribution of power and Accordingly, under the authority inability to unfeather the propeller, engine responsibilities among the various delegated to me by the Administrator, damage, or loss of engine power. levels of government. the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part Compliance For the reasons discussed above, I 39 as follows: (e) To address this problem, you must do certify that the proposed regulation: the following, unless already done:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Actions Compliance Procedures

(1) Inspect the left propeller accumulator oil For airplanes that have not had a 100-hour Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory tube assembly for chafing. TIS inspection or the inspection following Service Bulletin No. SB 61–3806, issued: Raytheon Safety Communique´ No. 271, August 2006. dated May 2006: Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. For airplanes that have had a 100-hour TIS in- spection or the inspection following Raytheon Safety Communique´ No. 271, dated May 2006: Within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. (2) If any chafing is found in the inspection re- Before further flight after the inspection re- Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory quired by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace quired by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Service Bulletin No. SB 61–3806, issued: the propeller accumulator oil tube assembly. August 2006. (3) Reposition and secure with clamps the left Before further flight after the inspection or re- Follow Raytheon Aircraft Company Mandatory manifold pressure hose and its metal identi- placement required in paragraphs (e)(1) Service Bulletin No. SB 61–3806, issued: fication tags to ensure clearance between it and (e)(2) of this AD. August 2006. and all tubes, hoses, electrical wires, parts, components, and structure.

Alternative Methods of Compliance SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice STC No. SH8435SW or SH8419SW. (AMOCs) of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that That NPRM was published in the (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft proposed adopting a new airworthiness Federal Register on October 28, 2005 Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Jeff directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter (70 FR 62085). The NPRM would have Pretz, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, Textron (Bell) Model 206B helicopters required replacing energy attenuating FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, modified with Aeronautical wire manufactured or invoiced during a Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946–4153; Accessories, Inc. (AAI) Supplemental facsimile: (316) 946–4407, has the authority specified time frame. The NPRM to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested Type Certificate (STC) No. SH8435SW resulted from the disclosure that certain using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. or SH8419SW with energy attenuating energy attenuating wire may not have seat installation wire (energy the yield strength necessary to allow Related Information attenuating wire). The proposed AD seats to attenuate energy during an (g) To get copies of the service information would have required replacing certain emergency landing. The proposed referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon energy attenuating wire with airworthy actions were intended to prevent failure Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, energy attenuating wire. Since issuing of a seat to attenuate energy during an Kansas 67201–0085; telephone: (800) 429– the proposed AD, we have determined 5372 or (316) 676–3140. To view the AD emergency landing and resulting in docket, go to the Docket Management that no unsafe condition exists with injury to an occupant. Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, respect to the STC installed energy 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, attenuating wire. Accordingly, the Actions Since NPRM Was Issued proposed AD is withdrawn. Room PL–401, Washington, DC, or on the Since issuing the NPRM, we have Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The docket ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD determined that the seat with the number is Docket No. FAA–2006–25739; docket on the Internet at http:// Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–46–AD. affected energy attenuating wire will dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket support the occupant adequately during Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on Management Facility office between 9 October 10, 2006. an emergency landing and therefore no a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through unsafe condition exists for Bell Model Kim Smith, Friday, except Federal holidays. The 206B helicopters modified with the two Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Docket Management Facility office STCs. Certification Service. (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on [FR Doc. E6–17188 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the plaza level of the Nassif Building at FAA’s Conclusions BILLING CODE 4910–13–P the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL–401, Upon further consideration, we have Washington, DC. This docket number is determined that the actions proposed in DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAA–2005–22806; the directorate the NPRM are not needed for Bell Model identifier for this docket is 2005–SW– 206B helicopters. Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration 04–AD. NPRM is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the NPRM does not 14 CFR Part 39 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Belhumeur, Aviation Safety preclude the FAA from issuing another [Docket No. FAA–2005–22806; Directorate Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, related action or commit the FAA to any Identifier 2005–SW–04–AD] Rotorcraft Certification Office, Fort course of action in the future. RIN 2120–AA64 Worth, Texas 76193–0170, telephone Regulatory Impact (817) 222–5177, fax (817) 222–5783. Airworthiness Directives; Bell SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since this action only withdraws an Helicopter Textron Model 206B NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a Helicopters Discussion final rule and therefore is not covered AGENCY: Federal Aviation We proposed to amend part 39 of the under Executive Order 12866, the Administration, DOT. Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT part 39) with an NPRM for a new AD for Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. Bell Model 206B helicopters with AAI FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60927

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 • Government-wide rulemaking Web Examining the Docket Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov You may examine the docket that safety, Safety. and follow the instructions for sending contains the proposed AD, any your comments electronically; comments, and other information in The Withdrawal • Mail: Docket Management Facility; person at the Docket Management Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 System (DMS) Docket Office between 9 Docket No. FAA–2005–22806; Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Directorate Identifier 2005–SW–04–AD, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590; Friday, except Federal holidays. The which was published in the Federal • Fax: 202–493–2251; or Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647– Register on October 28, 2005 (70 FR • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 5227) is located at the plaza level of the 62085). the plaza level of the Nassif Building, Department of Transportation Nassif Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, Building in Room PL–401 at 400 29, 2006. DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Mark R. Schilling, through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments will be available in the AD Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, You may get the service information docket shortly after the DMS receives Aircraft Certification Service. identified in this proposed AD from MD them. Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer [FR Doc. E6–17185 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Discussion BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, Arizona This document proposes adopting a 85215–9734, telephone 1–800–388– new AD for MDHI Model MD900 series DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3378, fax 480–346–6813, or on the Web helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 900– at http://www.mdhelicopters.com. 00008 through 900–00111, 900–00113, Federal Aviation Administration You may examine the comments to and 900–00114. The AD would require this proposed AD in the AD docket on modifying the directional control pedal 14 CFR Part 39 the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. assembly by removing the existing pedals, removing the welded pedal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Docket No. FAA–2006–25983; Directorate support plate from the pedal shafts, Identifier 2006–SW–11–AD] Roger Durbin, Aviation Safety Engineer, installing a new pedal mount on each FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification RIN 2120–AA64 pedal shaft using rivets, reinstalling the Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 pedals on the new pedal mounts, and Airworthiness Directives; MD Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California marking the modified directional Helicopters, Inc. Model MD900 Series 90712, telephone (562) 627–5233, fax control pedal assembly with a part Helicopters (562) 627–5210. number. This proposal is prompted by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: an accident which has been attributed to AGENCY: Federal Aviation Comments Invited loss of directional control due to failure Administration, DOT. of the welds in the directional control ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking We invite you to submit any written pedal assembly. The actions specified (NPRM). data, views, or arguments regarding this by the proposed AD are intended to proposed AD. Send your comments to prevent fatigue cracking in the welds SUMMARY: This document proposes the address listed under the caption that connect the directional control adopting a new airworthiness directive ADDRESSES. Include the docket number pedal to the pedal shaft, resulting in loss (AD) for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) ‘‘FAA–2006–25983, Directorate of directional control and subsequent Model MD900 series helicopters. The Identifier 2006–SW–11–AD’’ at the loss of control of the helicopter. AD would require modifying the pilot beginning of your comments. We We have reviewed MD Helicopters and co-pilot dual-control directional specifically invite comments on the Service Bulletin SB900–100, dated April pedal assemblies, or the pilot single- overall regulatory, economic, 5, 2006, which describes procedures for control directional pedal assembly environmental, and energy aspects of modifying the directional control pedal (directional control pedal assembly). the proposed AD. We will consider all assembly. This proposal is prompted by an comments received by the closing date This unsafe condition is likely to exist accident which has been attributed to and may amend the proposed AD in or develop on other helicopters of the loss of directional control due to failure light of those comments. same type design. Therefore, the of the welds in the directional control We will post all comments we proposed AD would require modifying pedal assembly. The actions specified receive, without change, to http:// the directional control pedal assembly, by the proposed AD are intended to dms.dot.gov, including any personal part number (P/N) 900C1012007–107, prevent fatigue cracking in the welds information you provide. We will also –109, –111, –113, or 900C6012007–111 that connect the directional control post a report summarizing each (pilot dual control); or P/N pedal to the pedal shaft, resulting in loss substantive verbal contact with FAA 900C1012207–105, –107, –109, –111, or of directional control and subsequent personnel concerning this proposed –113 (co-pilot dual control); or P/N loss of control of the helicopter. rulemaking. Using the search function 900C1010007–107, –109, –111, –113, or DATES: Comments must be received on of our docket web site, you can find and 900C6010007–111 (pilot single control), or before December 18, 2006. read the comments to any of our by removing the existing pedals, ADDRESSES: Use one of the following dockets, including the name of the removing the welded pedal support addresses to submit comments on this individual who sent or signed the plate from the pedal shafts, and proposed AD: comment. You may review the DOT’s installing a directional control pedal • DOT Docket Web site: Go to complete Privacy Act Statement in the modification kit, P/N SBK–010. Also, http://dms.dot.gov and follow the Federal Register published on April 11, this AD would require ink stamping the instructions for sending your comments 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit P/N, 90005340111–101, on the pedal electronically; http://dms.dot.gov. shaft of each modified directional

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60928 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

control pedal assembly using permanent detail the scope of the Agency’s Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900–100, ink. The actions would be required to be authority. dated April 5, 2006. One modification kit is accomplished by following specified We are issuing this rulemaking under required to be installed on helicopters with portions of the service bulletin the authority described in Subtitle VII, single controls and two modification kits are Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, required to be installed on helicopters with described previously. dual controls. We estimate that this proposed AD ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that (b) Using a permanent ink, ink stamp the would affect 30 helicopters of U.S. section, Congress charges the FAA with P/N, 90005340111–101, on the pedal shaft of registry, and modifying the directional promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in each modified directional control pedal control pedal assembly would take air commerce by prescribing regulations assembly. approximately 8 work hours for for practices, methods, and procedures (c) To request a different method of helicopters with single pilot controls the Administrator finds necessary for compliance or a different compliance time installed, or 16 work hours for safety in air commerce. This regulation for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR is within the scope of that authority 39.19. Contact the Manager, Los Angeles helicopters with dual pilot and co-pilot Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Attn: controls installed, at an average labor because it addresses an unsafe condition Roger Durbin, Airframe Branch, 3960 rate of $80 per work hour. Required that is likely to exist or develop on Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California parts would cost approximately $775 for products identified in this rulemaking 90712, telephone (562) 627–5233, fax (562) helicopters with dual pilot and co-pilot action. 627–5210, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. controls installed. The manufacturer has List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 stated in its service bulletin that pedal Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September kits may be provided at no cost, and up Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 28, 2006. safety, Safety. to 8 work hours of labor for each set of Mark R. Schilling, directional control pedals may be The Proposed Amendment Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, provided at authorized MDHI service Accordingly, pursuant to the Aircraft Certification Service. centers (two sets of directional control authority delegated to me by the [FR Doc. E6–17186 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] pedals are required for helicopters with Administrator, the Federal Aviation BILLING CODE 4910–13–P dual pilot and co-pilot controls Administration proposes to amend part installed). Based on these figures, the 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations total cost impact of the proposed AD on (14 CFR part 39) as follows: DEPARTMENT OF STATE U.S. operators would be $61,650 per helicopter, assuming that dual pilot and PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 22 CFR Parts 22 and 51 co-pilot controls are installed. DIRECTIVES RIN 1400–AC22 Regulatory Findings 1. The authority citation for part 39 [Public Notice 5558] We have determined that this continues to read as follows: proposed AD would not have federalism Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Card Format Passport; Changes to implications under Executive Order Passport Fee Schedule 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD § 39.13 [Amended] AGENCY: State Department. would not have a substantial direct 2. Section 39.13 is amended by effect on the States, on the relationship adding a new airworthiness directive to ACTION: Proposed Rule. read as follows: between the national Government and SUMMARY: Section 7209 of the the States, or on the distribution of MD Helicopters, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2006– Intelligence Reform and Terrorism power and responsibilities among the 25983; Directorate Identifier 2006–SW– Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Public various levels of government. 11–AD. Law 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17, For the reasons discussed above, I Applicability: Model MD900 series 2004), provides that U.S. citizens and certify that the proposed regulation: helicopters, serial numbers (S/N) 900–00008 nonimmigrant aliens may enter the U.S. 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory through 900–00111, 900–00113, and 900– only with passports or such alternative action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 00114, certificated in any category. documents as the Secretary of 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the Compliance: Required within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, unless Homeland Security may designate as DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures accomplished previously. satisfactorily establishing identity and (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and To prevent fatigue cracking in the welds citizenship. The statute requires that the 3. Will not have a significant which connect the pilot and co-pilot dual- Secretary of Homeland Security, in economic impact, positive or negative, control, or pilot single-control directional consultation with the Secretary of State, on a substantial number of small entities control pedal (directional control pedal) to develop and implement a plan to under the criteria of the Regulatory the pedal shaft, resulting in loss of require virtually all travelers entering Flexibility Act. directional control and subsequent loss of the U.S. to present a passport, other control of the helicopter, accomplish the We prepared a draft economic following: document, or combination of evaluation of the estimated costs to (a) Modify each directional control pedal documents, that are ‘‘deemed by the comply with this proposed AD. See the assembly, part number (P/N) 900C1012007– Secretary of Homeland Security to be DMS to examine the draft economic 107, –109, –111, –113, or 900C6012007–111 sufficient to denote identity and evaluation. (pilot dual control); or P/N 900C1012207– citizenship. Section 7209 expressly 105, –107, –109, –111, or –113 (co-pilot dual limits the waiver of documentation Authority for This Rulemaking control); or P/N 900C1010007–107, –109, requirements for U.S. citizens under Title 49 of the United States Code –111, –113, or 900C6010007–111 (pilot single section 215 (b) of the Immigration and control), by removing the existing pedals, specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 1 removing the welded pedal support plate Nationality Act (INA) and eliminates rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, from the pedal shafts, and installing a the waiver of documentation Section 106, describes the authority of directional control pedal modification kit, P/ requirements for categories of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, N SBK–010, in accordance with part 2, Aviation Programs, describes in more Accomplishment Instructions, in MD 1 8 U.S.C. 1185 (b).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60929

individuals for whom documentation ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, book-style U.S. passport may not be the requirements have previously been identified by any of the following optimal solution for international waived (citizens of Canada, Mexico, and methods: travelers along the northern and Bermuda) under section 212 (d)(4) (B) of • Mail (paper, disk, or CD–ROM southern land borders of the U.S., or the INA.2 U.S. citizens and submissions): Comments by mail are to international sea travel between the nonimmigrant aliens from Canada, be addressed to the Office of Passport U.S., Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Mexico, and Bermuda will be required Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, and Bermuda. Therefore, the to comply with the new document Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State, in consultation requirements of section 7209.3 The Department of State, 2100 Pennsylvania with the DHS, is proposing an legislation also requires that the Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC alternative format passport specifically 20037. Department of Homeland Security • designed for international land and sea (DHS) and Department of State seek to Internet: Comments by Internet are travel between the U.S., Canada, facilitate the frequent travel of those to be sent to http:// Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. living in border communities. This www.regulations.gov/index.cfm. This The Card Format Passport proposed rule addresses the travel notice can also be viewed from this facilitation requirement of this Internet address. • Instructions: All submissions must The term ‘‘passport’’ means any travel legislation. The administration’s include the agency name and docket document issued by the competent proposal to address the remainder of the number. All comments will be posted authority of a sovereign nation showing legislative requirements as set forth in without change to http:// the bearer’s identity and nationality that section 7209, called the Western www.regulations.gov, including any is deemed valid for the entry of the Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), is personal information sent with each bearer into a foreign country. 22 U.S.C. being addressed in separate comment. 211(a) provides that the Secretary of rulemakings. State has the authority to issue FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The passport card is intended as a Consuelo Pachon, Office of Passport passports for the U.S. lower cost means of establishing Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, Executive Order No. 11295 of August identity and nationality for American Bureau of Consular Affairs, 2100 5, 1966, 31 FR 10603, provides that the citizens in two limited situations—for Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 3000, Secretary of State is designated and citizens crossing U.S. land borders and Washington, DC, telephone number empowered to exercise the authority of traveling by sea between the U.S., 202–663–2431. the President to designate and prescribe Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. rules governing the granting, issuing, Bermuda. The passport card is not passport is the premier document for and verifying of passports. 22 U.S.C. designed to be a globally interoperable international travel by U.S. citizens and 2705 provides that a valid passport, if travel document as defined by the nationals because of its security valid for the maximum period permitted International Civil Aviation features, professional adjudication, by law, has the same force and effect as Organization (ICAO). Designing a card name checking conventions, and proof of citizenship as a certificate of format passport for wide use, including interoperability with global machine- naturalization or certificate of by air travelers, would inadvertently readable passports and Electronic citizenship. Under this proposed rule, undercut the broad based international Passport (ePassport) standards. Pursuant passport cards, like passport books, effort to strengthen civil aviation to 22 U.S.C. 211(a), the Secretary of would be issued for a ten-year validity security and travel document State is charged with granting and period for U.S. citizens sixteen years old specifications to address the post 9/11 issuing U.S. passports. Consular officers and older, and for a five-year validity threat environment. Moreover, in its of the Department of State utilize period for U.S. citizens less than 16 recent consideration of the FY 2007 information in the passport books when years of age. The Department of State Appropriations Act for the Department evaluating applications for replacement proposes to utilize the same application of Homeland Security, the Congress, passports and determining eligibility for procedures and adjudication standards while allowing for the use of the overseas citizens services. DHS and for the passport book and card and to passport card by citizens traveling by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) permit U.S. citizens to hold both a sea between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, also utilize this information in passport book and card simultaneously. the Caribbean or Bermuda, did not make determining citizenship and identity at In addition, if a passport applicant parallel changes regarding international ports of entry. holds a valid passport book, the air travel. Many U.S. citizens are expected to applicant may apply for a passport card DATES: The Department of State will apply for U.S. passports to fulfill the as a ‘‘renewal’’ and pay the lower accept comments from the public up to document requirement of the WHTI renewal fee rate. December 18, 2006. program under Section 7209 of IRTPA. Passport Services is committed to Because 22 U.S.C. 211(a) does not meeting the increased demand. Passport prescribe limitations on the format of a 2 8 U.S.C.1182 (d)(4)(B). Services has seen an increase in passport, the Secretary of State proposes 3 Section 7209 does not apply to Lawful to issue a card format for the passport, Permanent Residents, who will continue to be able passport demand from a base level of to enter the U.S. upon presentation of a valid Form seven million passports in 2003 to an herein after referred to as the ‘‘passport I–551, Alien Registration Card, or other valid expected total of 12–12.5 million in card,’’ for international land and sea evidence of permanent resident status. Section 211 fiscal year 2006. Demand for passports travel between the U.S., Canada, (b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1181(b). It also does not Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. apply to alien members of U.S. Armed Forces is forecast to continue to increase to 16 traveling under official orders. Section 284 of INA, million or more in FY–2007 and The passport card will show the bearer’s 8 U.S.C. 1354. Additionally, section 7209 does not thereafter. However, the Department of origin, identity, and nationality and will change current requirements for nonimmigrant State recognizes that there are be subject to existing passport statutes. aliens from anywhere other than Canada, Mexico, As with the passport book, the passport or Bermuda. See section 212 (d)(4)(B) of the INA, circumstances where, due to reasons of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (d)(4)(B) and 8 CFR 212.1. both cost and ease of use, the traditional card will be issued only to those owing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60930 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

allegiance to the U.S.4 and will require card number, dates of validity and number of DHS programs. a written application and oath for first issuing authority. The reverse side of Operationally, it has similarities to CBP time applicants.5 There is precedence the passport card will carry a machine- land border international trusted for limited use passports. For example, readable zone and notation that the card traveler programs of NEXUS, SENTRI, The Department of State issues is valid only for international land and and FAST, and DHS’s pilot electronic I– passports only for one time use to allow sea travel between the U.S., Canada, 94 program currently in place at several the traveler to return to the U.S. Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda. In land border crossings in that it will only The passport card is designed addition, each passport card will utilize store and transmit a unique reference specifically to address the needs and Radio Frequency (RF) technology to number and no personal or biographic travel patterns of those who live in land store and transmit only a unique information. Vicinity read technology is border communities and frequently reference number that will serve as a similar to that used in highway toll cross the border in their day-to-day link to information safeguarded in a systems throughout the U.S. From an activities. The technical architecture of secure database managed by CBP. This operational sense, this technology the passport card is designed to address reference number will be assigned by would allow passengers approaching a the operational needs of pedestrian and Department of State at the time the land crossing in vehicles to present the vehicular traffic in the land border passport card is issued and no personal passport card to the reader easily from environment, and international sea or biographic information will be stored within the vehicle and these readers travel as discussed herein, but not the or transmitted using Radio Frequency could process information from up to operational needs of inspection at (RF) technology. Presenting the passport eight cards at one time. airports. Moreover, the passport card is card will allow the linked information In addition, the use of vicinity intended not only to enhance security to be retrieved from the secure DHS technology would provide information efforts for international land and sea database to allow the CBP officer to to border security personnel further in travel between the U.S., Canada, compare the citizen presenting him or advance of a traveler’s arrival at an Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda, herself for entry into the U.S. with the inspection booth, facilitate a faster but is also intended to assist DHS in original issuance record to ensure that it processing of individuals, and provide expediting the movement of legitimate is the same person. This database could more opportunities to leverage existing travel within the Western Hemisphere. include additional information, for technologies, including programs such In particular, the land border presents example, information about the bearer’s as CBP’s Trusted Traveler programs complex operational challenges, in that membership in one of CBP’s NEXUS, FAST, and SENTRI and use of a tremendous amount of traffic must be international trusted traveler programs, the electronic I–94. processed in a short amount of time. NEXUS, SENTRI, or FAST. There are often several passengers in a RF Proximity Read Technology vehicle, and multiple vehicles arriving Technology Considered for the Passport RF proximity read technology at one time at each land border port-of- Card conforms to International Standards entry. Many of the people encountered The Department of State, in Organization (ISO) 14443 specifications. crossing at the land border ports of entry consultation with the DHS, has sought In addition to having commercial are frequent crossers. However, CBP both to ensure the privacy of U.S. applications, RF proximity read does not receive advance information on citizens’ personal information and to technology is currently being used in these land border travelers. For these facilitate the travel of U.S. citizens in the production of the U.S. ePassport, as reasons, the Department of State, in connection with the operational well as ePassports of those nations consultation with DHS, agreed to requirements for security and participating in the Visa Waiver develop a technology-based solution. facilitation of travel at especially at land Program. The ISO 14443 specification The passport card is designed and border ports of entry. After reviewing a requires the proximity chip to be read authorized for international land and number of options to provide the CBP within approximately four inches of the sea travel between the U.S., Canada, officer with appropriate personal reader. Similar to the vicinity RF read Mexico, the Caribbean, and Bermuda information to facilitate the processing technology described above, the RF and will not be a globally interoperable of travelers, we believe that the most proximity read chip would contain only document. Therefore, the ICAO promising technology is Radio a unique reference number to be used as standards and recommendations for Frequency (RF) technology. This a pointer to a secure database managed globally interoperable passports would technology utilizes a passive chip by CBP. From an operational sense, this not apply to passport cards. The deriving its power from the reader that technology would require passengers passport card will be a highly secure communicates with it. We focused on approaching a land crossing in vehicles document with many features consistent RF vicinity read (GEN 2) technology and to present the passport card in close with ICAO 9303 Part 3 definitions of RF proximity read technology. proximity to the reader outside the vehicle and these readers could process TD–1 specifications. It will use a full RF Vicinity Read (GEN–2) Technology facial image printed on the card as the information from a small number of biometric identifier in conformity with RF vicinity read technology conforms cards at a time. to International Standards Organization ICAO standards for ePassport images The Passport Card Technology Selection and utilize the international standard (ISO) 18000 6-C specifications. Vicinity for Machine Readable Zone (MRZ) read technology would allow the DHS selected RF vicinity read encryption. passport card data to be read at a technology for its border management The data printed on the face of the distance of up to 20 feet from the reader. system. To ensure compatibility and passport card will be the same as that The vicinity read chip would contain interoperability with the DHS border currently shown on the data page of the only a unique reference number that management system, and to secure U.S. passport—bearer’s facial image, full will serve as a link to information significant travel facilitation advantages, name, date and place of birth, passport safeguarded in a secure database the Department of State proposes to managed by CBP. In addition to having produce the passport card utilizing RF 4 22 U.S.C. 212. commercial applications, vicinity-read vicinity read technology. The selection 5 22 U.S.C. 213. technology is currently being used in a of vicinity read technology for the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60931

passport card was made in an effort to procedures will be made available at the replacement passports that have been ensure a seamless operational time the revised passport applications lost, stolen or mutilated are also environment with DHS, and provides are available. Like other full validity required to appear in person, as are the infrastructure support to strengthen passports, one can apply for the those holding expired passports issued our national security at U.S. land passport card at embassies and more than 15 years previously, or when borders. The Department of State consulates abroad. Passport cards the bearer was a minor. proposes to produce the card and applied for abroad will be delivered in The execution fee was set at $30.00 deliver them with a thin protective the same manner as passport books are for each application during the last cost sleeve, which is designed to protect the delivered abroad. Passport cards will of service study. Based on an internal card from unauthorized access. The card not be issued abroad. review of our cost of service, and could be stored in the sleeve and The fee for the passport book and information from the USPS, the removed only when needed. passport card is determined based on a Department of State is proposing to The Department of State solicits cost of service analysis, consistent with reduce the execution fee to $25.00. All comments on the selection of RF OMB Circular A–25, User Charges, to fees will be subject to periodic review vicinity read technology for the passport recover the costs of the services when a in the course of the Bureau of Consular card. specific beneficiary can be identified. In Affairs comprehensive cost of service studies to account for operational Obtaining the Passport Card March 2006, Consular Affairs contracted with an independent third party to changes, technological advances and Both the passport card and the review the last cost of service study for economies of scale. traditional passport book will be issued passports (CY 2004), in light of WHTI, on the basis of the same documentary Application for Both Passport Book and and the increase in workload to enable Card requirements: Application forms (DS–11 the Department of State to determine and DS–82), and adjudication standards several fees including: As noted above, a U.S. citizen will be for establishing citizenship and identity. • The cost for the new card-format able to apply for both a passport book Building on existing infrastructure, the passport, and and passport card in the same Department of State will acquire the • Whether the cost of the passport application. The execution fee will be capability to produce the passport card, book could be reduced. assessed only once, although a separate while concurrently increasing capacity application fee will be assessed for each to produce traditional passport books. Application Fee for the Passport Card type of passport. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and Based on the recommendation of the Regulatory Findings other designated local government independent third party, an application entities, partner with the Department of fee of $20.00 is proposed for passport Administrative Procedure Act State in serving as acceptance agencies cards issued to adults (age 16 and up), In accordance with provisions of the for passport applications. Currently valid for ten years. A fee of $10.00 is Administrative Procedure Act governing there are over 7,500 designated post proposed for passport cards issued to rules promulgated by federal agencies offices and other passport acceptance minors (under age 16), valid for five that affect the public (5 U.S.C. 552), the facilities nation-wide. Since the years. The basis of the passport card Department of State is publishing this passport book and card will be application fees is the direct costs of proposed rule and inviting public processed using the same infrastructure producing passport cards, the card comment. and same procedures prior to stock, technology, adjudicating the production of the travel document itself, application, printing the biographic Regulatory Flexibility Act applicants will be able to submit information on the card, and priority The Department of State, in applications for passport cards through mail return of the card. Applicants will accordance with the Regulatory the network of passport acceptance also be required to pay the execution Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has agents. The anticipated turn-around and expedite fees, if applicable. The reviewed this regulation and, by time for processing would be the same execution fee for persons seeking to approving it, certifies that this rule will for both the passport book and card. apply for a passport card and passport not have a significant economic impact Citizens outside the U.S. will be able to book will be $25. on a substantial number of small apply for the passport card at U.S. entities. embassies or consulates abroad; Execution Fee however, all passport cards will be Certain applicants are required to Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 produced in the U.S. execute the application DS–11 in the This rule does not involve a mandate U.S. citizens will be able to hold both presence of a passport acceptance agent, that will result in the expenditure by a passport card and a traditional passport specialist, or consular officer State, local, and tribal governments, in passport book concurrently. In addition, overseas. Therefore, the Department of the aggregate, or by the private sector, of applications for a passport book and State separately reviewed the cost $100 million or more in any year and it card can be processed at the same time, factors for the execution of passport will not significantly or uniquely affect using the same form, photograph and applications. By far, the largest number small governments. Therefore, no supporting documentation. Further, of first time passport applications are actions were deemed necessary under where the application is made for both made by those who appear in person at the provisions of the Unfunded the passport book and card, only one local USPS or government offices, most Mandates Reform Act of 1995. execution fee will be assessed. Adult often county clerks or clerks of the applicants with valid passports may court. The fee is retained by these Small Business Regulatory Enforcement apply for passport cards as renewals, designated passport acceptance facilities Fairness Act of 1996 using form DS–82 (Passport to cover their costs of providing this This rule is not a major rule as Applications by Mail), which do not service. defined by section 804 of the Small require personal appearance or First time adult passport applicants Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of execution of the passport application and all minors under age 16 are required 1996. This rule will not result in an form. Details regarding application to apply in person. Adults applying for annual effect on the economy of $100

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60932 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

million or more; a major increase in been provided to the Office of 22 CFR Part 51 costs or prices; or significant adverse Management and Budget (OMB) for effects on competition, employment, review. Administrative practice and investment, productivity, innovation, or procedure, Drug traffic control, Executive Order 13132 on the ability of U.S.-based companies Passports and visas, reporting and to compete with foreign-based This regulation will not have recordkeeping requirements. companies in domestic and import substantial direct effects on the States, Accordingly, for the reasons set forth markets. on the relationship between the national in the preamble, 22 CFR Parts 22 and 51 Executive Order 12866 government and the States, or on the are proposed to be amended as follows: distribution of power and The Department of State has reviewed responsibilities among the various PART 22—[AMENDED] this proposed rule to ensure its levels of government. Therefore, in consistency with the regulatory accordance with section 6 of Executive 1. The authority citation for part 22 philosophy and principles set forth in Order 13132, it is determined that this continues to read as follows: Executive Order 12866. The Department rule does not have sufficient federalism Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153 note, 1351; 10 does not consider the proposed rule to implications to require consultations or be an economically significant U.S.C. 2602(c); 22 U.S.C. 214, 2504(a), 4201, warrant the preparation of a federalism 4206, 4215, 4219; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law regulatory action within the scope of summary impact statement. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 et seq.; Public Law section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order 108–447; E.O. 10718, 22 FR 4632, 3 CFR, since it is not likely to have an annual Paperwork Reduction Act 1954–1958 Comp., p. 382; E.O. 11295, 31 FR effect on the economy of $100 million This rule does not impose any new 10603, 3 CFR, 1966–1970 Comp., p. 570. or more or to adversely affect in a reporting or recordkeeping requirements material way the economy, a sector of 2. Revise § 22.1 to read as follows: subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the economy, productivity, competition, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. § 22.1 Schedule of fees. jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal List of Subjects The following table sets forth the governments or communities. However, changes to the U.S. Department of 22 CFR Part 22 the proposed rule does have important State’s Schedule of Fees for Consular policy implications. Accordingly, it has Passports and visas. Services:

SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CONSULAR SERVICES

Item No. Fee

Passport and Citizenship Services 1. Passport Execution: Required for first-time applicants and others who must apply in person [01—Passport Execution] ...... $25

******* 9. Passport Card Application Services for: (a) Applicants age 16 or over (including renewals) [Adult Passport Card] ...... $20 (b) Applicants under age 16 [Minor Passport Card] ...... $10 (Item no. 10 vacant.) ......

*******

PART 51—PASSPORTS § 51.4 Validity of passports. Dated: October 6, 2006. * * * * * Wanda Nesbitt, 3. The authority citation for part 51 (b) Period of validity of a regular Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for continues to read as follows: passport and a card format passport. Consular Affairs, Department of State. Authority: 22 U.S.C. 211a, 213, 2651a, *** [FR Doc. E6–17237 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 2671(d)(3), 2714 and 3926; 31 U.S.C. 9701; BILLING CODE 4710–06–P E.O. 11295, 3 CFR, 1966–1970 Comp., p. 570; * * * * * sec. 236, Public Law 106–113, 113 stat. 6. The introductory paragraph of § 51. 1501A–430; 18 U.S.C. 1621 (a)(2). 61 and the first sentence of § 51.61(a) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 4. Amend § 51.3 by adding a new are revised to read as follows: Occupational Safety and Health paragraph (d) as follows: § 51.61 Passport fees. Administration § 51.3 Types of passports. Fees, including execution fees, shall * * * * * be collected for the following passport 29 CFR Part 1915 services in the amounts prescribed in (d) Passport card. A passport card is [Docket No. S–051A] valid for departure from and entry to the the Schedule of Fees for Consular U.S. through land and sea ports of entry Services (22 CFR 22.1) RIN 1218–AC16 between the U.S. and Mexico, Canada, (a) A fee for each passport application or the Caribbean and Bermuda. It is not filed, for both book and card format Updating National Consensus a globally interoperable international passports, which fee shall vary Standards in OSHA’s Standard for Fire travel document. depending on the age of the applicant. Protection in Shipyard Employment. 5. The heading of § 51.4 (b) is revised *** AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health to read as follows: * * * * * Administration, Department of Labor.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60933

ACTION: Proposed rule. Submit three copies to the OSHA this action on the regulated community. Docket Office, Docket No. S–051A, U.S. If OSHA receives no significant adverse SUMMARY: On September 15, 2004, the Department of Labor, 200 Constitution comment, OSHA will publish a Federal Occupational Safety and Health Avenue, NW., Room N–2625, Register document confirming the Administration (OSHA) issued a new Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) effective date contained in the fire protection final rule for shipyards 693–2350. (OSHA’s TTY number is companion DFR published in today’s that incorporated by reference 19 (877) 889–5627). OSHA Docket Office Federal Register and withdrawing this National Fire Protection Association hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 proposed rule. Such confirmation may (NFPA) standards. Ten of those NFPA p.m., EST. include minor stylistic or technical standards had been updated by NFPA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general changes to the document. A full since the fire protection rule was discussion of the nature of a significant proposed and an additional NFPA information and press inquiries, contact adverse comment is contained in the standard has been updated since the Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of companion DFR. final rule was published. In today’s Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. Federal Register, OSHA is publishing a Department of Labor, 200 Constitution If OSHA receives significant adverse direct final rule (DFR) replacing the Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; comment on the changes contained in references to the 11 older NFPA telephone: (202) 693–1999. For the companion DFR, OSHA will standards in OSHA’s fire protection technical inquiries, contact Jim withdraw the DFR and proceed with standard for shipyards with their most Maddux, Director, Office of Maritime, this proposed rule by addressing recent versions. Directorate of Standards and Guidance, comments and publishing a new final If OSHA does not receive significant Room N–3609, OSHA, U.S. Department rule. If a significant adverse comment is adverse comment on the DFR, the of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, received regarding certain revisions updated versions of the NFPA standards NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: included in the DFR, but not others, will replace their older versions in (202) 693–2086 or fax (202) 693–1663. OSHA may (1) Finalize those changes OSHA’s fire protection standard for Copies of this Federal Register notice that did not receive significant adverse shipyards on the effective date stated in are available from the OSHA Office of comment, and (2) conduct further the DFR. If significant adverse comment Publications, Room N–3101, U.S. rulemaking under this proposed rule for on the updated versions is received, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution the changes that did receive significant OSHA will withdraw the DFR and Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; adverse comment. proceed with rulemaking on this telephone: (202) 693–1888. Electronic Comments received will be posted proposed rule. However, if significant copies of this Federal Register notice, as without change to http:// adverse comments are received well as news releases and other relevant dockets.osha.gov, including any regarding certain provisions included in documents, are available at OSHA’s personal information provided. OSHA the DFR, but not others, OSHA may Web page at http://www.osha.gov. cautions you about submitting personal finalize those changes that did not For access to the docket to read information such as social security receive significant adverse comment, background documents or comments numbers and birth dates. and conduct further rulemaking under received, go to: http://dockets.osha.gov. the proposed rule for the changes that Contact the OSHA Docket Office for III. List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part did receive significant adverse information about materials not 1915 comment. A subsequent Federal available through the OSHA Web page Register document will be published to and for assistance in using the Web page Fire protection, Hazardous announce OSHA’s action. to locate docket submissions. substances, Incorporation by reference, Longshore and harbor workers, DATES: Comments and requests for a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Occupational safety and health, hearing on this proposed rule must be I. Background Reporting and recordkeeping submitted by the following dates: requirements, Shipyards, and Vessels. Hard copy: Your comments must be This proposal applies to shipyard submitted (postmarked or sent) by employment. It updates NFPA standards IV. Authority and Signature November 16, 2006. Electronic incorporated by reference in the transmission and facsimile: Your shipyard fire protection standard issued This document was prepared under comments must be sent by November by OSHA on September 15, 2004 by the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 16, 2006. replacing the older versions of NFPA Assistant Secretary of Labor for ADDRESSES: You may submit written consensus standards with the most Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. comments to this proposed rule— current versions (69 FR 55668). A Department of Labor, 200 Constitution identified by docket number S–051A or complete discussion of the NFPA Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. It RIN number 1218–AC16—by any of the standards, a comparison of the older is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and following methods: standards and the newer standards, 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// along with the economic analysis, and Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), www.regulations.gov. Follow the paperwork and state plan discussions Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2002, and instructions for submitting comments. are published in the preamble to the 29 CFR part 1911. • OSHA Web site: http:// DFR, which is also published in the Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of ecomments.osha.gov. Follow the final rule section of today’s Federal October, 2006. Register. instructions for submitting comments Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., on OSHA’s Web page. II. Public Participation • Fax: If your written comments are Assistant Secretary of Labor. 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to OSHA requests comments on all Proposed Amendments to Standards the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693– issues related to this action. OSHA also 1648. welcomes comments on the Agency’s OSHA is proposing to amend Part • Regular mail, express delivery, findings that there are not negative 1915 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal hand delivery, and courier service: economic or other regulatory impacts of Regulations as set forth below:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60934 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

PART 1915—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY § 1915.505 Fire response. for Fire Protection (incorporated by AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR * * * * * reference, see § 1915.5) and either NFPA SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT (e) * * * 11–2005 Standard for Low-, Medium-, (3) * * * and High-Expansion Foam 1. The authority citation for part 1915 (v) Provide only SCBA that meet the (incorporated by reference, see continues to read as follows: requirements of NFPA 1981–2002 § 1915.5); Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Standard on Open-Circuit Self- * * * * * Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire (5) Fixed extinguishing systems using secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Emergency Services (incorporated gas as the extinguishing agent according and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, by reference, see § 1915.5); and 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 to NFPA 12–2005 Standard on Carbon (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 * * * * * Dioxide Extinguishing Systems FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 4. Amend § 1915.507 to revise (incorporated by reference, see 111), 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), or 5–2002 (67 FR paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(6), (d)(1), § 1915.5); NFPA 12A–2004 Standard on 65008) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911. (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(5) to read as Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems 2. Amend § 1915.5 to revise follows: (incorporated by reference, see § 1915.5); and NFPA 2001–2004 paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (vi) through (x), and § 1915.507 Land-side fire protection (xiii) through (xviii) and by removing system. Standard on Clean Agent Fire paragraph (d)(4)(xix) to read as follows: Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by * * * * * reference, see § 1915.5). § 1915.5 Incorporation by reference. (b) * * * [FR Doc. E6–17125 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] * * * * * (1) The employer must select, install, (d) * * * inspect, maintain, and test all portable BILLING CODE 4510–26–P (4) * * * fire extinguishers according to NFPA (i) NFPA 1981–2002 Standard on 10–2002 Standard for Portable Fire Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Extinguishers (incorporated by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Apparatus for Fire and Emergency reference, see § 1915.5). AGENCY Services, IBR approved for (2) The employer is permitted to use § 1915.505(e)(3)(v). Class II or Class III hose systems, in 40 CFR Part 52 * * * * * accordance with NFPA 10–2002 [EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0729; FRL–8231–4] (vi) NFPA 10–2002 Standard for (incorporated by reference, see Portable Fire Extinguishers, IBR § 1915.5), as portable fire extinguishers Revisions to the Arizona State approved for §§ 1915.507(b)(1) and if the employer selects, installs, Implementation Plan, Pinal County Air (b)(2). inspects, maintains, and tests those Quality Control District (vii) NFPA 14–2003 Standard for the systems according to the specific AGENCY: Environmental Protection Installation of Standpipe and Hose recommendations in NFPA 14–2003 Agency (EPA). Systems, IBR approved for Standard for the Installation of §§ 1915.507(b)(2) and (d)(1). Standpipe and Hose Systems ACTION: Proposed rule. (incorporated by reference, see (viii) NFPA 72–2002 National Fire SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited Alarm Code, IBR approved for § 1915.5). (c) * * * approval and limited disapproval of § 1915.507(c)(6). revisions to the Pinal County Air (ix) NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the (6) Select, install, inspect, maintain, Quality Control District (PCAQCD) Installation of Sprinkler Systems, IBR and test all automatic fire detection portion of the Arizona State approved for § 1915.507(d)(2). systems and emergency alarms (x) NFPA 750–2003 Standard on according to NFPA 72–2002 National Implementation Plan (SIP). These Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, IBR Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by revisions concern particulate matter approved for § 1915.507(d)(2). reference, see § 1915.5) (PM–10) emissions from fugitive dust. (d) * * * We are proposing action on local rules * * * * * that regulate these emission sources (xiii) NFPA 11–2005 Standard for (1) Standpipe and hose systems according to NFPA 14–2003 Standard under the Clean Air Act as amended in Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking Foam, IBR approved for for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems (incorporated by comments on this proposal and plan to § 1915.507(d)(3). follow with a final action. (xiv) NFPA 17–2002, Standard for Dry reference, see § 1915.5); Chemical Extinguishing Systems, IBR (2) Automatic sprinkler systems DATES: Any comments must arrive by approved for § 1915.507(d)(4). according to NFPA 25–2002 Standard November 16, 2006. (xv) NFPA 12–2005, Standard on for the Inspection, Testing, and ADDRESSES: Submit comments, Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, Maintenance of Water-based Fire identified by docket number EPA–R09– IBR approved for § 1915.507(d)(5). Protection Systems, (incorporated by OAR–2006–0729, by one of the (xvi) NFPA 12A–2004, Standard on reference, see § 1915.5), and either (i) following methods: Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems, NFPA 13–2002 Standard for the 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: IBR approved for § 1915.507(d)(5). Installation of Sprinkler Systems www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line (xvii) NFPA 2001–2004, Standard on (incorporated by reference, see instructions. Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing § 1915.5), or (ii) NFPA 750–2003 2. E-mail: [email protected]. Systems, IBR approved for Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel § 1915.507(d)(5). Systems (incorporated by reference, see (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection (xviii) NFPA 1403–2002, Standard on § 1915.5); Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, Live Fire Training Evolutions, IBR (3) Fixed extinguishing systems that San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. approved for § 1915.508(d)(8). use water or foam as the extinguishing Instructions: All comments will be 3. Amend § 1915.505 to revise agent according to NFPA 15–2001 included in the public docket without paragraph (e)(3)(v), to read as follows: Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems change and may be made available

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60935

online at www.regulations.gov, Docket: The index to the docket for Table of Contents including any personal information this action is available electronically at I. The State’s Submittal provided, unless the comment includes www.regulations.gov and in hard copy A. What rules did the State submit? Confidential Business Information (CBI) at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, B. Are there other versions of these rules? or other information whose disclosure is San Francisco, California. While all C. What is the purpose of the submitted restricted by statute. Information that documents in the docket are listed in rules? you consider CBI or otherwise protected the index, some information may be II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. should be clearly identified as such and publicly available only at the hard copy A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? should not be submitted through location (e.g., copyrighted material), and B. Do the rules meet the evaluation www.regulations.gov or e-mail. some may not be publicly available in criteria? www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the C. What are the rule deficiencies? access’’ system, and EPA will not know hard copy materials, please schedule an D. Proposed action and public comment. your identity or contact information appointment during normal business III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews unless you provide it in the body of hours with the contact listed in the FOR I. The State’s Submittal your comment. If you send e-mail FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. directly to EPA, your e-mail address FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. What rules did the State submit? will be automatically captured and ´ ˜ included as part of the public comment. Francisco Donez, EPA Region IX, (415) Table 1 lists the rules addressed by If EPA cannot read your comment due 972–3956, [email protected]. this proposal with the dates that they to technical difficulties and cannot SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: were adopted by local air agencies and contact you for clarification, EPA may Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ submitted by the Arizona Department of not be able to consider your comment. and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted

PCAQCD ...... 4–2–020 General [Fugitive Dust] ...... 6/29/93 11/27/95. PCAQCD ...... 4–2–030 Definitions [Fugitive Dust] ...... 6/29/93 11/27/95. PCAQCD ...... 4–2–040 Standards [Fugitive Dust] ...... 6/29/93 11/27/95. PCAQCD ...... 4–2–050 Monitoring and Records [Fugitive Dust] ...... 5/14/97 10/07/98.

On June 4, 1996, the submittals of nonattaiment areas (see section 189(a)), C. What are the rule deficiencies? rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, and 4–2–040 must require best available control These provisions conflict with section were found to meet the completeness measures (BACM), including best 110 and part D of the Act and prevent criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, available control technology (BACT) in full approval of the SIP revision. which must be met before formal EPA serious PM–10 nonattaiment areas (see 1. Rule 4–2–020, Section B specifies review. On April 24, 1999, the submittal section 189(b)), and must not relax that Article 4 ‘‘shall not be construed so of rule 4–2–050 was found to meet the existing requirements (see sections as to prevent normal farm cultural completeness criteria. 110(l) and 193). A portion of PCAQCD practices which cause fugitive dust.’’ B. Are there other versions of these is designated attainment, a portion is Normal farm cultural practice is defined rules? designated moderate nonattainment, in Rule 4–2–030, Definition 2, as ‘‘all activities * * * conducted on any There are no previous versions of and a portion is designated serious nonattainment for PM–10. facility for the production of crops, Rules 4–2–020, 4–2–030, 4–2–040, or 4– livestock, poultry, livestock products or The following guidance documents 2–050 in the SIP. poultry products.’’ As written, Rule 4– were used for reference: C. What is the purpose of the submitted 2–020, Section B effectively exempts rules? 1. Requirements for Preparation, agricultural activities from the fugitive Adoption, and Submittal of Particulate matter (PM–10) harms dust rules without justification. human health and the environment. Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 2. Rule 4–2–030, Definition 3, defines Section 110(a) of the CAA requires CFR part 51. ‘‘reasonable precaution’’ in highly states to submit regulations that control 2. PM–10 Guideline Document (EPA– general terms. The term ‘‘reasonable PM–10 emissions. Rules 4–2–020, 4–2– 452/R–93–008). precaution’’ is then used in every 030, 4–2–040, and 4–2–050 establish section of Rule 4–2–040, to define what B. Do the rules meet the evaluation requirements that help control PM–10 actions must be taken to mitigate emissions from fugitive dust. EPA’s criteria? fugitive dust emissions from relevant activities. This general requirement is technical support document (TSD) has These rules improve the SIP by more information about these rules. not sufficiently clear or enforceable. establishing more stringent emission 3. Rule 4–2–050 does not contain II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action limits. These rules are largely consistent recordkeeping provisions. The absence with the relevant policy and guidance of these provisions makes the all of the A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP submitted rules difficult to enforce. Generally, SIP rules must be relaxations. Rule provisions which do D. Proposed Action and Public enforceable (see section 110(a) of the not meet the evaluation criteria are Comment CAA), must require reasonably available summarized below and discussed control measures (RACM), including further in the TSD. As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) reasonably available control technology and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing (RACT) in moderate PM–10 a limited approval of the submitted

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60936 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

rules to improve the SIP. If finalized, Moreover, due to the nature of the issue a regulation that has federalism this action would incorporate the Federal-State relationship under the implications, that imposes substantial submitted rules into the SIP, including Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility direct compliance costs, and that is not those provisions identified as deficient. analysis would constitute Federal required by statute, unless the Federal This approval is limited because EPA is inquiry into the economic government provides the funds simultaneously proposing a limited reasonableness of state action. The necessary to pay the direct compliance disapproval of the rules under section Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its costs incurred by State and local 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is actions concerning SIPs on such governments, or EPA consults with finalized, sanctions will be imposed grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. State and local officials early in the under section 179 of the Act unless EPA EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 process of developing the proposed approves subsequent SIP revisions that U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism correct the rule deficiencies within 18 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act months. These sanctions would be implications and that preempts State imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A Under sections 202 of the Unfunded law unless the Agency consults with final disapproval would also trigger the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 State and local officials early in the federal implementation plan (FIP) (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed process of developing the proposed requirement under section 110(c). Note into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must regulation. that the submitted rules have been prepare a budgetary impact statement to This rule will not have substantial adopted by the PCAQCD, and EPA’s accompany any proposed or final rule direct effects on the States, on the final limited disapproval will not that includes a Federal mandate that relationship between the national prevent the local agency from enforcing may result in estimated costs to State, government and the States, or on the them. local, or tribal governments in the distribution of power and We will accept comments from the aggregate; or to the private sector, of responsibilities among the various public on the proposed limited approval $100 million or more. Under section levels of government, as specified in and limited disapproval for the next 30 205, EPA must select the most cost- Executive Order 13132, because it days. effective and least burdensome merely approves a state rule alternative that achieves the objectives implementing a federal standard, and III. Statutory and Executive Order of the rule and is consistent with does not alter the relationship or the Reviews statutory requirements. Section 203 distribution of power and requires EPA to establish a plan for A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory responsibilities established in the Clean informing and advising any small Planning and Review Air Act. Thus, the requirements of governments that may be significantly section 6 of the Executive Order do not The Office of Management and Budget or uniquely impacted by the rule. apply to this rule. (OMB) has exempted this regulatory EPA has determined that the approval action from Executive Order 12866, action proposed does not include a F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Federal mandate that may result in With Indian Tribal Governments Review.’’ estimated costs of $100 million or more Executive Order 13175, entitled to either State, local, or tribal B. Paperwork Reduction Act ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with governments in the aggregate, or to the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR This rule does not impose an private sector. This Federal action 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA information collection burden under the proposes to approve pre-existing to develop an accountable process to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction requirements under State or local law, ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and imposes no new requirements. tribal officials in the development of C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Accordingly, no additional costs to regulatory policies that have tribal State, local, or tribal governments, or to implications.’’ This proposed rule does The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) the private sector, result from this not have tribal implications, as specified generally requires an agency to conduct action. in Executive Order 13175. It will not a regulatory flexibility analysis of any E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism have substantial direct effects on tribal rule subject to notice and comment governments, on the relationship rulemaking requirements unless the Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, between the Federal government and agency certifies that the rule will not 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Indian tribes, or on the distribution of have a significant economic impact on Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 power and responsibilities between the a substantial number of small entities. (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Federal government and Indian tribes. Small entities include small businesses, Partnership). Executive Order 13132 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not small not-for-profit enterprises, and requires EPA to develop an accountable apply to this rule. small governmental jurisdictions. process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and EPA specifically solicits additional This rule will not have a significant timely input by State and local officials comment on this proposed rule from impact on a substantial number of small in the development of regulatory tribal officials. entities because SIP approvals under policies that have federalism section 110 and subchapter I, part D of implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of the Clean Air Act do not create any new federalism implications’’ is defined in Children from Environmental Health requirements but simply approve the Executive Order to include Risks and Safety Risks requirements that the State is already regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Protection of Children from imposing. Therefore, because the effects on the States, on the relationship Environmental Health Risks and Safety Federal SIP approval does not create between the national government and Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), any new requirements, I certify that this the States, or on the distribution of applies to any rule that: (1) Is action will not have a significant power and responsibilities among the determined to be ‘‘economically economic impact on a substantial various levels of government.’’ Under significant’’ as defined under Executive number of small entities. Executive Order 13132, EPA may not Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60937

environmental health or safety risk that ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Regional Office’s normal hours of EPA has reason to believe may have a AGENCY operation. The Regional Office’s official disproportionate effect on children. If hours of business are Monday through the regulatory action meets both criteria, 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal the Agency must evaluate the [EPA–R01–OAR–2006–0226; FRL–8231–7] holidays. environmental health or safety effects of Instructions: Direct your comments to the planned rule on children, and Approval and Promulgation of Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2006– explain why the planned regulation is Implementation Plans and Designation OAR–0226. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in preferable to other potentially effective of Areas for Air Quality Planning the public docket without change and and reasonably feasible alternatives Purposes; Maine; Redesignation of the may be made available online at considered by the Agency. Portland, ME and the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine 8- www.regulations.gov, including any This rule is not subject to Executive Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas to personal information provided, unless Order 13045 because it does not involve Attainment for Ozone the comment includes information decisions intended to mitigate claimed to be Confidential Business environmental health or safety risks. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Information (CBI) or other information Agency (EPA). whose disclosure is restricted by statute. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that ACTION: Proposed rule. Do not submit through Significantly Affect Energy Supply, www.regulations.gov or e-mail, Distribution, or Use SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve: information that you consider to be CBI A request to redesignate two 8-hour or otherwise protected. The This rule is not subject to Executive ozone National Ambient Air Quality www.regulations.gov Web site is an Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment areas ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which Regulations That Significantly Affect to attainment for the 8-hour ozone means EPA will not know your identity Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 NAAQS; and a State Implementation or contact information unless you FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is Plan (SIP) revision containing a separate provide it in the body of your comment. not a significant regulatory action under 10-year maintenance plan for each area. If you send an e-mail comment directly Executive Order 12866. The two areas are the Portland, Maine to EPA without going through I. National Technology Transfer and 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and www.regulations.gov, your e-mail Advancement Act the Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo address will be automatically captured Counties (Midcoast), Maine 8-hour and included as part of the comment Section 12 of the National Technology ozone nonattainment area. EPA is also that is placed in the public docket and Transfer and Advancement Act providing information on the status of made available on the Internet. If you (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal its transportation conformity adequacy submit an electronic comment, EPA agencies to evaluate existing technical determination for the new motor vehicle recommends that you include your standards when developing a new emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year name and other contact information in regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 2016 that are contained in the 10-year the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for cannot read your comment due to consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available each area. EPA is proposing to approve MVEBs for both areas. technical difficulties and cannot contact and applicable when developing DATES: Written comments must be you for clarification, EPA may not be programs and policies unless doing so able to consider your comment. would be inconsistent with applicable received on or before November 16, 2006. Electronic files should avoid the use of law or otherwise impractical. special characters, any form of The EPA believes that VCS are ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, encryption, and be free of any defects or inapplicable to this action. Today’s identified by Docket ID Number EPA– viruses. For additional information action does not require the public to R01–OAR–2006–OAR–0226 by one of about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA the following methods: perform activities conducive to the use Docket Center homepage at http:// 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the of VCS. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. on-line instructions for submitting Docket: All documents in the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 comments. electronic docket are listed in the 2. E-mail: [email protected]. www.regulations.gov index. Although Environmental protection, Air 3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. listed in the index, some information is pollution control, Intergovernmental 4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other relations, Particulate matter, Reporting Number EPA–R01–OAR–2006–OAR– information whose disclosure is and recordkeeping requirements. 0226’’, Anne Arnold, U.S. restricted by statute. Certain other Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA material, such as copyrighted material, New England Regional Office, One is not placed on the Internet and will be Dated: September 14, 2006. Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code publicly available only in hard copy Wayne Nastri, CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. form. Publicly available docket Regional Administrator, Region IX. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver materials are available either [FR Doc. E6–17233 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] your comments to: Anne Arnold, electronically in www.regulations.gov or BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, in hard copy at Air Quality Planning Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, One EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023. Such Boston, MA 02114–2023. EPA requests deliveries are only accepted during the that if at all possible, you contact the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60938 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

person listed in the FOR FURTHER the Midcoast, Maine 8-hour ozone upon their 8-hour design values. The INFORMATION CONTACT section to nonattainment areas have attained the 8- Portland and Midcoast areas were schedule your inspection. The Regional hour ozone standard. EPA is also designated as 8-hour ozone Office’s official hours of business are proposing to approve a request to nonattainment areas by EPA on April Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, change the legal designation of the two 30, 2004, (69 FR 23857). The 2004 excluding legal holidays. areas from nonattainment to attainment classification for the Portland 8-hour FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient ozone nonattainment area is based on Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In air quality monitoring data from 2001– Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental addition, EPA is proposing to approve a 2003. The Portland area is classified as 10-year maintenance plan for each area Protection Agency, EPA New England marginal. The 2004 classification for the and motor vehicle emissions budgets Regional Office, One Congress Street, Midcoast 8-hour ozone nonattainment (MVEBs) for each area. Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114– area is also based on air quality 2023, telephone number (617) 918– The Portland nonattainment area is located in southern Maine. The Portland monitoring data from 2001–2003. The 1664, fax number (617) 918–0664, e- Midcoast area is classified as subpart 1, mail [email protected]. nonattainment area consists of 57 coastal towns and cities located in York basic. General Information County (partial), Cumberland County Control requirements are linked to A. How Can I Get Copies of This (partial), Sagadahoc County (full) along each classification. Areas with more Document and Other Related with Durham, Maine, a town in serious ozone pollution are subject to Information? Androscoggin County. The Portland more prescribed requirements. The area is designated as ‘‘marginal’’ requirements are designed to bring areas In addition to the publicly available nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone docket materials available for inspection into attainment by their specified standard. (See 40 CFR 81.320) The attainment dates. The control electronically in the Federal Docket Midcoast area is located north of the requirements and dates by which Management System at Portland area and consists of 55 coastal attainment needs to be achieved vary www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy towns and islands in Hancock, Knox, available at the Regional Office, which Lincoln, and Waldo Counties (all are with the area’s classification. For are identified in the ADDRESSES section partial Counties), and is designated as example, marginal areas are subject to of this Federal Register, copies of the ‘‘subpart 1, basic’’ for the 8-hour ozone the fewest mandated control state submittal and EPA’s technical standard. (See 40 CFR 81.320) requirements and have the earliest support document are also available for attainment date. Under EPA regulations public inspection during normal II. What Is the Background for These at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone business hours, by appointment at the Proposed Actions? standard is attained when the 3-year State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air The CAA required EPA to designate average of the annual fourth-highest Quality Control, Department of as nonattainment any area that was daily maximum 8-hour average ozone Environmental Protection, First Floor of violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS concentrations is less than or equal to the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental based on the three most recent years 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm). (See 69 FR Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME (2001–2003) of air quality data. The 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further 04333–0017. Federal Register notice making these information.) The data completeness SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: designations was signed on April 15, requirement is met when the average 2004, and published on April 30, 2004, percent of days with valid ambient Table of Contents (69 FR 23857). The CAA contains two monitoring data is greater than 90%, I. What is EPA Proposing? sets of provisions—subpart 1 and II. What is the Background for These subpart 2— that address planning and and no single year has less than 75% Proposed Actions? control requirements for nonattainment data completeness as determined in III. What are the Criteria for Redesignation to Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. Attainment? areas. (Both are found in Title I, Part D IV. Why is EPA Taking These Actions? of the CAA.) Subpart 1 (which EPA On August 3, 2006, Maine requested V. What Would Be the Effect of These refers to as ‘‘basic’’ nonattainment) redesignation to attainment for the 8- Actions? contains general, less prescriptive, hour ozone standard for the both areas. VI. What is EPA’s Analysis of the Portland requirements for nonattainment areas The redesignation request includes Redesignation Request? for any pollutant—including ozone— three years of complete, quality-assured VII. How are MVEBs Developed and What is governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 data for the period of 2003 through an Adequacy Determination? (which EPA refers to as ‘‘classified’’ VIII. What is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy 2005, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for Determination for the Portland Area’s nonattainment) provides more specific ozone had been achieved for the both MVEBs for the Year 2016? requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The data satisfies the CAA IX. What is EPA’s Analysis of the Midcoast areas. Some areas are subject only to the requirements when the 3-year average of provisions of subpart 1. Other areas are Redesignation Request? the annual fourth-highest daily X. What is the Status of EPA’s Adequacy also subject to the provisions of subpart maximum 8-hour average ozone Determination for the Midcoast Area’s 2. Under EPA’s 8-hour ozone MVEBs for the Year 2016? implementation rule, signed on April concentration is less than or equal to XI. Proposed Actions on Maine’s 15, 2004, an area was classified under 0.08 ppm. Under the CAA, Redesignation Requests, 175 nonattainment areas may be Maintenance Plans, and Associated subpart 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average redesignated to attainment if sufficient MVEBs. complete, quality-assured data is XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- hour average ozone concentration), if it available for the Administrator to I. What Is EPA Proposing? had a 1-hour design value at or above determine that the area has attained the EPA is proposing to take several 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design standard and the area meets the other related actions. EPA is proposing to value in Table 1 of subpart 2). All other CAA redesignation requirements in determine that both the Portland and areas are covered under subpart 1, based section 107(d)(3)(E).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60939

III. What Are the Criteria for Carbon Monoxide (CO) areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS Redesignation to Attainment? Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum found at 40 CFR 81.320. It would also The CAA provides the requirements from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/ incorporate into the Maine SIP plans for for redesignating a nonattainment area Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to attainment. Specifically, section August 17, 1993; through 2016, for both areas. The 107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation —‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance plans include contingency providing that: Requirements for Areas Submitting measures to remedy future violations of (1) EPA determines that the area has Requests for Redesignation to the 8-hour NAAQS. In addition MVEBs attained the applicable NAAQS; Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon are established for the year 2016. The (2) EPA has fully approved the Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air MVEBs will be used to assure that plans applicable implementation plan for the Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or for the area’s transportation system After November 15, 1992,’’ area under section 110(k); which effect vehicle miles traveled, do Memorandum from Michael H. (3) EPA determines that the not cause motor vehicle emissions in Shapiro, Acting Assistant improvement in air quality is due to excess of levels consistent with Administrator for Air and Radiation, permanent and enforceable reductions maintaining attainment of the NAAQS. in emissions resulting from September 17, 1993; implementation of the applicable SIP —Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the and applicable Federal air pollutant Acting Director, Air Quality Portland Redesignation Request? control regulations and other permanent Management Division, to Air Division and enforceable reductions; Directors, Regions 1–10, ‘‘Use of EPA is proposing to determine that (4) EPA has fully approved a Actual Emissions in Maintenance the Portland nonattainment area has maintenance plan for the area as Demonstrations for Ozone and CO attained the 8-hour ozone standard and meeting the requirements of section Nonattainment Areas,’’ dated that all other redesignation criteria have 175A; and, November 30, 1993; been met. The basis for EPA’s proposed (5) The state containing such area has —‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D determination is as outlined below. met all requirements applicable to the NSR) Requirements for Areas area under section 110 and part D. Requesting Redesignation to A. The Portland Area Has Attained the EPA provided guidance on Attainment,’’ Memorandum from 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS redesignation in the General Preamble Mary D. Nichols, Assistant EPA is proposing to determine that for the Implementation of Title I of the Administrator for Air and Radiation, the Portland area has attained the 8- CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, October 14, 1994; and hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented —‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR Attainment Demonstration, and is attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if 18070). EPA has provided further Related Requirements for Ozone there are no violations, as determined in guidance on processing redesignation Nonattainment Areas Meeting the accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and requests in the following documents: Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Appendix I, based on three complete, —‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Standard,’’ Memorandum from John consecutive calendar years of quality- Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air assured air quality monitoring data. To from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990; Quality Planning and Standards, May attain this standard, the 3-year average —‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 10, 1995. of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8- hour average ozone concentrations of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide IV. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum measured at each monitor within an from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/ On August 3, 2006,1 the state area over each year must not exceed Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, requested redesignation of the both the 0.08 ppm. This 3-year average is known April 30, 1992; Portland, Maine and the Midcoast, as the design value. Based on the —‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment rounding convention described in 40 and Carbon Monoxide (CO) areas to attainment for the 8-hour ozone CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from standard. EPA believes that both areas is attained if the design value is 0.084 G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon have attained the standard and have met ppm or below. The data must be Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, the requirements for redesignation set collected and quality-assured in 1992; forth in section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA is accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and —‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests proposing to approve the maintenance recorded in EPA’s Air Quality Data to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ plans to fulfill the requirements of System (AQS). The monitors generally Memorandum from John Calcagni, section 175(A). EPA is also proposing to should have remained at the same Director, Air Quality Management approve the MVEB’s for these two areas. location for the duration of the Division, September 4, 1992; EPA has previously determined that the monitoring period required for —‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 2016 budgets are adequate. demonstrating attainment. Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’ V. What Would Be the Effect of These Maine submitted ozone monitoring Memorandum from John Calcagni, Actions? data for the April through September Director, Air Quality Management Approval of the redesignation request ozone season from 2003 to 2005. This Division, October 28, 1992; would change the official designation of data has been quality assured and is —‘‘Technical Support Documents both the Portland and the Midcoast, recorded in AQS. The data are (TSD’s) for Redesignation Ozone and Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment summarized in Table 1:

1 The ME DEP submitted the redesignation the public hearing transcript, which was not public transcript on August 30, 2006. The transcript request on August 3, 2006. The submittal showed available at that time. The ME DEP submitted the is available in the docket for this action. evidence of a public hearing, but did not include

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60940 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—8-HOUR OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION, PPM) FOR THE PORTLAND AREA

4th High 8-hr ozone average 3-Year aver- Monitor County age 2003 2004 2005 (design value)

Kittery ...... York ...... 0.080 0.080 0.072 0.077 Kennebunkport ...... York ...... 0.076 0.076 0.072 0.074 West Buxton...... York ...... 0.069 0.075 0.076 0.073 Cape Elizabeth...... Cumberland ...... 0.073 0.068 0.073 0.072 Reid State Park...... Sagadahoc ...... 0.074 0.069 0.068 0.070 Area Design Value ...... 0.077

The design value for an area is the Under this interpretation, to qualify for sources in a state from significantly highest design value recorded at any redesignation, states requesting contributing to air quality problems in monitor in the area. Therefore, as shown redesignation to attainment must meet another state. To implement this in Table 1, the design value for the the relevant CAA requirements that provision, EPA has required certain Portland area is 0.077 ppm, which come due prior to the submittal of a states to establish programs to address meets the standard as described above. complete redesignation request. See also transport of air pollutants in accordance Preliminary ozone data for the summer Michael Shapiro memorandum, with the NOX SIP call, October 27, 1998 of 2006 still show the area as being in September 17, 1993 and 60 FR 12459, (63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX attainment. 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) In addition, as discussed below with (redesignation of Detroit—Ann Arbor, and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and respect to the maintenance plan, Maine MI). Applicable requirements of the the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), has committed to continue monitoring CAA that come due subsequent to the May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25161). However, in these areas in accordance with 40 area’s submittal of a complete the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for CFR Part 58. In summary, EPA believes redesignation request remain applicable a state are not linked with a particular that the data submitted by Maine until a redesignation is approved, but nonattainment area’s designation and provides an adequate demonstration are not required as a prerequisite to classification in that state. EPA believes that the Portland area has attained the redesignation. Section 175A (c) of the that the requirements linked with a 8-hour ozone NAAQS. CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 particular nonattainment area’s (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424 designation and classification are the B. The Portland Area Has Met All (May 12, 2003). relevant measures to evaluate in Applicable Requirements for Purposes reviewing a redesignation request. The of Redesignation Under Section 110 and 1. Section 110 General SIP transport SIP submittal requirements, Part D of the CAA and the Area Has a Requirements where applicable, continue to apply to Fully Approved SIP Under Section Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA a state regardless of the designation of 110(k) for Purposes of Redesignation delineates the general requirements for any one particular area in the state. EPA has determined that Maine has a SIP, which include enforceable Thus, we do not believe that these met all applicable SIP requirements for emission limitations and other control requirements should be construed to be the Portland area for purposes of measures, means, or techniques, applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the provisions for the establishment and redesignation. In addition, EPA believes CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA operation of appropriate devices that the other section 110 elements not has also determined that the Maine SIP necessary to collect data on ambient air connected with nonattainment plan meets applicable SIP requirements for quality, and programs to enforce the submissions and not linked with an purposes of redesignation under Part D limitations. General SIP elements and area’s attainment status are not of Title I of the CAA (requirements requirements are delineated in section applicable requirements for purposes of specific to marginal nonattainment 110(a)(2) of Title I, part A of the CAA. redesignation. The State will still be areas, see section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)). In These requirements include, but are not subject to these requirements after the addition, EPA has determined that the limited to, the following: Submittal of a area is redesignated. The section 110 Maine SIP is fully approved with SIP that has been adopted by the state and part D requirements which are respect to all applicable requirements after reasonable public notice and linked with a particular area’s for purposes of redesignation (see hearing; provisions for establishment designation and classification are the section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). In making these and operation of appropriate procedures relevant measures to evaluate in determinations, EPA ascertained what needed to monitor ambient air quality; reviewing a redesignation request. This requirements are applicable to the area implementation of a source permit policy is consistent with EPA’s existing and that they are fully approved under program; provisions for the conformity and oxygenated fuels section 110(k). SIPs must be fully implementation of part C requirement requirements, as well as with section approved only with respect to (Prevention of Significant Deterioration 184 ozone transport requirements. See applicable requirements. (PSD) and provisions for the Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and The September 4, 1992 Calcagni implementation of part D requirements final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for (New Source Review (NSR) permit October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, Processing Requests to Redesignate programs); provisions for air pollution 1997); Cleveland–Akron–Lorain, Ohio, Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum modeling; and provisions for public and final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, from John Calcagni, Director, Air local agency participation in planning 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final Quality Management Division, and emission control rule development. rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). contain certain measures to prevent issue in the Cincinnati redesignation (65

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60941

FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the For purposes of evaluating this and Vehicle Inspection and Pittsburgh redesignation (66 FR 50399, redesignation request, the applicable Maintenance (I/M) programs even after October 19, 2001). part D, subpart 1 requirements for all redesignation. Second, the section 184 EPA believes that section 110 nonattainment areas are contained in control measures are region-wide elements not linked to the area’s section 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough requirements and do not apply to the nonattainment status are not applicable discussion of the requirements area by virtue of its designation and for purposes of redesignation. Any contained in section 172 can be found classification. See 61 FR 53174, 53175– section 110 requirements that are linked in the General Preamble for 53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR to the Part D requirements for 8-hour Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). 24826, 24830–32 (May 7, 1997). Thus, ozone nonattainment areas are not yet (See also 68 FR 4852–3 in St. Louis NPR EPA proposes to find that the Portland due, since, as explained below, no Part for discussion of section 172 area has satisfied all 8-hour ozone D requirements applicable for purposes requirements.) In addition to the fact standard requirements applicable for of redesignation under the 8-hour that certain Part D requirements purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) under standard became due prior to applicable for purposes of redesignation Part D of the CAA. did not become due prior to submission submission of the redesignation request, 3. Part D Nonattainment Area of the redesignation request, EPA except for the submission of the 2002 Requirements Under the 1-Hour believes it is reasonable to interpret the base year inventory, which Maine has Standard and EPA’s Anti-Backsliding conformity, new source review submitted and EPA has approved (71 FR Rules 14815; March 24, 2006). Therefore EPA requirements, and OTR requirements as Prior to its designation as an 8-hour believes that the State has satisfied the not requiring approval prior to ozone nonattainment area, the Portland criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation. area was designated moderate for the 1- regarding section 110 of the Act. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and hour ozone standard. While, on June 15, 2. Part D Nonattainment Area procedures to ensure the federally 2005, the 1-hour ozone standard was Requirements under the 8-Hour supported or funded projects conform to revoked (see 40 CFR 50.9(b)), under Standard the air quality planning goals in the EPA’s anti-backsliding rules, areas designated nonattainment for the 1-hour The Portland area was designated a applicable SIP. The requirement to standard at the time of the 8-hour ozone marginal nonattainment area for the 8- determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and designations remained subject to certain hour ozone standard. Sections 172–176 projects developed, funded or approved control measures that applied by virtue of the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal of the area’s classification for the 1-hour D, set forth the basic nonattainment Transit Act (‘‘transportation NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.900 et seq., see also requirements for all nonattainment conformity’’) as well as to all other 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005). The areas. Section 182 of the CAA, found in Federally supported or funded projects applicable Part D 1-hour standard subpart 2 of Part D, establishes (‘‘general conformity’’). State conformity requirements for purposes of additional specific requirements revisions must be consistent with redesignation are those that continue to depending on the area’s nonattainment Federal conformity regulations relating apply under EPA’s anti-backsliding classification. For a marginal to consultation, enforcement, and rules, which were promulgated in nonattainment area for the 8-hour enforceability that the CAA required the conjunction with the implementation of standard, such as the Portland area, EPA to promulgate. the 8-hour NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.900 et section 182(a) sets forth requirements. EPA believes it is reasonable to seq., as amended 70 FR 30592, 30604 Section 184 also sets forth additional interpret the conformity SIP (May 26, 2005). requirements for this area, due to its requirements as not applying for 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribes the 1- location within the Ozone Transport purposes of evaluating the redesignation hour NAAQS requirements that Region (OTR). request under section 107(d) because continue to apply after revocation of the With respect to the 8-hour standard, state conformity rules are still required 1-hour NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone EPA has to determined that the Maine after redesignation and Federal nonattainment areas. Section SIP meets all applicable SIP conformity rules apply where state rules 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that: requirements under Part D of the CAA, have not been approved. See Wall v. ‘‘The area remains subject to the because no 8-hour ozone standard Part EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), obligation to adopt and implement the D requirements applicable for purposes upholding this interpretation. See also applicable requirements as defined in of redesignation became due prior to 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) section 51.900(f), except as provided in submission of the area’s redesignation (Tampa, FL). paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, and request, except for the submission of the Maine has a fully approved NSR except as provided in paragraph (b) of 2002 base year inventory, which Maine program (61 FR 5690; Februrary 14, this section * * *.’’ Section 51.900(f), has submitted and EPA has approved 1996). Even if Maine did not have a as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 (71 FR 14815; March 24, 2006). Under fully approved NSR program, EPA has (May 26, 2005), states that: ‘‘Applicable part D, an area’s classification (marginal, interpreted the section 184 OTR Requirements means for an area the moderate, serious, severe, and extreme) requirements, including NSR, as not following requirements to the extent indicates the requirements to which it being applicable for purposes of such requirements apply or applied to will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, redesignation. The rationale for this is the area for the area’s classification found in sections 172–176 of the CAA, based on two factors. First, the under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for sets forth the basic nonattainment requirement to submit SIP revisions for the 1-hour NAAQS at the time the requirements applicable to all the section 184 requirements continues Administrator signs a final rule nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part to apply to areas in the OTR after designating the area for the 8-hour D, found in section 182 of the CAA, redesignation to attainment. Therefore, standard as nonattainment, attainment, establishes additional specific the State remains obligated to have New or unclassifiable.’’ For a former 1-hour requirements depending on the area’s Source Review, as well as reasonably moderate area, such as Portland, the nonattainment classification. available control requirements (RACT) applicable requirements are as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60942 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(1) Reasonably available control (6) Attainment demonstration or an met all applicable Part D requirements technology (RACT); alternative as provided under under the 1-hour standard for purposes (2) Inspection and maintenance § 51.905(a)(1)(ii). of redesignation under the 8-hour programs (I/M); standard. In addition, Table 2a lists (3) Major source applicability cut-offs Table 2 lists the control measures, effective in the Portland area. The table other programs Maine has implemented for purposes of RACT; to address emissions of ozone (4) Rate of Progress (ROP) Reductions; shows how the applicable requirements precursors. (5) NOX requirements under section have been met for the Portland area. 182(f) of the CAA; and Thus, EPA believes that Portland has

TABLE 2.—CONTROL MEASURES IN THE PORTLAND OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

Name of measure Type of measure Approval status

On-board refueling vapor recovery ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86. Federal motor vehicle control program ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86. Federal non-road heavy duty diesel engines ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 89. Federal non-road gasoline engines ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 90. Automotive refinishing ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 59, subpart B. Consumer & commercial products ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. AIM Surface Coatings ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 59, subpart D. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (62 FR 9081; 2/28/97). ment. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (71 FR 14815; 3/24/06). ment. 1-Hour Emissions Statements ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (60 FR 2524; 1/10/95). ment. 5% Reduction Plan in Lieu of 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (71 FR 14815, 3/24/06). Demonstration. ment. 15% VOC Reduction Plan ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (71 FR 14815, 3/24/06). ment. VOC RACT pursuant to sections 182(a)(2)(A) and Section 182 CAA Require- SIPs approved (57 FR 3046; 2/13/92), (58 FR 15281; 182(b)(2)(B) of CAA. ment. 3/22/93), (59 FR 31154; 6/17/94), (60 FR 33730; 6/ 29/95). VOC RACT pursuant to sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of Section 182 CAA Require- SIPs approved (65 FR 20749; 4/18/00), (67 FR 35439; CAA. ment. 5/20/02). NOX RACT ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (67 FR 57154; 9/9/02). ment.

TABLE 2A.—NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM AND OTHER CLEAN AIR ACT PROGRAMS IN THE PORTLAND OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

Name of measure Type of measure Approval status

New Source Review ...... CAA Requirement ...... SIP approved (61 FR 5690; 2/14/96). Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program ...... Ozone Transport Region SIP approved (66 FR 1871; 1/10/01). Requirement. Stage II Vapor Recovery ...... Ozone Transport Region SIP approved (61 FR 53636; 10/15/96). Requirement. Low RVP Gasoline ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (67 FR 10099; 3/6/02). Solvent Cleaners ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 30367; 05/26/05). NOX Control Program ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 11879; 03/10/05). Emissions from Smaller-Scale Electric Generating Re- State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 30373; 05/26/05). sources. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings State Initiative ...... SIP approved (71 FR 13767; 03/17/06). Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 61382; 10/24/05). from Consumer Products. Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 30367; 05/26/05). Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 6352; 02/07/05).

4. The Portland Area has a Fully p. 3 Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth the various SIP elements applicable in Approved Applicable SIP for Purposes Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989– the Portland area under the 1-hour of Redesignation under Section 110(k) 90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d standard (see Table 2). of the CAA 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus any additional As indicated above, EPA believes that measures it may approve in conjunction the section 110 elements not connected EPA has fully approved the applicable with a redesignation action. See 68 FR with nonattainment plan submissions Maine SIP for purposes of redesignation 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations and not linked to the area’s for the Portland area under section therein. Following passage of the CAA nonattainment status are not applicable 110(k) of the CAA. EPA may rely on of 1970, Maine has adopted and requirements for purposes of prior SIP approvals in approving a submitted and EPA has fully approved redesignation. EPA also believes that no redesignation request. Calcagni Memo, at various times provisions addressing 8-hour Part D requirements applicable

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60943

for purposes of redesignation have yet seasons has not been unfavorable to 2. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the become due, except for the submission ozone formation. In short, the air quality Portland Maintenance Plan? of the 2002 base year inventory, which improvement in the Portland area is due (a) Attainment Emissions Inventory— Maine has submitted and EPA has to permanent and enforceable Maine selected 2005 as the attainment approved (71 FR 14815 (March 24, reductions in emissions resulting from year for purposes of demonstrating 2006)), and therefore they need not be implementation of the SIP and attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. approved into SIP prior to applicable federal air pollution control The 2005 VOC and NO emission redesignation. X regulations and other permanent and estimates for the Portland area were C. The Air Quality Improvement in the enforceable reductions, not favorable developed consistent with EPA Portland Area Is Due to Permanent and meteorology. Therefore, EPA finds this guidance and are summarized in Table Enforceable Reductions in Emissions requirement is met for the Portland area. 3 below. Point source emissions were Resulting From Implementation of the obtained using 2004 data collected D. The Portland Area Has a Fully SIP and Applicable Federal Air pursuant to Maine’s Chapter 137 Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant Pollution Control Regulations and Other Emission Statement regulation; to Section 175A of the CAA Permanent and Enforceable Reductions projections were made to 2005, 2009, EPA believes that the state has In conjunction with its request to and 2016 using economic-based growth demonstrated that the observed air redesignate the Portland nonattainment factors. Non-road mobile emissions quality improvement in the Portland area to attainment status, Maine were calculated using the most recent area is due to permanent and submitted a SIP revision to provide for NONROAD Model. On-road mobile enforceable reductions in emissions the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone source emissions were calculated using resulting from implementation of the NAAQS in the Portland area for at least MOBILE 6.2 for 2005, 2009, and 2016. SIP, Federal measures, and other state- 10 years after redesignation. Area source emissions for 2002 were adopted measures. EPA approved derived from Maine DEP’s submittal Maine’s SIP control strategy for the 1. What Is Required in a Maintenance made to the EPA’s national emissions Portland area, including rules and the Plan? inventory (NEI) for 2002, and modified emission reductions achieved as a result as described in support material of those rules that are enforceable. Section 175A of the CAA sets forth submitted by Maine DEP to EPA. The Several Federal and statewide rules are the elements of a maintenance plan for 2002 area emissions were then projected in place which have improved the areas seeking redesignation from to 2005, 2009, and 2016. ambient air quality in this area. (See nonattainment to attainment. Under (b) Maintenance demonstration— Tables 2 and 2a above for a list of section 175A, the plan must Maine’s August 3, 2006 SIP submittal control measures and other CAA demonstrate continued attainment of includes a 10-year maintenance plan for requirements.) The emission inventories the applicable NAAQS for at least ten the Portland area as required by section for the Portland area show that between years after the Administrator approves a 175A of the Act. This demonstration 2002 (the ozone season for which the redesignation to attainment. Eight years shows compliance and maintenance of area was classified) and 2005 (the year after the redesignation, the State must the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring the area came into attainment), VOC submit a revised maintenance plan that current and future emissions of emissions were reduced by over 10 tons which demonstrates that attainment will VOC and NOX remain at or below per summer day and NOX emissions continue to be maintained for the ten attainment year emission levels. A were reduced by over 19 tons per years following the initial ten-year maintenance demonstration need not be summer day. Ozone precursor emissions period. To address the possibility of based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, were also reduced in upwind states. future NAAQS violations, the 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club The Maine submittal discusses the maintenance plan must contain such v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). meteorological data for the years 2003, contingency measures, with a schedule See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 2004 and 2005, and for many of the for implementation as EPA deems (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25430–25432 years leading up to 2003. The Maine necessary to assure prompt correction of (May 12, 2003). submittal has numerous graphs and any future 8-hour ozone violations. Maine used 2005 as the base year, charts of ozone data, ozone precursor Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the 2009 was chosen as the interim year and data, and meteorological data for the elements of a maintenance plan for 2016 is the ‘‘out year,’’ which as Portland area. These data all support the areas seeking redesignation from required, is at least 10 years after the claim that the downward trend in ozone nonattainment to attainment. The time necessary for EPA to review and data is not due to favorable meteorology, Calcagni memorandum dated September approve the maintenance plan. (In but is due to permanent and enforceable 4, 1992, provides additional guidance addition, per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB reductions in ozone precursor on the content of a maintenance plan. must be established for the last year of emissions, both within the state and An ozone maintenance plan should the maintenance plan. MVEBs are upwind from the state. EPA agrees with address the following provisions: discussed in Section VII below.) Table Maine’s analysis on ozone trends. EPA 3 shows the emissions inventories for agrees the downward trend in ozone in (a) An attainment emissions 2005, 2009 and 2016, for the Portland Maine has been occurring for several inventory; area. The emissions inventory shows a ozone seasons. The meteorology for the (b) A maintenance demonstration; downward trend in precursor emissions Portland area shows that for some of (c) A monitoring network; data from 2005, through 2009 and these ozone seasons the summers have continuing on until 2016. The decreases been warmer than average, while others (d) Verification of continued in emissions are a requirement of a have been cooler than average, but the attainment; and maintenance plan. Maine has fulfilled weather over the past several ozone (e) A contingency plan. this requirement.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60944 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3.—ATTAINMENT (2005), INTERIM (2009) AND MAINTENANCE (2016) INVENTORIES FOR THE PORTLAND NONATTAINMENT AREA (3 COUNTIES) 1 [All emissions expressed in tons per summer week day]

2009 2009 2016 2016 Category Subcategory 2005 2005 VOC NOX VOC NOX NOX NOX

Point ...... 4.220 10.480 4.540 11.140 5.350 12.990 Area ...... 41.557 6.301 42.579 6.491 47.331 6.723 Mobile ...... Onroad 2 ...... 27.033 55.328 20.018 38.849 13.243 19.078 Mobile ...... Nonroad ...... 20.592 12.020 17.917 10.170 15.560 6.801 Mobile ...... Locomotives ...... 0.030 0.849 0.027 0.747 0.024 0.620

Total ...... 93.432 84.978 85.081 67.397 81.508 46.212

Change in emissions from 2005 ...... ¥8.351 ¥17.581 ¥11.924 ¥38.766

1 The emissions in the table are based on an inventory for three entire counties (Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York Counties) rather than the somewhat smaller 57 town Portland nonattainment area. EPA believes it is reasonable to use countywide inventories for the purpose of this re- designation demonstration even though the nonattainment area itself includes the 57 towns in these three counties nearest the coast. The Agen- cy concludes that the distribution of emissions for each source category across the counties will generally track population, which is highest along the coast. Therefore, the declining emissions trends reflected in this table for the three entire counties should generally be true for 57 town nonattainment area as well. 2 To provide a consistent comparison with the other source categories, the mobile onroad inventory numbers are based on an inventory for three entire counties (Cumberland, Sagadahoc and York Counties) and are therefore larger than motor vehicle emissions calculated for the 57 town Portland nonattainment area shown in Table 4.

(c) Monitoring Network—There are state will promptly correct a violation of in this section, or substitute a new VOC currently 5 monitors measuring ozone the NAAQS that occurs after or NOX control measure(s) to achieve in the Portland area. The State of Maine redesignation. The maintenance plan additional in-state emissions reductions. has committed in the maintenance plan should identify the contingency The contingency measures(s) will be to the necessary continued operation of measures to be adopted, a schedule and selected by the Governor or the the ozone monitoring network in procedure for adoption and Governor’s designee within 6 months of compliance with 40 CFR Part 58, and implementation, and a time limit for the end of the ozone season for which has, therefore, addressed the action by the state. The state should also contingency measures have been requirement for continued ozone identify specific indicators to be used to determined necessary. Possible monitoring in this area. determine when the contingency contingency measures include: (d) Verification of Continued measures need to be implemented. The Attainment—The state has the legal maintenance plan must include a Adhesives authority to enforce and implement the requirement that the state will requirements of the ozone maintenance implement all measures with respect to Establish VOC content limits for plan. This includes the authority to control of the pollutant that were industrial and commercial application adopt, implement and enforce any contained in the SIP before of solvent-based adhesives and sealants subsequent emission control redesignation of the area to attainment based on California Air Resources Board contingency measures determined to be (see section 175A(d)). (CARB) suggested RACT controls (1998). necessary to correct future ozone As stated in the Portland area Asphalt Paving attainment problems. To implement the maintenance plan, the Maine DEP has ozone maintenance plan, the state will committed to the following procedure. Reduce the VOC content limit for continue to monitor ozone levels in the At the conclusion of each ozone season, cutback asphalt from 5% to 4%, and area. Maine has also committed to track the Maine DEP will evaluate whether lower current VOC content limits for the progress of the maintenance the design value for the Portland area is emulsified asphalt by 20%. demonstration by periodically updating above or below the 8-hour ozone their emission inventory. Maine has standard. If the design value is above Automobile Refinish Coatings committed to do this annually. The the standard, the DEP will evaluate the Adopt the VOC content limits update will be based, in part, on the potential causes of this design value contained in the Bay Area Air Quality annual update of the NEI, and will increase. The DEP will examine whether Management District (BAAQMD) indicate new source growth and other this increase is due to an increase in regulations. changes from the attainment inventory, local in-state emissions or an increase in including changes in vehicle miles upwind out-of-state emissions. If an Consumer Products traveled or in traffic patterns and increase in in-state emissions is changes in MOBILE6.2 or its successor. determined to be a contributing factor to Adopt and implement the July 20, (e) The Maintenance Plan’s the design value increase, Maine will 2005 CARB regulations. These Contingency Measures—The evaluate the projected in-state emissions regulations include emission limits for contingency plan provisions are for the Portland area for the ozone additional consumer product categories designed to promptly correct a violation season in the following year. If in-state that are not included in Maine’s existing of the NAAQS that occurs after emissions are not expected to Chapter 151 consumer products rule. redesignation. Section 175A of the Act satisfactorily decrease in the following Rule Effectiveness Improvement requires that a maintenance plan ozone season in order to mitigate the include such contingency measures as violation, Maine will implement one or Increase enforcement of existing rules EPA deems necessary to assure that the more of the contingency measures listed in order to increase rule effectiveness.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60945

Small Source Non-CTG VOC RACT construction of new highways, must public comment on EPA’s adequacy ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) Reduce the major source and Chapter web page on August 8, 2006, at: http:// the part of the state’s air quality plan 134 non-CTG VOC RACT applicability www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/ that addresses pollution from cars and threshold from 40 to 10 tons per year of currsips.htm. The EPA public comment trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means actual emissions. period on adequacy of the 2016 MVEBs that transportation activities will not The Portland area maintenance plan for the Portland area closed on cause new air quality violations, worsen adequately addresses the five basic September 7, 2006. EPA did not receive existing violations, or delay timely any adverse comments. EPA New components of a maintenance plan: attainment of the national ambient air Attainment inventory; maintenance England sent a letter to the Maine quality standards. If a transportation Department of Environmental Protection demonstration; monitoring network; plan does not ‘‘conform,’’ most new verification of continued attainment; on September 8, 2006, stating that the projects that would expand the capacity 2016 MOBILE 6.2 motor vehicle and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA of roadways cannot go forward. believes that the maintenance plan SIP emissions budgets in the August 3, 2006 Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth SIP submittal are adequate. revision submitted by Maine for the EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for Portland area meets the requirements of demonstrating and assuring conformity Additionally, EPA through this section 175A of the Act. of such transportation activities to a SIP. rulemaking is proposing to approve those MVEBs for use in determining VII. How are MVEBs Developed and When reviewing submitted ‘‘control transportation conformity because EPA What is an Adequacy Determination? strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA must has determined that the area maintains Under the CAA, states are required to affirmatively find the MVEB budget the standard with emissions at the submit, at various times, control strategy contained therein ‘‘adequate’’ for use in levels of the budgets. The Maine DEP SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone determining transportation conformity. utilized the MOBILE 6.2 model to areas. These control strategy SIPs (e.g. Once EPA affirmatively finds the calculate on-road emissions of VOC and reasonable further progress SIPs and submitted MVEB is adequate for NOX for the 57 towns in York, attainment demonstration SIPs) and transportation conformity purposes, that Cumberland, Sagadahoc and maintenance plans create MVEBs for MVEB can be used by state and federal Androscoggin County comprising the 8- criteria pollutants and/or their agencies in determining whether hour nonattainment area. Maine is precursors to address pollution from proposed transportation projects establishing motor vehicle emissions cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a ‘‘conform’’ to the SIP as required by budgets for the last year of the Portland MVEB is established for the last year of section 176(c) of the Act. EPA’s 8-hour ozone maintenance plan (year the maintenance plan. The MVEB is the substantive criteria for determining 2016) at 16.659 tons per summer portion of the total allowable emissions ‘‘adequacy’’ of an MVEB are set out in weekday (tpswd) of VOC and 32.837 that is allocated to highway and transit 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). tpswd of NOX. These on-road mobile vehicle use and emissions. The MVEB source emissions when added to serves as a ceiling on emissions from an VIII. What is the Status of EPA’s emissions from all other inventory area’s planned transportation system. Adequacy Determination for the sources (stationary, other mobile (i.e., The MVEB concept is further explained Portland Area’s MVEB for the Year non-road, marine vessels, airplanes, in the preamble to the November 24, 2016? locomotives) and area sources) result in 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 The Portland area’s 10-year year 2016 emissions inventories lower FR 62188). The preamble also describes maintenance plan submission contains than the year 2005 attainment emissions how to establish the MVEB in the SIP new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year inventory. These emissions budgets, and revise the MVEB. 2016, which are shown in Table 4. The once approved by EPA must be used for Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new availability of the SIP submission with future transportation conformity transportation projects, such as the these 2016 MVEBs was announced for determinations.

TABLE 4.—THE 2016 MVEBS FOR THE PORTLAND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA (57 TOWNS) [Emissions expressed in tons per summer weekday (tpswd)]

2005 2005 2016 2016 VOC NOX VOC OX

Point ...... 3.669 8.210 4.627 10.118 Area ...... 33.433 5.207 38.118 5.596 Mobile: Nonroad ...... 17.401 10.556 13.146 5.545 Locomotives ...... 0.015 0.423 0.013 0.342 Onroad ...... 22.476 46.776 11.032 16.098

Total Inventory ...... 76.994 71.172 66.936 37.699

Total Safety Margin ...... 10.058 33.473 MVEB: Onroad ...... 22.476 46.776 11.032 16.098 Plus Safety Margin applied to MVEB ...... 5.627 16.739

Total MVEB ...... 16.659 32.837

Safety Margin Remaining ...... 4.431 16.734

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60946 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

As part of its maintenance plan, projected to maintain the area’s air have been met. The basis for EPA’s Maine elected to apply a portion of its quality consistent with the NAAQS. The proposed determination is as follows. ‘‘safety margin’’ to its MVEBs. In this safety margin is the extra emissions that A. The Midcoast Area Has Attained the case, a ‘‘safety margin’’ is the amount by can be allocated as long as the total 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS which the total projected ozone attainment level of emissions is precursor emissions, from all sources maintained. The credit, or a portion EPA is proposing to determine that (point, area and mobile) are less than thereof, can be allocated to any of the the Midcoast area has attained the 8- the total emissions that would maintain source categories. For the year 2016, the hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area the ozone standard (i.e. the difference available safety margin (see Table 4) is may be considered to be attaining the 8- between 2005 and 2016 precursor 10.058 tpswd for VOC and 33.473 tpswd hour ozone NAAQS if there are no emissions, with VOC and NOX treated for NOX. After partial allocation of the violations, as determined in accordance separately). The attainment level of safety margin to the MVEB (5.627 tpswd with 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I, based on three complete, consecutive emissions is the level of emissions VOC and 16.739 tpswd NOX), the during one of the years in which the remaining safety margins are 4.431 calendar years of quality-assured air area met the NAAQS. For example, the tpswd for VOC and 16.734 tpswd for quality monitoring data. To attain this Portland area attained the 8-hour ozone standard, the 3-year average of the NOX. Maine has not yet allocated the NAAQS during the 2003–2005 time remaining safety margin to any source fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour period. Maine uses 2005 emissions as category under its maintenance plan, average ozone concentrations measured the attainment level of emissions for the and the State will need to submit a SIP at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. area. The emissions from point, area, revision to amend its maintenance plan This 3-year average is known as the nonroad, and mobile sources in 2005 if in the future it decides to use any of equaled 76.994 tpswd of VOC for the design value. Based on the rounding the remaining safety margin. The 2016 Portland area (see Table 4). Projected convention described in 40 CFR part 50, MVEBs for Portland are approvable VOC emissions from point, area, Appendix I, the standard is attained if because the MVEBs for NO and VOC, nonroad, and mobile sources, out to the X the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. including the allocated safety margins, year 2016, equals 66.936 tpswd of VOC. The data must be collected and quality- when added to all other inventory The SIP demonstrates that the area will assured in accordance with 40 CFR part continue to maintain the standard with sources, continue to maintain the total 58, and recorded in AQS. The monitors emissions at this level. The safety emissions at or below the attainment generally should have remained at the margin for VOCs is calculated to be the year inventory levels as required by the same location for the duration of the difference between the 2005 VOC transportation conformity regulations. monitoring period required for emissions (76.994 tpswd) and the 2016 IX. What is EPA’s Analysis of the demonstrating attainment. VOC emissions (66.936 tpswd), in this Midcoast Redesignation Request? Maine submitted ozone monitoring case, 10.058 tpswd is the VOC safety data for the April through September margin for 2016. By this same method, EPA is also proposing to determine ozone season from 2003 to 2005. This 33.473 tpswd (i.e., 71.172 tpswd less that the Midcoast nonattainment area data has been quality assured and is 37.699 tpswd) is the safety margin for has attained the 8-hour ozone standard recorded in AQS. The ozone data are NOX for 2016. The emissions are and that all other redesignation criteria summarized in Table 5:

TABLE 5.—8-HOUR OZONE (PARTS PER MILLION, PPM) FOR THE MIDCOAST AREA

4th High 8-hr ozone average 3-Year Aver- Monitor County age (design 2003 2004 2005 value)

Port Clyde...... Knox ...... 0.082 0.074 0.075 0.077 McFarland Hill...... Hancock ...... 0.080 0.073 0.074 0.075 Cadillac Mountain...... Hancock ...... 0.094 0.088 0.082 0.082 Area Design Value ...... 0.082

The design value for an area is the B. The Midcoast Area Has Met All determined that the SIP is fully highest design value recorded at any Applicable Requirements for Purposes approved with respect to all applicable monitor in the area. Therefore, as shown of Redesignation Under Section 110 and requirements for purposes of in Table 5, the design value for the Part D of the CAA and the Area Has a redesignation (see section Midcoast area is 0.082 ppm, which Fully Approved SIP Under Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). In making these meets the standard as described above. 110(k) for Purposes of Redesignation determinations, EPA ascertained what Preliminary ozone data for the summer EPA has determined that Maine has requirements are applicable to the area of 2006 still show the area as being in met all applicable SIP requirements for and that they are fully approved under attainment. the Midcoast area for purposes of section 110(k). SIPs must be fully In addition, as discussed below with redesignation under section 110 of the approved only with respect to respect to the maintenance plan, Maine CAA (general SIP requirements). EPA applicable requirements. has committed to continue monitoring has also determined that the Maine SIP The September 4, 1992 Calcagni in this area in accordance with 40 CFR meets applicable SIP requirements for memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for part 58. In summary, EPA believes that purposes of redesignation under Part D Processing Requests to Redesignate the data submitted by Maine provides of Title I of the CAA (requirements Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum an adequate demonstration that the specific to subpart I, basic from John Calcagni, Director, Air Midcoast area has attained the 8-hour nonattainment areas, see section Quality Management Division, ozone NAAQS. 107(d)(3)(E)(v)). In addition, EPA has September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60947

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). the requirements to which it will be requirements for purposes of Under this interpretation, to qualify for subject. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation are those that continue to redesignation states requesting redesignation request, the applicable apply under EPA’s anti-backsliding redesignation to attainment must meet part D, subpart 1 requirements for all rules, which were promulgated in the relevant CAA requirements that nonattainment areas are contained in conjunction with the implementation of come due prior to the submittal of a section 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough the 8-hour NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.900 et complete redesignation request. See also discussion of the requirements seq., as amended 70 FR 30592, 30604 Michael Shapiro memorandum, contained in section 172 can be found (May 26, 2005). September 17, 1993 and 60 FR 12459, in the General Preamble for 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) prescribes the 1- 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). hour NAAQS requirements that (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (See also 68 FR 4852–3 in St. Louis NPR continue to apply after revocation of the MI). Applicable requirements of the for discussion of section 172 1-hour NAAQS to former 1-hour ozone CAA that come due subsequent to the requirements.) nonattainment areas. Section area’s submittal of a complete With respect to the 8-hour standard, 51.905(a)(1)(i) provides that: redesignation request remain applicable EPA proposes to determine that the ‘‘The area remains subject to the until a redesignation is approved, but Maine SIP meets all applicable SIP obligation to adopt and implement the are not required as a prerequisite to requirements for purposes of applicable requirements as defined in redesignation. Section 175A (c) of the redesignation of the Midcoast area section 51.900(f), except as provided in CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 under part D of the CAA since no 8-hour paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, and (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, ozone standard Part D requirements except as provided in paragraph (b) of 25427 (May 12, 2003). applicable for purposes of redesignation this section * * *.’’ Section 51.900(f), 1. Section 110 General SIP became due prior to submission of the as amended by 70 FR 30592, 30604 Requirements area’s redesignation request. In addition (May 26, 2005), states that: ‘‘Applicable to the fact that certain Part D As explained in more detail in section Requirements means for an area the requirements applicable for purposes of VI.B.1 above, EPA believes that section following requirements to the extent redesignation did not become due prior 110 elements not linked to the area’s such requirements apply or applied to to submission of the redesignation nonattainment status are not applicable the area for the area’s classification request, EPA believes it is reasonable to for purposes of redesignation. Any under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA for section 110 requirements that are linked interpret the conformity, new source the 1-hour NAAQS at the time the to the Part D requirements for 8-hour review requirements, and OTR Administrator signs a final rule ozone nonattainment areas are not yet requirements as not requiring approval designating the area for the 8-hour due, since, as explained below, no Part prior to redesignation. (See Section VI.B standard as nonattainment, attainment, D requirements applicable for purposes for a more detailed discussion of this or unclassifiable.’’ For the Midcoast of redesignation under the 8-hour interpretation.) Therefore, EPA proposes area, where portions of the area were standard became due prior to to find that the Midcoast area has classified as moderate under the 1-hour submission of the redesignation request. satisfied all 8-hour ozone standard standard the applicable requirements for Therefore, EPA believes that the State requirements applicable for purposes of those portions are as follows: has satisfied the criterion of section section 107(d)(3)(E) under Part D of the (1) Reasonably available control 107(d)(3)(E) regarding section 110 of the CAA. technology (RACT); CAA for the Midcoast redesignation 3. Part D Nonattainment Area (2) Inspection and maintenance request. Requirements Under the 1-Hour programs (I/M); 2. Part D Nonattainment Area Standard and EPA’s Anti-Backsliding (3) Major source applicability cut-offs Requirements Under the 8-Hour Rules for purposes of RACT; Standard Prior to its designation as an 8-hour (4) Rate of Progress (ROP) Reductions; The Midcoast area is designated a ozone nonattainment area, parts of the (5) NOX requirements under section subpart 1, basic nonattainment area for Midcoast area were designated 182(f) of the CAA; and the 8-hour ozone standard. Sections maintenance for the 1-hour standard (6) Attainment demonstration or an 172–176 of the CAA, found in subpart and the rest of the area was designated alternative as provided under 1 of Part D, set forth the basic moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour § 51.905(a)(1)(ii). nonattainment requirements for all ozone standard. While, on June 15, Table 6 lists the control measures nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the 2005, the 1-hour ozone standard was effective in the Midcoast area. The table CAA, found in subpart 2 of Part D, revoked (See 40 CFR 50.9(b)), under shows how the applicable requirements establishes additional specific EPA’s anti-backsliding rules, areas have been met for the Midcoast area. requirements depending on the area’s designated nonattainment for the 1-hour Thus, EPA believes that Midcoast area nonattainment classification. EPA has standard at the time of the 8-hour ozone has met all applicable Part D determined that the Maine SIP meets designations remained subject to certain requirements under the 1-hour standard SIP requirements applicable for control measures that applied by virtue for purposes of redesignation under the purposes of redesignation under part D of the area’s classification for the 1-hour 8-hour standard. In addition, Table 6a of the Act. Under part D, an area’s NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.900 et seq., see also lists other programs Maine has classification (marginal, moderate, 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005). The implemented to address emissions of serious, severe, and extreme) indicates applicable Part D 1-hour standard ozone precursors.

TABLE 6.—CONTROL MEASURES IN THE MIDCOAST MAINE OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

Name of control measure Type of measure Approval status

On-board refueling vapor recovery ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60948 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6.—CONTROL MEASURES IN THE MIDCOAST MAINE OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued

Name of control measure Type of measure Approval status

Federal motor vehicle control program ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86. Federal non-road heavy duty diesel engines ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 89. Federal non-road gasoline engines ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 90. Automotive Refinishing ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 59, subpart B. Consumer & commercial products ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. AIM Surface Coatings ...... Federal Rule ...... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 59, subpart D. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (62 FR 9081; 2/28/97). ment. 1 Hour Emissions Statements ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (60 FR 2524; 1/10/95). ment. Ozone Attainment Demonstration ...... Section 182 CAA Require- Not required for the portion of the area that was classi- ment. fied as marginal under the 1-hour standard and the requirement was waived do to clean air quality for the portions of the area that was classified as mod- erate under the 1-hour standard (60 FR 29763; June 6, 1995. 1-hour 15% VOC Rate of Progress Plan ...... Section 182 CAA Require- Not required for the portion of the area that was classi- ment. fied as marginal under the 1-hour standard and the requirement was waived do to clean air quality for the portions of the area that was classified as mod- erate under the 1-hour standard (60 FR 29763, June 6, 1995). VOC RACT pursuant to sections 182(a)(2)(A) and Section 182 CAA Require- SIPs approved (57 FR 3046; 2/13/92), (58 FR 15281; 182(b)(2)(B) of CAA. ment. 3/22/93), (59 FR 31154; 6/17/94), (60 FR 33730; 6/ 29/95). VOC RACT pursuant to sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (65 FR 20749; 4/18/00), (67 FR 35439; CAA. ment. 5/20/02). NOX RACT ...... Section 182 CAA Require- SIP approved (67 FR 57154; 9/9/02). ment.

TABLE 6A.—NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM AND OTHER CLEAN AIR ACT PROGRAMS IN THE MIDCOAST NONATTAINMENT AREA

Name of measure Type of measure Approval status

New Source Review ...... CAA Requirement ...... SIP approved (61 FR 5690; 2/14/96). Low RVP Gasoline applicable in Knox and Lincoln coun- State Initiative ...... SIP approved (67 FR 10099; 3/6/02). ties. Solvent Cleaners ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 30367; 05/26/05). NOX Control Program ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved(70 FR 11879; 03/10/05). Emissions from Smaller-Scale Electric Generating Re- State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 30373; 05/26/05). sources. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings State Initiative ...... SIP approved (71 FR 13767; 03/17/06). Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 61382; 10/24/05). from Consumer Products. Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 30367; 05/26/05). Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control ...... State Initiative ...... SIP approved (70 FR 6352; 02/07/05).

4. The Midcoast Area Has a Fully of the CAA of 1970, Maine has adopted C. The Air Quality Improvement in the Approved Applicable SIP for Purposes and submitted and EPA has fully Midcoast Area Is Due to Permanent and of Redesignation Under Section 110(k) approved at various times provisions Enforceable Reductions in Emissions of the CAA addressing the various SIP elements Resulting From Implementation of the applicable in the Midcoast area under SIP and Applicable Federal Air EPA has fully approved the applicable the 1-hour standard (see Table 6 and Pollution Control Regulations and Other Maine SIP for purposes of redesignation Table 6a). Permanent and Enforceable Reductions for the Midcoast area under section As indicated above, EPA believes that 110(k) of the Act. EPA may rely on prior the section 110 elements not connected EPA believes that the state has SIP approvals in approving a with nonattainment plan submissions demonstrated that the observed air redesignation request (See Calcagni and not linked to the area’s quality improvement in the Midcoast Memo, p. 3 Southwestern Pennsylvania nonattainment status are not applicable area is due to permanent and Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d requirements for purposes of enforceable reductions in emissions 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. redesignation. EPA also believes that no resulting from implementation of the EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)), plus 8-hour Part D requirements applicable SIP, Federal measures, and other state- any additional measures it may approve for purposes of redesignation of the adopted measures. EPA approved in conjunction with a redesignation Midcoast area have yet become due, and Maine’s SIP control strategy for the action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) therefore they need not be approved Midcoast area, including rules and the and citations therein. Following passage into the SIP prior to redesignation. emission reductions achieved as a result

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60949

of those rules that are enforceable. D. The Midcoast Area Has a Fully VOC and NOX emission estimates for Several Federal and statewide rules are Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant the Midcoast area were developed in place which have improved the to Section 175A of the CAA consistent with EPA guidance and are ambient air quality in this area. (See In conjunction with its request to summarized in Table 7 below. Point Tables 6 and 6a above for a list of redesignate the Midcoast nonattainment source emissions were obtained using control measures and other CAA area to attainment status, Maine 2004 data collected pursuant to Maine’s requirements). The emission inventories submitted a SIP revision to provide for Chapter 137 Emission Statement in the four counties that comprise the the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone regulation; projections were made to Midcoast area show that between 2002 NAAQS in the Midcoast area for at least 2005, 2009, and 2016 using economic (the ozone season for which the area 10 years after redesignation. based growth factors. Non-road mobile was classified) and 2005 (the year they emissions were calculated using the 1. What Is Required in a Maintenance came into attainment), VOC emissions most recent NONROAD model. On-road Plan? mobile source emissions were were reduced by over 4 tons per calculated using MOBILE 6.2 for 2005, summer day and NO emissions were Section 175A of the CAA sets forth X 2009, and 2016. Area source emissions reduced by over 8 tons per summer day. the elements of maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from for 2002 were derived from Maine DEP’s Ozone precursor emissions were also submittal made to the EPA’s national reduced in upwind states. nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must emissions inventory (NEI) for 2002, and The Maine submittal discusses the demonstrate continued attainment of modified as described in support meteorological data for the years 2003, the applicable NAAQS for at least ten material submitted by Maine DEP to 2004 and 2005, and for many of the years after the Administrator approves a EPA. The 2002 area emissions were then years leading up to 2003. The Maine redesignation to attainment. Eight years projected to 2005, 2009, and 2016. submittal has numerous graphs and after the redesignation, the State must (b) Maintenance demonstration— charts of ozone data, ozone precursor submit a revised maintenance plan Maine’s August 3, 2006 SIP submittal data, and meteorological data for the which demonstrates that attainment will includes a 10-year maintenance plan for Midcoast area. These data all support continue to be maintained for the ten the Midcoast area as required by section the claim that the downward trend in years following the initial ten-year 175A of the Act. This demonstration ozone data is not due to favorable period. To address the possibility of shows compliance and maintenance of meteorology, but is due to permanent future NAAQS violations, the the 8-hour ozone standard by assuring and enforceable reductions in ozone maintenance plan must contain such that current and future emissions of precursor emissions, both within the contingency measures, with a schedule VOC and NOX remain at or below attainment year emission levels. A state and upwind from the state. EPA for implementation as EPA deems maintenance demonstration need not be agrees with Maine’s analysis on ozone necessary to assure prompt correction of based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, trends. EPA agrees the downward trend any future 8-hour ozone violations. 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club in ozone in Maine has been occurring Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). for several ozone seasons. The See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 meteorology for the Midcoast area areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25430–25432 shows that for some of these ozone The Calcagni memorandum dated (May 12, 2003). seasons the summers have been warmer September 4, 1992, provides additional Maine used 2005 as the base year, than average, while others have been guidance on the content of a 2009 was chosen as the interim year and cooler than average, but the weather maintenance plan. An ozone 2106 is the ‘‘out year,’’ which as over the past several ozone seasons has maintenance plan should address the required is at least 10 years, after the not been unfavorable to ozone following provisions: time necessary for EPA to review and formation. In short, the air quality (a) An attainment emissions approve the maintenance plan. (In improvement in the Midcoast area is inventory; addition per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB due to permanent and enforceable (b) A maintenance demonstration; must be established for the last year of reductions in emissions resulting from (c) A monitoring network; the maintenance plan.) MVEBs for the implementation of the SIP and (d) Verification of continued Midcoast area are discussed in Section applicable Federal air pollution control attainment; and X below. Table 7 shows the Midcoast regulations and other permanent and (e) A contingency plan. area emissions inventories for 2005, enforceable reductions, not favorable 2009 and 2016. The emissions inventory 2. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the shows a downward trend in precursor meteorology. Therefore, EPA finds this Midcoast Maintenance Plan? requirement is met for the Midcoast emissions data from 2005, through 2009 area. (a) Attainment Inventory—Maine and continuing on until 2016. The selected 2005 as the attainment year for decreases in emissions are a purposes of demonstrating attainment of requirement of a maintenance plan. the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2005 Maine has fulfilled this requirement.

TABLE 7.—ATTAINMENT (2005), INTERIM (2009) AND MAINTENANCE (2016) INVENTORIES FOR THE MIDCOAST NONATTAINMENT AREA (4 COUNTIES) 1 [All emissions expressed in tons per summer weekday (tpswd)]

2005 2009 2016 Category Subcategory VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ...... 1.520 4.530 1.640 5.360 1.840 6.080

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60950 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 7.—ATTAINMENT (2005), INTERIM (2009) AND MAINTENANCE (2016) INVENTORIES FOR THE MIDCOAST NONATTAINMENT AREA (4 COUNTIES) 1—Continued [All emissions expressed in tons per summer weekday (tpswd)]

2005 2009 2016 Category Subcategory VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Area ...... 14.214 3.659 14.610 3.816 15.989 4.081 Mobile ...... Onroad 2 ...... 8.664 15.296 6.368 10.731 4.154 5.332 Mobile ...... Nonroad ...... 13.727 4.713 12.073 4.284 10.217 3.343 Mobile ...... Locomotives ...... 0.005 0.183 0.005 0.161 0.004 0.135

Total ...... 38.130 28.381 34.696 24.352 32.204 18.971

Change in emissions from ...... ¥3.434 ¥4.029 ¥5.926 ¥9.41 2005. 1 The emissions in the table are based on an inventory for four entire counties (Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties) rather than the somewhat smaller 55 town Midcoast nonattainment area. EPA believes it is reasonable to use countywide inventories for the purpose of this re- designation demonstration even though the nonattainment area itself includes the 55 towns in these four counties nearest the coast. The Agency concludes that the distribution of emissions for each source category across the counties will generally track population, which is highest along the coast. Therefore, the declining emissions trends reflected in this table for the four entire counties should generally be true for 55 town non- attainment area as well. 2 To provide a consistent comparison with the other source categories, these Mobile Onroad Inventory numbers are based on an inventory for the entire four county area (Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties) and are, therefore larger than motor vehicle emissions calculated for the 55 Town Midcoast nonattainment area shown in Table 8.

(c) Monitoring Network—There are EPA deems necessary to assure that the more of the contingency measures listed currently three monitors measuring state will promptly correct a violation of in this section, or substitute a new VOC ozone in the Midcoast area. The State of the NAAQS that occurs after or NOX control measures to achieve Maine has committed in the redesignation. The maintenance plan additional in-state emissions reductions. maintenance plan to the necessary should identify the contingency The contingency measures(s) will be continued operation of the ozone measures to be adopted, a schedule and selected by the Governor or the monitoring network in compliance with procedure for adoption and Governor’s designee within 6 months of 40 CFR part 58, and has, therefore implementation, and a time limit for the end of the ozone season for which addressed the requirement for action by the state. The state should also contingency measures have been continued ozone monitoring in this identify specific indicators to be used to determined necessary. Possible area. determine when the contingency contingency measures include: (d) Verification of Continued measures need to be implemented. The Attainment—The state has the legal maintenance plan must include a Adhesives authority to enforce and implement the requirement that the state will Establish VOC content limits for requirements of the ozone maintenance implement all measures with respect to industrial and commercial application plan. This includes the authority to control of the pollutant that were of solvent-based adhesives and sealants adopt, implement and enforce any contained in the SIP before based on California Air Resources Board subsequent emission control redesignation of the area to attainment. (CARB) suggested RACT controls (1998). contingency measures determined to be Section 175A(d). necessary to correct future ozone As stated in the Midcoast area Asphalt Paving attainment problems. To implement the maintenance plan, the Maine DEP has Reduce the VOC content limit for ozone maintenance plan, the state will committed to the following procedure. cutback asphalt from 5% to 4%, and continue to monitor ozone levels in the At the conclusion of each ozone season, lower current VOC content limits for area. Maine has also committed to track the Maine DEP will evaluate whether emulsified asphalt by 20%. the progress of the maintenance the design value for the Midcoast area demonstration by periodically updating is above or below the 8-hour ozone Automobile Refinish Coatings their emission inventory. Maine has standard. If the design value is above Adopt the VOC content limits committed to do this annually. The the standard, the DEP will evaluate the contained in the Bay Area Air Quality update will be based, in part, on the potential causes of this design value Management District (BAAQMD) annual update of the NEI, and will increase. The DEP will examine whether regulations. indicate new source growth and other this increase is due to an increase in Consumer Products changes from the attainment inventory, local in-state emissions or an increase in including changes in vehicle miles upwind out-of-state emissions. If an Adopt and implement the July 20, traveled or in traffic patterns and increase in in-state emissions is 2005 California Air Resources Board changes in MOBILE6.2 or its successor. determined to be a contributing factor to (CARB) regulations. These regulations (e) The Maintenance Plan’s the design value increase, Maine will include emission limits for additional Contingency Measures—The evaluate the projected in-state emissions consumer product categories that are contingency plan provisions are for the Midcoast area for the ozone not included in Maine’s existing designed to promptly correct a violation season in the following year. If in-state Chapter 151 consumer products rule. of the NAAQS that occurs after emissions are not expected to redesignation. Section 175A of the Act satisfactorily decrease in the following Rule Effectiveness Improvement requires that a maintenance plan ozone season in order to mitigate the Increase enforcement of existing rules include such contingency measures as violation, Maine will implement one or in order to increase rule effectiveness.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60951

Small Source Non-CTG VOC RACT VII above. The availability of the SIP emissions for the last year (year 2016) of Reduce the major source and Chapter submission with these 2016 MVEBs was the Midcoast maintenance plan for the 134 non-CTG VOC RACT applicability announced for public comment on 55 towns that make up the Midcoast threshold from 40 to 10 tons per year of EPA’s adequacy Web page on August 8, maintenance area in Hancock, Knox, actual emissions. 2006, at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ Lincoln and Waldo Counties. Maine is The Midcoast area maintenance plan transp/conform/currsips.htm. The EPA establishing motor vehicle emissions adequately addresses the five basic public comment period on adequacy of budgets for the last year of the Midcoast components of a maintenance plan: the 2016 MVEBs for the Midcoast area 8-hour ozone maintenance area (year Attainment inventory; maintenance closed on September 7, 2006. EPA did 2016) at 3.763 tons per summer week demonstration; monitoring network; not receive any adverse comments. EPA day of VOC and 6.245 tons per summer verification of continued attainment; New England sent a letter to the Maine week day. These on-road mobile source and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA Department of Environmental Protection emissions when added to emissions believes that the maintenance plan SIP on September 8, 2006, stating that the from all other inventory sources revision submitted by Maine for the 2016 MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle (stationary, other mobile (i.e., non-road, Midcoast area meets the requirements of emissions budgets in the August 3, 2006 marine vessels, airplanes, locomotives) section 175A of the Act. SIP submittal are adequate. and area sources) result in year 2016 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2) provides that emissions inventories lower than the X. What is the Status of EPA’s when a maintenance plan has been year 2005 attainment emissions Adequacy Determination for the submitted (as in this redesignation Midcoast area’s MVEB for the Year request), motor vehicle emissions must inventory. 2016? be less than or equal to the motor EPA through this rulemaking is The Midcoast area’s 10-year vehicle emissions budgets established proposing to approve these MVEBs for maintenance plan submission contains for any other years for which the use in determining transportation new VOC and NOX MVEBs for the year maintenance plan establishes motor conformity because EPA has determined 2016, which are shown in Table 8. The vehicle emissions budgets. The Maine that the area maintains the standard development of MVEBs and adequacy DEP used the MOBILE 6.2 model to with emissions at the levels of the determinations are explained in section calculate on-road VOC and NOX budgets.

TABLE 8.—THE 2016 MVEBS FOR THE MIDCOAST 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA (55 TOWNS) [Emissions expressed in tons per summer day (tpswd)]

2005 2016

VOC NOX VOC NOX

Point ...... 1.179 ...... 4.300 1.390 5.788 Area ...... 8.568 ...... 2.365 9.726 2.619 Mobile: Nonroad ...... 8.684 ...... 2.689 6.439 1.987 Locomotives ...... 0.009 ...... 0.224 0.009 0.191 Onroad ...... 5.131 ...... 8.923 2.442 3.103

Total Inventory ...... 23.571 ...... 18.501 20.006 13.688

Total Safety Margin ...... 3.565 4.813 MVEB: Onroad ...... 5.131 ...... 8.923 2.442 3.103 Plus Safety Margin applied to MVEB ...... 1.321 3.142

Total MVEB ...... 3.763 6.245

Safety Margin Remaining ...... 2.244 1.671

As part of the maintenance plan for Midcoast area attained the 8-hour ozone emissions (23.571 tpswd) and the 2016 the Midcoast area, Maine elected to NAAQS during the 2003–2005 time VOC emissions (20.006 tpswd), in this apply a portion of its ‘‘safety margin’’ to period. Maine uses 2005 emissions as case, 3.565 tpswd is the VOC safety its MVEBs. In this case, a ‘‘safety the attainment level of emissions for the margin for 2016. By this same method, margin’’ is the amount by which the area. The emissions from point, area, 4.813 tpswd (i.e., 18.501 tpswd less total projected ozone precursor nonroad, and mobile sources in 2005 13.688 tpswd) is the safety margin for emissions, from all sources (point area equaled 23.571 tpswd of VOC for the NOX for 2016. The emissions are and mobile) are less than the total Midcoast area (see Table 8). Projected projected to maintain the area’s air emissions that would maintain the VOC emissions from point, area, quality consistent with the NAAQS. The ozone standard (i.e. the difference nonroad, and mobile sources, out to the safety margin is the extra emissions that between 2005 and 2016 precursor year 2016, equals 20.006 tpswd of VOC. can be allocated as long as the total emissions, with VOC and NOX treated The SIP demonstrates that the area will attainment level of emissions is separately). The attainment level of continue to maintain the standard with maintained. The credit, or a portion emissions is the level of emissions emissions at this level. The safety thereof, can be allocated to any of the during one of the years in which the margin for VOCs is calculated to be the source categories. For the year 2016, the area met the NAAQS. For example, the difference between the 2005 VOC available safety margin (see Table 8) is

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60952 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

3.565 tpswd for VOC and 4.813 tpswd XII. Statutory and Executive Order Air Act. This proposed rule also is not for NOX. After partial allocation of the Reviews subject to Executive Order 13045 safety margin to the MVEB (1.321 tpswd Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR ‘‘Protection of Children from VOC and 3.142 tpswd NOX), the 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed Environmental Health Risks and Safety remaining safety margins are 2.244 action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), tpswd for VOC and 1.671 tpswd for action’’ and therefore is not subject to because it is not economically NOX. Maine has not yet allocated the review by the Office of Management and significant. remaining safety margin to any source Budget. For this reason, this action is In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s category under its maintenance plan, also not subject to Executive Order role is to approve state choices, and the State will need to submit a SIP 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the revision to amend its maintenance plan That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, absence of a prior existing requirement if in the future it decides to use any of Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May for the State to use voluntary consensus the remaining safety margin. The 2016 22, 2001). This proposed action merely standards (VCS), EPA has no authority MVEBs for Midcoast area are approvable proposes to approve state law as to disapprove a SIP submission for because the MVEBs for NOX and VOC, meeting Federal requirements and failure to use VCS. It would thus be including the allocated safety margins, imposes no additional requirements inconsistent with applicable law for when added to all other inventory beyond those imposed by state law. EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, sources, continue to maintain the total Redesignation of an area to attainment emissions at or below the attainment to use VCS in place of a SIP submission under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean year inventory levels as required by the that otherwise satisfies the provisions of Air Act does not impose any new transportation conformity regulations. the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an requirements on small entities. action that affects the status of a XI. Proposed Actions on Maine’s Redesignation is an action that affects geographical area but does not impose Redesignation Requests, 175 the status of a geographical area and any new requirements on sources. Thus, Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions, and does not impose any new regulatory the requirements of section 12(d) of the Associated MVEBs requirements on sources. Accordingly, National Technology Transfer and EPA is proposing to determine that the Administrator certifies that this Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. both the Portland, Maine and the proposed rule will not have a significant 272 note) do not apply. This proposed Midcoast, Maine, 8-hour ozone economic impact on a substantial rule does not impose an information nonattainment areas have attained the 8- number of small entities under the collection burden under the provisions hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 proposing to approve the redesignation et seq.). Because this rule proposes to (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). of both the Portland, Maine and the approve pre-existing requirements Midcoast, Maine 8-hour ozone under state law and does not impose List of Subjects nonattainment areas from any additional enforceable duty beyond 40 CFR Part 52 that required by state law, it does not nonattainment to attainment for the 8- Environmental protection, Air hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has evaluated contain any unfunded mandate or pollution control, Intergovernmental the State of Maine’s redesignation significantly or uniquely affect small relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, requests and determined that they meet governments, as described in the Reporting and recordkeeping the redesignation criteria set forth in Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requirements, Volatile organic section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA (Pub. L. 104–4). compounds. believes that the redesignation requests This proposed rule also does not have and monitoring data demonstrate that tribal implications because it will not 40 CFR Part 81 have a substantial direct effect on one or these two areas have attained the 8-hour Environmental protection, Air more Indian tribes, on the relationship ozone standard. The final approval of pollution control, National parks, between the Federal Government and this redesignation request would change Wilderness areas. the official designation for both the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Portland, Maine and the Midcoast, power and responsibilities between the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment Federal Government and Indian tribes, Dated: October 8, 2006. areas from nonattainment to attainment as specified by Executive Order 13175 Robert W. Varney, for the 8-hour ozone standard. (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This Regional Administrator, EPA New England. EPA is proposing to approve the action also does not have Federalism [FR Doc. E6–17226 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] implications because it does not have maintenance plan SIP revision and the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 2016 MVEBs submitted by Maine for substantial direct effects on the States, both the Portland, Maine and the on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the Midcoast, Maine 8-hour ozone DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND distribution of power and nonattainment areas in conjunction SECURITY with the corresponding redesignation responsibilities among the various requests. EPA is proposing to approve levels of government, as specified in Federal Emergency Management the maintenance plan for both the Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Agency Portland, Maine and the Midcoast, August 10, 1999). This action merely Maine 8-hour ozone nonattainment proposes to affect the status of a 44 CFR Part 67 areas, because they meet the geographical area, does not impose any requirements of section 175A as new requirements on sources, or allows [Docket No. FEMA–D–7676] described more fully above. a state to avoid adopting or Proposed Flood Elevation EPA is soliciting public comments on implementing other requirements, and Determinations the issues discussed in this document. does not alter the relationship or the These comments will be considered distribution of power and AGENCY: Federal Emergency before taking final action. responsibilities established in the Clean Management Agency (FEMA),

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60953

Department of Homeland Security, BFEs and modified BFEs for each Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory Mitigation Division. community listed below, in accordance flexibility analysis is not required. ACTION: Proposed rule. with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Regulatory Classification. This Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, proposed rule is not a significant SUMMARY: Technical information or and 44 CFR 67.4(a). regulatory action under the criteria of comments are requested on the These proposed BFEs and modified Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of proposed Base (1% annual chance) BFEs, together with the floodplain September 30, 1993, Regulatory Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed management criteria required by 44 CFR Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. BFEs modifications for the communities 60.3, are the minimum that are required. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. listed below. The BFEs are the basis for They should not be construed to mean This rule involves no policies that have the floodplain management measures that the community must change any federalism implications under Executive that the community is required either to existing ordinances that are more Order 13132. adopt or to show evidence of being stringent in their floodplain Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice already in effect in order to qualify or management requirements. The Reform. This rule meets the applicable remain qualified for participation in the community may at any time enact standards of Executive Order 12988. National Flood Insurance Program stricter requirements of its own, or (NFIP). List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 pursuant to policies established by other DATES: The comment period is ninety Federal, state or regional entities. These Administrative practice and (90) days following the second proposed elevations are used to meet procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting publication of this proposed rule in a the floodplain management and recordkeeping requirements. newspaper of local circulation in each requirements of the NFIP and are also Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is community. used to calculate the appropriate flood proposed to be amended as follows: ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each insurance premium rates for new community are available for inspection buildings built after these elevations are PART 67—[AMENDED] made final, and for the contents in these at the office of the Chief Executive 1. The authority citation for part 67 buildings. Officer of each community. The continues to read as follows: respective addresses are listed in the National Environmental Policy Act. table below. This proposed rule is categorically Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: excluded from the requirements of 44 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering CFR Part 10, Environmental 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. Management Section, Mitigation Consideration. No environmental Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, impact assessment has been prepared. § 67.4 [Amended] DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 2. The tables published under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA elevation determinations are not within authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be proposes to make determinations of the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility amended as follows:

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Alexander County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Beaver Branch ...... At the confluence with Lambert Creek ...... None +1,087 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 500 feet upstream of SR 1307 ...... None +1,161 Big Branch ...... At the confluence with Elk Shoals Creek ...... None +894 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of SR 1619 ...... None +1,057 Catawba River ...... Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence of None +848 Unincorporated Areas of Elk Shoals Creek. Alexander County. At the Alexander/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +936 Duck Creek ...... At the confluence of Middle Little River ...... None +1,036 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. At the confluence with Holsclaw Creek ...... None +1,157 Elk Shoals Creek ...... Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +848 Unincorporated Areas of with Catawba River. Alexander County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of SR 1631 ...... None +989 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Elk Shoals Creek ...... None +883 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +896 with Elk Shoals Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Elk Shoals Creek ...... None +889 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence of None +903 Elk Shoals Creek. Glade Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +901 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60954 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Approximately 900 feet upstream of Rogers Lake None +1,195 Dam Upper. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Glade Creek ...... None +1,015 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County, Town of Taylorsville. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of SR 1607 ...... None +1,093 Grassy Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +1,093 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,185 of Grassy Creek Tributary 2. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Grassy Creek ...... None +1,098 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,122 with Grassy Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Grassy Creek ...... None +1,182 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of SR 16 ...... None +1,211 Guys Branch ...... At the confluence with Elk Shoals Creek ...... None +906 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +922 with Elk Shoals Creek. Holsclaw Creek ...... At the confluence with Duck Creek ...... None +1,157 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of SR 1302 ...... None +1,238 Isaac Creek ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of SR 1143 ...... None +957 Island Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +851 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of SR 1621 ...... None +875 Jumping Run ...... At the confluence with Rock Creek ...... None +983 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of SR 127 ...... None +1,099 Lambert Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower River ...... None +1,087 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 700 feet upstream of confluence of None +1,180 Poplar Creek. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Lambert Creek ...... None +1,113 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of SR 1307 ...... None +1,174 Lower Little River ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +852 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of SR 1332 ...... None +1,130 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +865 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the confluence None +973 with Lower Little River. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +983 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of SR 1124 ...... None +1,100 Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River Tributary 2 .. None +1,085 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,122 with Lower Little River Tributary 2. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +995 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of SR 1110 ...... None +1,093 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +1,022 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County, Town of Taylorsville. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of School Drive ... None +1,163 Town of Taylorsville. Middle Little River ...... Approximately 300 feet downstream of SR 1137 ...... None +935 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. At the Alexander/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,295 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Middle Little River ...... None +1,030 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,036 with Middle Little River.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60955

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Mountain Creek ...... Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence +935 +936 Unincorporated Areas of with Middle Little River. Alexander County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of SR 1150 ...... None +1,057 Muddy Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +1,063 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County, Town of Taylorsville. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of SR 1409 ...... None +1,108 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Muddy Fork Creek ...... None +1,076 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County, Town of Taylorsville. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Old Wikesboro None +1,181 Town of Taylorsville Road. Poplar Creek ...... At the confluence with Lambert Creek ...... None +1,176 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of SR 1305 ...... None +1,199 Rock Creek ...... At the confluence with Middle Little River ...... None +957 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. At the confluence of Jumping Run ...... None +983 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Rock Creek ...... None +957 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence None +958 with Rock Creek. Spring Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +1,047 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of SR 1121 ...... None +1,121 Stirewalt Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Little River ...... None +983 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 750 feet upstream of East Main Ave- None +1,241 Town of Taylorsville. nue. Upper Little River ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +936 Unincorpoated Areas of Al- exander County. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Alexander/ None +971 Caldwell County boundary. White Creek ...... At the confluence with Holsclaw Creek ...... None +1,157 Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of SR 1303 ...... None +1,270

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Taylorsville: Maps are available for inspection at the Alexander County Planning and Inspection Office, 332 1st Avenue Southwest, Taylorsville, North Caro- lina. Send comments to The Honorable Guy Barriger, Mayor of the Town of Taylorsville, 67 Main Avenue Drive, Taylorsville, North Carolina 28681. Unincorporated Areas of Alexander County Maps are available for inspection at the Alexander County Planning and Inspection Office, 332 1st Avenue Southwest, Taylorsville, North Caro- lina. Send comments to Mr. Larry Yoder, Chairman of the Alexander County Board of Commissioners, 621 Liledoun Road, Taylorsville, North Caro- lina 28681.

Avery County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Anthony Creek ...... Approximately 140 feet upstream of Anthony Creek None +1,720 Avery County (Unincor- Road (SR 1362). porated Areas). Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Anthony Creek None +1,753 Road (SR 1362). Bill White Creek ...... At the confluence with Linville River ...... None +3,274 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the confluence None +3,331 with Linville River. Cary Flat Branch ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +2,047 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 720 feet upstream of the confluence None +2,057 with Wilson Creek. Clark Branch ...... At the confluence with Mill Timber Creek ...... None +3,325 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60956 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of East Crossnore None +3,362 Drive. Crossnore Creek ...... At the confluence with Mill Timber Creek ...... None +3,323 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Crossnore. Approximately 60 feet downstream of Henson Street None +3,408 Gragg Prong Creek ...... At the confluence with Lost Cove Creek ...... None +1,702 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the confluence None +2,199 with Webb Creek. Harper Creek ...... At the Avery/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,800 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). At the confluence of South Harper and North Harper None +1,816 Creeks. Hull Branch ...... At the confluence of South Harper Creek ...... None +2,279 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 450 feet upstream of the confluence None +2,285 with South Harper Creek. Linville River (downstream) .. Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of the Avery/ None +3,206 Avery County (Unincor- Burke County boundary. porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of River Road ...... +3,576 +3,573 Linville River (upstream) ...... Approximately 50 feet downstream of Highland Mist None +3,695 Avery County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). At the confluence of Big Grassy Creek ...... None +3,834 Lost Cove Creek ...... At the Avery/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,580 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence None +1,947 with Gragg Prong Creek. Mill Timber Creek ...... At the confluence with Linville River ...... None +3,315 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 150 feet downstream of U.S. 221 ...... None +3,362 Rockhouse Creek ...... At the confluence with Lost Cove Creek ...... None +1,580 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the Avery/ None +1,639 Caldwell County boundary. South Harper Creek ...... At the confluence with Harper Creek ...... None +1,816 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 320 feet upstream of the confluence of None +2,284 Hull Branch. Stamey Branch ...... At the confluence with Linville River ...... None +3,263 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +3,281 with Linville River. Webb Creek ...... At the confluence with Gragg Prong Creek ...... +2,172 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 475 feet upstream of Webb Creek None +2,396 Road. West Fork Linville River ...... Approximately 670 feet upstream of Joe Hartley Road None +3,684 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Joe Hartley Road None +3,712 Wilson Creek ...... At the Avery/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,670 Avery County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence None +2,056 with Cary Flat Branch.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Avery County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Avery County Courthouse, 100 Montezuma Street, Newland, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Kenny Poteat, Chairman of the Avery County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 640, Newland, North Carolina 28657.

Burke County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Back Creek ...... At the confluence with Irish Creek ...... None +1,116 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60957

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,135 with Irish Creek. Bailey Fork ...... Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of I–40 ...... None +1,036 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. Approximately 100 feet downstream of U.S. 64 ...... None +1,047 Bristol Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Creek ...... None +1,019 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of Burke/Caldwell None +1,144 County boundary. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Bristol Creek ...... None +1,019 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,019 with Bristol Creek. Camp Creek ...... At Burke/Catawba County boundary ...... None +1,020 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Burke/Catawba None +1,023 County boundary. Canoe Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... +1,023 +1,024 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of SR 1254 ...... None +1,289 Carroll Creek ...... At the confluence with Parks Creek ...... None +1,047 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,055 with Parks Creek. Catawba River ...... At the Burke/Catawba County boundary ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Hickory, City of Mor- ganton, Town of Glen Alpine, Town of Rhodhiss, Town of Ruth- erford College, Town of Valdese. Approximately 2.7 miles upstream of Burke/McDowell None +1,206 County boundary. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,069 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of SR 1223 ...... None +1,094 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,206 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 2.8 miles upstream of the confluence None +1,236 with Catawba River. Clear Creek ...... Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,046 Unincorporated Areas of with Silver Creek. Burke County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of U.S. 64 ...... None +1,111 Cub Creek ...... At the confluence with Henry Fork ...... None +996 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of SR 1001 ...... None +1,230 Double Branch ...... At the confluence with McGalliard Creek ...... None +1,097 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Valdese. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of SR 1737 ...... None +1,231 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Double Branch ...... None +1,110 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of SR 1722 ...... None +1,197 Douglas Creek ...... Approximately 100 feet downstream of Burke/Ca- None +1,046 Unincorporated Areas of tawba County boundary. Burke County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Burke/Catawba None +1,064 County boundary. Drowning Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +938 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of SR 1758 ...... None +1,527 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 800 feet upstream of Wilson Road ...... None +1,025 Town of Hildebran. Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of Cline Park None +1,103 Drive. Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of SR 1680 ...... None +1,045 Unicorporated Areas of Burke County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60958 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Approximately 200 feet downstream of Railroad ...... None +1,079 Tributary 2B ...... At the confluence with Drowning Creek Tributary 2 .... None +1,046 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 150 feet downstream of Railroad ...... None +1,077 Hall Creek ...... At the confluence with Silver Creek ...... None 1,119 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of U.S. 64 ...... None +1,203 Henry Fork ...... Approximately 200 feet downstream of the Burke/Ca- None +930 Unincorporated Areas of tawba County boundary. Burke County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of SR 1918 ...... None +1,422 Howard Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,005 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Drexel. Approximately 750 feet downstream of SR 1536 ...... None +1,009 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence ¥1,084 +1,085 Unicorporated Aeas of with Howard Creek. Burke County, Town of Drexel. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Railroad ...... None +1,192 Hoyle Creek ...... At the conference with Catwaba River ...... None +1,005 Unicorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Rutherford College, town of Valdese. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,081 of Micol Creek. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +1,005 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Rutherford College, Town of Valdese. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,164 with Holy Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +1,005 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Rutherford College, Town of Valdese. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,106 with Hoyle Creek. Hunting Creek ...... At the conference with Catawba River ...... +1,005 +1,014 Unicorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. Approximately 1,050 feet upsteam of SR 2002 ...... None +1,149 Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 650 feet upstream of the confluecne None +1,080 Unincorporated Areas of with Hunting Creek. Burke County, City of Morganton. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Walker Road ...... None +1,151 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Hunting Creek ...... +1,105 Unicorporated Areas of Burke County City of Morganton. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,115 with Hunting Creek. Irish Creek ...... At the confluence with Warrior Fork and Upper Creek None +1,030 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 900 feet upsteam of the confluence of None ¥1,146 Reedys Fork Creek. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Irish Creek ...... None +1,108 Unicorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of SR 1240 ...... None +1,227 Island Creek ...... Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,005 Unincorporated Areas of with Catawba River. Burke County. Approximately 0.9 mile upsteam of I–40 ...... None +1,331 Town of Connelly Springs, Town of Rutherford Col- lege. Jacob Fork ...... At Burke/Catawba County boundary ...... None +1,047 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of SR 1904 ...... None +1,194 Johns River ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... +1,004 +1,013 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. At Burke/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,053

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60959

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Laurel Creek ...... At the confluence with Henry Fork ...... None +1,015 Unicorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Shouppe Way ... None +1,302 Linville River ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,206 Unicorporated Area of Burke County. At Avery/Burke County boundary ...... None +3,215 Little Silver Creek...... Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Causby Road None +1,115 Unicorporated Areas of (SR 1147). Burke County, City of Morganton, Town of Glen Alpine Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Ceramic Tile None +1,126 Drive. Lower Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,011 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. At Burke/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,028 McGalliard Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,005 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Valdese. Approximately 450 feet upstream of SR 1722 ...... None +1,212 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,062 Unincorporated Areas of with McGalliard Creek. Burke County, Town of Valdese. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Louise Avenue None +1,232 Northeast. Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,089 Unincorporated Areas of with McGalliard Creek. Burke County, Town of Drexel. Approximately 650 feet downstream of I–40 ...... None +1,250 Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with McGalliard Creek Tributary 2 .. None +1,110 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Drexel. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Drexel Road ...... None +1,164 Tributary 2B ...... At the confluence with McGalliard Creek Tributary 2 .. None +1,149 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Drexel. Approximately 200 feet downstream of SR 1721 ...... None +1,205 Micol Creek ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +1,068 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Valdese. Approximately 300 feet downstream of I–40 ...... None +1,252 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Micol Creek ...... None +1,117 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Rutherford College, Town of Valdese. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Montanya View None +1,526 Drive. Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Micol Creek Tributary 1 ...... None +1,165 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Rutherford College, Town of Valdese. Approximately 100 feet downstream of SR 1001 ...... None +1,229 Tributary 1A1 ...... At the confluence with Micol Creek Tributary 1A ...... None +1,169 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, Town of Rutherford College. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Rutherford Col- None +1,229 lege Road. Muddy Creek ...... At the confluence with Old Catawba River ...... None +1,083 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Burke/McDowell None +1,089 County boundary. Nolden Creek ...... Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,004 Unincorporated Areas of with Catawba River. Burke County, Town of Connelly Springs. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of SR 1614 ...... None +1,201 Old Catawba River ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,066 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. At Catawba Dam ...... None +1,098

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60960 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Paddy Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,206 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of SR 1237 ...... None +1,815 Parks Creek ...... At the confluence with Johns River ...... None +1,044 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of SR 1405 ...... None +1,050 Pearcy Creek ...... At the confluence with Parks Creek ...... None +1,046 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of SR 1405 ...... None +1,154 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Pearcy Creek ...... None +1,077 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of SR 1405 ...... None +1,116 Reedys Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Irish Creek ...... None +1,141 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,159 with Irish Creek. Roses Creek ...... At the confluence with Irish Creek ...... None +1,057 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence of None +1,345 Roses Creek Tributary 1. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Roses Creek ...... None +1,297 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,382 with Roses Creek. Russell Creek ...... At the confluence with Irish Creek ...... None +1,115 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1,550 feet upstream of SR 1241 ...... None +1,209 Secrets Creek ...... Approximately 150 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,011 Unincorporated Areas of with Howard Creek. Burke County, Town of Drexel. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of South Main None +1,213 Street. Silver Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... +1,022 +1,023 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of U.S. 64 ...... None +1,226 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Silver Creek ...... +1,022 +1,023 City of Morganton. Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Golf Course None +1,025 Road. Simpson Creek ...... At the confluence with Roses Creek ...... None +1,089 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence None +1,185 with Roses Creek. Smokey Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,006 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. At Burke/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,100 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Smokey Creek ...... None +1,043 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,079 with Smokey Creek. South Muddy Creek...... Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of Burke/ None +1,092 Unincorporated Areas of McDowell County boundary. Burke County. At Burke/McDowell County boundary ...... None +1,098 Tributary 1 ...... At Burke/McDowell County boundary ...... None +1,121 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Burke/ None +1,144 McDowell County boundary. Tims Creek ...... At the confluence with Henry Fork ...... None +977 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of SR 1786 ...... None +1,234 Upper Creek ...... At the confluence with Warrior Fork and Irish Creek ... None +1,030 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of SR 1405 ...... None +1,093 Warrior Fork ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... +1,013 +1,018 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. At the confluence of Upper Creek and Irish Creek ...... None +1,030

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60961

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet above Communities affected ground Effective Modified

Wilson Creek ...... At the confluence with Warrior Fork ...... +1,013 +1,018 Unincorporated Areas of Burke County, City of Morganton. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence +1,017 +1,018 with Warrior Fork.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Hickory Maps are available for inspection at the Hickory City Hall, 76 North Center Street, Hickory, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable G. Rudy Wright, Jr., Mayor of the City of Hickory, P.O. Box 398, Hickory, North Carolina 28603. City of Morganton Maps are available for inspection at the Morganton Town Hall, Community Development Department, 305 East Union Street, Morganton, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Mel Cohen, Mayor of the City of Morganton, P.O. Box 3448, Morganton, North Carolina 28680–3448. Town of Connelly Springs Maps are available for inspection at the Connelly Springs Town Hall, 1030 U.S. Highway 70, Connelly Springs, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Carl Greene, Mayor of the Town of Connelly Springs, P.O. Box 99, Connelly Springs, North Carolina 28612. Town of Drexel Maps are available for inspection at the Drexel Town Hall, 202 Church Street, Drexel, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Richard E. Propst, Mayor of the Town of Drexel, P.O. Box 1087, Drexel, North Carolina 28619. Town of Glen Alpine Maps are available for inspection at the Glen Alpine Town Hall, 103 Pitts Street, Glen Alpine, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Christine Abernathy, Mayor of the Town of Glen Alpine, P.O. Box 898, Glen Alpine, North Carolina 28628. Town of Hildebran Maps are available for inspection at the Hildebran Town Hall, 202 South Center Street, Hildebran, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Albert L. Parkhurst, Mayor of the Town of Hildebran, P.O. Box 87, Hildebran, North Carolina 28637. Town of Rhodhiss Maps are available for inspection at the Rhodhiss Town Hall, 200 Burke Street, Rhodhiss, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jimmy Wilson, Mayor of the Town of Rhodhiss, P.O. Box 40, Rhodhiss, North Carolina 28667. Town of Rutherford College Maps are available for inspection at the Rutherford College Town Hall, 950 Malcolm Boulevard, Rutherford College, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jim Hoffman, Sr., Mayor of the Town of Rutherford College, P.O. Box 406, Rutherford College, North Caro- lina 28671. Town of Valdese Maps are available for inspection at the Valdese Town Hall, 121 Faet Street, Valdese, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable James Hatley, Mayor of the Town of Valdese, P.O. Box 339, Valdese, North Carolina 28690. Unincorporated Areas of Burke County Maps are available for inspection at the Burke County Planning and Development Department, 110 North Green Street, Morganton, North Caro- lina. Send comments to Mr. Ron Lewis, Burke County Manager, P.O. Box 219, Morganton, North Carolina 28680.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ACTION: Proposed rule. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) SECURITY Dated: October 4, 2006. SUMMARY: Technical information or Federal Emergency Management comments are requested on the David I. Maurstad, Agency Director, Mitigation Division, Federal proposed Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed Emergency Management Agency, Department 44 CFR Part 67 of Homeland Security. BFEs modifications for the communities [FR Doc. E6–17254 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] listed below. The BFEs are the basis for [Docket No. FEMA–P–7917] the floodplain management measures BILLING CODE 9110–12–P Proposed Flood Elevation that the community is required either to Determinations adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or AGENCY: Federal Emergency remain qualified for participation in the Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program Department of Homeland Security, (NFIP). Mitigation Division.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60962 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DATES: The comment period is ninety existing ordinances that are more September 30, 1993, Regulatory (90) days following the second stringent in their floodplain Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. publication of this proposed rule in a management requirements. The Executive Order 13132, Federalism. newspaper of local circulation in each community may at any time enact This rule involves no policies that have community. stricter requirements of its own, or federalism implications under Executive ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each pursuant to policies established by other Order 13132. community are available for inspection Federal, state or regional entities. These Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice at the office of the Chief Executive proposed elevations are used to meet Reform. This rule meets the applicable Officer of each community. The the floodplain management standards of Executive Order 12988. requirements of the NFIP and are also respective addresses are listed in the List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 table below. used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative practice and buildings built after these elevations are William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering procedure, flood insurance, reporting made final, and for the contents in these and recordkeeping requirements. Management Section, Mitigation buildings. Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is National Environmental Policy Act. proposed to be amended as follows: DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. This proposed rule is categorically SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA excluded from the requirements of 44 PART 67—[AMENDED] proposes to make determinations of CFR Part 10, Environmental BFEs and modified BFEs for each Consideration. No environmental 1. The authority citation for Part 67 community listed below, in accordance impact assessment has been prepared. continues to read as follows: with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, elevation determinations are not within Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, These proposed BFEs and modified Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. BFEs, together with the floodplain flexibility analysis is not required. management criteria required by 44 CFR Regulatory Classification. This § 67.4 [Amended] 60.3, are the minimum that are required. proposed rule is not a significant 2. The tables published under the They should not be construed to mean regulatory action under the criteria of authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be that the community must change any Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of amended as follows:

# Depth in feet above- ground. + Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) *Elevation in feet (NAVD) Existing Modified

City of Hamilton, Hancock County, Illinois

Illinois ...... Hamilton (City) Chaney Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 190 feet upstream of the None *532 (Hancock Coun- confluence with Chaney Creek. ty). Approximately 1,155 feet upstream of None *605 Park Drive. Chaney Creek Tributary ... At the confluence with Chaney Creek None *580 Tributary 1. Approximately 20 feet upstream of Hill- None *616 crest Drive. Railroad Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 215 feet upstream of the None *558 confluence with Railroad Creek. Approximately 30 feet upstream of Wal- None *612 nut Street. Railroad Creek Tributary 2 Approximately 345 feet upstream of the None *588 confluence with Railroad Creek. Approximately 435 feet upstream of None *645 Broadway Street. Railroad Creek Tributary 3 Approximately 200 feet upstream of the None *575 confluence with Railroad Creek. Approximately 60 feet upstream of South None *635 19th Street. Spring Creek ...... Approximately 460 feet upstream of the None *561 confluence with Chaney Creek. Approximately 1,975 feet upstream of the None *611 confluence with Chaney Creek.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum # Depth in feet above ground + North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, City of Hamilton, City Hall, 1010 Broadway, Hamilton, Illinois.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60963

# Depth in feet above- ground. + Elevation in feet State City/town/county Source of flooding Location (NGVD) *Elevation in feet (NAVD) Existing Modified

Send comments to The Honorable Steve Woodruff, Mayor, City of Hamilton, City Hall,1010 Broadway, Hamilton, Illinois 62341–1535.

Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County, Illinois

Illinois ...... Hancock County Chaney Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 70 feet upstream of the None +529 (Unincorporated confluence with Chaney Creek. Areas). Approximately 370 feet upstream of the None +536 confluence with Chaney Creek. Railroad Creek Tributary 3 Approximately 2,970 feet upstream of the None +636 confluence with Railroad Creek. Approximately 3,170 feet upstream of the None +636 confluence with Railroad Creek. Spring Creek ...... Approximately 70 feet upstream of the None +536 confluence with Chaney Creek. Approximately 460 feet upstream of the None +561 confluence with Chaney Creek.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum # Depth in feet above ground + North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, Hancock County Courthouse, 500 Main Street, Carthage, Illinois. Send comments to The Honorable David Walker, Board Chairman, Hancock County, 235 North Washington, Carthage, Illinois 62321.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. adopt or to show evidence of being management requirements. The 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) already in effect in order to qualify or community may at any time enact Dated: October 4, 2006. remain qualified for participation in the stricter requirements of its own, or David I. Maurstad, National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to policies established by other Director, Mitigation Division, Federal (NFIP). Federal, state or regional entities. These Emergency Management Agency, Department DATES: The comment period is ninety proposed elevations are used to meet of Homeland Security. (90) days following the second the floodplain management [FR Doc. E6–17256 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] publication of this proposed rule in a requirements of the NFIP and are also BILLING CODE 9110–12–P newspaper of local circulation in each used to calculate the appropriate flood community. insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are ADDRESSES: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND The proposed BFEs for each made final, and for the contents in these SECURITY community are available for inspection buildings. at the office of the Chief Executive National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Emergency Management Officer of each community. The This proposed rule is categorically Agency respective addresses are listed in the excluded from the requirements of 44 table below. CFR Part 10, Environmental 44 CFR Part 67 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Consideration. No environmental William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering impact assessment has been prepared. [Docket No. FEMA–B–7465] Management Section, Mitigation Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, elevation determinations are not within Proposed Flood Elevation DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Determinations the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory AGENCY: Federal Emergency proposes to make determinations of flexibility analysis is not required. Management Agency (FEMA), BFEs and modified BFEs for each Regulatory Classification. This Department of Homeland Security, community listed below, in accordance proposed rule is not a significant Mitigation Division. with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster regulatory action under the criteria of ACTION: Proposed rule. Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of and 44 CFR 67.4(a). September 30, 1993, Regulatory SUMMARY: Technical information or These proposed BFEs and modified Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. comments are requested on the BFEs, together with the floodplain Executive Order 13132, Federalism. proposed Base (1% annual chance) management criteria required by 44 CFR This rule involves no policies that have Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 60.3, are the minimum that are required. federalism implications under Executive BFEs modifications for the communities They should not be construed to mean Order 13132. listed below. The BFEs are the basis for that the community must change any Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice the floodplain management measures existing ordinances that are more Reform. This rule meets the applicable that the community is required either to stringent in their floodplain standards of Executive Order 12988.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60964 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 PART 67—[AMENDED] 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 1. The authority citation for Part 67 § 67.4 [Amended] continues to read as follows: and recordkeeping requirements. 2. The tables published under the Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be proposed to be amended as follows: Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, amended as follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Benton County, Arkansas and Incorporated Areas

Little Osage Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream from the intersec- None +1258 City of Centerton. tion with West Fish Hatchery Road. Approximately 100 feet upstream from the intersec- None +1278 tion with Centerton Blvd. McKisic Creek ...... At Confluence with Little Sugar Creek ...... None +1037 Benton County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Bentonville, City of Centerton. Approximately 300 feet upstream from the intersec- None +1291 tion of Harvest Street and Tyler Street. Osage Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 1000 feet downstream from the inter- +1196 +1197 Benton County (Unincor- section with Stoney Brook Road. porated Areas), City of Bentonville, City of Rog- ers. Approximately 100 feet upstream from the intersec- +1300 +1302 tion with 14th Street. Osage/Turtle Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet downstream from the inter- +1159 +1160 Benton County (Unincor- section of Inglewood Road and Osage Creek Road. porated Areas), City of Cave Springs, City of Rogers. Approximately 200 feet downstream from the inter- None +1347 section of West Persimmon Street and North 4th Street. Tributary 3 to Sager Creek .. Approximately 1000 feet downstream from the inter- +1040 +1042 Benton County (Unincor- section with Orchard Hill Road. porated Areas), City of Siloam. Approximately 150 feet upstream from the intersec- +1086 +1087 tion with North Mt. Olive Street.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Bentonville Maps are available for inspection at 305 Southwest A Street, Bentonville, AR 72712. Send comments to the Honorable Terry Coberly, Mayor, City of Bentonville, 117 West Central Street, Bentonville, AR 72712. City of Cave Springs Maps are available for inspection at 137 N. Main, Cave Springs, AR 72718. Send comments to the Honorable Thekla Wallis, Mayor, City of Cave Springs, 137 N. Main, Cave Springs, AR 72718. City of Centerton Maps are available for inspection at 290 Main Street, Centerton, AR 72719. Send comments to the Honorable Ken Williams, Mayor, City of Centerton, P.O. Box 208, Centerton, AR 72719. City of Rogers Maps are available for inspection at 207 South 2nd, Rogers, AR 72756. Send comments to the Honorable Steve Womack, Mayor, City of Rogers, 300 West Poplar, Rogers, AR 72756. City of Siloam Springs Maps are available for inspection at 400 North Broadway, Siloam Springs, AR 72761. Send comments to the Honorable M.L. Van Poucke, Jr., Mayor, City of Siloam Springs, 400 North Broadway, Siloam Springs, AR 72761. Unincorporated Areas of Benton County Maps are available for inspection at 905 Northwest 8th Street, Bentonville, AR 72712. Send comments to the Honorable Gary Black, Judge, Benton County, 905 Northwest 8th Street, Bentonville, AR 72712.

Town of Vinalhaven, Knox County, Maine

Atlantic Ocean ...... At Crockett Cove ...... None +10 Town of Vinalhaven. At Carvers Pond ...... None +10 At Old Harbor, Northern Shore ...... None +11

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60965

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

At Eastern Shore of Carvers Harbor ...... None +11 At Northern end of Carvers Harbor ...... None +12 At Coombs Neck, Northern Shore ...... None +13 At Sand Cove ...... None +14 At Clam Cove of Roberts Harbor ...... None +16 At Southern point of Vinalhaven Island opposite None +18 Carvers Island.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at the Town of Vinalhaven, Town Office, West Main, Vinalhaven, Maine 04863. Send comments to The Honorable James Moore, Chairman, 19 Washington School Road, Vinalhaven, Maine 04863.

Caswell County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Benton Branch ...... At the confluence with Stony Creek ...... None +603 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Senior Alfred None +680 Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Benton Branch ...... None +619 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence None +707 with Benton Branch. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Benton Branch ...... None +634 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Simmons Road .. None +725 Grays Branch ...... At the confluence with Stony Creek ...... None +618 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Shaw Road ...... None +738 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Grays Branch ...... None +623 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence None +724 with Grays Branch. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Grays Branch ...... None +641 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of Underwood None +754 Road. Hughes Mill Creek ...... Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +610 Caswell County (Unincor- with Jordan Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of North Carolina None +657 Highway 62. Stony Creek ...... Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of the Caswell/ None +595 Caswell County (Unincor- Alamance County boundary. porated Areas). Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of Moore Road ..... None +712 Toms Creek ...... At the Caswell/Alamance County boundary ...... None +596 Caswell County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Kerr’s Chapel None +637 Road.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Caswell County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at the Caswell County Planning Department, 144 Courthouse Square, Yancyville, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Nathaniel Hall, Chairman of the Caswell County Commissioners, P.O. Box 98, Yancyville, North Carolina 27379.

Guilford County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

East Belews Creek Tributary At the Guilford/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +733 Town of Stokesdale. 1. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of Coldwater Road None +786 Tributary 1A ...... At the Guilford/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +733 Town of Stokesdale. Approximately 680 feet upstream of Coldwater Road None +758 Tributary 2 ...... At the Guilford/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +750 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Water Oak Road None +776

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60966 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Kennedy Mill Creek ...... At the Guilford/Davidson County boundary ...... None +801 City of High Point. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Hodgin Street .... None +848 Tributary 1 ...... At the Guilford/Davidson County boundary ...... None +815 City of High Point. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Woodbine Street None +903 Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence of Kennedy Mill Creek Tributary 1 None +816 City of High Point. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence None +839 with Kennedy Mill Creek Tributary 1. Kings Creek ...... At the Guilford/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +724 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Stokesdale. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Anthony Road .. None +815 Payne Creek ...... At the confluence of Payne Creek Tributary 2 ...... None +826 City of High Point. Approximately 130 feet upstream of Council Street ... None +858 Tributary 1 (Stream No. At State Route 68 ...... None +826 City of High Point. 99). Approximately 170 feet upstream of West Rotary None +868 Drive. Tributary 1A (Stream Approximately 100 feet upstream of State Route 68 .. None +822 City of High Point. No. 97). Approximately 800 feet upstream of Carr Street ...... None +863 Tributary 1B ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of the confluence None +807 City of High Point. with Payne Creek Tributary 1 (Stream No. 99). Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of the confluence None +834 with Payne Creek. Tributary 1C ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence None +810 City of High Point. with Payne Creek Tributary 1 (Stream No. 99). Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence None +839 with Payne Creek Tributary 1 (Stream No. 99). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Payne Creek ...... None +826 City of High Point. Approximately 460 feet upstream of North Rotary None +868 Drive. Rich Fork Tributary 1 Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence of None +791 City of High Point. (Stream No. 92). Rich Fork Tributary 1B (Stream No. 93). Approximately 950 feet upstream of Greenwood None +846 Drive. Tributary 1 B1 ...... Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence None +822 City of High Point. with Rich Fork Tributary 1B (Stream No. 93). Approximately 375 feet upstream of Idol Street ...... None +858 Tributary 1A ...... Approximately 100 feet downstream of Carolyndon +780 +781 City of High Point. Drive. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Westover Drive None +853 Tributary 2 ...... At the Guilford/Davidson County boundary ...... None +807 City of High Point. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the Guilford/Da- None +827 vidson County boundary. Rich Fork Tributary 1B Approximately 50 feet upstream of State Route 68 .... None +833 City of High Point. (Stream No. 93). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Pinehurst Drive None +833

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of High Point Maps available for inspection at the High Point City Hall, 211 South Hamilton Street, High Point, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Rebecca Smothers, Mayor of the City of High Point, P.O. Box 230, High Point, North Carolina 27261. Town of Stokesdale Maps available for inspection at the Stokesdale Town Hall, 8416 U.S. Highway 158, Stokesdale, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Randle L. Jones, Mayor of the Town of Stokesdale, P.O. Box 465, Stokesdale, North Carolina 27357. Unincorporated Areas of Guilford County Maps available for inspection at the Guilford County Planning and Development Office, 201 South Eugene Street, Greensboro, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Willie Best, Guilford County Manager, P.O. Box 3427, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.

Halifax County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Bells Branch ...... At the confluence with Chockoyotte Creek ...... +117 +116 City of Roanoke Rapids. Approximately 850 feet upstream of the confluence +117 +116 with Chockoyotte Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60967

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Bens Creek ...... Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the Halifax/War- None +199 Unincorporated Areas of ren County boundary. Halifax County. Chockoyotte Creek ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... +56 +57 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County, City of Roanoke Rapids. Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of Zoo Road ...... None +202 Town of Weldon. Chockoyotte Creek Tributary At the confluence with Chockoyotte Creek ...... +83 +79 Town of Weldon, City of Roanoke Rapids, Unin- corporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 30 feet downstream of County Road .. +88 +87 Tributary A ...... At the confluence with Chockoyotte Creek ...... +92 +94 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County, City of Roanoke Rapids. Approximately 1,490 feet upstream of American Le- None +135 gion Road. Tributary B ...... At the confluence with Chockoyotte Creek ...... +112 +114 City of Roanoke Rapids. At the downstream side of Julian R. Allsbrook High- None +127 way. Conoconnara Swamp ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... +41 +43 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of NC–481 ...... None +80 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Conoconnara Swamp ...... None +58 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the confluence None +67 with Conoconnara Swamp. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Conoconnara Swamp ...... None +72 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +78 with Conoconnara Swamp. Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with Conoconnara Swamp Tribu- None +77 Unincorporated Areas of tary 2. Halifax County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence None +85 with Conoconnara Swamp. Deep Creek (into Roanoke Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of Thema Road None +133 Unincorporated Areas of River). (SR 1400). Halifax County. Approximately 80 feet downstream of Roper Springs None +189 Road (SR 1525). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek (into Roanoke None +136 Unincorporated Areas of River). Halifax County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +151 with Deep Creek (into Roanoke River). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek (into Roanoke None +146 Unincorporated Areas of River). Halifax County. Approximately 1,375 feet upstream of the confluence None +162 with Deep Creek (into Roanoke River) Tributary 2A. Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek (into Roanoke None +146 Unincorporated Areas of River) Tributary 2. Halifax County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the confluence None +159 with deep Creek (into Roanoke River) Tributary 2. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek into Roanoke None +175 Unincorporated Areas of River). Halifax County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +181 with Deep Creek (into Roanoke River). Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Deep Creek (into Roanoke None +154 Unincorporated Areas of River). Halifax County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence None +163 with Deep Creek (into Roanoke River). Hales Branch ...... At the upstream side of Zoo Road ...... None +215 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Zoo Road ...... None +227 Hales Mill Pond Branch ...... At the confluence with Conoconnara Swamp ...... None +67 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Old 125 Road None +73 (SR 1103). Keehukee Swamp ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. ≤ Approximately 250 feet downstream of Railroad ...... None +61

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60968 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Keehukee Swamp ...... None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of the confluence None +28 with Keehukee Swamp. Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence None +27 Unincorporated Areas of with Keehukee Swamp. Halifax County. At the confluence with Keehukee Swamp ...... None +29 Little Quankey Creek ...... Approximately 750 feet upstream of Interstate 95 ...... None +134 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of NC–48 ...... None +176 Little Quankey Creek ...... At the confluence with Quankey Creek ...... None +87 Town of Halifax. Approximately 0.75 mile upstream of NC–903 ...... None +87 Nash Creek ...... Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence None +143 Unincorporated Areas of with Bells Branch. Halifax County. Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the confluence None +172 with Bells Branch. Quankey Creek ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... None +50 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of SR–301 (South None +87 King Street). Quankey Creek ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... None +50 Town of Halifax. At the confluence with Little Quankey Creek ...... None +87 Roanoke River ...... At the Martin/Bertie/Halifax County boundary ...... None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County, City of Roanoke Rapids, Town of Halifax, Town of Weldon. At the downstream side of Gaston Dam ...... +133 +136 Webbs Mill Branch ...... At the confluence with Keehukee Swamp ...... None +34 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence None +50 with Webbs Mill Branch Tributary 2. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Webbs Mill Branch ...... None +38 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +57 with Webbs Mill Branch. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Webbs Mill Branch ...... None +45 Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County, Town of Scotland Neck. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +51 with Webbs Mill Branch.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Roanoke Rapids Maps are available for inspection at the City of Roanoke Rapids Planning Department, 1040 Roanoke Avenue, Roanoke Rapids, North Caro- lina. Send comments to The Honorable D. N. Bealle, Mayor, City of Roanoke Rapids, P.O. Box 38, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina 27870. Town of Halifax Maps are available for inspection at the Halifax Town Hall, 24 South King Street, Halifax, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Gerald Wright, Mayor, Town of Halifax, P.O. Box 222, Halifax, North Carolina 27839. Town of Scotland Neck Maps are available for inspection at the Scotland Neck Town Hall, 1310 Main Street, Scotland Neck, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Partin, Mayor, Town of Scotland Neck, P.O. Box 537, Scotland Neck, North Carolina 27874. Town of Weldon Maps are available for inspection at the Weldon Town Hall, 109 Washington Street, Weldon, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable G.W. Draper, Jr., Mayor, Town of Weldon, P.O. Box 551, Weldon, North Carolina 27890. Unincorporated Areas of Halifax County Maps are available for inspection at the Halifax County Public Works Department, 26 North King Street, Room 102, Halifax, North Carolina. Send comments to Ms. Carolynn Johnson, Acting Chairman, Halifax County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 38, Halifax, North Carolina 27839.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60969

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Martin County, North Carolina

Beaverdam Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet downstream of Alternate U.S. None +42 Unincorporated Areas of Highway 64. Martin County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Alternate U.S. None +52 Highway 64. Conoho Creek ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... +12 +18 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Iron Mine None +81 Springs Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Conoho Creek ...... None +32 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County, Town of Hamilton. Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the confluence None +58 with Conoho Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Conoho Creek ...... None +41 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of State Route None +74 1325. Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with Conoho Creek Tributary 2 ...... None +44 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Cox Road ...... None +63 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Conoho Creek ...... None +43 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 670 feet upstream of Haislip Road ..... None +68 Dog Branch ...... At the confluence with Ready Branch ...... None +20 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Highways 13 None +39 and 64. Etheridge Swamp ...... At the confluence with Conoho Creek ...... None +51 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County, Town of Oak City. Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of Edmondson None +82 Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Etheridge Swamp ...... None +56 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of County Line None +88 Road. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Etheridge Swamp ...... None +57 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Edmondson None +69 Road. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Etheridge Swamp ...... None +60 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Edmondson None +71 Road. Tributary 3A ...... At the confluence with Etheridge Swamp Tributary 3 None +60 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Edmondson None +69 Road. Hardison Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Sweetwater Creek ...... None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of E.H. Williams None +41 Road (State Route 1538). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Hardison Mill Creek ...... None +21 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of Fairview None +23 Church Road (State Route 1514). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Hardison Mill Creek ...... None +23 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Breasley Road None +43 Long Creek ...... At the confluence with Hardison Mill Creek ...... None +22 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Hollow Pond None +38 Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Long Creek ...... None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +34 with Long Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:33 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60970 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Ready Branch ...... At the confluence with Sweetwater Creek ...... None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Bear Grass Road None +45 Roanoke River ...... At the Martin/Washington/Bertie County boundary ..... None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County, Town of Hamilton, Town of Jamesville, Town of Williamston. At the Martin/Halifax/Bertie County boundary ...... None +28 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence None +42 with Roanoke River. Tributary 4A ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River Tributary 4 ..... None +28 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the confluence None +50 with Roanoke River Tributary 4. Skewakee Gut Canal ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... +12 +17 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County, Town of Williamston. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of West Main None +74 Street (State Route 1445). Smithwick Creek ...... At the confluence with Sweetwater Creek ...... None +17 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 4 miles upstream of Smithwick Creek None +43 Church Road. Sweetwater Creek ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... +9 +16 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County, Town of Williamston. At the confluence of Ready Branch and Smithwick None +17 Creek. Welch Creek ...... At the confluence with Roanoke River ...... None +7 Unincorporated Areas of Martin County. Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the confluence None +13 of Welch Creek Tributary 2.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Hamilton Maps available for inspection at the Hamilton Town Office, 101 North Front Street, Hamilton, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable D.G. Matthews, III, Mayor of the Town of Hamilton, P.O. Box 249, Hamilton, North Carolina 27840. Town of Jamesville Maps available for inspection at the Jamesville Town Hall, 1211 Water Street, Jamesville, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jane Wolfe, Mayor of the Town of Jamesville, P.O. Box 215, Jamesville, North Carolina 27846–0215. Town of Oak City Maps available for inspection at the Oak City Town Hall, 109 Commerce Street, Oak City, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Barbara Cotton, Mayor of the Town of Oak City, P.O. Box 298, Oak City, North Carolina 27857–0298. Town of Williamston Maps available for inspection at the Williamston Town Hall, Zoning Department, 106 East Main Street, Williamston, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Tommy Roberson, Mayor of the Town of Williamston, P.O. Box 506, Williamston, North Carolina 27892. Unincorporated Areas of Martin County Maps available for inspection at the Martin County Government Center, Building Inspections Department, 305 East Main Street, Williamston, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Russell Overman, Martin County Manager, P.O. Box 668, Williamston, North Carolina 27892.

Stokes County, North Carolina

Ash Camp Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +619 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Brook Cove None +660 Road (SR 1941). Beaverdam Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... None +898 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60971

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Palmer Road None +1,003 (SR 1465). Belews Creek ...... Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +737 Unincorporated Areas of with Dan River. Stokes County. Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of the confluence None +737 of East Belews Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Belews Creek ...... None +737 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +737 with Belews Creek. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Belews Creek ...... None +737 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +737 with Belews Creek. Tributary of Tributary 3 At the confluence with Belews Creek Tributary 3 ...... None +737 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. At the Stokes/Rockingham County boundary ...... None +737 Belews Lake ...... Entire shoreline within county ...... None +737 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Big Beaver Island Creek ...... Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence of None +768 Unincorporated Areas of Big Beaver Island Creek Tributary 12. Stokes County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Buffalo Road None +860 (SR 1636). Big Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +768 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. At the Stokes/Surry County boundary ...... None +1,084 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... None +1,023 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Stevens Road None +1,074 (SR 1404). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... None +1,065 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence None +1,124 with Big Creek. Blackies Branch ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +655 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the confluence None +668 with Dan River. Brushy Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +873 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Mountain View None +873 Church Road (SR 1998). Buffalo Creek (into Mayo At the Stokes/Rockingham County boundary ...... None +753 Unincorporated Areas of River). Stokes County. Approximately 2.9 miles upstream of the Stokes/ None +822 Rockingham County boundary. Buffalo Creek (into Town At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +662 Unincorporated Areas of Fork Creek). Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +669 with Town Fork Creek. Bull Run ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +605 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Martin Luther None +644 King Jr. Road. Coolico Creek (Morgan At the confluence with Old Field Creek ...... None +630 Unincorporated Areas of Pond). Stokes County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Easley Road (SR None +661 1933). Crooked Creek ...... Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of mouth ...... None +793 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Frank Joyce None +980 Road (SR 1617). Crooked Run Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Yadkin River ...... None +788 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, City of King. Approximately 550 feet upstream of Maple Street ..... None +1,070

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60972 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Tributary ...... Approximately 160 feet upstream of the confluence +903 +904 Unincorporated Areas of with Crooked Run. Stokes County, City of King. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the confluence None +992 of Crooked Run Creek Tributary 2 of Tributary. Tributary 2 of Tributary Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence None +978 City of King. with Crooked Run Creek. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,000 with Crooked Run Creek. Dan River ...... Approximately 500 feet downstream of the con- None +586 Unincorporated Areas of fluence of Dan River Tributary 50. Stokes County, Town of Danbury. Approximately 100 feet downstream of most up- None +1,137 stream crossing of State boundary. Tributary 48 ...... At the Stokes/Rockingham County boundary ...... None +591 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 350 feet upstream of the Stokes/Rock- None +593 ingham County boundary. Tributary 50 ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +586 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of U.S. Route 311 .. None +599 Tributary 51 ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +586 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of U.S. Route 311 None +586 Tributary 52 ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +597 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Middleton Loop None +608 (SR 1909). Tributary 54 ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +610 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +628 with Dan River. Tributary 56 ...... At the confluence with DanRiver ...... None +616 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +648 with Dan River. Tributary 57 ...... At the confluence with DanRiver ...... None +712 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +745 with Dan River. Tributary 58 ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +894 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Collinstown Road None +1,096 (SR 1432). Tributary near At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +662 Unincorporated Areas of Dodgetown Road. Stokes County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +679 with Dan River. Tributary near Mission At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +686 Unincorporated Areas of Road. Stokes County. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of the confluence None +691 with Dan River. Danbury Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Yadkin River ...... None +850 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, City of King. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Goff Road (SR None +895 1138). East Prong Little Yadkin At the confluence with Little Yadkin River ...... None +862 Unincorporated Areas of River. Stokes County. Approximately 2.6 miles upstream of Volunteer Road None +918 (SR 1136). Elk Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +849 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of the North None +1,006 Carolina/Virginia State boundary. Eurins Creek ...... Approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence None +588 Unincorporated Areas of with Dan River. Stokes. County Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of U.S. Route 311 None +657

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60973

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Eurins Creek ...... None +603 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +626 with Eurins Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Eurins Creek ...... None +604 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +627 with Eurins Creek. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Eurins Creek ...... None +650 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +661 with Eurins Creek. Flat Shoal Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +684 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Danbury. Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Young Road (SR None +825 1990). Fulk Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +601 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of U.S. Route 311 None +649 Goff Creek ...... At the confluence with Danbury Creek ...... None +894 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, City of King. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Brown Road None +927 (SR 1128). Grassy Creek Tributary 8 ..... At the Stokes/Surry County boundary ...... None +918 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the Stokes/ None +927 Surry County boundary. Leak Branch ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +703 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 50 feet upstream of the Stokes/ None +703 Forsyth County boundary. Lick Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +609 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +647 Tributary (near Walnut At the confluence with Lick Creek ...... None +628 Unincorporated Areas of Cove). Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence None +646 with Lick Creek. Lick Creek Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with LickCreek ...... None +646 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +647 Little Beaver Island Creek .... Approximately 1.6 miles downstream of Dunlap Road None +657 Unincorporated Areas of (SR 1683). Stokes County. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Franklin Moore None +785 Road (SR 1679). Little Crooked Creek ...... At the confluence with Crooked Creek ...... None +839 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Hope Beasley None +933 Road (SR 1615). Little Dan River ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +1,018 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,033 of Little Dan River Tributary 1. River Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Little Dan River ...... None +1,029 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,071 with Little Dan River. Little Neatman Creek ...... At the confluence with Neatman Creek ...... None +779 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +807 with Neatman Creek. Little Peter Creek ...... At the confluence with Peters Creek ...... None +861 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:33 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60974 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,004 of Little Peter Creek Tributary. Little Peter Creek Tributary .. At the confluence with Peter Creek Tributary ...... None +992 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,015 with Peter Creek Tributary. Little Snow Creek ...... At the confluence with Snow Creek ...... None +774 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Moorefield None +867 Road (SR 1657). Little Yadkin River ...... Flooding affecting Stokes County approximately 850 None +776 Unincorporated Areas of feet east along county boundary from Little Yadkin Stokes County. River Tributary near Perch Road streamline. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of High Bridge None +948 Road (SR 1157). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with the Little Yadkin River ...... None +815 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 2,475 feet upstream of the confluence None +821 with Little Yadkin River. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Little Yadkin River ...... None +833 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Westmoreland None +845 Road (SR 1104). Tributary near Peach At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +775 Unincorporated Areas of Road. Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +781 with Little Yadkin River. Lynn Branch ...... At the confluence with Snow Creek ...... None +664 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Duggins Road None +712 (SR 1696). Marshall Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... None +884 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of George Road None +1,022 (SR 1459). Martin Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +642 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Brook Core Road None +687 (SR 1941). Miles Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +617 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of East Road (SR None +800 1937). Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +693 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Danbury. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of NC Route 8 ...... None +820 Mill Creek (Hawkins Mill At the confluence with Snow Creek ...... None +750 Unincorporated Areas of Creek). Stokes County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence None +856 of Snow Creek. Neatman Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +660 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Flat Shoals None +938 Road (SR 2019). North Double Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +758 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 3.1 miles upstream of NC Route 66 ... None +943 Old Field Creek ...... At the confluence with Tom Fork Creek ...... None +624 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +653 Paynes Branch ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None &+715 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 50 feet upstream of the Stokes/ None &plus 780 Forsyth County boundary. Paynes Branch Tributary ...... At the confluence with Paynes Branch ...... None &+736 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None &plus 863

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:33 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60975

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Peters Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None &+805 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 200 feet downstream of the North None &+1,015 Carolina/Virginia State boundary. Pinch Gut Creek ...... At the confluence with Big Creek ...... None +916 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Jackson Road None &plus1,039 (SR 1214). Red Bank Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None &+651 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None &+694 & Redman Creek ...... At the confluence with Snow Creek ...... None &+674 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence None &+814 & with Snow Creek. Reed Creek...... Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Reynolds None &+606 Unincorporated Areas of Road (SR 1688). Stokes. County. Appoximately 0.7 mile upstream of NC Route 772 .... None +690 Scott Branch ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +694 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Danbury. Approximately 500 feet upstream of NC Route 8 ...... None +764 Seven Island Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +708 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 800 feet upstream of Seven Island None +708 Road (SR 1665). Snow Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +664 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Moore Road (SR None +981 1602). South Crooked Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Crooked Creek ...... None +856 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. & Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence None +918 with Little Crooked Creek. South Double Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +756 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of NC Route 66 ... None +864 South Double Creek Tribu- At the confluence with South Double Creek ...... None +765 Unincorporated Areas of tary. Stokes County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the confluence None +804 with South Double Creek. Timmons Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +751 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of State Road (SR None +809 1966). Town Fork Creek Tributary 3 At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +626 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +641 with Town Fork Creek. Town Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +598 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Covington Road None +957 (SR 2009). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +610 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Ninth Street ...... None +718 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +617 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County, Town of Walnut Cove. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of NC Route 65 .. None +664 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +636 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Brook Cove None +652 Road (SR 1941). Voss Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +633 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:33 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60976 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Rosebud Road None +756 (SR 1945). Voss Creek Tributary ...... At the confluence with Voss Creek ...... None +661 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the confluence None +673 with Voss Creek. Watts Creek ...... At the confluence with Town Fork Creek ...... None +642 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Brook Cove None +723 Road (SR 1941). West Belews Creek ...... At the confluence with Belews Lake ...... None +737 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. At the Stokes/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +737 West Prong Little Yadkin At the confluence with Little Yadkin River ...... None +882 Unincorporated Areas of River. Stokes County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Brims Grove None +1,002 Road (SR 2109). West Prong Little Yadkin At the confluence with West Prong Little Yadkin River None +990 Unincorporated Areas of River Tributary. Stokes County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,006 with West Prong Little Yadkin River. Zilphy Creek ...... At the confluence with Dan River ...... None +633 Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Power Dam None +659 Road (SR 1712).

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES City of King Maps are available for inspection at the King City Hall, 229 South Main Street, King, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jack Warren, Mayor, City of King, P.O. Box 1132, King, North Carolina 27021. Town of Danbury Maps are available for inspection at the Danbury Town Hall, 201 Courthouse Circle, Danbury, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jane Priddy-Charleville, Mayor, Town of Danbury, P.O. Box 4, Danbury, North Carolina 27016. Town of Walnut Cove Maps are available for inspection at the Walnut Cove Town Hall, 208 West Third Street, Walnut Cove, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Kenneth Starnes, Mayor, Town of Walnut Cove, P.O. Box 127, Walnut Cove, North Carolina 27052. Unincorporated Areas of Stokes County Maps are available for inspection at the Stokes County Government Center, 1012 Main Street, Dan- bury, North Carolina. Send comments to Ms. Darlene Bullins, Stokes County Interim County Manager, Administration Building,1012 Main Street, Danbury, North Carolina 27016.

Knox County, Tennessee Beaver Creek ...... Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of confluence with +797 +796 Knox County (Unincor- Clinch River. porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Tazewell Pike .... None +1,081 Berry Branch ...... At confluence with Lyon Creek ...... None +881 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3,346 feet upstream of confluence None +889 with Lyon Creek. Brice Branch ...... At confluence with Flat Creek ...... None +946 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,320 feet upstream of confluence None +948 with Flat Creek. Burnett Creek ...... At confluence with French Broad River ...... None +827 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 763 feet upstream of John Sevier None +865 Highway.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:33 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60977

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Cliff Creek ...... At confluence with Lyon Creek ...... None +849 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of Randles Road .. None +985 Conner Creek ...... Just upstream of Rippling Drive ...... None +796 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 307 feet upstream of Conner Creek None +960 Circle. Cox Creek ...... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... None +1,036 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 701 feet upstream of Tazewell Road .. None +1,092 Tributary to Cox Creek ...... At confluence with Cox Creek ...... None +1,044 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 149 feet upstream of Cedarbreeze None +1,073 Road. Echo Valley Tributary ...... At confluence with Ten Mile Creek ...... +875 +876 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 157 feet upstream of Echo Valley None +880 Road. First Creek ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... +821 +822 City of Knoxville. Approximately 379 feet upstream of Knox Road ...... None +967 Tributary No. 1 ...... At confluence with First Creek ...... None +962 City of Knoxville. Approximately 1,341 feet upstream of Rockcrest None +994 Road. Tributary No. 2 ...... At confluence with First Creek ...... None +962 City of Knoxville. Approximately 1,011 feet upstream of Meadow Road None +985 Flat Creek ...... At confluence with Helston River ...... None +848 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 937 feet upstream of Longmire Road None +992 Fourth Creek ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... +818 +819 City of Knoxville. Approximately 227 feet upstream of Middlebrook Pike +920 +925 Tributary No. 1 ...... At confluence with Fourth Creek ...... +835 None City of Knoxville. Approximately 365 feet upstream of Lawford Road ... +836 +922 Tributary No. 3 ...... At confluence with Fourth Creek ...... None +915 City of Knoxville. Approximately 586 feet upstream of Picadilly Road ... None +947 French Broad ...... At confluence with French Broad ...... +826 +825 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. At Knox County boundary ...... None +860 Grassy Creek ...... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +974 +973 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 0.55 mile upstream of Grassy Creek None +1,024 Way. Grassy Creek Tributary ...... At confluence with Grassy Creek ...... None +993 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Johnson Road ... None +1,016 Hickory Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of Campbell Street None +926 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 4,281 feet upstream of Cooper Lane .. None +1,025 Hines Branch ...... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... None +1,014 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 1,835 feet upstream of Mynatt Drive ... None +1,078 Hines Creek ...... At confluence with French Broad River ...... None +832 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.44 mile upstream of Old Sevierville None +921 Pike. Tributary to Hines Creek ...... At confluence with Hines Creek ...... None +902 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.47 mile upstream of confluence with None +919 Hines Creek. Kerns Branch ...... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... None +1,058 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 842 feet upstream of Majors Road ..... None +1,130 Knob Creek ...... At confluence with Tennessee river ...... None +818 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Martin Mill Pike .. None +903

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60978 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Knob Fork ...... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +995 +994 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 183 feet upstream of Fountain City None +1,080 Road. Limestone Creek ...... At confluence with Tuckahoe creek ...... None +872 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,736 feet upstream of Smith School None +889 Road. Little Flat Creek ...... At confluence with Flat Creek ...... None +965 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Clement Road ... None +1,042 Little Turkey Creek ...... At the confluence with Turkey Creek ...... +815 +816 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Farragut. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Brochardt Boule- None +916 vard. Little Turkey Creek Tributary At confluence with Little Turkey Creek ...... None +908 Town of Farragut. Approximately 131 feet upstream of Hickory Woods None +947 Road. Love Creek Tributary ...... At confluence with Love Creek ...... None +836 City of Knoxville. Approximately 1,086 feet upstream of Chilhavee Cant None +867 Lyon Creek ...... At confluence with Holsten River ...... None +849 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 461 feet upstream of Carter Mill Drive None +987 Mill Branch ...... At confluence with Willow Fork ...... +1,024 +1,027 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 440 feet upstream of Maynardville None +1,142 Pike. Murphy Creek ...... Approximately 4,700 feet downstream of Southern +975 +974 Knox County (Unincor- Railway. porated Areas). Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Link Road ...... None +1,087 North Fork Beaver Creek ..... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +1,015 +1,018 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 128 feet upstream of McCloud Road .. None +1,096 North Fork Turkey Creek ..... Approximately 2,444 feet downstream of Kingston +853 +852 Town of Farragut. Pike. Approximately 1,375 feet upstream of Grigsby Chap- None +944 el Road. Plumb Creek ...... Approximately 560 feet downstream of Hardin Valley +940 +941 Knox County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). Approximately 146 feet upstream of Hickey Road ..... None +977 Roseberry Creek ...... Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of confluence +846 +845 Knox County (Unincor- with Holsten River. porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 1,352 feet upstream of Maloneyville None +1,030 Road. Sinking Creek ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... None +817 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Wallace Road None +913 Sinking Creek Tributary to At confluence with Ten Mile Creek ...... +894 +900 Knox County (Unincor- Ten Mile Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 396 feet upstream of Middlebrook Pike None +997 Sixmile Branch ...... At end of Burnett Creek ...... None +865 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 636 feet upstream of East Maine Drive None +908 South Fork Beaver Creek .... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... None +1,074 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 392 feet upstream of Maloneyville None +1,107 Road. Stock Creek ...... Approximately 1.23 miles downstream of Martin Mill +820 +819 Knox County (Unincor- Pike. porated Areas). Approximately 58 feet upstream of McCammon Road None +892 Swanpond Creek ...... At a point just downstream of Huckleberry Springs +933 +932 Knox County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). Approximately 3,200 feet upstream of Wooddale None +996 Church Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60979

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet above ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Ten Mile Creek ...... At confluence with Ebenizers Sinkhole ...... +878 +876 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Robinson Road .. None +967 Thompson School Tributary At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... None +1,067 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 545 feet upstream of East Emory None +1,086 Road. Tuckahoe Creek ...... At confluence with French Broad River ...... None +850 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 3,396 feet upstream of Dave Smith None +906 Road. Turkey Creek ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... None +816 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), Town of Farragut. Approximately 1,606 feet upstream of Dutchtown +815 +960 Road. West Hills Tributary ...... At confluence with Ten Mile Creek ...... +899 +902 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 295 feet upstream of Corteland Drive None +931 Whites Creek ...... At confluence with First Creek ...... +955 +957 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Clearbrook Road None +989 Williams Creek ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... +822 +823 City of Knoxville. Approximately 451 feet upstream of Wilson Avenue .. None +898 Willow Fork ...... At confluence with Beaver Creek ...... +1,022 +1,027 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 628 feet upstream of Brackett Road ... None +1,093 Little River ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... +817 +818 Knox County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Approximately 0.77 mile upstream of Alro Highway ... None +819 Tennessee River ...... Approximately 28.0 miles downstream of Pellissippi +815 +816 Knox County (Unincor- Parkway. porated Areas), City of Knoxville. Just upstream of confluence of Williams Creek ...... +822 +823

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Farragut Maps available for inspection at the Farragut Town Hall, Engineering Department, 11408 Municipal Center Drive, Farragut, Tennessee. Send comments to Mr. Dave Olson, Farragut Town Administrator, Farragut Town Hall, Administration Department, 11408 Municipal Center Drive, Farragut, Tennessee 37922. Knox County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at Knox County Engineering and Public Works, 205 West Baxter Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee. Send comments to The Honorable Michael R. Ragsdale, Mayor of Knox County, Office of County Mayor, 400 West Main Street, Suite 615, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. City of Knoxville Maps available for inspection at the City of Knoxville Engineering Division, City County Building, 400 Main Street, Room 480, Knoxville, Ten- nessee. Send comments to the Honorable Bill Haslam, Mayor of the City of Knoxville, P.O. Box 1631, Knoxville, Tennessee 37901.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60980 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. publication of this proposed rule in a excluded from the requirements of 44 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) newspaper of local circulation in each CFR Part 10, Environmental Dated: October 5, 2006. community. Consideration. No environmental David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each impact assessment has been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17266 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering proposed rule is not a significant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation regulatory action under the criteria of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. September 30, 1993, Regulatory Federal Emergency Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Agency FEMA proposes to make determinations of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. BFEs and modified BFEs for each 44 CFR Part 67 This rule involves no policies that have community listed below, in accordance federalism implications under Executive [Docket No. FEMA–B–7471] with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Order 13132. Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Proposed Flood Elevation Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice and 44 CFR 67.4(a). Reform. This rule meets the applicable Determinations These proposed BFEs and modified standards of Executive Order 12988. BFEs, together with the floodplain AGENCY: Federal Emergency management criteria required by 44 CFR Management Agency (FEMA), List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 60.3, are the minimum that are required. Department of Homeland Security, They should not be construed to mean Administrative practice and Mitigation Division. that the community must change any procedure, flood insurance, reporting ACTION: Proposed rule. existing ordinances that are more and recordkeeping requirements. stringent in their floodplain SUMMARY: Technical information or Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is comments are requested on the management requirements. The proposed to be amended as follows: proposed Base (1% annual chance) community may at any time enact PART 67—[AMENDED] Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other BFEs modifications for the communities Federal, state or regional entities. These 1. The authority citation for Part 67 listed below. The BFEs are the basis for proposed elevations are used to meet continues to read as follows: the floodplain management measures the floodplain management that the community is required either to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; requirements of the NFIP and are also adopt or to show evidence of being Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, used to calculate the appropriate flood 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, already in effect in order to qualify or insurance premium rates for new 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. remain qualified for participation in the buildings built after these elevations are National Flood Insurance Program § 67.4 [Amended] made final, and for the contents in these (NFIP). buildings. 2. The tables published under the DATES: The comment period is ninety National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be (90) days following the second This proposed rule is categorically amended as follows:

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). + Elevation in feet (NAVD). # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Kemper County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas

Hull Branch ...... Approximately 10,360 feet upstream of Old Jackson None +336 Kemper County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). At the confluence of Snoody Creek ...... None +383 Okatibbe Creek ...... Approximately 2,340 feet upstream of Bull Swamp None +374 Kemper County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). At the confluence with Houston Creek ...... None +408 Snoody Creek ...... At the confluence with Hull Branch ...... None +327 Town of De Kalb, Kemper County (Unincorporated Areas). Approximately 2,290 feet downstream of State Road None +336 39.

ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Kemper County Maps are available for inspection at Kemper County Courthouse, 100 Main Street, De Kalb, MS 39328. Send comments to Mr. James Granger, Board Chairman, Kemper County, P.O. Box 188, De Kalb, MS 39328. Town of De Kalb

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60981

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). + Elevation in feet (NAVD). # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Maps are available for inspection at Kemper County Courthouse, 100 Main Street, De Kalb, MS 39328. Send comments to The Honorable Homer Hall, Mayor, P.O. Box 579, De Kalb, MS 39328.

Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas

Canyon Creek ...... At mouth of Lake Michigan ...... 1 *590 1 *590 City of Port Washington, Unincorporated Areas of Ozaukee County. At intersection of Interstate 43 ...... None *701 Cedar Creek ...... At mouth at Milwaukee River ...... *680 *679 City of Cedarburg, Village of Grafton, Unincor- porated Areas of Ozaukee County. 6450 feet upstream of County Highway Y ...... *838 *836 Fredonia Creek ...... At mouth at Milwaukee River ...... 1 *780 1 *781 Village of Fredonia, Unin- corporated Areas of Ozaukee County. 2500 feet upstream from County Highway D ...... None *831 Milwaukee River ...... At County Line Road ...... *653 *653 Village of Thiensville. Downstream of northern crossing of Riverside Road .. *798 *798 City of Mequon, Village of Grafton. Upstream of south crossing of Riverside Road ...... *805 *805 Village of Saukville, Village of Fredonia. Downstream of Hickory Road ...... *835 *835 Village of Newburg, Unin- corporated Areas of Ozaukee County. Mineral Springs ...... At mouth at Sauk Creek ...... 1 *590 1 *590 City of Port Washington. 300 feet upstream from State Highway 32 ...... None *719 Mole Creek ...... At mouth at Milwaukee River ...... 1 *746 1 *746 Village of Grafton, Unin- corporated Areas of Ozaukee County. 600 feet upstream of Center Road ...... None *818 North Branch of Milwaukee At mouth at Milwaukee River ...... *797 *798 Unincorporated Areas of River. Ozaukee County. Downstream of northern crossing of Riverside Road .. *799 *799 Pigeon Creek ...... At mouth at Milwaukee River approximately 100 feet 1 *660 1 *660 Village of Thiensville, City downstream from Green Bay Road. of Mequon. 1900 feet upstream of Highland Road ...... None *732 Sauk Creek ...... At mouth of Lake Michigan ...... 1 *590 *590 City of Port Washington, Village of Belgium, Unin- corporated Areas of Ozaukee County. 2000 feet upstream of County Highway KK ...... None *796 Ulao Creek ...... At mouth at Milwaukee River ...... None 1 *664 City of Mequon, Village of Grafton, Unincorporated Areas of Ozaukee Coun- ty. 2300 feet upstream of State Highway 32 ...... None *744 Un-named Tributary #1 to At intersection with County Highway K ...... None *720 Village of Belgium, Unin- Belgium Holland Drainage corporated Areas of Ditch. Ozaukee County. 100 feet downstream of Park Street ...... None *731 Un-named Tributary #1 to At the downstream confluence of Un-named Tributary None *723 Unincorporated Areas of Belgium Holland Drainage #1 to Belgium Holland Drainage Ditch. Ozaukee County. Ditch Overflow #1. At the upstream overflow from Un-named Tributary #1 None *724 to Belgium Holland Drainage Ditch (750 feet down- stream of Park St). Un-named Tributary #1 to At the confluence of Un-named Tributary #1 to Bel- None *730 Village of Belgium, Unin- Belgium Holland Drainage gium Holland Drainage Ditch. corporated Areas of Ditch Overflow #2. Ozaukee County. At the upstream overflow of Un-named Tributary #1 to None *730 Belgium Holland Drainage Ditch (2750 feet down- stream of Jay Road). Un-named Tributary #1 to At mouth of the Milwaukee River ...... 1 *759 1 *758 Village of Saukville. Milwaukee River. 1690 feet upstream of Dekora Woods Boulevard ...... None *775 Un-named Tributary #1 to At mouth of Ulao Creek ...... None *664 City of Mequon. Ulao Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60982 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

* Elevation in feet (NGVD). + Elevation in feet (NAVD). # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

1700 feet upstream of County Highway W ...... None *673 Un-named Tributary to Un- At mouth of Un-named Tributary #1 to Ulao Creek ..... None *664 City of Mequon. named Tributary #1 to Ulao Creek. 6750 feet upstream of Interstate 43 ...... None *673 Un-named Tributary #2 to Pi- At mouth of Pigeon Creek ...... None *623 City of Mequon, City of geon Creek. Cedarburg, Unincor- porated Areas of Ozaukee County. 2300 feet upstream of State Highway 181 ...... None *806 Un-named Tributary #3 to 200 feet downstream of Wheeler Avenue ...... *791 *791 Village of Fredonia. Milwaukee River. 500 feet upstream of Meadowbrook Drive ...... *798 *798

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. 1 Flood Elevation based on Backwater. ADDRESSES: Village of Belgium Maps are available for inspection at 195 Commerce St., Belgium, WI 53004–0224. Send comments to Donald Schommer, Village President, 820 North St., Belgium, WI 53004. City of Cedarburg Maps are available for inspection at W63 N645 Washington Avenue, Cedarburg, WI 53012–0049. Send comments to Gregory P. Myers, Mayor, W63 N645 Washington Avenue, Cedarburg, WI 53012–0049. Village of Fredonia Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 416 Fredonia Ave., Fredonia, WI 53021. Send comments to William Hamm, Village President, P.O. Box 159, 416 Fredonia Ave Fredonia, WI 53021. Village of Grafton: Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall—Thomas Johnson, 1971 Washington St., Grafton, WI 53024. Send comments to Jim Brunquell, Village President, 1971 Washington St., Grafton, WI 53024. City of Mequon Maps are available for inspection at 11333 N. Cedarburg Road, Mequon, WI 53092. Send comments to Christine Nuernberg, Mayor, 11333 N. Cedarburg Road, Mequon, WI 53092. Village of Newburg Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 614 Main St., Newburg, WI 53060. Send comments to William Sackett, Village President, 614 Main Street, P.O. Box 50, Newburg, WI 53060. Unincorporated Areas of Ozaukee County Maps are available for inspection at Planning, Resources, and Land Management Department 121 West Main Street, P.O. Box 994, Port Wash- ington, WI 53704–0994. Send comments to Robert Brooks, County Board Chairperson, 121 West Main Street, Port Washington, WI 53704. City of Port Washington Maps are available for inspection at Office of Planning and Development, 100 W. Grand Avenue, Port Washington, WI 53074. Send comments to Scott Huebner, Mayor, 100 W. Grand Avenue, P.O. Box 307, Port Washington, WI 53074. Village of Saukville Maps are available for inspection at Planning Department, 639 East Green Bay Ave., Saukville, WI 53080. Send comments to Dawn Wagner, Village Administrator, 639 East Green Bay Ave, Saukville, WI 53080. Village of Thiensville Maps are available for inspection at 250 Elm Street, Thiensville, WI 53092. Send comments to Karl V. Herts, Village President, 250 Elm Street.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60983

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. publication of this proposed rule in a excluded from the requirements of 44 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) newspaper of local circulation in each CFR Part 10, Environmental Dated: October 6, 2006. community. Consideration. No environmental David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each impact assessment has been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17270 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering proposed rule is not a significant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation regulatory action under the criteria of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Federal Emergency Management September 30, 1993, Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency FEMA Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. proposes to make determinations of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. BFEs and modified BFEs for each 44 CFR Part 67 This rule involves no policies that have community listed below, in accordance federalism implications under Executive [Docket No. FEMA–B–7469] with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Order 13132. Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Proposed Flood Elevation and 44 CFR 67.4(a). Determinations These proposed BFEs and modified Reform. This rule meets the applicable BFEs, together with the floodplain standards of Executive Order 12988. AGENCY: Federal Emergency management criteria required by 44 CFR Management Agency (FEMA), List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 60.3, are the minimum that are required. Department of Homeland Security, They should not be construed to mean Administrative practice and Mitigation Division. that the community must change any procedure, flood insurance, reporting ACTION: Proposed rule. existing ordinances that are more and recordkeeping requirements. SUMMARY: Technical information or stringent in their floodplain Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is comments are requested on the management requirements. The proposed to be amended as follows: proposed Base (1% annual chance) community may at any time enact PART 67—[AMENDED] Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other BFEs modifications for the communities 1. The authority citation for Part 67 listed below. The BFEs are the basis for Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet continues to read as follows: the floodplain management measures the floodplain management that the community is required either to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; requirements of the NFIP and are also adopt or to show evidence of being Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, used to calculate the appropriate flood 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, already in effect in order to qualify or insurance premium rates for new 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. remain qualified for participation in the buildings built after these elevations are National Flood Insurance Program § 67.4 [Amended] made final, and for the contents in these (NFIP). buildings. 2. The tables published under the DATES: The comment period is ninety National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be (90) days following the second This proposed rule is categorically amended as follows:

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) Location of referenced # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Beaver Dam Creek ...... Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence +796 +797 Clayton County (Unincor- with Flint River. porated Areas). Approximately 2,500 feet upstream of the confluence +796 +797 with Flint River. East Tributary of Jester At the confluence with West Tributary Jester Creek ... +930 +933 City of Forest Park. Creek. Approximately 260 feet upstream of the confluence +932 +933 with West Tributary Jester Creek. Flint River Tributary ...... Approximately 570 feet upstream of the confluence +842 +843 Clayton County (Unincor- with Flint River. porated Areas), City of Riverdale. Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of the confluence +843 +844 with Flint River. Hurricane Creek ...... Approximately 60 feet downstream of Turner Road .... +783 +784 Clayton County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 350 feet upstream of Turner Road ...... +783 +784 Jester Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet upstream of the confluence +815 +816 Clayton County (Unincor- with Flint River. porated Areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60984 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) Location of referenced # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Approximately 60 feet upstream of Tara Boulevard/ +815 +816 U.S. Highway 41/19/State Highway 3C. Lake Spivey ...... Entire shoreline ...... None +786 Clayton County (Unincor- porated Areas). Mud Creek ...... At the confluence Flint River ...... +837 +838 Clayton County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 850 feet downstream of Ashmore Drive +840 +841 Panther Creek ...... Approximately 3,600 feet downstream of State High- +752 +750 Clayton County (Unincor- way 413/Interstate Highway 675. porated Areas). Approximately 2,220 feet downstream of State High- +752 +751 way 413/Interstate Highway 675. Sullivan Creek ...... At the confluence with Flint River ...... +858 +859 Clayton County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the confluence +859 +860 with Flint River. Upton Creek ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of Double Bridge +802 +803 Clayton County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). Approximately 2,325 feet upstream of Double Bridge +805 +806 Road. West tributary of Jester At the confluence with Jester Creek ...... +923 +924 City of Forest Park. Creek. Approximately 320 feet upstream of confluence with +923 +924 Jester Creek.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum.

ADDRESSES Clayton County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at Clayton County Transportation and Development Department, 7960 North McDonourgh Street, Jonesboro, Georgia. Send comments to Mr. Eldrin Bell, Commissioner, Clayton County Board of Commissioners, Clayton County Administration, Annex 1, 112 Smith Street, Jonesboro, Georgia 30236. City of Forest Park Maps are available for inspection at City of Forest Park Public Works Department, 5230 Jones Road, Forest Park, Georgia. Send comments to The Honorable Charles Hall, Mayor, City of Forest Park, 745 Forest Parkway, Forest Park, Georgia 30297. City of Riverdale Maps are available for inspection at Riverdale Community Department, 971 Wilson Road, Riverdale, Georgia. Send comments to The Honorable Phaedra Graham, Mayor, City of Riverdale, 6690 Church Street, Riverdale, Georgia 30274.

Muscogee County, Georgia (Consolidated Government)

Califon Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Bull Creek ...... +227 +228 City of Columbus— (Muscogee County Con- solidated Government). Approximately 400 feet upstream of Benning Drive .... +227 +228 Lindsey Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Bull Creek ...... +241 +242 City of Columbus— Muscogee County (Con- solidated Government). Approximately 440 feet upstream of Morris Road ...... +241 +242 Lower Bull Creek ...... At the confluence with Chattahoochee River ...... +227 +228 City of Columbus— Muscogee County (Con- solidated Government). Approximately 850 feet upstream of Cusseta Road .... +227 +228 Upper Bull Creek ...... Just upstream of Flood Control Dam No. 1 ...... +406 +404 City of Columbus— Muscogee County (Con- solidated Government). Approximately 2,660 feet upstream Alternate U.S. +406 +405 Highway 27/State Highway 85. Weracoba Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Bull Creek ...... +227 +228 City of Columbus— Muscogee County (Con- solidated Government). At U.S. Highway 27/Victory Drive ...... +227 +228

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60985

* Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet (NAVD) Location of referenced # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

+ North American Vertical Datum.

ADDRESSES City of Columbus Maps are available for inspection at the Department of Engineering, 420 Tenth Street, Second Floor, Columbus, Georgia. Send Comments to The Honorable Robert S. Poydasheff, Mayor, City of Columbus, 100 Tenth Street, Sixth Floor, Government Center Tower, Columbus, Georgia 13901.

Newton County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

Town Branch (Rogers Approximately 200 feet upstream of confluence with +661 +662 City of Covington. Branch). Dried Indian Creek. Approximately 710 feet downstream of Rebecca +661 +662 Street.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum.

ADDRESSES City of Covington Maps are available for inspection at 2194 Emory Street, NW., Covington, Georgia. Send Comments to The Honorable Sam Ramsey, Mayor, City of Covington, 2194 Emory Street, NW., Covington, Georgia 30014.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. remain qualified for participation in the Federal, state or regional entities. These 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) National Flood Insurance Program proposed elevations are used to meet Dated: October 5, 2006. (NFIP). the floodplain management David I. Maurstad, DATES: The comment period is ninety requirements of the NFIP and are also Director, Mitigation Division, Federal (90) days following the second used to calculate the appropriate flood Emergency Management Agency, Department publication of this proposed rule in a insurance premium rates for new of Homeland Security. newspaper of local circulation in each buildings built after these elevations are [FR Doc. E6–17272 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] community. made final, and for the contents in these buildings. BILLING CODE 9110–12–P ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection National Environmental Policy Act. at the office of the Chief Executive This proposed rule is categorically DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Officer of each community. The excluded from the requirements of 44 SECURITY respective addresses are listed in the CFR Part 10, Environmental table below. Consideration. No environmental Federal Emergency Management impact assessment has been prepared. Agency FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within 44 CFR Part 67 Management Section, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [Docket No. FEMA–B–7468] Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA Proposed Flood Elevation Regulatory Classification. This Determinations proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each proposed rule is not a significant AGENCY: Federal Emergency community listed below, in accordance regulatory action under the criteria of Management Agency (FEMA), with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of Department of Homeland Security, Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, September 30, 1993, Regulatory Mitigation Division. and 44 CFR 67.4(a). Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. ACTION: Proposed rule. These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain This rule involves no policies that have SUMMARY: Technical information or management criteria required by 44 CFR federalism implications under Executive comments are requested on the 60.3, are the minimum that are required. Order 13132. proposed Base (1% annual chance) They should not be construed to mean Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed that the community must change any Reform. This rule meets the applicable BFEs modifications for the communities existing ordinances that are more standards of Executive Order 12988. listed below. The BFEs are the basis for stringent in their floodplain List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 the floodplain management measures management requirements. The that the community is required either to community may at any time enact Administrative practice and adopt or to show evidence of being stricter requirements of its own, or procedure, flood insurance, reporting already in effect in order to qualify or pursuant to policies established by other and recordkeeping requirements.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60986 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; § 67.4 [Amended] Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, proposed to be amended as follows: 2. The tables published under the 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, PART 67—[AMENDED] 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD) +Elevation in feet (NAVD) Location of referenced # Depth in feet above Flooding source(s) elevation ground Communities affected Effective Modified

Walker County Alabama, and Incorporated Areas

Lost Creek ...... Approximately 400 feet upstream of BSNF Railway .... *404 +406 Walker County (Unincor- porated Areas) Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of South Pine *409 +411 Street.

# Depth in feet above ground. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Walker County Maps are available for inspection at Walker County Engineering Department, 1801 Third Avenue, Jasper, AL 35501. Send comments to Mrs. Rita Nichols, Office of Water Resources, P.O. Box 5690, Montgomery, AL 36103–5690.

Boone County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas

Ohio River ...... At confluence of Dry Creek ...... *495 +495 Boone County (Unincor- porated Areas). At confluence of Big Bone Creek ...... *479 +478

# Depth in feet above ground. *National Geodetic Vertical Datum. +National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of Boone County Maps are available for inspection at the Boone County Planning Commission, Boone County Administration Building, 3rd Floor, 2950 Wash- ington Street, Burlington, KY 41005. Send comments to the Honorable Anthony W. Frohlich, Mayor, Boone County, 6025 Rogers Lane, Suite 444, Burlington, KY 41005.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Department of Homeland Security, Officer of each community. The 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Mitigation Division. respective addresses are listed in the Dated: October 4, 2006. ACTION: Proposed rule. table below. David I. Maurstad, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Mitigation Division, Federal SUMMARY: Technical information or William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering Emergency Management Agency, Department comments are requested on the Management Section, Mitigation of Homeland Security. proposed Base (1% annual chance) Division, 500 C Street, SW., [FR Doc. E6–17273 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. BILLING CODE 9110–12–P BFEs modifications for the communities SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA listed below. The BFEs are the basis for proposes to make determinations of the floodplain management measures BFEs and modified BFEs for each DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND that the community is required either to community listed below, in accordance SECURITY adopt or to show evidence of being with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster already in effect in order to qualify or Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Federal Emergency Management remain qualified for participation in the and 44 CFR 67.4(a). Agency National Flood Insurance Program These proposed BFEs and modified (NFIP). BFEs, together with the floodplain 44 CFR Part 67 management criteria required by 44 CFR DATES: The comment period is ninety 60.3, are the minimum that are required. (90) days following the second They should not be construed to mean [Docket No. FEMA–D–7674] publication of this proposed rule in a that the community must change any newspaper of local circulation in each Proposed Flood Elevation existing ordinances that are more community. Determinations stringent in their floodplain ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each management requirements. The AGENCY: Federal Emergency community are available for inspection community may at any time enact Management Agency (FEMA), at the office of the Chief Executive stricter requirements of its own, or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60987

pursuant to policies established by other Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is Federal, State or regional entities. These flexibility analysis is not required. proposed to be amended as follows: proposed elevations are used to meet Regulatory Classification. This the floodplain management proposed rule is not a significant PART 67—[AMENDED] requirements of the NFIP and are also regulatory action under the criteria of used to calculate the appropriate flood Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of 1. The authority citation for part 67 insurance premium rates for new September 30, 1993, Regulatory continues to read as follows: buildings built after these elevations are Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Executive Order 13132, Federalism. made final, and for the contents in these Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, This rule involves no policies that have buildings. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, federalism implications under Executive National Environmental Policy Act. 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. Order 13132. This proposed rule is categorically Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice § 67.4 [Amended] excluded from the requirements of 44 Reform. This rule meets the applicable CFR Part 10, Environmental standards of Executive Order 12988. 2. The tables published under the Consideration. No environmental authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be impact assessment has been prepared. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 amended as follows: Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Administrative practice and elevation determinations are not within procedure, flood insurance, reporting the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility and recordkeeping requirements.

#Depth in feet above ground. * Elevation in feet (NGVD) State City/town/county Source of flooding Location +Elevation in feet (NAVD) Existing Modified

City of Durham, North Carolina

North Carolina ...... City of Durham, Third Fork Creek Tributary At the confluence with Third Fork Creek +275 +273 Durham County. Tributary C. Approximately 260 feet upstream of None +328 Sherbon Drive. Third Fork Creek Tributary Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the +251 +252 A. confluence with Third Fork Creek. Approximately 200 feet upstream of +284 +291 Southpoint Crossing Drive. Third Fork Creek Tributary Approximately 50 feet downstream of +259 +258 C. Hope Valley Road. Approximately 250 feet upstream of None +319 Princeton Avenue. Third Fork Creek Tributary Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the +255 +256 D. confluence with Third Fork Creek. Approximately 200 feet upstream of None +288 Morningside Drive. Third Fork Creek Tributary Approximately 300 feet upstream of the +289 +290 E. confluence with Third Fork Creek. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Ward None +332 Street.

ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at the Durham City Hall, Storm Water Services Division, 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable William Bell, Mayor of the City of Durham, 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, North Carolina 27701.

Guam

Guam ...... Agana River...... At downstream side of Marine Drive *11 *7 (Route 1). Approximately 350 feet upstream of *14 *13 O’Brien Drive.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Maps are available for inspection at the Guam Department of Public Works, Government of Guam, 542 North Marine Drive, Building A, Tamuning, Guam. Send comments to The Honorable Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam, Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 2950, Haga˚tn˜a, Guam 96932.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60988 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. publication of this proposed rule in a excluded from the requirements of 44 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) newspaper of local circulation in each CFR Part 10, Environmental Dated: October 4, 2006. community. Consideration. No environmental David I. Maurstad, ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each impact assessment has been prepared. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Emergency Management Agency, Department at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within of Homeland Security. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility [FR Doc. E6–17278 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory BILLING CODE 9110–12–P table below. flexibility analysis is not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering proposed rule is not a significant DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Management Section, Mitigation regulatory action under the criteria of SECURITY Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Federal Emergency Management September 30, 1993, Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agency FEMA Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. proposes to make determinations of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. BFEs and modified BFEs for each 44 CFR Part 67 This rule involves no policies that have community listed below, in accordance federalism implications under Executive [Docket No. FEMA–D–7672] with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Order 13132. Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Proposed Flood Elevation and 44 CFR 67.4(a). Determinations These proposed BFEs and modified Reform. This rule meets the applicable BFEs, together with the floodplain standards of Executive Order 12988. AGENCY: Federal Emergency management criteria required by 44 CFR Management Agency (FEMA), List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 60.3, are the minimum that are required. Department of Homeland Security, They should not be construed to mean Administrative practice and Mitigation Division. that the community must change any procedure, flood insurance, reporting ACTION: Proposed rule. existing ordinances that are more and recordkeeping requirements. SUMMARY: Technical information or stringent in their floodplain Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is comments are requested on the management requirements. The proposed to be amended as follows: proposed Base (1% annual chance) community may at any time enact PART 67—[AMENDED] Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other BFEs modifications for the communities 1. The authority citation for Part 67 listed below. The BFEs are the basis for Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet continues to read as follows: the floodplain management measures the floodplain management that the community is required either to Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; requirements of the NFIP and are also adopt or to show evidence of being Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, used to calculate the appropriate flood 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, already in effect in order to qualify or insurance premium rates for new 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. remain qualified for participation in the buildings built after these elevations are National Flood Insurance Program § 67.4 [Amended] made final, and for the contents in these (NFIP). buildings. 2. The tables published under the DATES: The comment period is ninety National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be (90) days following the second This proposed rule is categorically amended as follows:

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Grafton County, New Hampshire and Incorporated Areas

Ammonoosuc River ...... At confluence with Connecticut River ...... None *428 Towns of Haverhill, Lisbon, Landaff, and Bethlehem. Approximately 1.07 miles upstream of dam in the None *878 Town of Littleton. Canaan Street Lake ...... Entire shoreline ...... None *1,146 Town of Canaan. Connecticut River ...... Approximately 2.85 miles downstream of State None *411 Town of Piermont. Route 25 (Bradford -Piermont bridge). Approximately 1.48 miles downstream of Bedell None *414 Covered Bridge. Eastman Pond ...... Entire shoreline ...... None *1,110 Town of Enfield. Hewes Brook ...... Approximately 1,700 feet downstream of upstream None *696 Town of Hanover. crossing of Goose Pond Road. At downstream side of upstream crossing of Goose None *706 Pond Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60989

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Mirror Lake ...... Entire shoreline ...... None *947 Town of Canaan, Town of Or- ange. Pemigewasset River ...... Approximately 1.41 miles upstream of confluence None *476 Town of Ashland. of Webster Pond Outlet. Approximately 1.25 miles upstream of confluence None *483 of Webster Pond Outlet. Squam Lake ...... Entire shoreline ...... None *565 Town of Holderness.

ADDRESSES Town of Ashland Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Glenn Dion, Chairman of the Town of Ashland Board of Selectmen, 20 Highland Street, Ashland, New Hampshire 03217. Town of Bethlehem Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Ms. Sandy Laleme, Chairperson for the Town of Bethlehem Board of Selectmen, P.O. Box 189, Bethlehem, New Hampshire 03574. Town of Canaan Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Dana I. Hadley, Canaan Town Administrator, P.O. Box 38, Canaan, New Hampshire 03741. Town of Enfield Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Steven P. Schneider, Enfield Town Manager, P.O. Box 373, Enfield, New Hampshire 03748. Town of Hanover Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Ms. Julia Griffin, Hanover Town Manager, P.O. Box 483, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755. Town of Haverhill Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Glenn E. English, Haverhill Town Manager, 2975 Dartmouth College Highway, Route 10, North Haverhill, New Hamp- shire 03774. Town of Holderness Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Walter Johnson, Holderness Town Administrator, P.O. Box 203, Holderness, New Hampshire 03245–0203. Town of Landiff Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Michael Ransmeier, Chairman of the Town of Landaff Board of Selectmen, P.O. Box 125, Landaff, New Hampshire 03585. Town of Lisbon Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Reagan Pride, Chairman of the Town of Lisbon Board of Selectmen, 46 School Street, Lisbon, New Hampshire 03585. Town of Orange Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Charles Sova, Chairman of the Town of Orange Board of Selectmen, P.O. Box 37, Canaan, New Hampshire 03741. Town of Piermont Maps are available for inspection on the GRANIT’s (Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System) website at http:// www.granit.sr.unh.edu/dfirms. Send comments to Mr. Jean Daley, Chairman of the Town of Piermont Board of Selectmen, Library Building, Route 10, Piermont, New Hamp- shire 03779.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60990 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Caldwell County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Abingdon Creek ...... Approximately 940 feet upstream of Huffman Road None +1,089 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 325 feet upstream of M.W. Setzer None +1,098 Road. Amos Creek ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Creek ...... None +1,426 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the con- None +1,554 fluence with Mulberry Creek. Angley Creek ...... Approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,178 City of Lenoir, Unincorporated with Gunpowder Creek. Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Southeast None +1,252 Starcross Road. Angley Creek Tributary 1 .... At the confluence with Angley Creek ...... None +1,200 City of Lenoir, Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Southeast None +1,294 Starcross Road. Anthony Creek ...... At the confluence with Prong Creek ...... None +1,423 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the con- None +1,753 fluence with Prong Creek. Billy Branch ...... At the confluence with Gunpowder Creek ...... None +1,037 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, Town of Granite Falls. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of North Highland None +1,161 Avenue. Blairs Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Creek ...... +1,075 +1,073 City of Lenoir, Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 750 feet upstream of Parson’s Park None +1,206 Drive. Boone Fork ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Creek ...... None +1,219 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the con- None +1,315 fluence with Mulberry Creek. Bristol Creek ...... Approximately 450 feet downstream of the Burke/ None +1,135 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County boundary. Caldwell County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of the Burke/ None +1,144 Caldwell County boundary. Camp Creek ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +1,449 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. At the confluence with Harper Creek ...... None +1,555 Catawba River ...... At the Alexander/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, City of Hickory, Town of Granite Falls, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of Burke/ None +1,005 Caldwell County boundary. Celia Creek ...... At the confluence with Husband Creek ...... None +1,042 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Celia Creek None +1,168 Road (State Road 1327). Cold Water Creek ...... At the confluence with Johns River ...... None +1,244 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the con- None +1,849 fluence with Johns River. Craig Creek ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +1,394 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the con- None +1,770 fluence with Wilson Creek. Estes Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +1,498 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the con- None +1,656 fluence with Wilson Creek. Fiddle Creek ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Creek ...... None +1,397 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of the con- None +1,437 fluence with Mulberry Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60991

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Franklin Branch ...... At the confluence with Johns River ...... +1,107 +1,108 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the con- None +1,222 fluence with Franklin Branch Tributary 1. Franklin Branch Tributary 1 At the confluence with Franklin Branch ...... None +1,199 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,540 feet upstream of the con- None +1,229 fluence with Franklin Branch. Freemason Creek ...... Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,004 Unincorporated Areas of with Catawba River. Caldwell County, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 250 feet upstream of Stamey Road None +1,132 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Freemason Creek ...... None +1,013 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the con- None +1,102 fluence with Freemason Creek. Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Freemason Creek Tributary None +1,023 Unincorporated Areas of 1. Caldwell County, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Hickory Nut None +1,058 Ridge Road. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Freemason Creek ...... None +1,056 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Horseshoe None +1,128 Bend Road. Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with Freemason Creek Tributary None +1,082 Unincorporated Areas of 2. Caldwell County, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 650 feet upstream of Lafayette Ave- None +1,163 nue. Ginger Creek ...... At the confluence with Middle Little River ...... None +1,388 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Draco Road .... None +1,459 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Ginger Creek ...... None +1,401 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Scout Road ... None +1,731 Greasy Creek ...... At the confluence with Lower Creek ...... +1,065 +1,062 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, City of Lenoir. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the con- +1,067 +1,066 fluence with Lower Creek. Gunpowder Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, City of Lenoir. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Southeast Ap- None +1,321 plegate Court. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Gunpowder Creek ...... None +1,073 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the con- None +1,186 fluence with Gunpowder Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Gunpowder Creek ...... None +1,089 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Christie Road None +1,117 (State Road 1717). Tributary 2A ...... At the confluence with Gunpowder Creek Tributary None +1,090 Unincorporated Areas of 2. Caldwell County, Town of Hudson. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Christie None +1,123 Road. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Gunpowder Creek ...... None +1,107 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, Town of Hudson. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,158 with Gunpowder Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60992 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary 4 ...... Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence +1,157 +1,158 Town of Hudson. with Gunpowder Creek. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,220 with Gunpowder Creek. Tributary 5 ...... Approximately 600 feet upstream of the confluence +1,212 +1,213 City of Lenoir . with Gunpowder Creek. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Hickory Boule- None +1,280 vard. Tributary 6 ...... Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence +1,241 +1,242 City of Lenoir . with Gunpowder Creek. Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the railroad .. None +1,298 Harper Creek ...... At the confluence with Camp Creek ...... None +1,555 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. At the Avery/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,801 Hayes Mill Creek ...... Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the con- None +1,003 City of Lenoir, Town of Granite fluence with Catawba River. Falls. Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,120 of Hayes Mill Creek Tributary 2. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Hayes Mill Creek ...... None +1,055 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, Town of Sawmills. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the con- None +1,088 fluence with Hayes Mill Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Hayes Mill Creek ...... None +1,113 Town of Sawmills. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of the con- None +1,157 fluence with Hayes Mill Creek. Husband Creek ...... Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,031 Unincorporated Areas of with Lower River. Caldwell County, Town of Gamewell. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Rocky Road None +1,202 (State Road 1143). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Husband Creek ...... None +1,066 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 250 feet downstream of the Fleming None +1,132 Chapel (State Road 1322) Church Road. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Husband Creek ...... None +1,096 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County Approximately 750 feet upstream of Crooked Creek None +1,124 Way. Johns River ...... At the Burke/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,053 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County Approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the con- None +2,346 fluence of Thunderhole Creek. Laurel Creek ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +1,627 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the con- None +1,986 fluence with Wilson Creek. Little Creek ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +1,177 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Cove Moun- None +1,321 tain Lane. Little Gunpowder Creek Approximately 700 feet upstream of Southwest None +1,218 Town of Cajahs Mountain. (near City of Lenoir). Walt Arney Road. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Connelly None +1,268 Springs Road. Tributary 1 (near Town of At the confluence with Little Gunpowder Creek None +1,183 Unincorporated Areas of Hudson). (near Town of Hudson). Caldwell County, Town of Hudson. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Madison MHP None +1,249 Drive. Tributary 2 (near Town of At the confluence with Little Gunpowder Creek None +1,194 Unincorporated Areas of Hudson). (near Town of Hudson). Caldwell County, Town of Hudson. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Chickadee None +1,261 Trail Place. Little Mulberry Creek 1 ...... Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the con- +1,132 +1,131 Unincorporated Areas of fluence with Mulberry Creek. Caldwell County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60993

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Approximately 350 feet downstream of NC 90 ...... None +1,225 Creek 2 ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Creek ...... None +1,148 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Shallow Creek None +1,234 Road (State Road 1350). Lost Cove Creek ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +1,563 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. At Avery/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,580 Lower Creek ...... At the Burke/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,026 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Cedar Rock +1,130 +1,131 Circle (State Road 1706). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Lower Creek ...... +1,101 +1,099 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, City of Lenoir. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Southeast None +1,536 Haigler Road. McRory Creek ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +1,211 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of McRary Creek None +1,285 Road (State Road 1721). Middle Little River ...... At the Alexander/Caldwell County boundary ...... None +1,098 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Brush Moun- None +1,419 tain Road (State Road 1733). Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Middle Little River ...... None +1,222 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of U.S. 64/Tay- None +1,257 lorsville Road. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Middle Little river ...... None +1,314 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Duck Creek None +1,360 Road (State Road 1730). Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Middle Little River ...... None +1,316 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,362 with Middle Little River. Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Petra Mill Road None +1,053 (State Road 1740). Morris Creek ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +1,132 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Sheriffs Road None +1,287 (State Road 1730). Mountain Run ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +1,185 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 150 feet upstream of Fox Road ...... None +1,321 Mulberry Creek ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence None +1,131 Unincorporated Areas of of Little Mulberry Creek 1. Caldwell County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,514 of Amos Creek. Pilot Branch ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +1,145 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Burns Road None +1,206 (State Road 1749). Prong Creek ...... At the confluence with Johns River ...... None +1,332 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. At the confluence of Racket Creek ...... None +1,418 Racket Creek ...... At the confluence with Prong Creek ...... None +1,418 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 4.3 miles upstream of the con- None +2,284 fluence with Prong Creek. Raider Camp Creek ...... At the confluence with Harper Creek and Camp None +1,555 Unincorporated Areas of Creek. Caldwell County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the con- None +1,638 fluence with Harper Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60994 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Rock Creek ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +1,018 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of State Road None +1,146 1002. Rush Branch ...... At the confluence with Mulberry Creek ...... None +1,344 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,406 with Mulberry Creek. Silver Creek ...... At the confluence with Gunpowder Creek ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County, Town of Granite Falls. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Falls Avenue .. None +1,078 Spain Hour Creek ...... At the confluence with Blairs Fork Creek ...... +1,122 +1,121 City of Lenoir. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Blowing +None +1,176 Rock Boulevard. Stratford Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +1,005 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Baton School None +1,110 Road (State Road 1139). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Stratford Creek ...... None +1,023 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Baton School None +1,055 Road (State Road 1139). Thorps Creek ...... At the confluence with Wilson Creek ...... None +1,498 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 2,050 feet upstream of the con- None +1,540 fluence with Wilson Creek. Thunderhole Creek ...... At the confluence with Johns River ...... None +1,430 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,930 of New Years Creek. Upper Little River ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +936 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Teaberry Lane None +1,294 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Upper Little River ...... None +985 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Charlie Little None +1,127 Road (State Road 1741). Walnut Bottom Creek ...... At the confluence with Johns River ...... None +1,316 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,371 with Johns River. Wilson Creek ...... Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Adako Road None +1,106 Unincorporated Areas of (State Road 1337). Caldwell County. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Avery/ None +1,681 Caldwell County boundary. Zacks Fork Branch ...... At the confluence with Zacks Fork Creek ...... +1,106 +1,104 Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the con- +1,106 +1,105 fluence with Zacks Fork Creek. Zacks Fork Creek ...... Approximately 800 feet downstream of Northeast +1,040 +1,039 City of Lenoir, Unincorporated Georgetown Road. Areas of Caldwell County. At the confluence with Lower Creek ...... +1,092 +1,088 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence +1,157 +1,156 City of Lenoir, Unincorporated with Zacks Fork Creek. Areas of Caldwell County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the con- None +1,268 fluence with Zacks Fork Creek.

ADDRESSES City of Hickory Maps are available for inspection at the Hickory City Hall, 76 North Center Street, Hickory, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable G. Rudy Wright, Jr., Mayor of the City of Hickory, P.O. Box 398, Hickory, North Carolina 28603. City of Lenoir Maps are available for inspection at the Lenoir City Hall, 801 West Avenue, Northwest, 3rd Floor, Lenoir, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable David Barlow, Mayor of the City of Lenoir, City Hall Offices, Lenoir, North Carolina 28645. Town of Cajahs Mountain

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60995

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Maps are available for inspection at the Cajahs Mountain Town Hall, 1800 Connelly Springs Road, Lenoir, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Bill Oxford, Chairman of the Town of Cajahs Mountain Board of Aldermans, 1800 Connelly Springs Road, Lenoir, North Carolina 28645. Town of Gamewell Maps are available for inspection at the Gamewell Town Hall, 2750 Old Morganton Road, Lenoir, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jack Roberts, Mayor of the Town of Gamewell, 2750 Old Morganton Road, Lenoir, North Carolina 28645. Town of Granite Falls Maps are available for inspection at the Granite Falls Town Hall, 30 Park Square, Granite Falls, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Barry Hayes, Mayor of the Town of Granite Falls, P.O. Drawer 10, Granite Falls, North Carolina 28630. Town of Hudson Maps are available for inspection at the Hudson Town Hall, 550 Central Street, Hudson, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Bill Beane, Mayor of the Town of Hudson, P.O. Box 457, Hudson, North Carolina 28638. Town of Sawmills Maps are available for inspection at the Sawmills Town Hall, 4076 U.S. Highway 321A, Sawmills, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Bobby Austin, Mayor of the Town of Sawmills, 4076 U.S. Highway 321A, Sawmills, North Carolina 28630. Unincorporated Areas of Caldwell County Maps are available for inspection at the Caldwell County Courthouse, 1051 Harper Avenue, Lenoir, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. William White, Caldwell County Manager, P.O. Box 2200, Lenoir, North Carolina 28645.

Gaston County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Abbey Creek ...... At the upstream side of Hazeline Avenue ...... +574 +577 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Belmont. Approximately 350 feet upstream of Interstate 85 ... None +701 Abernathy Creek ...... At the confluence with Crowders Creek ...... None +707 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Kings Mountain. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Interstate 85 None +805 Beaverdam Creek ...... Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence None +716 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with South Fork Catawba River. ton County, City of Cherryville, City of High Shoals. Approximately 500 feet downstream of Dallas None +834 Cherryville Highway (State Road 279). Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence None +842 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Beaverdam Creek. ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the con- None +870 fluence of Beaverdam Creek Tributary 1A. Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek Tributary None +857 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- 1. ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 1,590 feet upstream of the con- None +876 fluence with Beaverdam Creek Tributary 1. Blackwood Creek ...... Approximately 700 feet downstream of the North None +571 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- Carolina/South Carolina State boundary. ton County, City of Belmont, City of Gastonia, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence +674 +673 with Crowder Creek. Burton Branch...... Approximately 1,150 feet upstream of the con- +662 +663 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence with Long Creek. ton County, City of Gas- tonia, Town of Ranlo. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Ridge Avenue None +720 Carpenters Branch ...... At the confluence with Little Long Creek ...... None +735 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, Town of Dallas. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +774 with Little Long Creek. Catawba Creek...... Approximately 500 feet downstream of Gaston None +571 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- County, North Carolina/York County, South Caro- ton County, City of Gas- lina State boundary. tonia. Approximately 830 feet downstream of Union New None +588 Hope Road (State Road 2435).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60996 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary ...... At the confluence with Catawba Creek ...... None +571 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 500 feet downstream of Catawba None +583 Cove Drive (State Road 2650). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Catawba Creek ...... None +571 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the con- None +590 fluence with Catawba Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Catawba Creek ...... None +580 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 60 feet upstream of Rufus Ratchford None +601 Road (State Road 2431). Tributary 3 ...... Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence None +611 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Catawba Creek. ton County. Approximately 130 feet downstream of Driftwood None +636 Drive (State Road 2840). Tributary 4 ...... Approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence None +626 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Catawba Creek. ton County, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Woodbridge None +753 Drive. Catawba River ...... Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of State High- +655 +656 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- way 16. ton County, City of Mount Holly. At the Lincoln/Gaston County boundary ...... None +665 Tributary 1...... Approximately 1,005 feet upstream of the con- None +576 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence with Catawba River. ton County, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 230 feet downstream of Beatty Drive None +643 Tributary 2...... Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the con- None +576 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence with Catawba River. ton County, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 600 feet upstream of Missouri Lane None +585 Tributary 3 ...... Approximately 925 feet upstream of the confluence +580 +581 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Catawba River. ton County, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the Railroad .. None +677 Coley Creek ...... Approximately 100 feet downstream of Colt Thorn- None +667 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- burg Road (State Road 1802). ton County. Approximately 40 feet downstream of Cloninger None +673 Road (State Road 1805). Crowders Creek ...... At the confluence with South Fork Crowders Creek None +639 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Gas- tonia, City of Kings Moun- tain. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +806 of McGill Creek. Durharts Creek Tributary 1 Approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence +591 +594 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Durharts Creek. ton County, Town of Cramerton. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +636 with Durharts Creek. Dutchmans Creek ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of the confluence None +597 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- of South Stanley Creek. ton County, City of Mount Holly. At the confluence of Leepers Creek and Killian None +624 Creek. Ferguson Branch ...... At the confluence with Crowders Creek ...... None +657 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +689 with Ferguson Branch. First Creek ...... Approximately 950 feet upstream of the confluence None +771 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Abernathy Creek. ton County, City of Bes- semer City. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +779 with Abernathy Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60997

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Fites Creek ...... Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Perfection Ave- None +675 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- nue. ton County. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Perfection Av- None +701 enue. Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 150 feet upstream of the confluence None +609 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Fites Creek. ton County, City of Belmont, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 900 feet upstream of Acme Road None +694 (State Road 2032). Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Fites Creek Tributary 1 ...... None +649 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Belmont, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +671 with Fites Creek Tributary 1. Gilliam Creek ...... Approximately 150 feet downstream of the Cleve- None +802 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- land/Gaston County boundary. ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the con- None +856 fluence of Gilliam Creek Tributary 2. Tributary 1...... Approximately 150 feet downstream of the con- None +800 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence of Gilliam Creek Tributary 1A. ton County, City of Cherryville. At the downstream side of West Colonial Drive ...... None +863 Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Gilliam Creek Tributary 1 .... None +801 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +832 with Gilliam Creek Tributary 1. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Gilliam Creek ...... None +810 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 160 feet upstream of the Cleveland/ None +812 Gaston County boundary. Hoyle Creek...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of Old Willis None +656 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- School Road (State Road 1836). ton County, City of High Shoals. Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence None +745 of Hoyle Creek Tributary 1. Indian Creek ...... At the Lincoln/Gaston County boundary ...... None +781 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Cherryville. At the confluence of Lick Fork Creek ...... None +790 Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek ...... None +785 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Robert Road ... None +819 Johnson Creek ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +660 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. At the Lincoln/Gaston County boundary ...... None +664 Killian Creek...... At the confluence with Dutchmans Creek and None +624 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- Leepers Creek. ton County. At the Lincoln/Gaston County boundary ...... None +635 Leepers Creek ...... At the confluence with Dutchmans Creek and Kil- None +624 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- lian Creek. ton County. At the Lincoln/Gaston County boundary ...... None +635 Lick Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek ...... None +790 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 125 feet downstream of Vernon None +878 Street. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Lick Fork Creek ...... None +806 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 1.8 miles upstream of the con- None +894 fluence with Lick Fork Creek. Little Beaverdam Creek ...... At the confluence with Beaverdam Creek ...... None +764 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 60998 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Approximately 200 feet downstream of Tryon None +899 Courthouse Road. Little Hoyle Creek ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +666 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Rhyne Road None +711 Little Long Creek ...... Approximately 460 feet downstream of the con- None +734 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence of Carpenters Branch. ton County, Town of Dallas. Approximately 970 feet upstream of Puetts Chapel None +859 Road. Long Creek ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of State Highway None +773 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- 274/Tryon Courthouse Road. ton County, City of Bes- semer City. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Sunnyside None +906 Shady Rest Road (State Road 1409). Approximately 650 feet upstream of the confluence None +759 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Long Creek. ton County. Tributary 6 ...... Approximately 50 feet downstream of Bess Town None +782 Road. At the confluence with Long Creek Tributary 6 ...... None +770 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Tributary 6A ...... Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +784 with Long Creek Tributary 6. At the confluence with Long Creek Tributary 6 ...... None +773 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Tributary 6B ...... Approximately 130 feet downstream of Abel Road None +782 (State Road 1447). Lutz Branch...... Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the con- None +685 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence. ton County, City of High Shoals. At the Lincoln/Gaston County boundary ...... None +738 Mauney Creek ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +656 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, Town of Stan- ley. Approximately 190 feet downstream of Mauney None +689 Road. McGill Branch ...... At the confluence with Crowders Creek ...... None +647 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Lewis Road None +775 (State Road 1126). McGill Creek ...... At the confluence with Crowders Creek ...... None +770 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Gas- tonia, City of Kings Moun- tain. Approximately 250 feet downstream of the Cleve- None +878 land/Gaston County boundary. Muddy Fork Tributary 5 ...... Approximately 140 feet downstream of Doc Wehunt None +818 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- Road. ton County, City of Cherryville. Approximately 2,680 feet upstream of Doc Wehunt None +843 Road. South Fork Catawba River Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +571 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- Tributary 1. with South Fork Catawba River. ton County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the con- None +571 fluence with South Fork Catawba River. Tributary 2...... Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the con- None +584 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence with South Fork Catawba River. ton County, City of Belmont, Town of McAdenville. Approximately 340 feet downstream of Fairway None +630 Highway. South Fork Crowders Creek At the Gaston County, North Carolina/York County, None +618 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- South Carolina State boundary.. ton County, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Lewis Road None +707 (State Route 1126). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with South Fork Crowders Creek None +619 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60999

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +628 with South Fork Crowders Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with South Fork Crowders Creek None +630 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of the Gaston None +633 County, North Carolina/York County, South Caro- lina State boundary. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with South Fork Crowders Creek None +660 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. At the Gaston County, North Carolina/York County, None +664 South Carolina State boundary. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with South Fork Crowders Creek None +675 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Sparrow None +705 Springs Road (State Road 1125). South Stanley Creek ...... Approximately 180 feet upstream of the confluence None +597 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Dutchmans Creek. ton County, City of Mount Holly, Town of Stanley. Approximately 650 feet upstream of the confluence None +650 of South Stanley Creek Tributary 1. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with South Stanley Creek ...... None +645 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, Town of Stan- ley. Approximately 2,200 feet upstream of the Railroad None +738 Stanley Creek ...... At the confluence with Dutchmans Creek ...... None +600 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Mount Holly, Town of Stanley. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Blacksnake None +699 Road. Sulphur Branch ...... At the upstream side of Cherry Street ...... None +707 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of High Shoals. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Ross Road ..... None +816 Taylors Creek ...... Approximately 900 feet upstream of Woodlawn Av- None +591 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- enue. ton County, City of Mount Holly. Approximately 60 feet downstream of Lamplighter None +681 Lane (State Road 2171). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Taylors Creek ...... None +618 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +656 of Taylors Creek Tributary 1A. Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Taylors Creek Tributary 1 .... None +635 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +653 with Taylors Creek Tributary 1. Tributary A ...... At the confluence with South Fork Crowders Creek None +635 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 230 feet upstream of Huffman Road None +746 Tributary B ...... At the confluence with Tributary A ...... None +719 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +784 with Tributary A. Tributary B–1 ...... At the confluence with Tributary B ...... None +737 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 1,840 feet upstream of the con- None +758 fluence with Tributary B. Tributary L–4 ...... Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +682 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- with Long Creek. ton County, Town of Dallas. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of Old Dallas None +727 Highway. Tributary L–4–2 ...... At the confluence with Tributary L–4 ...... None +715 Town of Dallas. Approximately 300 feet upstream of West Robinson None +744 Street.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61000 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary R–1 ...... At the confluence with Crowders Creek ...... +669 +665 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- ton County, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 50 feet upstream of Torrence Road +669 +670 Tributary R–5 ...... Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of the con- +688 +689 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- fluence with Crowders Creek. ton County, City of Bes- semer City, City of Gas- tonia. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Oates Road .... +814 +823 Unnamed Tributary 1 to Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence +773 +774 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- Long Creek. with Long Creek. ton County, City of Bes- semer City. At the confluence with Long Creek ...... None +774 Unnamed Tributary to Trib- At the confluence with Tributary A ...... None +638 Unincorporated Areas of Gas- utary A. ton County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +645 with Tributary A.

ADDRESSES City of Belmont Maps are available for inspection at the City of Belmont Planning and Zoning Department, 37 North Main Street, Belmont, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Richard Boyce, Mayor of the City of Belmont, P.O. Box 431, Belmont, North Carolina 28012. City of Bessemer City Maps are available for inspection at the City of Bessemer City Hall, 132 West Virginia Avenue, Bessemer City, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Alan Farrif, Mayor of the City of Bessemer City, 132 West Virginia Avenue, Bessemer City, North Carolina 28016. City of Cherryville Maps are available for inspection at the Cherryville City Hall, 116 South Mountain Street, Cherryville, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Bob Austell, Mayor of the City of Cherryville, 116 South Mountain Street, Cherryville, North Carolina 28021. City of Gastonia Maps are available for inspection at the City of Gastonia Engineering Department, 150 South York Street, Gastonia, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jennifer Stultz, Mayor of the City of Gastonia, P.O. Box 1748, Gastonia, North Carolina 28053. City of High Shoals Maps are available for inspection at the High Shoals City Hall, 101 Thompkins Street, High Shoals, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Fred Gilbert, Mayor of the City of High Shoals, P.O. Box 6, High Shoals, North Carolina 28077. City of Kings Mountain Maps are available for inspection at the Kings Mountain City Hall, 101 West Gold Street, Kings Mountain, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Rick Murphrey, Mayor of the City of Kings Mountain, P.O. Box 429, Kings Mountain, North Carolina 28086. City of Lowell Maps are available for inspection at the Lowell City Hall, 101 West First Street, Lowell, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Judy Horne, Mayor of the City of Lowell, P.O. Box 217, Lowell, North Carolina 28098. City of Mount Holly Maps are available for inspection at the Mount Holly City Hall, 131 South Main Street, Mount Holly, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Whitt, Mayor of the City of Mount Holly, P.O. Box 406, Mount Holly, North Carolina 28120. Town of Cramerton Maps are available for inspection at the Cramerton Town Hall, 155 North Main Street, Cramerton, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Ronald Murphy, Mayor of the Town of Cramerton, 155 North Main Street, Cramerton, North Carolina 28032. Town of Dallas Maps are available for inspection at the Dallas Town Hall, 210 North Holland Street, Dallas, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Rick Coleman, Mayor of the Town of Dallas, 210 North Holland Street, Dallas, North Carolina 28034. Town of McAdenville Maps are available for inspection at the McAdenville Town Hall, 125 Main Street, McAdenville, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Jerry Hilton, Mayor of the Town of McAdenville, 127 Sanford Road, Gastonia, North Carolina 28056. Town of Ranlo Maps are available for inspection at the Ranlo Town Hall, 1624 Spencer Mountain Road, Gastonia, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Donald Clemmer, Mayor of the Town of Ranlo, 1624 Spencer Mountain Road, Gastonia, North Carolina 28054. Town of Stanley Maps are available for inspection at the Stanley Town Hall, 114 South Main Street, Stanley, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Judith Johnson, Mayor of the Town of Stanley, P.O. Box 279, Stanley, North Carolina 28164.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61001

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Unincorporated Areas of Gaston County Maps are available for inspection at the Gaston County Administration Office, 128 West Main Avenue, Gastonia, North Carolina. Send comments to Ms. Jan Winters, Gaston County Manager, 128 West Main Avenue, Gastonia, North Carolina 28053.

Guilford County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Back Creek Tributary At the confluence with Back Creek ...... None +595 Guilford County. (Stream No. 90). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Sanitary Land- None +638 fill Road. Beaver Creek (Stream No. At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary ...... None +635 Guilford County (unincor- 83). porated areas). At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary ...... None +569 Big Alamance Creek Tribu- Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence +658 +659 Guilford County (Unincor- tary 8. with Big AlamanceCreek. porated Areas), Town of Pleasant Garden. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Hagon Stone None +712 Park Road. Boulding Branch ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of Montileu Ave- None +854 City of High Point. nue. At North Centennial Street ...... None +888 Tributary 3. Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence None +798 City of High Point. with Boulding Branch. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of McGuinn None +849 Drive. Brush Creek (Stream No. At the downstream side of Brass Eagle Loop ...... +780 +778 Guilford County (Unincor- 54). porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,550 feet upstream of Airport Cen- None +879 ter Drive. Tributary ...... At the confluence with Brush Creek ...... +816 +814 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Airport Park- None +925 way. Bull Run (Stream No. 28) ... At the confluence with Deep River (Stream No. 1) +705 +704 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro, Town of Jamestown. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Ruffin Road None +845 Copper Branch...... Approximately 1,150 feet upstream of the con- None +700 Guilford County (Unincor- fluence with Deep River (Stream No. 1). porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 600 feet upstream of I-85 ...... None +822 Deep River Tributary 26 ..... Approximately 800 feet downstream of the Guilford/ None +701 Guilford County (Unincor- Randolph County boundary. porated Areas) . Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the Guilford/ None +722 Randolph County boundary. Tributary 30 ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence None +762 City of High Point . with West Fork Deep River (Stream No. 2). Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +800 with West Fork Deep River (Stream No. 2). Tributary 31 ...... Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence None +778 City of High Point . with West Fork Deep River (Stream No. 2). Approximately 650 feet upstream of Arden Place ... None +863 East Fork Deep River Tribu- Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence None +790 Guilford County (Unincor- tary 2. with East Fork Deep River. porated Areas), City of Greensboro, City of High Point. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of I–40 ...... None +866 Haw River Tributary 19 ...... Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence None +844 Guilford County (Unincor- with Haw River. porated Areas). Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +901 with Haw River. Horsepen Creek (Stream Approximately 120 feet downstream of railroad ...... +743 +742 Guilford County (Unincor- No. 55). porated Areas), City of Greensboro.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61002 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Approximately 200 feet downstream of Distribution None +835 Drive. Tributary 1 (Stream No. 57) At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... +756 +757 City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,375 feet upstream of Derbyshire None +833 Drive. Tributary 2 (Stream No. 56) At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... +762 +761 City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of Hobbs Road None +853 Tributary B ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek Tributary 2 None +778 City of Greensboro. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Hobbs Road None +861 Tributary C ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... None +758 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro Approximately 2,275 feet upstream of Four Farms None +784 Road. Tributary D ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... None +772 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Chance Road None +831 Tributary F ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... None +785 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Joseph Bryan None +822 Boulevard. Tributary G ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... None +797 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +828 with Horsepen Creek. Tributary H ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... +795 +796 City of Greensboro. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Ballinger Road None +806 Tributary I ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek Tributary H None +806 City of Greensboro. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Friendway None +861 Road. Tributary K ...... At the confluence with Horsepen Creek ...... +820 +822 City of Greensboro. Approximately 250 feet upstream of North Chimney None +888 Rock Road. Knight Road Branch ...... Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the con- None +819 Guilford County (Unincor- fluence with West Ford Deep River (Stream No. porated Areas), City of High 2). Point. At the Guilford/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +838 Lake Hamilton ...... At the confluence with North Buffalo Creek ...... +784 +785 City of Greensboro. Approximately 70 feet upstream of East Kemp None +815 Road. Long Branch (Stream No. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of West None +837 Guilford County (Unincor- 25). Wendover Avenue. porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 550 feet upstream of I-40 ...... None +863 Mile Branch Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence None +729 Guilford County (Unincor- with Mile Branch. porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +780 with Mile Branch. Muddy Creek East Tributary At the Guilford/Randolph County boundary ...... None +814 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Baker Road None +855 East Tributary 2 ...... At the High Point ETJ/Archdale City boundary ...... None +789 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. At the High Point ETJ/Archdale City boundary ...... None +799 East Tributary 4 ...... At the Guilford/Randolph County boundary ...... None +771 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Liberty Road None +826 East Tributary 5 ...... At the High Point ETJ/Archdale City boundary ...... None +778 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 550 feet upstream of Liberty Road .. None +814

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61003

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

North Buffalo Creek Approximately 50 feet downstream of Rankin Mill +696 +697 Guilford County (Unincor- (Stream No. 66). Road. porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 90 feet upstream of South Holden None +816 Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Jordan Branch ...... None +747 City of Greensboro. Approximately 700 feet upstream of Allyson Ave- None +779 nue. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Muddy Creek ...... +719 +718 City of Greensboro. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Woodmore None +750 Drive. Tributary 3 ...... At Briarcliff Road ...... None +744 City of Greensboro. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +756 of North Buffalo Creek. Tributary 5 ...... Approximately 950 feet upstream of the confluence +774 +775 City of Greensboro. with North Buffalo Creek Tributary A. Approximately 75 feet upstream of Forest Hill Drive None +843 North Little Alamance Creek Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence None +627 Guilford County (Unincor- Tributary 6. with North Little Alamance Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of U.S. 70 ...... None +649 Philadelphia Lake ...... At the confluence with North Buffalo Creek ...... +726 +728 City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of West Cone None +810 Boulevard. Parks Creek...... Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of the None +633 Guilford County (Unincor- Alamance/Guilford County boundary. porated Areas). Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the None +656 Alamance/Guilford County boundary. Polecat Creek Tributary 4 ... At the Guilford/Randolph County boundary ...... None +695 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of SR 62 ...... None +712 Reedy Fork Tributary 10 ..... Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence +742 +745 Guilford County (Unincor- with Reedy Fork Creek. porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +752 with Reedy Fork Creek. Richland Creek Tributary 12 At Nathan Hunt Drive ...... None +793 City of High Point. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Tate Street ..... None +863 Tributary 15 ...... Approximately 50 feet upstream of Surrett Drive ..... +827 +828 City of High Point. Approximately 100 feet upstream of South Elm None +857 Street. Tributary 2 ...... Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence None +713 Guilford County (Unincor- with Richland Creek (Stream No. 30). porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +809 with Richland Creek. Tributary 3 ...... Approximately 625 feet upstream of the confluence None +724 Guilford County (Unincor- with Richland Creek. porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 75 feet upstream of Lawndale Ave- None +828 nue. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Richland Creek Tributary 3 None +753 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 1,550 feet upstream of Central Ave- None +829 nue. Rock Creek Tributary 3 ...... Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence None +632 Guilford County (Unincor- with Rock Creek (Stream No. 80). porated Areas). Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the con- None +652 fluence with Rock Creek (Stream No. 80). Sandy Ridge Tributary ...... At the downstream side of NC 68 ...... +797 +800 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas). At Gilmore Dairy Road ...... None +832 Smith Branch ...... Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the con- +674 +675 Guilford County (Unincor- fluence with Reedy Fork Creek. porated Areas). Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of Turner Smith None +758 Road.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61004 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

South Buffalo Creek Approximately 350 feet upstream of East Lee +714 +715 Guilford County (Unincor- (Stream No. 67). Street. porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Guilford Col- None +876 lege Road. South Buffalo Creek Tribu- At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek ...... +805 +807 Guilford County (Unincor- tary A. porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Tower Road .... None +902 Tributary B ...... At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek Tribu- +810 +809 City of Greensboro. tary A. Approximately 550 feet upstream of Richland None +886 Street. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek ...... +804 +807 City of Greensboro. Approximately 300 feet upstream of Pennoak Road None +837 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek ...... +712 +713 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of South None +770 English Street. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek ...... +718 +719 City of Greensboro. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of South None +773 English Street. Tributary 8 ...... At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek ...... +725 +728 City of Greensboro. Approximately 800 feet upstream of South Benbow None +739 Road. Tributary 9 ...... At the confluence with South Buffalo Creek ...... +733 +735 City of Greensboro. Approximately 50 feet downstream of East None +746 Vandalia Road. Tributary 10 ...... Approximately 180 feet upstream of the confluence None +736 City of Greensboro. with Ryan Creek. Approximately 50 feet downstream of Webster None +807 Road. Stream No. 13 Tributary 1 .. Approximately 400 feet upstream of the confluence None +806 City of High Point. with Stream No. 13. Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of the con- None +854 fluence with Stream No. 13. Tributary 3 ...... Approximately 250 feet upstream of the confluence None +817 City of High Point. with Stream No. 13. Approximately 400 feet upstream of Pine Valley None +856 Road. Stream No. 27 Tributary 2 .. Approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence None +786 City of High Point. with Stream No. 27. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Alpine Drive None +833 Stream No. 34 ...... Approximately 450 feet downstream of Habersham None +817 City of High Point. Road. Approximately 1,850 feet downstream of Pendleton None +851 Street. Stream No. 34A ...... At the upstream side of Jackson Lake Road ...... None +745 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Baker Road .... None +827 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Stream No. 34A ...... None +752 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of the con- None +782 fluence with Stream No. 34A. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Stream No. 34A ...... None +753 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of the con- None +793 fluence with Stream No. 34A. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Stream No. 34A ...... None +769 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas), City of High Point. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +820 with Stream No. 34A.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61005

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Stream No. 34A Tributary 3 None +775 City of High Point. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the con- None +825 fluence with Stream No. 34A Tributary 3. Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Stream No. 34A ...... None +794 City of High Point. Approximately 450 feet upstream of North Hall None +818 Street. Tributary 7 ...... At the confluence with Stream No. 34A ...... None +817 City of High Point. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of Baker Road None +864 Tributary A to Travis Creek At the Alamance/Guilford County boundary ...... None +623 Guilford County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 600 feet upstream of Howerton None +674 Road. Unnamed Tributary to West Approximately 750 feet upstream of the confluence None +832 Guilford County (Unincor- Fork Deep River. with West Fork Deep River Tributary 1. porated Areas). Approximately 200 feet upstream of Adkins Road .. None +855 West Fork Deep River Approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the con- None +833 Guilford County (Unincor- (Stream No. 2). fluence with West Fork Deep River Tributary 1 porated Areas). (Stream No. 3). At the Guilford/Forsyth County boundary ...... None +862

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. +North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Greensboro Maps are available for inspection at Greensboro Stormwater Management Division, 2602 South Elm Eugene Street, Greensboro, North Caro- lina. Send comments to The Honorable Keith Holliday, Mayor of the City of Greensboro, P.O. Box 3136, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402–3136. City of High Point Maps are available for inspection at the High Point City Hall, 211 South Hamilton Street, High Point, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Rebecca Smothers, Mayor of the City of High Point, P.O. Box 230, High Point, North Carolina 27261. Town of Jamestown Maps are available for inspection at the Jamestown Town Hall, 301 East Main Street, Jamestown, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable William G. Ragsdale, III, Mayor of the Town of Jamestown, P.O. Box 848, Jamestown, North Carolina 27282. Town of Pleasant Garden Maps are available for inspection at the Town of Pleasant Garden Kirkman Municipal Building, 4920 Alliance Church Road, Pleasant Garden, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Rick Wallace, Mayor of the Town of Pleasant Garden, P.O. Box 307, Pleasant Garden, North Carolina 27313. Unincorporated Areas of Guilford County Maps are available for inspection at the Guilford County Planning and Development Office, 201 South Eugene Street, Greensboro, North Caro- lina. Send comments to Mr. W. David McNeill, Jr., Guilford County Interim Manager, P.O. Box 3427, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402.

Lincoln County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas

Anderson Creek ...... At the confluence with Killian Creek ...... None +667 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. At the confluence with Hooper Creek and Wingate None +709 Creek. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Anderson Creek ...... None +675 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the con- None +746 fluence with Anderson Creek. Armstrong Branch ...... At the confluence with Dellinger Branch ...... None +712 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +765 with Dellinger Branch. Ballard Creek ...... At the confluence with Wingate Creek ...... None +714 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +829 of Ballard Creek Tributary 3.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61006 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Ballard Creek ...... None +745 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +791 with Ballard Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Ballard Creek ...... None +765 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 90 feet downstream of East King None +827 Wilkinson Road (State Route 1349). Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Ballard Creek ...... None +811 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of North Ernest None +911 Huss Lane. Bradshaw Branch ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +713 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the con- None +754 fluence with Leepers Creek. Buffalo Creek ...... At Cleveland/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +957 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 600 feet upstream of NC–10 ...... None +1,155 Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Buffalo Creek ...... None +988 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,017 with Buffalo Creek. Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Buffalo Creek ...... +1,033 ...... Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,099 of Buffalo Creek Tributary 6A. Tributary 6A ...... At the confluence with Buffalo Creek Tributary 6 .... None +1,074 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +1,118 with Buffalo Creek Tributary 6. Carpenter Creek ...... Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence +773 +774 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- with Clarks Creek. coln County, City of Lincolnton. Approximately 100 feet downstream of U.S. 321 .... None +865 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Carpenter Creek ...... None +801 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Bulldog None +833 Lane. Catawba River ...... At Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. At Cowans Ford Dam ...... None +670 Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +665 with Catawba River. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +667 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +673 with Catawba River. Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Catawba River ...... None +668 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of North Club None +682 Drive (State Route 1395). Clarks Creek ...... Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of West Maid- None +780 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- en-Salem Road (State Route 1274). coln County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of Lincoln/Ca- None +792 tawba County boundary. Tributary 1...... Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the con- +764 +765 City of Lincolnton. fluence with Clarks Creek. Approximately 150 feet upstream of North Aspen None +788 Street. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Clarks Creek ...... None +781 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +790 with Clarks Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61007

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Crooked Creek ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +691 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +720 with Leepers Creek. Dellinger Branch ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +712 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,150 feet upstream of South Low None +792 Bridge Road (State Route 1314). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Dellinger Branch ...... None +738 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of East Orchard None +809 Road (State Route 1358). Forney Creek ...... At the confluence with Killian Creek ...... None +663 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County Approximately 2.6 miles upstream of East Optimist None +769 Club Road (State Route 1380). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Forney Creek ...... None +679 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,350 feet upstream of the con- None +710 fluence of Forney Creek Tributary 1B. Tributary 1A ...... At the confluence with Forney Creek Tributary 1 .... None +679 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County, Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the Railroad .... None +707 Tributary 1B ...... At the confluence with Forney Creek Tributary 1 .... None +695 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence None +702 with Forney Creek Tributary 1. Glenn Creek ...... At Cleveland/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +899 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 230 feet downstream of NC–27 ...... None +1,041 Hog Branch ...... At the confluence with Larkard Creek ...... None +788 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of North U.S. 321 None +830 (State Route 1844). Hooper Creek...... At the confluence with Anderson creek and None +709 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- Wingate Creek. coln County. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the con- None +753 fluence with Anderson Creek and Wingate Creek. Howards Creek ...... Approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the con- None +769 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- fluence with South Fork Catawba River. coln County. Approximately 100 feet upstream of Catawba/Lin- None +972 coln County boundary. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +769 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence None +795 with Howards Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +780 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County . Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of North Alf Hoo- None +904 ver Road (State Route 1200). Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +839 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of North Howards None +865 Creek Mill Road (State Route 1194). Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +859 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream West Abernethy None +904 Farm Road (State Route 1195). Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +867 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 100 feet downstream of North Over- None +909 look Lane. Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +911 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of West None +971 Reepsville Road (State Route 1113).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61008 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary 7 ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +928 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of West Gilbert None +1,022 Sain Road (State Route 1210). Hoyle Creek ...... Approximately 200 feet downstream of Gaston/Lin- None +742 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County boundary. coln County. Approximately 10 feet downstream of East Keener None +872 Road (State Route 1323). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +742 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of East Magnolia None +773 Grove Road (State Route 1309). Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +756 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +770 with Hoyle Creek. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +767 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +789 with Hoyle Creek. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +784 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of East Hovis None +810 Road (State Route 1315). Tributary 6 ...... At the confluence with Hoyle Creek ...... None +809 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of South Hill None +855 Road (State Route 1321). Indian Creek ...... Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Gaston/Lin- None +787 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County boundary. coln County. At Catawba/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +1,011 Tributary 1 ...... At upstream side of South Landers Church Road +761 +762 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- (State Route 1176). coln County. Approximately 650 feet upstream of South St. None +808 Marks Church Road (State Route 1172). Tributary 2...... Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the con- None +773 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- fluence with Indian Creek. coln County. Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of the dam ...... None +896 Johnson Creek ...... At Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +664 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Gaston/Lincoln None +677 County boundary. Killian Creek ...... At Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +635 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of East Mundy None +829 Road (State Route 1349). Larkard Creek ...... At the confluence with Clarks Creek ...... None +782 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of East Springs None +845 East Road (State Route 1342). Leepers Creek ...... At the Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +635 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. At the confluence with Lippard Creek and Sawmill None +807 Branch. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +661 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence None +677 with Leepers Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +663 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +685 with Leepers Creek. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +665 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the con- None +686 fluence with Leepers Creek.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61009

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +667 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +696 with Leepers Creek. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +671 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the con- None +702 fluence with Leepers Creek. Leonard Fork ...... Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the con- None +773 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- fluence with Indian Creek. coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of West Flay None +934 Road (State Route 1140). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Leonard Fork ...... None +868 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence None +937 with Leonard Fork. Lick Fork Creek ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek ...... None +790 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Gaston/Lin- None +792 coln County boundary. Lick Run Creek ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +754 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 900 feet upstream of North Leeping None +895 Brook Road (State Route 1530). Lippard Creek ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek and Sawmill None +807 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- Branch. coln County. At Catawba/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +869 Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Lippard Creek ...... None +832 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of East Ivey None +891 Church Road (State Route 1343). Lithia Inn Branch ...... Approximately 500 feet downstream of North Jonas +775 +774 City of Lincolnton. Drive. Approximately 450 feet upstream of U.S. 321 ...... None +878 Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence +771 +772 City of Lincolnton. with Lithia Inn Branch. Approximately 600 feet upstream of State Route None +828 150/South Dave Warlick Drive. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Lithia Inn Branch Tributary 1 None +783 City of Lincolnton. Approximately 200 feet upstream of East Laurel None +805 Street. Little Buffalo Creek ...... At Cleveland/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +854 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 50 feet downstream of West Flay None +964 Road (State Route 1140). Little Creek (East) ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek ...... None +847 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 200 feet upstream of West Houser None +960 Farm Road (State Route 1127). Little Creek (West) ...... At the Cleveland/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +961 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Cleveland/Lin- None +1,022 coln County boundary. Little Indian Creek ...... At the confluence of Indian Creek ...... None +878 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 250 feet upstream of West Mac- None +1,067 edonia Church Road. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Little Indian Creek ...... None +905 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +991 with Little Indian Creek. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Little Indian Creek ...... None +917 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Red None +980 Dawn Estate Trail. Tributary 3 ...... At the confluence with Little Indian Creek ...... None +934 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61010 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Approximately 300 feet upstream of Hulls Grove None +984 Church Road. Tributary 4 ...... At the confluence with Little Indian Creek ...... None +937 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of West Mac- None +1,069 edonia Church Road (State Route 1108). Tributary 4A ...... At the confluence with Little Indian Creek Tributary None +978 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- 4. coln County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of North Tallent None +1,047 Road (State Route 1120). Little Pott Creek ...... At the confluence with Pott Creek ...... None +793 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 150 feet downstream of North None +874 Cansler Road (State Route 1197). Lutz Branch ...... At the Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +738 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 150 feet downstream of East Mirror None +760 Lake Road (State Route 1474). McClure Branch ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +671 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of South Mt. None +743 Zion Church Road (State Route 1404). Mill Creek ...... At the confluence with Indian Creek ...... None +795 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of South Bess None +1,023 Chapel Church Road (State Route 1150). Muddy Creek ...... At Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +713 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence None +786 of Muddy Creek Tributary 2. Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence of Muddy Creek ...... None +748 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of U.S. 321 ...... None +778 Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Muddy Creek ...... None +752 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,450 feet upstream of U.S. 321 ...... None +793 Ore Bank Branch ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +783 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +822 with Leepers Creek. Pott Creek ...... At the confluence with South Fork Catawba River .. None +778 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. At Catawba/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +802 Reed Creek ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +723 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of East Stage- None +773 coach Road (State Route 1363). Rockdam Creek ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +769 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 250 feet upstream of South How- None +830 ards Creek School Road (State Route 1186). Sawmill Branch ...... At the confluence with Leepers Creek ...... None +807 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of North Union None +871 Church Road (State Route 1344). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Sawmill Branch ...... None +833 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence None +864 with Sawmill Branch. Snyder Creek ...... At the confluence with Killian Creek ...... None +686 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.8 mile upstream of the confluence None +732 with Killian Creek. South Fork Catawba River Approximately 2.4 miles upstream of the con- None +773 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- fluence of Howards Creek. coln County. At Catawba/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +793 Tributary 3 ...... At Gaston/Lincoln County boundary ...... None +717 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61011

*Elevation in feet (NGVD). +Elevation in feet (NAVD). Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation #Depth in feet Communities affected above ground. Effective Modified

Approximately 500 feet upstream of West Hoffman None +730 Road (State Route 1245). Tributary 4 ...... At Railroad ...... +756 +757 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County, City of Lincolnton. Approximately 200 feet upstream of State Route None +776 150. Tributary 5 ...... At the confluence with South Fork Catawba River .. None +782 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence None +800 with South Fork Catawba River. Tanyard Creek ...... At the confluence with Howards Creek ...... None +779 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 2.6 miles upstream of West None +906 Reepsville Road (State Route 1113). Tributary 1 ...... At the confluence with Tanyard Creek ...... None +791 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of West None +890 Reepsville Road (State Route 1113). Walker Branch...... Approximately 200 feet downstream of North +764 +765 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- Aspen Street. coln County, City of Lincolnton. Approximately 200 feet downstream of East Wilma None +815 Sigman Road. Tributary 2 ...... At the confluence with Walker Branch ...... +806 +805 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County, City of Lincolnton. Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Huss None +947 Street. Wilkinson Creek ...... At the confluence with Wingate Creek ...... None +753 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- coln County. Approximately 300 feet upstream of State Route None +910 150. Wingate Creek ...... At the confluence with Anderson Creek and Hooper None +709 Unincorporated Areas of Lin- Creek. coln County. Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of the con- None +804 fluence of Wilkinson Creek.

ADDRESSES City of Lincolnton: Maps are available for inspection at the City of Lincolnton Planning Department, 114 West Sycamore Street, Lincolnton, North Carolina. Send comments to The Honorable Bobby Huitt, Mayor of the City of Lincolnton, P.O. Box 617, Lincolnton, North Carolina 28093. Unincorporated Areas of Lincoln County: Maps are available for inspection at the Lincoln County Planning Department, 302 North Academy Street, Lincolnton, North Carolina. Send comments to Mr. Tom Anderson, Chairman of the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners, 115 West Main Street, Lincolnton, North Carolina 28092. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61012 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Dated: October 12, 2006. 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Samuel D. Rauch III, Dated: October 4, 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Deputy Assistant Administrator for David I. Maurstad, Administration Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. Director, Mitigation Division, Federal 50 CFR Part 648 Emergency Management Agency, Department [FR Doc. E6–17239 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S of Homeland Security. [Docket No. 060901235–6235–01; I.D. [FR Doc. E6–17279 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 082406C] BILLING CODE 9110–12–P RIN 0648–AQ87 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Fisheries of the Northeastern United National Oceanic and Atmospheric States; Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Administration DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Herring Fishery Management Plan; Correction 50 CFR Part 660 Defense Acquisition Regulations System AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries [I.D. 101006A] Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 48 CFR Parts 204, 235, and 252 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pacific Fishery Management Council; Commerce. Public Meetings and Hearings RIN 0750–AF13 ACTION: Proposed rule; request for AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries comments; correction. Defense Federal Acquisition Service (NMFS), NationalOceanic and Regulation Supplement; Export- SUMMARY: On September 27, 2006, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Controlled Information and NMFS published the proposed rule for Commerce. Technology (DFARS Case 2004–D010) Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Herring ACTION: Public hearings. Fishery Management Plan (Amendment SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 1) incorporating the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Management Council (Council) Regulations System, Department of announces the dates and locations of Defense (DoD). Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, public hearings to solicit comments on ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of for Secretarial review and requested the proposed 15th amendment to the comment period. comments from the public. The Pacific Coast Salmon Plan to allow de proposed rule contains an error in the minimis ocean fishing impacts on SUMMARY: DoD is reopening the ADDRESSES caption regarding the email Klamath River fall Chinook during years comment period for the proposed rule address for submitting comments that would otherwise be closed to ocean published at 71 FR 46434 on August 14, regarding the burden-hour estimates and salmon fishing. 2006 which closed October 13. The other aspects of the collection-of- DATES: Written comments on the salmon proposed rule contains requirements for information requirements. This management options must be received preventing unauthorized disclosure of document corrects that error. by Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at 4:30 export-controlled information and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric p.m., Pacific Time. technology under DoD contracts. The Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) ADDRESSES: Written comments should comment period is extended to provide 281- 9259, fax (978) 281- 9135. be sent to Mr. Donald Hansen, additional time for interested parties to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management review the proposed changes. proposed rule for Amendment 1 to the Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384, DATES: The ending date for submission Plan was published in the Federal telephone: 503–820–2280 (voice) or of comments is reopened until Register on September 27, 2006 (71 FR 503–820–2299 (fax). For specific hearing November 2, 2006. 56446), with public comment accept locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. through November 13, 2006. The e-mail . Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition address under the ADDRESSES caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) was misspelled for the comments Chuck Tracy, telephone: 503–820–2280. DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 regarding the burden of hour estimates SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC or other aspects of the collection-of- November 1–2, 2006: Public hearings 20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0328; information requirements. This will be held to receive comments on the facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite document corrects that error. proposed de minimis fishing DFARS Case 2004–D010. In proposed rule FR Doc. 06–8263, on alternatives adopted by the Council at page 56447 of the September 27, 2006, its September 2006 meeting. All public Michele P. Peterson, issue of the Federal Register, make the hearings begin at 7 p.m. on the dates Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations following correction under the and at the locations specified here. System. ADDRESSES caption: November 1, 2006: Old Mill Casino, [FR Doc. E6–17231 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] In column 1, remove the e-mail Cedar Room, 3201 Tremont Avenue BILLING CODE 5001–08–P address for (Hwy 101), North Bend, OR 97459 541– ‘‘[email protected]’’ in the 756–8800. next to last line of the ADDRESSES November 2, 2006: Hilton Sonoma caption and add in its place Wine Country, Nagasawa A Room, 3555 ‘‘[email protected]’’. Round Barn Boulevard, Santa Rosa, CA Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 95403, 707–523–7555.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61013

Special Accommodations should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter Dated: October 11, 2006. The meetings are physically at 503–820–2280 (voice), or 503–820– James P. Burgess, accessible to people with disabilities. 2299 (fax) at least five days prior to the Acting Director, Office Of Sustainable Requests for sign language meeting date. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. interpretation or other auxiliary aids [FR Doc. E6–17241 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:09 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP1.SGM 17OCP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 61014

Notices Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 200

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER agricultural products that have been of their programs by submitting contains documents other than rules or produced using organic methods as information to USDA documenting their proposed rules that are applicable to the provided for in OFPA. This regulation: ability to operate such programs and public. Notices of hearings and investigations, (1) Established national standards showing that such programs meet the committee meetings, agency decisions and governing the marketing of certain requirements of OFPA and NOP. The rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency agricultural products as organically Secretary will review a State organic statements of organization and functions are produced products; (2) assures program not less than once during each examples of documents appearing in this consumers that organically produced 5-year period following the date of the section. products meet a consistent standard; initial program approval. To date, two and (3) facilitates interstate commerce State organic certification programs in fresh and processed food that is have been approved by USDA. The DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE organically produced. initial burden for each State organic Reporting and recordkeeping are certification program is an average of 40 Agricultural Marketing Service essential to the integrity of the organic hours or if calculated at a rate of $32 per [TM–06–09] certification system. They create a paper hour (rounded up to the next dollar) trail that is a critical element in carrying $1,280. State organic certification Request for an Extension of and out the mandate of OFPA and NOP. programs require reporting and Revision to a Currently Approved They serve the AMS mission, program recordkeeping burdens similar to those Information Collection objectives, and management needs by required by the NOP. The average providing information on the efficiency annual burden for States are 55 hours or AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, and effectiveness of the program. The if calculated at a rate of $32 per hour USDA. information affects decisions because it (rounded up to the next dollar) $1,760. ACTION: Notice and request for is the basis for evaluating compliance Certifying agents. Certifying agents are comments. with OFPA and NOP, for administering State, private, or foreign entities who are the program, for management decisions accredited by USDA to certify domestic SUMMARY: In accordance with the and planning, and for establishing the and foreign producers and handlers as Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 cost of the program. It supports organic in accordance with OFPA and U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice administrative and regulatory actions in NOP. Each entity wanting to be an agent announces the Agricultural Marketing response to noncompliance with OFPA seeks accreditation from USDA, Service’s intention to request approval and NOP. submitting information documenting its from the Office of Management and In general, the information collected business operations and program Budget, for an extension of and revision is used by USDA, State program expertise. Accredited agents determine to the currently approved information governing State officials, and certifying if a producer or handler meets organic collection National Organic Program agents. It is created and submitted by requirements, using detailed (NOP) Record Keeping Requirements. State and foreign program officials, peer information from the operation DATES: Comments received by December review panel members, accredited documenting its specific practices and 18, 2006 will be considered. certifying agents, organic inspectors, on-site inspection reports from organic Additional Information or Comments: certified organic producers and inspectors. Initial estimates were based Contact Toni Strother, National Organic handlers, those seeking accreditation or on 59 entities applying for accreditation Program, Transportation and Marketing certification, and parties interested in (13 State certifiers, 36 private entities, Programs, Agricultural Marketing changing the National List. 10 foreign entities). The initial burden Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Additionally, it necessitates that all of for each State certifier was an average of 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room these entities have procedures and 695 hours or if calculated at a rate of 4008–So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, space for recordkeeping. $27 per hour (rounded up to the next DC, 20250, telephone (202) 720–3252, USDA. USDA is the accrediting dollar) $18,765. The initial burden for fax (202) 205–7808. authority. USDA accredits domestic and each private or foreign entity was 700 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: foreign certifying agents who certify hours or if calculated at a rate of $27 per Title: National Organic Program. domestic and foreign organic producers hour (rounded up to the next dollar) OMB Number: 0581–0191. and handlers, using information from $18,900. Currently, 95 certifying agents Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, the agents documenting their business (16 State certifiers, 39 private entities, 2007. operations and program expertise. 40 foreign entities) have been Type of Request: Extension and USDA also permits States to establish accredited. The AMS anticipates Revision of a currently approved their own organic certification programs receiving approximately, 3 new information collection. after the programs are approved by the applications per year. Accredited Abstract: The Organic Foods Secretary, using information from the certifying agents submit annual updates Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) as States documenting their ability to with an annual burden, for each amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) operate such programs and showing that certifying agent, of an average of 11 mandates that the Secretary develop a such programs meet the requirements of hours or if calculated at a rate of $32 per NOP to accredit eligible State program’s OFPA and NOP. hour (rounded up to the next dollar) governing State officials or private States. States may operate their own $352. persons as certifying agents who would organic certification programs. State Administrative costs for reporting, certify producers or handlers of officials obtain the Secretary’s approval disclosure of information, and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61015

recordkeeping vary among certifying changes in their practices. Producers is an average of 104 hours or if agents. Factors affecting costs include include farmers, livestock and poultry calculated at $32 per hour (rounded up the number and size of clients, the producers, and wild crop harvesters. to the next dollar) $3,328. categories of certification provided, and Handlers include those who transport or Estimate of Burden: Public reporting the type of systems maintained. transform food and include millers, bulk burden for this collection of information When an entity applies for distributors, food manufacturers, is estimated to average 1.74 hours per accreditation as a certifying agent, it processors, repackagers, or packers. response. must provide a copy of its procedures Some handlers are part of a retail for complying with recordkeeping operation that processes organic Respondents: Producers, handlers, requirements (§ 205.504(b)(3)). Once products in a location other than the certifying agents, inspectors and State, certified, agents have to make their premises of the retail outlet. Local or Tribal governments and records available for inspection and The OFPA requires certified operators interested parties. copying by authorized representatives of to maintain their records for 5 years. We Estimated Number of Respondents: the Secretary (§ 205.501(a)(9)). The estimate: 19,400 total operators (14,253 16,095. USDA charges certifying agents for the certified and 5,147 exempt), including time required to do these document 17,150 producers (12,176 certified and Estimated Number of Responses: reviews. Audits require less time when 4,974 exempt) and 2,250 handlers (1,977 365,343. the documents are well organized and certified and 273 exempt). The annual Estimated Number of Responses per centrally located. recordkeeping burden for each certified Respondent: 22.7. Recordkeeping requirements for operator is an average of 5 hours or if Estimated Total Annual Burden on certifying agents are divided into three calculated at $32 per hour (rounded up Respondents: 635,697. categories of records with varying to the next dollar) $160. retention periods: (1) Records created by Administrative costs for reporting and Comments are invited on: (1) Whether certifying agents regarding applicants recordkeeping vary among certified the proposed collection of information for certification and certified operations, operators. Factors affecting costs is necessary for the proper performance maintain 10 years, consistent with include the type and size of operation, of the functions of the agency, including OFPA’s requirement for maintaining all and the type of systems maintained. whether the information will have records concerning activities of Research studies have indicated that practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the certifying agents; (2) records obtained operations using product labels agency’s estimate of the burden of the from applicants for certification and containing the term ‘‘organic’’ handle an proposed collection of information certified operations, maintain 5 years, average of 20 labels annually and that including the validity of the the same as OFPA’s requirement for the there are about 1,977 handlers with the methodology and assumptions used; (3) retention of records by certified term organic on their label. An estimate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and operations; and (3) records created or of the time needed to develop labels for clarity of the information to be received by certifying agents regarding products sold, labeled, or represented as collected; and (4) ways to minimize the accreditation, maintain 5 years, ‘‘100 percent organic,’’ ‘‘organic,’’ burden of the collection of information consistent with OFPA’s requirement for ‘‘made with organic (specified on those who are to respond, including renewal of agent’s accreditation ingredients),’’ or which use the term the use of appropriate automated, (§ 205.5 10(b)). organic to modify an ingredient in the electronic, mechanical, or other Organic inspectors. Inspectors, on ingredients statement is included. Also technological collection techniques or behalf of certifying agents, conduct on- included is the time spent deciding other forms of information technology. site inspections of certified operations about use of the USDA seal, a State Comments may be sent to: Mark A. and operations applying for emblem, or the seal, logo, or other Bradley, Associate Deputy certification. They determine whether or identifying marks of a private certifying Administrator, National Organic not certification should continue or be agent (§§ 205.300–205.310). Because the Program, USDA–AMS–TM–NOP, 1400 granted and report their findings to the labeling requirements are in addition to Independence Ave., SW., Room 4008– certifying agent. Inspectors are the Food and Drug Administration and S0., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC agents themselves, employees of the Food Safety and Inspection Service 20250 or via the Internet at: agents, or individual contractors. We requirements, the burden measurement [email protected], or by fax at: (202) estimate that about half are certifying does not include the hours necessary to 205–7808. All comments received will agents or their employees and half are develop the entire label. For purposes of be available for public inspection during individual contractors. Individuals who calculating the burden, it is estimated regular business hours at the same apply for positions as inspectors submit that each handler develops 20 labels address. Also, all comments to this to the agents information documenting annually. Estimates: 1,977 certified notice will be available for viewing on their qualifications to conduct such handlers. The annual burden for each the NOP homepage at http:// inspections. Estimates: 293 inspectors certified handler is an average of 1 hour www.ams.usda.gov/nop. (147 certifying agents and their per product label times 20 product employees, 146 individual contractors). labels per handler or if calculated at a All responses to this notice will be The annual burden for each inspector is rate of $32 per hour (rounded up to the summarized and included in the request an average of 1 hour or if calculated at next dollar) $640. for OMB approval. All comments will $32 per hour (rounded up to the next Interested parties. Any interested become a matter of public record. dollar) $32. party may petition the National Organic Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. Producers and handlers. Producers Standards Board (NOSB) for the purpose Dated: October 10, 2006. and handlers, domestic and foreign, of having a substance evaluated for apply to certifying agents for organic recommendation to the Secretary for Lloyd C. Day, certification, submit detailed inclusion on or deletion from the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing information documenting their specific National List. Estimates: 25 interested Service. practices, provide annual updates to parties may petition the NOSB. The [FR Doc. E6–17190 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] continue their certification, and report annual burden for each interested party BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61016 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OMB Number: 0581–0033. Estimated Number of Responses: 80. Expiration Date of Approval: August Estimated Number of Responses per Agricultural Marketing Service 31, 2007. Respondent: 8. Type of Request: Extension of and [No. PY–06–004] Estimated Total Annual Burden on revision to a currently approved Respondents: 6.64 hours. Notice of Request for Extension of and information collection. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Revision to a Currently Approved Abstract: Under the Agricultural the proposed collection of the Information Collection Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 information is necessary for the proper U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), the Poultry Market performance of the functions of the AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, News Branch provides up-to-the-minute agency, including whether the USDA. nationwide coverage of prices, supply, information will have practical utility; ACTION: Notice and request for demand, trends, movement, and other (2) the accuracy of the Agency’s comments. pertinent information affecting the estimate of the burden of the proposed trading of poultry and eggs, and their collection of information including the SUMMARY: In accordance with the respective products. The market reports validity of the methodology and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 compiled and disseminated by Market assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice News provide current, unbiased, factual the quality, utility and clarity of the announces the Agricultural Marketing information to all members of the information to be collected; and (4) Service’s (AMS) intention to request Nation’s agricultural industry, from ways to minimize the burden of the approval from the Office of Management farm to retailer. These market reports collection of information on those who and Budget (OMB), for an extension for assist producers, processors, are to respond, including the use of and revision to a currently approved wholesalers, retailers, and others in appropriate automated, electronic, information collection for Poultry making informed production, mechanical, or other technological Market News Programs. purchasing, and sales decisions and collection techniques or other forms of DATES: Comments received by December promote orderly marketing by placing information technology. 18, 2006 will be considered. buyers and sellers on a more equal Dated: October 11, 2006. Additional Information Or Comments: negotiating basis. Lloyd C. Day, Interested parties are invited to submit Market news reporters communicate written comments concerning this with buyers and sellers of egg and Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. notice. Comments must be sent to poultry commodities on a daily basis in Michael E. Sheats, Chief, Poultry Market order to accomplish the Program’s [FR Doc. E6–17193 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] News Branch, Poultry Programs, mission. This communication and BILLING CODE 3410–02–P Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. information gathering is accomplished through the use of telephone Department of Agriculture, STOP 0262, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., conversations, facsimile transmissions, Washington, DC 20250–0262, or fax and electronic mail messages. Market Agricultural Research Service (202–720–2403). Alternately, comments News uses one OMB approved form, may be submitted electronically to: PY–90: Monthly Dried Egg Solids Stocks Office of the Under Secretary, [email protected]. Comments Report, to collect inventory information Research, Education, and Economics; may also be submitted electronically to: monthly from commercial dried egg Notice of the Scientific Review Panel at [email protected] or http:// products plants throughout the U.S. the National Animal Disease Center, www.regulations.gov. Comments should Cooperating firms submit this form to Ames, Iowa make reference to the date and page Market News primarily via facsimile number of this issue of the Federal transmissions. AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service Register and will be made available for (1) Collection of Market Information. (ARS), USDA. public inspection in the above office Estimate of Burden: Public reporting ACTION: Notice of meeting. during regular business hours. burden for this collection of information SUMMARY: The United States Department All responses to this notice will be is estimated to average 0.083 hours per of Agriculture announces a conference summarized and included in the request response. call meeting of the Scientific Review for OMB approval. All comments will Respondents: Producers, processors, Panel at the National Animal Disease become a matter of public record. brokers, distributors, and retailers. Estimated Number of Respondents: Center, Ames, Iowa. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1,775. DATES: October 18, 2006, 8 a.m. to 11 Michael E. Sheats, Chief, Poultry Market Estimated Number of Responses: a.m. or noon central time. News Branch, 202–720–6911. 221,875. ADDRESSES: City Council Chambers, City SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Estimated Number of Responses per Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, Iowa Paperwork Reduction Act Respondent: 125. 50010 (access to a monitor of the Estimated Total Annual Burden on conference call). This notice contains submission Respondents: 18,415.5 hours. requirements subject to public comment (2) Monthly Dried Egg Solids Stocks FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and review by the Office of Management Form PY–90. Steven Shafer, Midwest Area Director, and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Estimate of Burden: Public reporting USDA–ARS, 1815 North University Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. burden for this collection of information Street, Peoria, Illinois 61604; Telephone Chapter 35). In accordance with 5 CFR is estimated to average 0.083 hours per (309) 681–6602; Fax (309) 681–6684; E- Part 1320, a description of the response. mail [email protected]. submission requirements and an Respondents: Commercial domestic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 4, estimate of the resulting burden on dried egg products plants. 2006, the City of Ames, Iowa, received applicants is included. Estimated Number of Respondents: allegations that wastes from areas at the Title: Poultry Market News Reports. 10. National Animal Disease Center (NADC)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61017

with animals challenged with prions disability, please indicate those needs at activity related to crop protection were not properly treated prior to the time of registration. Pre-registrations products at the manufacturing facilities discharge to the City wastewater plant. will be limited to 80 people; others may of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and An expert panel was convened to be able to attend on a space-available Company, Inc. (Subzone 144A), as review scientific information about basis. described in the application and deactivation of prions and assess Dated: October 6, 2006. Federal Register notice, and subject to practices used at NADC to treat liquid Caird E. Rexroad, Jr., the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, including Section 400.28. wastes from areas where animals with Associate Administrator, Agricultural Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of prions are housed and handled that Research Service. October 2006. enter the Ames wastewater treatment [FR Doc. 06–8727 Filed 10–12–06; 12:44 pm] system. (Note: For the purposes of this BILLING CODE 3410–03–P David M. Spooner, panel and its review, prions are defined Assistant Secretary of Commercefor Import as specific proteins that are abnormally Administration,Alternate ChairmanForeign– shaped and can cause transmissible DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Trade Zones Board. diseases associated with the Attest: allegations). The panel had its first Foreign–Trade Zones Board Pierre V. Duy, meeting on August 23, 2006, at the Acting Executive Secretary. Ames City Hall, followed by preparatory Order No. 1482 [FR Doc. E6–17268 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] work on August 23, August 24, and Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S September 20. The conference call E.I. du Pont de Nemours and meeting on October 18, 2006, will Company, Inc., (Crop Protection continue implementation of the panel’s Products), Valdosta, Georgia Area DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE charge to evaluate four main issues related to the handling and disposal of Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign–Trade Zones Board potentially prion-contaminated Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign– materials in wastewater from the NADC: Order No. 1481 (1) Identify scientifically accepted Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: methods for effectively destroying WHEREAS, the Foreign–Trade Zones Reorganization/Expansion of Foreign– prions; (2) Assess the concerns raised Act provides for ‘‘ . . . the establishment Trade Zone 148, Knoxville, Tennessee, regarding NADC’s current and past . . . of foreign–trade zones in ports of Area methods for the destruction of prions; entry of the United States, to expedite (3) Determine the risk posed to humans Pursuant to its authority under the and encourage foreign commerce, and Foreign–Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as and the environment from the current, for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the as well as previous, methods for the amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign– Foreign–Trade Zones Board to grant to Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the destruction of prions utilized at NADC; qualified corporations the privilege of following Order: and (4) If remediation is needed, establishing foreign–trade zones in or WHEREAS, the Industrial provide scientifically sound approaches adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border for corrective action(s) that may be Development Board of Blount County, Protection ports of entry; grantee of Foreign–Trade Zone 148, taken. Final conclusions of the review WHEREAS, the Board’s regulations will be developed during a meeting at submitted an application to the Board (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the for authority to reorganize and expand a later date, also to be announced. At establishment of special–purpose the conclusion of its review, the panel FTZ 148 in the Knoxville, Tennessee, subzones when existing zone facilities area, adjacent to the Knoxville Customs will prepare a written report that cannot serve the specific use involved, documents the panel’s findings for the port of entry (FTZ Docket 12–2006; filed and when the activity results in a 4/6/2006); four main issues being evaluated. The significant public benefit and is in the meeting on October 18 will be held by public interest; WHEREAS, notice inviting public conference call. The public may monitor WHEREAS, Brunswick Foreign–Trade comment was given in the Federal the panel’s discussion via a speaker Zone, Inc., grantee of Foreign–Trade Register (71 FR 19872, 4/16/2006) and phone in the Ames City Hall’s Council Zone 144, has made application to the the application has been processed Chamber. No oral comments will be Board for authority to establish special– pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s accepted from the public during the purpose subzone status at the regulations; and, call, however, written public comment manufacturing facilities (crop protection WHEREAS, the Board adopts the received by letter, fax, or e-mail to the products) of E.I. du Pont de Nemours findings and recommendations of the contact person named above by close of and Company, Inc., located in the examiner’s report, and finds that the business on Wednesday, November 1, Valdosta, Georgia area (FTZ Docket 15– requirements of the FTZ Act and 2006, will be provided to the panel 2006, filed 4/27/2006); Board’s regulations are satisfied, and members. Although access to the WHEREAS, notice inviting public that the proposal is in the public conference call monitor will be open to comment has been given in the Federal interest; the public, space is limited. If you want Register (71 FR 26321, 5/4/2006); and, to be assured of a seat at this meeting, WHEREAS, the Board adopts the you must register by contacting the findings and recommendations of the NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby contact person named above at least 5 examiner’s report, and finds that the orders: days prior to the meeting. Please requirements of the FTZ Act and the The application to reorganize and provide your name, title, business Board’s regulations will be satisfied, and expand FTZ 148 is approved, subject to affiliation, address, and telephone and that approval of the application will be the Act and the Board’s regulations, fax numbers when you register. If you in the public interest; including Section 400.28. require a sign language interpreter or NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of other special accommodation due to grants authority for subzone status for October 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61018 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Attest: received requests for review from four the request. Although both petitioners Argentine exporters included in the and ACA withdrew their requests for David M. Spooner, petitioners’ request, including ACA. On review after the 90-day deadline, the Assistant Secretary of Commercefor Import January 6, 2006, petitioners withdrew Department finds it reasonable to extend Administration,Alternate ChairmanForeign– their request with respect to 23 Trade Zones Board. the withdrawal deadline because the companies listed in their original Department has not yet devoted Pierre V. Duy, request. significant time or resources to this Acting Executive Secretary. On February 1, 2006, the Department review. Further, we find that neither initiated a review on the remaining 19 [FR Doc. E6–17263 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] petitioners’ nor ACA’s withdrawal companies for which an administrative BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S constitutes an abuse of our procedures. review was requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty See, e.g., Persulfates from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Rescission DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241 of Antidumping Duty Administrative International Trade Administration (February 1, 2006). Review, 71 FR 13810 (March 17, 2006). On March 10, 2006, petitioners (A–357–812) The Department will issue withdrew their requests for review of an appropriate assessment instructions Honey from Argentina: Notice of additional twelve respondents. directly to U.S. Customs and Border Partial Rescission of Antidumping Accordingly, on April 10, 2006, the Protection (CBP) within 15 days of the Duty Administrative Review Department published a notice of partial publication of this notice. The rescission of review in response to Department will direct CBP to assess AGENCY: Import Administration, petitioners’ withdrawal of their requests antidumping duties for ACA at the cash covering twelve companies. See Honey International Trade Administration, deposit rates in effect on the date of Department of Commerce from Argentina: Notice of Partial entry for entries during the period SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce Rescission of Antidumping Duty December 1, 2004, to November 30, (the Department) is partially rescinding Administrative Review, 71 FR 18066 2005. its administrative review of the (April 10, 2006). On August, 4, 2006, antidumping duty order on honey from petitioners withdrew their request for an Notification to Importers Argentina for the period December 1, administrative review of respondent, 2004, to November 30, 2005, with Nexco S.A. On August 21, 2006 This notice serves as a final reminder respect to one company, Associacion de petitioners and respondent HoneyMax to importers of their responsibility Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA). S.A. submitted letters withdrawing their under section 351.402(f) of the EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2006. requests for an administrative review of Department’s regulations to file a HoneyMax S.A. Accordingly, on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: certificate regarding the reimbursement September 6, 2006, the Department of antidumping duties prior to Deborah Scott or Robert James at (, AD/ published a notice of partial rescission CVD Operations, Office 7, Import liquidation of the relevant entries of review with regard to Nexco S.A. and during this review period. Failure to Administration, International Trade HoneyMax S.A. See Honey from Administration, U.S. Department of comply with this requirement could Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission result in the Secretary’s assumption that Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution of Antidumping Duty Administrative reimbursement of antidumping duties Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; Review, 71 FR 52526 (September 6, occurred and subsequent assessment of Telephone: (202) 482–2657 and (202) 2006) 482–0649, respectively. On September, 11, 2006, petitioners double antidumping duties. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and ACA submitted letters withdrawing This notice also serves as a reminder Background their requests for an administrative to parties subject to administrative review of ACA. See letter from ACA protective order (APO) of their On December 1, 2005, the Department entitled ‘‘Honey From Argentina Fourth responsibility concerning the published in the Federal Register its Administrative Review: Partial disposition of proprietary information notice of opportunity to request an Withdrawl of Review Request,’’ dated disclosed under APO in accordance administrative review of the September 11, 2006. See also letter from with section 351.305(a)(3) of the antidumping duty order on honey from petitioners entitled ‘‘Fourth Annual Department’s regulations. Timely Argentina. See Antidumping or Administrative Review of the written notification of the return/ Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Antidumping Duty Order on Honey destruction of APO materials or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity from Argentina Partial Withdrawal of conversion to judicial protective order is to Request Administrative Review, 70 Review Request,’’ dated September 11, hereby requested. Failure to comply FR 72109 (December 1, 2005). In 2006. response, on December 30, 2005, the with the regulations and the terms of an American Honey Producers Association Rescission of Review APO is a sanctionable violation. and the Sioux Honey Association Section 351.213(d)(1) of the This notice is in accordance with (collectively, petitioners) requested an Department’s regulations provides that section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of administrative review of the the Department will rescind an 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR antidumping duty order on honey from administrative review if the party that 351.213(d)(4). Argentina for the period December 1, requested the review withdraws its Dated: October 10, 2006. 2004, through November 30, 2005. The request for review within 90 days of the petitioners requested that the date of publication of the notice of Stephen J. Claeys, Department conduct an administrative initiation of the requested review, or Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import review of entries of subject merchandise withdraws at a later date if the Administration. made by 42 Argentine producers/ Department determines it is reasonable [FR Doc. E6–17255 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] exporters. In addition, the Department to extend the time limit for withdrawing BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61019

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE published a notice extending the time more, by weight, of the following limit for the final results of review until alloying elements: aluminum, International Trade Administration September 29, 2006. See Notice of manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, A–570–832 Extension of Final Results of the 2004– zirconium and rare earths. 2005 Administrative Review of Pure Excluded from the scope of this order Pure Magnesium from the People’s Magnesium from the People’s Republic are alloy primary magnesium (that Republic of China: Final Results of of China, 71 FR 53662 (September 12, meets specifications for alloy 2004–2005 Antidumping Duty 2006). On October 6, 2006, the magnesium), primary magnesium Administrative Review Department published a notice anodes, granular primary magnesium extending the time limit for the final (including turnings, chips and powder) AGENCY: Import Administration, results of review until October 10, 2006. having a maximum physical dimension International Trade Administration, See Pure Magnesium from the People’s (i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or Department of Commerce. Republic of China: Notice of Extension less, secondary magnesium (which has SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce of Final Results of the 2004–2005 pure primary magnesium content of less (‘‘the Department’’) published its Administrative Review, 71 FR 59078 than 50% by weight), and remelted preliminary results of administrative (October 6, 2006). magnesium whose pure primary review of the antidumping duty order We have conducted this magnesium content is less than 50% by on pure magnesium from the People’s administrative review in accordance weight. Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on April 10, with section 751 of the Tariff Act of Pure magnesium products covered by 2006. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 this order are currently classifiable May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. CFR 351.213. under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of We invited interested parties to the United States (HTSUS) subheadings comment on our preliminary results. Period of Review 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, Based on our analysis of the comments The POR is May 1, 2004, through 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, received, we have made changes to our April 30, 2005. 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although margin calculations. Therefore, the final the HTSUS subheadings are provided Scope of Order results differ from the preliminary for convenience and customs purposes, results. The final dumping margin for Merchandise covered by this order is our written description of the scope is this review is listed in the ‘‘Final pure magnesium regardless of dispositive. chemistry, form or size, unless expressly Results of Review’’ section below. Analysis of Comments Received EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2006. excluded from the scope of this order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy All issues raised in the post– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: containing by weight primarily the preliminary comments by parties in this Eugene Degnan or Hua Lu, AD/CVD element magnesium and produced by review are addressed in the Operations, Office 8, Import decomposing raw materials into memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Administration, International Trade magnesium metal. Pure primary Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of magnesium is used primarily as a Administration, to David M. Spooner, Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution chemical in the aluminum alloying, Assistant Secretary for Import Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; desulfurization, and chemical reduction Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision telephone (202) 482–0414 or (202) 482– industries. In addition, pure magnesium Memorandum for the Final Results of 6478, respectively. is used as an input in producing Administrative Review of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium Antidumping Duty Order on Pure Background encompasses products (including, but Magnesium from the People’s Republic not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns of China,’’ dated October 10, 2006 On April 10, 2006, the Department and crystals) with the following primary (‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’), which is published its preliminary results of magnesium contents: hereby adopted by this notice. A list of review. See Pure Magnesium from the (1) Products that contain at least the issues which parties raised and to People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight which we responded in the Issues and Results of Antidumping Duty (generally referred to as ‘‘ultra pure’’ Decision Memo is attached to this notice Administrative Review, 71 FR 18067 magnesium); as an appendix. The Issues and Decision (April 10, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). (2) Products that contain less than Memo is a public document which is on On April 28, 2006, Tianjin Magnesium 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) International, Ltd. (‘‘TMI’’) submitted magnesium, by weight (generally in room B–099 in the main Department additional surrogate value information. referred to as ‘‘pure’’ magnesium); and building, and is accessible on the Web On May 8, 2006, TMI requested a (3) Products that contain 50% or at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper hearing. On May 10, 2006, TMI greater, but less than 99.8% primary copy and electronic version of the submitted its case brief. US Magnesium magnesium, by weight, and that do not memorandum are identical in content. LLC (‘‘Petitioner’’) submitted a rebuttal conform to ASTM specifications for brief on May 17, 2006. On July 19, 2006, alloy magnesium (generally referred to Changes Since the Preliminary Results the Department held a public hearing. as ‘‘off–specification pure’’ magnesium). Based on our analysis of comments On July 31, 2006, the Department ‘‘Off–specification pure’’ magnesium received, we have made changes in the published a notice extending the time is pure primary magnesium containing margin calculations for TMI. limit for the final results of review until magnesium scrap, secondary • In the preliminary results, we used September 7, 2006. See Notice of magnesium, oxidized magnesium or Indian imports statistics from World Extension of Final Results of the 2004– impurities (whether or not intentionally Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) to value dolomite. 2005 Administrative Review of Pure added) that cause the primary For the final results, we have Magnesium from the People’s Republic magnesium content to fall below 99.8% determined to average dolomite prices of China, 71 FR 43110 (July 31, 2006). by weight. It generally does not contain, from the financial statements of Indian On September 12, 2006, the Department individually or in combination, 1.5% or Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. and Tata

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61020 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Sponge Iron Ltd. See Issues and country this single rate unless an 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit Decision Memo at Comment 1 for a exporter can demonstrate that it is rate for TMI is zero; (2) for previously thorough discussion of this issue and sufficiently independent so as to be reviewed or investigated companies not ‘‘Tianjin Magnesium International, Ltd. entitled to a separate rate. listed above that have a separate rate, Program Analysis for the Final Results In the Preliminary Results, we found the cash deposit rate will continue to be of Review’’ from Hua Lu, Case Analyst, that TMI demonstrated its eligibility for the company–specific rate published for through Robert Bolling, Program separate–rate status. For the final the most recent period; (3) the cash Manager, to the File, dated October 10, results, we continue to find that the deposit rate for all other PRC exporters 2006 (‘‘Final Analysis Memorandum.’’). evidence placed on the record of this will be 108.26 percent, the current PRC– • In the preliminary results, we review by TMI demonstrates an absence wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate calculated the surrogate value for flux of government control, both in law and for all non–PRC exporters will be the No. 2 based on the HTSUS subheading in fact, with respect to its exports of the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that for magnesium chloride, which is one of merchandise under review and, thus, supplied that exporter. These deposit the constituent materials that make up determine that TMI is eligible for requirements, when imposed, shall flux No. 2. For the final results, we separate–rate status. remain in effect until publication of the valued flux No. 2 based on the three Final Results of Review final results of the next administrative compounds included in flux No. 2 (i.e., review. magnesium chloride, sodium chloride We determine that the following and potassium chloride) according to dumping margin exists: Notification of Interested Parties their respective proportions. See Issues This notice also serves as a final and Decision Memo at Comment 3 and Weighted–average reminder to importers of their Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage Final Analysis Memorandum. responsibility under 19 CFR • In the preliminary results, we used the TMI ...... 0.00 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate price for grade A coal from the 2003/ regarding the reimbursement of 2004 Tata Energy Research Institute’s Assessment Rates antidumping duties prior to liquidation Energy Data Directory & Yearbook of the relevant entries during this (‘‘TERI data’’) to value the coal used by The Department will issue review period. Failure to comply with TMI in the production of pure appraisement instructions directly to this requirement could result in the magnesium. For the final results, we U.S. Customs and Border Protection Secretary’s presumption that have determined to value coal using (‘‘CBP’’) within 15 days of publication reimbursement of the antidumping grade C coal prices from the TERI data. of these final results of administrative duties occurred and the subsequent See Issues and Decision Memo at review. In accordance with 19 CFR assessment of double antidumping Comment 4 and Final Analysis 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated duties. This notice also serves as a Memorandum. importer–specific assessment rates for reminder to parties subject to merchandise subject to this review. We Surrogate Country administrative protective orders divided the total dumping margins of (‘‘APOs’’) of their responsibility In the Preliminary Results, we stated reviewed sales by the total entered value concerning the return or destruction of that we treat the PRC as a non–market of reviewed sales for each applicable proprietary information disclosed under economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and, importer to calculate ad valorem APO in accordance with 19 CFR therefore, we calculated normal value in assessment rates. We will direct CBP to 351.305, which continues to govern accordance with section 773(c) of the assess the resulting assessment rates business proprietary information in this Act, which applies to NME countries. against the entered customs values for segment of the proceeding. Timely Also, we stated that we had selected the subject merchandise on each written notification of the return/ India as the appropriate surrogate importer’s entries under the relevant destruction of APO materials or country to use in this review for the order during the POR. conversion to judicial protective order is following reasons: 1) India is at a level To determine whether the duty hereby requested. Failure to comply of economic development comparable to assessment rates were de minimis, in with the regulations and terms of an that of the PRC; 2) India is a significant accordance with the requirement set APO is a violation which is subject to producer of comparable merchandise; 3) forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we sanction. India provides the best opportunity to calculated importer–specific ad valorem We are issuing and publishing this use quality, publicly available data to rates. For TMI, we aggregated the determination and notice in accordance value the factors of production; dumping margins calculated for all U.S. with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. sales to each importer and divided this the Act. See Preliminary Results, 71 FR 18069. amount by the entered value of the sales For the final results, we made no to each importer. Where an importer– Dated: October 10, 2006. changes to our findings with respect to specific ad valorem rate is de minimis, David M. Spooner, the selection of a surrogate country. we will order CBP to liquidate Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. appropriate entries without regard to Separate Rates Appendix antidumping duties. In proceedings involving NME List of Comments and Issues in the countries, the Department begins with a Cash Deposit Requirements Decision Memorandum rebuttable presumption that all The following deposit requirements Comment 1: Surrogate Value for companies within the country are will be effective upon publication of Dolomite subject to government control and, thus, this notice of final results of should be assigned a single administrative review for all shipments Comment 2: Surrogate Value for antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the of pure magnesium from the PRC Ferrosilicon Department’s policy to assign all entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, exporters of merchandise subject to for consumption on or after the date of Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Flux administrative review in an NME publication, as provided by section No. 2

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61021

Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Coal Germany for the period of review July destruction of APO materials or Comment 5: Surrogate Value for 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. conversion to judicial protective order is Electricity Petitioners in this case did not request hereby requested. Failure to comply an administrative review. On August 30, with the regulations and the terms of an Comment 6: Ocean Freight 2006, the Department initiated an APO is a sanctionable violation. [FR Doc. E6–17267 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] administrative review of TKN. See This notice is published in BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Initiation of Antidumping and accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 Reviews and Requests for Revocation in CFR 351.213(d)(4). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On Dated: October 10, 2006. September 19, 2006, TKN submitted a Stephen J. Claeys, International Trade Administration letter withdrawing their request for an Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import (A–428–825) administrative review. See letter from Administration. TKN dated September 19, 2006. [FR Doc. E6–17269 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils Rescission of Review BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S From Germany: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Review Department’s regulations provides that the Department will rescind an DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AGENCY: Import Administration, administrative review if the party that National Oceanic and Atmospheric International Trade Administration, requested the review withdraws its Administration Department of Commerce. request for review within 90 days of the SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce date of publication of the notice of [I.D. 101106C] (the Department) is rescinding its initiation of the requested review, or administrative review of the withdraws at a later date if the Endangered and Threatened Species; antidumping duty order on stainless Department determines it is reasonable Initiation of a Status Review under the steel sheet and strip in coils from to extend the time limit for withdrawing Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Germany for the period July 1, 2005 to the request. In response to TKN’s Black Abalone June 30, 2006. withdrawal of their request for an AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries EFFECTIVE DATE: October 17, 2006. administrative review, the Department Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hereby rescinds the administrative Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tyler R. Weinhold, Deborah Scott, or review of the antidumping duty order Commerce. Robert James at (, AD/CVD Operations, on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils ACTION: Notice; initiation of a status Office 7, Import Administration, from Germany for the period July 1, review under the ESA. International Trade Administration, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The Department will issue SUMMARY: U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th We, NMFS, announce the appropriate assessment instructions Street and Constitution Avenue NW, initiation of an ESA status review of the directly to U.S. Customs and Border Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), and Protection (CBP) within 15 days of the (202) 482–2657 and (202) 482–0649, we solicit information on the species. publication of this notice. The respectively. DATES: Information on the black abalone Department will direct CBP to assess must be received by December 18, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: antidumping duties for TKN at the cash ADDRESSES: You may submit Background deposit rate in effect on the date of entry information on the black abalone via for entries during the period July 1, mail to Melissa Neuman, NMFS, On July 3, 2006, the Department 2005, through June 30, 2006. published in the Federal Register its Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean notice of opportunity to request an Notification to Importers Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA, 90802–4213, e-mail at administrative review of the This notice serves as a final reminder [email protected], or fax to 562– antidumping duty order on stainless to importers of their responsibility 980–4027. Include in the subject line of steel sheet and strip in coils from under section 351.402(f) of the any e-mail the following document Germany. See Antidumping of Department’s regulations to file a identifier: Black abalone review. Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or certificate regarding the reimbursement Suspended Investigation; Opportunity of antidumping duties prior to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to Request Administrative Review, 71 liquidation of the relevant entries Melissa Neuman, (562) 980–4115, FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). In response, on during this review period. Failure to [email protected], or Marta July 31, 2006, German producers comply with this requirement could Nammack, (301)713–1401, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH result in the Secretary’s assumption that [email protected]. (‘‘ThyssenKrupp Nirosta’’), reimbursement of antidumping duties SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We ThysssenKrupp Nirosta Prazisionsband occurred and subsequent assessment of initiated an informal ESA status review GmbH (‘‘TKNP’’), ThyssenKrupp VDM double antidumping duties. of the black abalone on July 15, 2003, GmbH (‘‘TKVDM’’) (collectively, This notice also serves as a reminder and we conducted a biological scoping ‘‘TKN’’), along with their affiliated U.S. to parties subject to administrative workshop on January 29–30, 2004, importers ThyssenKrupp Nirosta North protective order (APO) of their which served to bring together America, Inc. (‘‘TKNNA’’) and responsibility concerning the individuals who have research ThyssenKrupp VDM USA, Inc. disposition of proprietary information experience with black abalone and/or (‘‘TKVDMUSA’’) requested an disclosed under APO in accordance experience conducting status reviews administrative review of the with section 351.305(a)(3) of the and/or stock assessments. A second antidumping duty order on stainless Department’s regulations. Timely workshop was convened on July 31– steel sheet and strip in coils from written notification of the return/ August 1, 2006, to discuss research

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61022 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

advancements since 2003, removing two. We solicit information announced the initiation of a formal standardization of monitoring and and comments on the status of, and status review in our definition of assessment efforts, and gaps in our research and stewardship opportunities candidate species. ‘‘Candidate species’’ understanding of the species’ long-term for, species of concern. will henceforth refer to (1) species that trends. At this time, we are formally DATES: These actions are effective on are the subject of a petition to list and announcing a status review of the black October 17, 2006. for which we have determined that abalone. This species was harvested ADDRESSES: Send comments and listing may be warranted, pursuant to commercially and recreationally documentation regarding the status of section 4(b)(3)(A), and (2) species that beginning in the mid–1800s with any species of concern to the Chief of are not the subject of a petition but for significant declines detected in the late Endangered Species, NMFS, Office of which we have announced the initiation 1970s, and withering syndrome Protected Resources, 1315 East-West of a status review in the Federal continues to be a threat to the species. Highway, F/PR3, Silver Spring, MD Register. In other words, any species that is undergoing a status review that Comments Solicited 20910. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail at we have announced in a Federal To support this status review, we are [email protected]. Include in the subject Register notice will be considered a soliciting information on the following candidate species. topics: (1) long-term trends in line of the e-mail comment the abundance throughout the species following document identifier: Species Species of Concern range; (2) potential factors for the of Concern List. In our April 15, 2004, notice species’ decline throughout its range FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: establishing the species of concern list (e.g., overharvesting, natural predation, Marta Nammack at (301)713–1401, ext. (69 FR 19975), we described factors that disease, habitat loss etc.); (3) status of 180, [email protected], for we consider when identifying species of the black abalone fishery in Mexico; (4) general information on the Species of concern. Rationale for identifying each implication of low population size for Concern program; Kim Damon-Randall species of concern is available at http:// black abalone conservation; (5) factors at (978) 281–9300 x6535, www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern. important for black abalone [email protected], for We intend to publish annual updates of management; (6) current estimate of information on the newly designated our species of concern list in the population size and available habitat; species of concern. Federal Register. Table 1 at the end of (7) knowledge of various life history SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The this Notice lists the current species of parameters (size/age at maturity, regulations implementing section 4 of concern. We are adding three species to fecundity, length of larval stage, larval the ESA (5 U.S.C. 1533) define and removing six species from the dispersal dynamics, etc.); and (8) ‘‘candidate’’ as ‘‘any species being species of concern list. Also, two projections on population growth or considered by the Secretary [of species are removed from the candidate decline and risk of extinction. See DATES Commerce or Interior] for listing as an species list, while four species of and ADDRESSES for guidance on how, by endangered or a threatened species, but concern are added to the candidate list when, and where to send information. not yet the subject of a proposed rule’’ because they are undergoing formal Dated: October 10, 2006. (50 CFR 424.02). Such a designation status reviews. does not confer any procedural or Initiation of a status review does not James H. Lecky, substantive protections of the ESA on mean that an ESA listing is imminent. Director, Office of Protected Resources, the candidate species. Even after a status review has been National Marine Fisheries Service. ‘‘Species of concern’’ are species conducted, it is possible that the [FR Doc. E6–17247 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] about which we have some concerns available information will be BILLING CODE 3510–22–S regarding status and threats, but for insufficient to make a determination on which insufficient information is the status of the species or that the available to indicate a need to list the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE information will indicate that an ESA species under the ESA (69 FR 19975; listing is not warranted. Species of National Oceanic and Atmospheric April 15, 2004). Species can qualify as concern status serves to promote Administration both species of concern and candidate conservation and research efforts for species. This discussion is limited to these species. [I.D. 101106D] species under NMFS jurisdiction and does not apply to the regulatory Adding Three Species of Concern Endangered and Threatened Species; practices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife We have identified three new species Revision of Species of Concern List, Service. of concern: the porbeagle (Lamna Candidate Species Definition, and nasus), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Candidate Species List Definition of Candidate Species and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries On April 15, 2004, (69 FR 19975) we A short synopsis of their status and Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and stated that we would limit use of the factors for decline are presented here. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), term ‘‘candidate species’’ to refer to (1) More detailed information on these Commerce. species that are the subject of a petition species is available at http:// ACTION: Notice; revision of species of to list and for which we have www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ concern list, candidate species determined that listing may be concern/. definition, and species considered as warranted, pursuant to section The porbeagle is a slow growing candidates. 4(b)(3)(A), and (2) species for which we coastal shark, with a relatively late age have determined, following a status at maturity. It has been overfished over SUMMARY: We, NMFS, revise: our review, that listing is warranted the last four decades, resulting in a 90 species of concern list by adding three (whether or not they are the subject of percent loss of the sexually mature and removing six species; our definition a petition). However, in order to be population. In 2006 the International of candidate species; and our candidate consistent, we intend to include non- Union for Conservation of Nature and species list by adding four species and petitioned species for which we have Natural Resources assessed the status of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61023

this species as Vulnerable globally, the proposal because of ongoing NMFS, FWS, and the U.S. Geological Endangered in the Northwest Atlantic, conservation efforts that are likely to Survey to compile information on the and Critically Endangered in the improve the status of this species (71 FR status of Atlantic sturgeon. The BRT Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean. 3033; January 19, 2006). drafted a status review report which is In May 2004, the Committee on the undergoing peer review at this time. We Candidate Species Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada expect to use the status review report to recommended to the Canadian Minister Since we last published an updated make a determination on whether listing of Fisheries that this species be listed as species of concern list, there have also Atlantic sturgeon or distinct population endangered under the Species at Risk been changes to the candidate species segments of this species is warranted at Act. While the Highly Migratory Species list. Two former species of concern that this time. Fishery Management Plan includes were also candidate species because of Atlantic salmon fishery restrictions for sharks in the ongoing status reviews are no longer United States, none of these restrictions, species of concern or candidate species: A BRT consisting of biologists from except for an annual quota of 92 metric the Lower Columbia River coho salmon the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission, tons, are specific to the porbeagle. ESU and the Oregon Coast coho salmon Penobscot Indian Nation, NMFS, and The alewife and blueback herring are ESU. As described above, these species FWS has completed a status review fishes collectively referred to as ‘‘river are no longer species of concern, and report for Atlantic salmon Status herring.’’ Due to difficulties in they are also no longer candidate Review for Anadromous Atlantic distinguishing the two species, they are species. Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States, July 2006). This updates the 1999 often harvested and managed together. New Candidate Species Landings statistics and the numbers of status review report on which we based fish observed on annual spawning runs We are adding four species to the our determination to list the Gulf of indicate a drastic decline in river candidate species list. Since we are now Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon as herring populations throughout much of including as candidate species those endangered (65 FR 69459; November 17, their range since the mid–1960s. species for which we have initiated our 2000) by analyzing new information and Though factors responsible for this own formal status reviews, the assessing the status of other populations decline have yet to be identified, following three species are now in Maine in relation to the Gulf of Maine decreased access to spawning areas from considered to be candidate species: DPS. We published a Notice of the construction of dams, other Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus Availability for the status review report impediments to migration, degradation oxyrinchus, this Federal Register in the Federal Register (71 FR 55431; of habitat, overfishing, and increased notice), Atlantic salmon populations in September 22, 2006), and we will predation by recovering striped bass Maine outside the range of the listed publish our determination on whether a populations have likely contributed to Gulf of Maine DPS (Salmo salar, 71 FR modification to the existing listing or a their decline. 55431; September 22, 2006), and black new listing is warranted. abalone (Haliotis cracherodii, Removing Six Species announced in this issue of the Federal Species of Concern Table We have removed six species from the Register). The Cook Inlet DPS of the Table 1 contains a complete list of species of concern list. The southern beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) is NMFS’ species of concern. In Table 1, distinct population segment (DPS) of also a candidate species both because the common name appears as the first green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), announced the initiation of a status entry followed by the scientific name, Lower Columbia River coho salmon review (71 FR 14836; March 24, 2006), the family name, and the area of evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) and we also made a 90–day finding that concern. The area of concern denotes (Oncorhynchus kisutch), elkhorn coral the subsequent petition to list the the general geographic range of the (Acropora palmata), and staghorn coral species presented substantial species or the vertebrate population for (Acropora cervicornis) are being information indicating that the which concern has been expressed. removed from this list because we have petitioned action may be warranted (71 Results of status reviews may narrow or listed them as threatened (green FR 44614; August 7, 2006). expand the geographic areas or sturgeon—67 FR 17757; April 7, 2006), populations of concern in the future. Atlantic sturgeon (coho--70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005), Additionally, species of concern that are (elkhorn coral and staghorn coral—71 In 1998, in response to a petition to also considered to be candidate species FR 26852; May 9, 2006). We are list Atlantic sturgeon under the ESA, because they are undergoing formal removing the goliath grouper NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife status reviews are denoted in boldface (Epinephelus itajara) from the species of Service (FWS) published a type. It is important to note that the concern list because the January 2006 determination that listing the species species of concern list is limited by the status report written by a review team was not warranted at that time (63 FR information available. Any species of appointed by NMFS’ Southeast Region 50187; September 21, 1998). NMFS also concern identified during the period indicated that the species no longer met retained this species on its candidate between this revision and the next the criteria for being a species of species list in order to continue to Federal Register publication will be concern (January 17, 2006, monitor its status (63 FR 50211; listed on our web page (http:// memorandum from Roy Crabtree, September 21, 1998) and later www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ Regional Administrator, Southeast transferred it to its newly established concern). Region, to Jim Lecky; February 10, 2006, species of concern list (69 FR 19975; concurrence by Jim Lecky, Director, April 15, 2004). In 2005, following two Comments Solicited Office of Protected Resources). And the separate workshops which highlighted We solicit information on the biology Oregon Coast coho salmon ongoing concerns regarding the current of, threats to, and relevant research and (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ESU is no status of Atlantic sturgeon, NMFS stewardship opportunities for species of longer a species of concern because, initiated a new status review. We concern (see ADDRESSES). This after proposing to list the species as formed a biological review team (BRT) information will help guide us in future threatened under the ESA, we withdrew comprised of representatives from revisions of the species of concern list

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

and allocation of resources for species of Dated: October 10, 2006. concern. There is no deadline for James H. Lecky, submitting such information. Director, Office of Protected Resources,National Marine Fisheries Service.

TABLE 1 - SPECIES OF CONCERN LIST

Common Name Scientific Name Family Area of Concern 1

Marine Mammals

beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas Monodontidae Pacific-AK (Cook Inlet population).

Fishes

sand tiger shark Odontaspis taurus Odontaspididae Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico.

porbeagle Lamna nasus Lamnidae Atlantic, Newfoundland, Canada to New Jersey

dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinidae Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico-Western North Atlantic DPS.

night shark Carcharinus signatus Carcharhinidae Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico.

largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis Pristidae Atlantic-TX, FL.

barndoor skate Pristis pristis Rajidae Atlantic-Newfoundland, Canada to Cape Hatteras, NC.

thorny skate Raja radiata Rajidae Atlantic-West Greenland to NY.

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Acipenseridae Atlantic-Labrador to St. Johns R., FL; anadromous. oxyrinchus

green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris Acipenseridae Pacific-northern DPS (including coastal spawning pop- ulations from the Eel River north, to the Klamath and Rogue rivers); anadromous.

blueback herring Alosa aestivalis Clupeidae Atlantic-Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, to St. John’s River, FL.

Alabama shad Alosa alabamae Clupeidae Gulf of Mexico-AL, FL, anadromous.

alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Clupeidae Atlantic-Newfoundland to North Carolina.

coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Salmonidae Pacific-Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho ESU; anadromous.

steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Salmonidae Pacific-OR Coast ESU; anadromous.

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Salmonidae Pacific-Central Valley fall and late fall-run ESU

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Salmonidae Atlantic-Gulf of Maine (other populations in streams and rivers in Maine outside the range of the listed Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon DPS); anadromous.

rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Osmeridae Atlantic-Labrador to NJ; anadromous.

cusk Brosme brosme Gadidae Atlantic-Gulf of Maine.

Pacific hake Merluccius productus Gadidae Pacific-Georgia Basin DPS.

mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Aplocheilidae Atlantic-FL, estuarine.

saltmarsh topminnow Fundulus jenkinsi Cyprinodontidae Atlantic-TX, LA, MS, AL, FL.

key silverside Menidia conchorum Atherinidae Atlantic-Florida Keys.

opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus lineatus Syngnathidae Atlantic-Florida (Indian River Lagoon).

striped croaker Bairdiella sanctaeluciae Sciaenidae Atlantic-FL, Antilles and Caribbean from Costa Rica to Guyana.

humphead wrasse Cheilinus undulatus Labridae Indo-Pacific-Red Sea to the Tuamotus, north to the Ryukyus, east to Wake Islands, south to New Cal- edonia, throughout Micronesia; includes U.S. terri- tories of Guam and American Samoa.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61025

TABLE 1 - SPECIES OF CONCERN LIST—Continued

Common Name Scientific Name Family Area of Concern 1

bumphead parrotfish Bolbometopon muricatum Scaridae Indo-Pacific-Red Sea and East Africa to the Line Is- lands and Samoa; north to Yaeyama, south to the Great Barrier Reef and New Caledonia; Paulau, Caro- line, Mariana in Micronesia; in U.S. it occurs in Guam, American Samoa, CNMI and the Pacific Remote Is- land Areas (Wake Islands).

Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus Anarhichadidae Atlantic-Georges Bank and western Gulf of Maine.

white marlin Tetrapturus albidus Istiophoridae Atlantic.

cowcod Sebastes levis Scorpaenidae Pacific-Central OR to central Baja California and Gua- dalupe Island, Mexico.

bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Scorpaenidae Pacific-Southern DPS (Northern CA to Mexico).

Atlantic halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Pleuronectidae Atlantic-Labrador to southern New England.

speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi Serranidae Atlantic-NC to Gulf of Mexico.

warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus Serranidae Atlantic-MA southward to Gulf of Mexico.

Nassau grouper Epinephelus striatus Serranidae Atlantic-NC southward to Gulf of Mexico.

Brachiopoda

inarticulate brachiopod Lingula reevii Lingulidae Pacific-Hawaii, only Kaneohe Bay.

Mollusks

pink abalone Haliotis corrugata Haliotidae Pacific-Point Conception, CA, to Bahia de Tortuga, Baja California.

black abalone Haliotis cracherodii Haliotidae Pacific-OR, CA, Baja California.

green abalone Haliotis fulgens Haliotidae Pacific-Point Conception, CA, to Bahia Magdalena, Baja California.

pinto abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana Haliotidae Pacific-Sitka, AK, to Point Conception, CA.

Anthozoans (Corals)

Hawaiian reef coral Montipora dilitata Acroporidae Pacific-Hawaii (Kaneohe Bay, Midway atoll, and Maro Reef).

ivory bush coral Oculina varicosa Oculinidae Atlantic-West Indies, Bermuda, NC, FL, Gulf of Mex- ico, Caribbean.

1 Defines the general geographic area or populations of concern for the species. DPS = distinct population segment, which is a species for purposes of the ESA. ESU = evolutionarily significant unit, which is a DPS or species for purposes of the ESA

[FR Doc. E6–17249 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), objectives of the Northeast (NE) BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Commerce. Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Based on preliminary review of ACTION: Notice; request for comments. this project, a Categorical Exclusion (CE) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional from requirements to prepare either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, or an Environmental Assessment (EA) Administration Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a under the National Environmental preliminary determination that the Policy Act (NEPA) appears to be [I.D. 101206A] subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) justified. However, further review and Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; application contains all the required consultation may be necessary before a General Provisions for Domestic information and warrants further final determination is made to issue the Fisheries; Application for Exempted consideration. The Assistant Regional EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that Fishing Permits Administrator has also made a the Assistant Regional Administrator preliminary determination that the proposes to recommend that an EFP be AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries activities authorized under the EFP issued that would allow two Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and would be consistent with the goals and commercial fishing vessels to conduct

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61026 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

fishing operations that are otherwise sea research using video cameras and a TABLE 1: ESTIMATED TARGETED restricted by the regulations governing net-mind system to tune the CATCH, NON-TARGETED CATCH AND the fisheries of the Northeastern United performance of the net. A net-mind DISCARD BY SPECIES—Continued States. The EFP, which would enable system is a net monitoring system that the applicants to investigate the enables monitoring and managing the Non-Tar- feasibility of using a trawl net with performance of the trawl. During these Species Targeted geted buoyant ground cables and a buoyant first 5 at-sea days, the net would have Catch Catch and sweep to reduce seabed contact and an open codend. After determining the Discards improve species selectivity, would best configuration of ground cables, Cod 0 8,000 lb allow for exemptions from the FMP as floats, drop chains, and sweep position (3,629 kg) follows: Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling using the cameras and net-mind system, Closure Areas II, III, IV, and V for two the experimental net would be Gray Sole 0 2,000 lb vessels; and an exemption from the transferred to the second vessel for (907 kg) days-at-sea (DAS) effort control fishing trials. This second vessel would requirements for one vessel. conduct an additional 20 at-sea days of American Plaice 0 2,000 lb Regulations under the Magnuson- research, during which the experimental (907 kg) Stevens Fishery Conservation and net would be compared with a standard Monkfish 0 2,000 lb Management Act require publication of design otter trawl net as a control during (907 kg) this notification to provide interested experimental fishing. During these parties the opportunity to comment on comparative fishing trials, this single All at-sea research would be applications for proposed EFPs. vessel would conduct four 2-hour tows conducted from two fishing vessels, DATES: Comments must be received on per day, alternating each tow between each of which would be fishing in a or before November 1, 2006. fishing the experimental net and fishing different area. This EFP would cover the ADDRESSES: Written comments should the control net. Cameras mounted on F/V Ocean Reporter (permit # 221596, the nets and on tow sleds would be used be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional O.N. 694848) and the F/V Jeanne C to monitor the seabed before and after Administrator, NMFS, Northeast (permit # 230524, O.N. 610415). The F/ towing, as well as net performance and Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, V Ocean Reporter would conduct the 5 Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside fish behavior in the mouth of the net. All fish caught would be weighed and days of at-sea video and gear tuning of the envelope ‘‘Comments on the work in the area between the western Buoyant Ground Cables Study.’’ as many fish as possible would be measured. All undersized fish, and fish border of the Western GOM Closure Comments may also be sent via Area (42°15′ N. lat., 70°15′ W. long.; and facsimile (fax) to (978) 281–9135, or that cannot legally be retained, would ° ′ ° ′ be returned to the sea as quickly as 43 15 N. lat., 70 15 W. long.) and the submitted via e-mail to: DA6– shore. The F/V Jeanne C would conduct [email protected]. practicable after measurement and examination. The overall catch the 20 days of at-sea experimental FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: estimates expected for this project can fishing in an area northeast of the Mark Grant, Fishery Management be found in Table 1. The applicants Western GOM Closure Area and Specialist, (978) 281–9145, fax (978) anticipate that a total of 20,000 lb (9,072 northwest of the Cashes Ledge Closure 281–9135. kg) of haddock and pollock (combined), Area (see Table 2). Both vessels would SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A the two target species, would be fish exclusively outside the Western complete application for an EFP was harvested throughout the course of the GOM Closed Area. submitted on August 21, 2006, by Kelo study, along with 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) of Pinkham of the F/V Jeanne C for a joint non-targeted catch and discards, TABLE 2: COORDINATES FOR EXPERI- project with Dana Morse, of Maine Sea including 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of GOM MENTAL FISHING AREA BY F/V Grant, that is funded by the Northeast cod. The estimated cod catch is 66 JEANNE C Consortium (NEC). The primary goal of percent of the current daily possession this research is to develop and test a limit of 600 lb (272 kg) (50 percent of Point N. Lat. W. Long. trawl net with buoyant ground cables the daily limit of 800 lb (363 kg ) 1 43°38′ 69°40′ and a buoyant sweep to reduce seabed proposed in Framework Adjustment 42) contact and increase species selectivity. for the proposed number of DAS. All 2 43°38′ 69°21′ The intent of the applicants is to legal-sized fish, within the possession demonstrate that the experimental net, limit, would be sold, with the proceeds 3 43°20′ 69°40′ if successful, could potentially be returned to the NEC for the purpose of ° ′ ° ′ suitable as an alternate gear for vessels enhancing future research. 4 43 20 69 21 fishing in areas requiring a haddock 5 43°38′ 69°40′ separator trawl and/or fishing areas of TABLE 1: ESTIMATED TARGETED hard bottom with the use of mid-water CATCH, NON-TARGETED CATCH AND doors. The applicants have asked for an The project would be conducted DISCARD BY SPECIES exemption to the regulations at 50 CFR during the fall of 2006 and spring of 648.81(f)(1)(ii) through (v), GOM Rolling Non-Tar- 2007 and would include flume tank Targeted geted Closure Areas II, III, IV, and V, for both trials and 25 days of at-sea trials. An Species Catch Catch and the F/V Ocean Reporter and F/V Jeanne experimental otter trawl net, which Discards C (for 5 DAS and 20 DAS, respectively) would have floats incorporated along due to a belief that there will be a better both the ground cables and the sweep, Haddock 10,000 lb 0 mixture of flounders, pollock, haddock, (4,536 kg) as well as drop chains integrated along and cod for testing the experimental the sweep, would first be constructed Pollock 10,000 lb 0 gear present in the waters of the western and flume tested. After the flume trials, (4,536 kg) GOM during these seasonal closures. one vessel would conduct 5 days of at- Operation during these seasonal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61027

closures would also increase the dredging on the west side of the Pier 39 Authorization shall be granted if availability of the commercial vessels to Marina on the San Francisco waterfront, NMFS finds that the taking will have a work with scientists on the project CA. NMFS issued an IHA for these negligible impact on the species or because these coastal day boats are activities in October, 2005; however, stock(s), will not have an unmitigable unable to conduct normal commercial BMMI will be unable to complete the adverse impact on the availability of the fishing operations during these seasonal work by the time the 2005 IHA expires species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, closures. on October 16, 2006. Therefore, BMMI and that the permissible methods of The applicants have also requested an has requested a new IHA to cover the taking and requirements pertaining to exemption to the DAS regulations at 50 completion of the previously analyzed the mitigation, monitoring and reporting CFR 648.82(a) for the F/V Ocean and authorized action. Pursuant to the of such takings are set forth. NMFS has Reporter while conducting the 5 at-sea Marine Mammal Protection Act defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR days of video and gear tuning work (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from because the researchers would tow the on its proposal to issue an IHA to BMMI the specified activity that cannot be nets with the codend open. With the for the take, by Level B Harassment reasonably expected to, and is not exception of a small number of fish that only, of small numbers of California sea reasonably likely to, adversely affect the could be gilled by the net mesh, no fish lions and Pacific harbor seals. species or stock through effects on would be removed from the water DATES: Comments and information must annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ during these 5 at-sea days of video and be received no later than November 16, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA gear tuning work. During the 20 at-sea 2006. established an expedited process by days of comparative fishing trials, the F/ ADDRESSES: Comments on the which citizens of the United States can V Jeanne C would use A DAS and application should be addressed to apply for an authorization to would be subject to all day and trip Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, incidentally take small numbers of possession limits. Conservation and Education Division, The applicants may request minor marine mammals by harassment. Except Office of Protected Resources, National modifications and extensions to the EFP with respect to certain activities not Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East- throughout the year. EFP modifications pertinent here, the MMPA defines West Highway, Silver Spring, MD and extensions may be granted without ‘‘harassment’’ as: 20910–3225. The mailbox address for further notice if they are deemed any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance providing email comments is which (i) has the potential to injure a marine essential to facilitate completion of the [email protected]. NMFS is not mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild proposed research and have minimal responsible for e-mail comments sent to [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential impacts that do not change the scope or addresses other than the one provided to disturb a marine mammal or marine impact of the initially approved EFP here. Comments sent via e-mail, mammal stock in the wild by causing request. including all attachments, must not disruption of behavioral patterns, including, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. exceed a 10–megabyte file size. but not limited to, migration, breathing, Dated: October 12, 2006. A copy of the application containing nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering James P. Burgess, a list of the references used in this [Level B harassment]. Acting Director, Office of Sustainable document may be obtained by writing to Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45– Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. the address specified above, telephoning day time limit for NMFS review of an [FR Doc. E6–17177 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the contact listed below (see FOR application followed by a 30–day public BILLING CODE 3510–22–S FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or notice and comment period on any visiting the internet at: http:// proposed authorizations for the www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ incidental harassment of marine DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE incidental.htm#applications. mammals. Within 45 days of the close Documents cited in this notice may be of the comment period, NMFS must National Oceanic and Atmospheric viewed, by appointment, during regular either issue or deny issuance of the Administration business hours, at the aforementioned authorization. address. [I.D. 100306G] Summary of Request FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals Harrison, Office of Protected Resources, On September 14, 2006, NMFS During Specified Activities; NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext 166. received a request from BMMI to re- Maintenance Dredging Around Pier 39, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: issue an IHA for the take, by San Francisco, California harassment, of small numbers of Background AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries California sea lions (Zalophus Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the californianus) and Pacific harbor seals Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct (Phoca vitulina) incidental to the Commerce. the Secretary of Commerce to allow, maintenance dredging the I, J, and K ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental upon request, the incidental, but not Docks on the west side of Pier 39 take authorization; request for intentional, taking of marine mammals Marina on the San Francisco waterfront, comments. by U.S. citizens who engage in a California. NMFS issued an IHA for specified activity (other than these activities in October, 2005 (70 FR SUMMARY: NMFS has received an commercial fishing) within a specified 69955); however, BMMI will be unable application from the Bay Marina geographical region if certain findings to complete the work by the time the Management Incorporated (BMMI) for are made and either regulations are 2005 IHA expires on October 16, 2006. the re-issuance of an Incidental issued or, if the taking is limited to Therefore BMMI has asked for a new Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA to cover the completion of the small numbers of marine mammals, by authorization is provided to the public previously analyzed and authorized Level B harassment only, incidental to for review. action.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61028 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Description of the Activity at the furthest distance possible from K numbers may be as high as 237,000 to BMMI will complete the maintenance dock during each dredging episode. The 244,000 animals. The population is not dredging begun before the previous IHA closest that the barge will be to the K listed as ‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘threatened’’ expired using a small, self-contained dock haul-out is when dredging the under the Endangered Species Act clamshell-style crane barge between channel between J and K docks. When (ESA), nor is this species listed as docks I, J, and K at the Pier 39 west the barge is dredging this channel it will ‘‘depleted’’ or as a ‘‘strategic stock’’ marina. These maintenance measures be moored to the bayside of J dock and under the MMPA. California sea lions first appeared at are necessary to maintain safe extend the clamshell dredge arm out Pier 39 in September 1989. Numbers of navigation depths at the marina, which into the channel, towards K dock. Since hauled-out sea lions were relatively low currently has reduced water depths the distance between J and K docks is the first year and K Dock was only used attributed to the accretion of bay 100 ft (30 m) and the barge is 30 ft (9 as a haul out from late summer through sediment. The dredging at Pier 39 will m) wide, it will never be positioned closer than 50 ft (15 m) to K dock at any the winter. Within a few years, larger remove sediment to create water depths time during the dredging project. numbers of sea lions were observed at in the project area of 9 ft (2.7 m) Mean K Dock and they began using the haul- Lower Low Water (MLLW), plus an Description of Habitat and Marine out throughout the year. The Marine additional two-foot overdredge Mammals Affected by the Activity Mammal Center (MMC) began allowance. Dredging design area limits The marine mammal species known monitoring California sea lions at Pier (footprints) include the faces, to be present at the Pier 39 Marina area 39 in the late 1990’s and counts indicate approaches, and entrance channels to are the California sea lion (Zalophus peak usage of K dock at Pier 39 in May each berthing area up to the limit of the californianus) and the Pacific harbor and early June, just prior to the breeding adjacent pier. Dredging will occur seal (Phoca vitulina). Since 1993, a season. Although numbers decrease between June 1 and November 30 to single adult male Steller sea lion during mid-summer (when most adults avoid impacts to steelhead trout and (Eumetopias jubatus) has been observed relocate to the rookeries for pupping chinook salmon. hauled out on K dock intermittently and breeding) some sea lions of all age The completion of the dredging during the months of July and August, classes remain in the area and continue operations at the Pier 39 west marina and occasionally in September (30 to haul out at Pier 39. Within the will occur in the last two weeks of sightings in the last 10 years). However, dredging work window (June 1 to November 2006, if at all possible, or in this project will not affect the Steller sea November 30) the largest numbers of the summer of 2007. The complete lion because dredging activities will be California sea lions are found at K Dock project, which was authorized in the halted if a Steller sea lion is observed. in the late summer and fall. The highest 2005 IHA, was expected to take Additional information on these number of individuals ever observed at approximately one to two weeks to species can be found in Marine Mammal once between June 1 and November 30 complete. This IHA will cover any part Stock Assessment Reports, which are at Pier 39 to date was 1244, in August of that work that was unable to be available online at: http:// of 2003. If the number of individuals completed prior to October 17, 2006, www.nmfs.noaa.gov/protlres/PR2/ observed at one count is averaged by and no work will be conducted that was StocklAssessmentlProgram/ month, from June to November, since not already analyzed in the previous sars.html. 2000, the averages range from 169 for IHA. Dredge machinery will operate California Sea Lions July to 709 in September. Since from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. daily. monitoring began in 1991, only 10 Approximately 13,000 yd3 (9,939 m3) of California sea lions range from California sea lion pups have been material will be removed. Dredged southern Mexico to southwestern observed at Pier 39, in 1997 and 1998. material will be tested for pollutants Canada. In the United States, they breed These pups, which were all weaned, and toxins by the Dredge Material during July after pupping in late May to most likely hauled out at K Dock due to Management Office prior to approval to June, primarily in the Channel Islands El Nino, and pups are not expected at begin dredging, and dredged materials of California. Most individuals breed on the project site in ‘‘normal’’ years. will be deposited in accordance with the Channel Islands off southern local, state and Federal regulations. California and off Baja and mainland Pacific Harbor Seals Once removed, the dredged material Mexico, although a few pups have been Although not commonly observed at will be transferred to Piers 96/98, which born on Ano Nuevo Island and this year Pier 39, Pacific harbor seals have been are owned and operated by the Port of a pup was born on the docks at documented as visitors to K dock San Francisco, and from there it will be Monterey and subsequently transferred numerous times in the past decade. disposed of at an approved upland to Ano Nuevo Island with its mother. Harbor seals range from Baja California disposal site. Following the breeding season on the in Mexico northward to the Aleutian The proposed dredging of the Pier 39 Channel Islands, most adult and sub- Islands of Alaska. The population west berthing area will focus on the adult males migrate northward to estimate for the California stock is channels and slips of I and J docks and central and northern California and to 34,233 individuals (Caretta et al., 2005) half of the channel between J and K the Pacific Northwest, while most and is relatively stable. docks. The original K dock was females and young animals either Harbor seals inhabit coastal waters destroyed by the combined weight of remain on or near the breeding grounds within their range and prefer sheltered hundreds of California sea lions that throughout the year or move southward bays and inlets to the exposed coastline. frequently use the area as a haul-out. or northward, as far as Monterey Bay. Daily haul-out behavior of harbor seals Pier 39 replaced the damaged dock with Since nearing extinction in the early is typically dependent on the tides, a number of ten by twelve-foot floats for 1900’s, the California sea lion weather and time of day. Harbor seals the sea lions to use. Since there are no population has increased and is now exhibit seasonal variation in actual berthing sites at K dock, no growing at a rate of 5.4 to 6.1 percent reproductive timing depending on dredging will be necessary in the area per year (based on pup counts) with an geography. The pupping season for immediately surrounding or under K estimated minimum population of California populations is in the spring, dock. The crane barge will be situated 138,881 animals. Actual population with populations in the San Francisco

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61029

Bay typically bearing young from March composition of the pinnipeds, type of Over the last 13 years, BMMI has 15 through May 31 (Green et al., 2001). activity they are engaged in and what observed that sea lions either ignore There are two active pupping sites in noises they may be accustomed to various unfamiliar intrusions and the San Francisco Bay, Mowry Slough experiencing. Short-term reactions such remain hauled out, or adapt to them and in the South Bay and Castro Rocks in as startle or alert reactions are unlikely eventually become habituated and the North Bay. Pups have been observed to disrupt behavior patterns such as return to their normal behavior. at Yerba Buena Island and Corte Madera migrating, breeding, feeding and Disturbance from these proposed Marsh in the San Francisco Bay. No sheltering, nor would they be likely to dredging activities is expected to have a births have been witnessed at these result in serious injury to marine only a short-term negligible impact to a locations, but Yerba Buena is thought to mammals. small number of California sea lions be a potential pupping site. No harbor The small, self-contained, clamshell relative to their population size and a seal pups have ever been seen at Pier 39. dredge used for this activity may few Pacific harbor seals. At a maximum, Annual counts of harbor seals at Pier produce noise of a sufficient level to short-term impacts are expected to 39 range from 0 seals observed in 1999 behaviorally harass marine mammals at result in a temporary reduction in and 2004, to a high of nine observations K dock. Measured sound exposure utilization of K dock as a haulout site in 2000 for a total of 28 observations levels (SELs) of similar equipment while work is in progress or until seals between 1997–2004. No more than two ranged between 75–88 dBA (re 20 habituate to the disturbance. The project harbor seals have been observed hauled microPa) measured at 50 feet (the is not expected to result in any out simultaneously at any given time at closest distance that the dredge unit will permanent reduction in the number of K Dock. No harbor seals have been be to K dock) (Boeing, 2005). Results of animals at Pier 39. NMFS agrees with observed hauling out at Pier 39 July an ongoing study at Vandenberg Air BMMI that effects will be limited to through September. No pups have been Force Base of the effects of rocket short-term and localized behavioral observed at Pier 39. Observations by launches on pinnipeds indicate that the changes falling within the MMPA MMC volunteers indicate that observed percentage of Pacific harbor seals definition of Level B harassment. harbor seals at Pier 39 tend to distance leaving the haul-out increases with Mitigation themselves from the California sea lions noise level up to an SEL of hauling out in the vicinity. approximately 100 dBA, after which To minimize disturbance of marine Potential Effects of Activities on Marine almost all seals leave, although recent mammals from visual and acoustic Mammals data have shown that an increasing stimuli associated with the dredging activities, BMMI will use a small The applicant is authorized to take percentage of seals have remained on (relative to the range of sizes of small numbers of California sea lions shore during the noise, and those that equipment that could accomplish the and Pacific harbor seals, by Level B remain are adults. Though harbor seals task) clamshell dredge that can easily harassment only, incidental to the are more sensitive to audio stimuli than dredging activities described previously. sea lions, these results indicate that target the specific areas to be dredged. Level B harassment may occur if hauled animals are flushed at an SEL less than The smaller equipment will also animals flush the haulout and/or move 100 dBA, and it is possible that marine minimize the amount of turbidity to increase their distance from dredging- mammals at K Dock may modify their resulting from the dredging activities. related activities, such as noise behavior as a result of the lesser dredge The dredge material will be associated with dredging, presence of a noise. immediately loaded onto a barge and crane barge, the presence of workers, or If startle reactions were accompanied transported to a nearby terrestrial unfamiliar activity in proximity to the by large-scale movements of marine disposal site at Piers 96 and 98, which haulout site. This disturbance from mammals, such as stampedes into the will allow for a shorter project duration. acoustic and visual stimuli is the water, the disruption could escalate into When not in use, the clamshell dredge principal means of marine mammal Level A harassment and could result in and dredge barge will be parked as far taking associated with these activities. injury of individuals, especially if pups as feasible from the K Dock. After Sudden brief noises have been shown were present. However, due to the starting engines in morning, the to elicit startle reactions in some uniqueness of this particular haul-out clamshell dredge will be moved as pinnipeds. Novel looming visual stimuli area, the unlikely presence of pups, and slowly as possible to the area to be may induce similar startle reactions in the proposed shut-down procedures dredged and the dredge head lowered pinnipeds. Daily engine starts and should pups be sighted, NMFS believes slowly and carefully into the water. movements of the dredge bucket and there is a very low likelihood of such As mentioned previously, if a Steller vessel may induce startled and/or flight injury occurring at the Pier 39 site. sea lion of any age or a marine mammal behavior in marine mammals using K Specifically, the haul-out consists of pup of any species is spotted at any time dock as a haul out. However, this area many separate floating platforms that during dredging operations, operations has become a tourist spot for viewing can hold up to about 25 marine will cease until the animal has left the sea lions, and the current population of mammals each. If disrupted to the point area. animals utilizing K dock is accustomed of flushing off the platforms, pinnipeds Monitoring to human activities and regular noise can quickly leap or roll into the water levels from people, traffic, use of nearby in any direction off the relatively small The K dock haulout will be monitored boat slips, and other marine operations. platforms, avoiding a dangerous periodically during dredging activities If animals do flush into the water, they stampede-like situation that may occur by two NMFS-approved observers may return to the haul-out site at normal haul-out locations such as according to the following schedule: immediately, stay in the water for a exposed rocks. Additionally, marine (1) During the week prior to the length of time and then return to the mammal pups use this haul-out very commencement of dredging activities, haul-out, or temporarily haul-out at infrequently (approximately 10 pups morning counts will be taken every another site. Many factors contribute to have been sighted at K Dock, in 1997 morning at the same time. One the degree of behavioral modification, if and 1998, during El Nino), further afternoon count will be taken at any, including seasonality, group reducing potential harm to the species. approximately the same time the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61030 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

dredging is scheduled to stop in the Numbers of Marine Mammals Expected animal has left the area of its own following days. to be Harassed volition. NMFS does not anticipate any (2) During the dredging operations: The effects of the proposed dredging impacts to Steller sea lions to result - One count will be taken every activities are expected to be limited to from the issuance of the IHA. morning before dredging work begins short-term startle responses and In the 1998 programmatic Biological and every afternoon once operations localized behavioral changes. NMFS Opinion addressing dredging in San cease. anticipates that small numbers of Francisco Bay, NMFS established a June - On the first day of dredging and on California sea lions and Pacific harbor 1 to November 30 work window for one other day near the end of dredging seals will effected. dredging activities in the San Francisco The highest number of California sea operations, monitors will be present all Bay to avoid impacts to steelhead trout lions ever counted at one time on the K day (starting one hour before operations and Chinook salmon. BMMI proposes to begin and remaining until 2 hours after Dock between June 1 and November 30 was 1244 individuals in August 2003. dredge between June 1 and November operations cease) and they will 30, and therefore NMFS does not document specific behaviors as they The average number of individuals counted at one time within the work anticipate any impacts to ESA-listed relate to specific aspects of the dredging fish. operations and other activities. An window since 2000 is lowest in July additional count will be conducted 2 (169) and highest in September (709). National Environmental Policy Act hours after dredging operations cease. Based on an average of 169 to 709 (NEPA) Rates of departure and arrival of animals animals over the maximum of 14 days, from/to the haulout will be noted. NMFS estimates that California sea lions NMFS prepared an Environmental could be exposed to audio or visual Assessment (EA) on the Issuance of an (3) Following completion of the stimulus likely to cause harassment dredging: IHA for the Dredging at Pier 39 and between 2360 and 9930 times. However, issued a Finding of No Significant - Morning counts (taken at based on review of the Pier 39 observer Impact on October 13, 2005. A copy of approximately same time as those taken logs maintained over the last 14 years, the EA and FONSI are available upon previously (See 1)) will be made every which indicate that sea lions may request (see ADDRESSES). day for a week. remain in the area and haul out for - An afternoon count will be several days in a row at the K dock, Preliminary Conclusions conducted the day after dredging ceases NMFS estimates that between 1180 to and on the last day of the post-dredging 4965 individual California sea lions Based on the preceding information, monitoring. (approximately 0.5 to 2 percent of the and provided that the proposed (4) During all monitoring periods the population) will be harassed. These are mitigation and monitoring are following data will be recorded: date, small numbers relative to the size of the incorporated, NMFS has preliminarily time, observer, tidal height, species affected species or stock. determined that the proposed present, maximum number of animals The highest total number of harbor completion of the dredging activities hauled out, number of adults and sub- seals ever seen in one month between described in this document and adults, number of males and females (if June 1 and November 30 was 3 in authorized in the 2005 IHA may result possible), any observed behavioral November of 1997. NMFS anticipates in short-term and localized changes in disturbances to the animals, and the that no more than 3 Pacific harbor seals behavior by small numbers of California number of animals disturbed (for will be harassed by this activity (less sea lions and Pacific harbor seals. In example, if animals flushed, reports than 0.01 percent of the population). addition, no take by injury or death is should include the number of animals These are small numbers relative to the anticipated, and take by harassment will that returned to the water, and those size of the affected species or stocks. be at the lowest level practicable due to that remained hauled out). During Potential Effects of Proposed Activities incorporation of the mitigation periods of dredging a description of on Marine Mammal Habitat measures mentioned previously in this dredging activities will also occur NMFS anticipates that the proposed document. While behavioral (including location of dredge, i.e., action will result in minor and short- modifications may be made by the between J and K Docks, or between I term effects on marine mammal habitat, pinnipeds, including temporarily and J Docks). including a temporary increase in the vacating the K Dock haulout, NMFS has Reporting turbidity in the area of the dredging and preliminarily determined that these a temporary decrease in the quality of K proposed takings will have a negligible A draft report will be submitted to the dock as a haul-out site as a result of impact on California sea lions and NMFS Southwest Assistant Regional increased visual and audio stimuli. Pacific harbor seals. Administrator for Protected Resources and to the NMFS Division of Permits, Potential Effects of Proposed Activities Proposed Authorization Conservation, and Education, Office of on Subsistence Needs NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Protected Resources, within 90 days There are no subsistence uses for after project completion. A final report California sea lions or Pacific harbor BMMI for the take, by Level B will be submitted within 30 days of seals in California waters, and thus, harassment only, of small numbers of receiving NMFS’ comments, if any, on there are no anticipated effects on their California sea lions and Pacific harbor the draft report. The Report will availability for subsistence uses. seals incidental to the completion of the contain, analyze, and summarize the previously authorized maintenance information required under Monitoring, Endangered Species Act dredging around I, J, and K Docks at Pier above. BMMI will share data collected Though a single Steller sea lion has 39 in San Francisco, provided the as a result of these monitoring activities infrequently been sighted at the K Dock, previously mentioned mitigation, with other interested parties, such as the BMMI plans to cease dredging monitoring, and reporting requirements Marine Mammal Center and other boat operations immediately if one is seen, are incorporated. marinas. and not begin dredging again until the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61031

Dated: October 10, 2006. Avenue NW, Suite 250, Washington, DC PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, James H. Lecky, 20006, Telephone: (202) 419 3481. DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Director, Office of Protected Resources, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCSP Room. National Marine Fisheries Service. was established by the President in 2002 STATUS: Closed. [FR Doc. E6–17240 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] to coordinate and integrate scientific MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: BILLING CODE 3510–22–S research on global change and climate Enforcement matters. change sponsored by 13 participating CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: departments and agencies of the U.S. Eileen A. Donovan, 202–418–5100. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Government. The CCSP is charged with Eileen A. Donovan, National Oceanic and Atmospheric preparing information resources that Administration support climate-related discussions and Acting Secretary of the Commission. decisions, including scientific synthesis [FR Doc. 06–8754 Filed 10–13–06; 2:04 pm] and assessment analyses that support BILLING CODE 6351–01–M [I.D. 101106B] evaluation of important policy issues. U.S. Climate Change Science Program The Prospectus addressed by this notice Synthesis and Assessment Product provides a topical overview and COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Draft Prospectus 2.4 describes plans for scoping, drafting, COMMISSION reviewing, producing, and AGENCY: National Oceanic and disseminating one of 21 final synthesis Sunshine Act Meetings Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and assessment Products that will be TIME AND DATE: Commerce. produced by the CCSP. 11 a.m., Friday, November 24, 2006. ACTION: Notice of availability and Dated: October 11, 2006. PLACE: 1155 21st., NW., Washington, request for public comments. William J. Brennan, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Room. SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and International Affairs, and Acting Director, Atmospheric Administration publish Climate Change Science Program. STATUS: Closed. this notice to announce the availability [FR Doc. E6–17244 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance of the draft Prospectus for one of the BILLING CODE 3510–12–S matters. U.S. Climate Change Science Program CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Eileen A. Donovan, 202–418–5100. Products for public comment. This draft Prospectus addresses the following COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Eileen A. Donovan, CCSP Topic: COMMISSION Acting Secretary of the Commission. Product 2.4 Trends in emissions of [FR Doc. 06–8755 Filed 10–13–06; 2:04 pm] ozone-depleting substances, ozone layer Sunshine Act Meetings BILLING CODE 6351–01–M recovery, and implications for ultraviolet radiation exposure and TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, climate change. November 3, 2006. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE After consideration of comments PLACE: 1155 21st., NW., Washington, received on the draft Prospectus, the DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Office of the Secretary final Prospectus along with the Room. comments received will be published on 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification the CCSP web site. STATUS: Closed. DATES: Comments must be received by MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense November 16, 2006. Matters. Security Cooperation Agency. ADDRESSES: The draft Prospectus is FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen ACTION: Notice. posted on the CCSP Program Office web A. Donovan, 202–418–5100. SUMMARY: This is published to fulfill the site. The web addresses to access the Eileen A. Donovan, requirements of section 155 of the draft Prospectus is: Public Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. Product 2.4 http:// Acting Secretary of the Commission. www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/ [FR Doc. 06–8753 Filed 10–13–06; 2:04 pm] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. sap2–4/default.htm BILLING CODE 6351–01–M J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604– Detailed instructions for making 6575. comments on the draft Prospectus is The following is a copy of a COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING provided with the Prospectus. Memorandum for Record. COMMISSION Comments should be prepared in Dated: October 10, 2006. accordance with these instructions. Sunshine Act Meetings C.R. Choate, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Fabien Laurier, Climate Change Science TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, Officer, Department of Defense. Program Office, 1717 Pennsylvania November 17, 2006. BILLING CODE 5001–06–M

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61032 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

[FR Doc. 06–8717 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: at [email protected] by BILLING CODE 5001–06–C Tyrrell Flawn, Executive Director, Wednesday, November 1, 2006. National Mathematics Advisory Panel, The November 6 meeting will also 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., contain an Open Public Session from Washington, DC 20202; telephone: (202) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 10:45–11:45 a.m. At that time, the 260–8354. public is invited to comment and National Mathematics Advisory Panel SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel present evidence in connection to was established by Executive Order elements outlined in the Executive AGENCY: National Mathematics Advisory 13398. The purpose of this Panel is to Order. Presenters are encouraged to Panel, Department of Education. foster greater knowledge of and address one or more of the Panel’s ACTION: Notice of open meeting & public improved performance in mathematics present four focus areas: conceptual hearing. among American students, in order to knowledge and skills; learning keep America competitive, support processes; instructional practices; and SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the American talent and creativity, teachers. (Please refer to the Web site at schedule and proposed agenda of an encourage innovation throughout the http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/ upcoming meeting, including a public American economy, and help State, mathpanel/index.html for more hearing, with members of the National local, territorial, and tribal governments information on the elements of the Mathematics Advisory Panel. The notice give the nation’s children and youth the Executive Order.) also describes the functions of the education they need to succeed. If you are interested in giving Panel. Notice of this meeting is required The Open Session on November 5 testimony during the public session on by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal will include testimony from the College November 6, please contact Jennifer Advisory Committee Act and is Board and ACT on American student Graban at (202) 260–1491 or intended to notify the public of their readiness for college-level mathematics. [email protected] by November 1, opportunity to attend. The Open Sessions on November 6 will 2006, to reserve time on the agenda. DATES: Sunday, November 5, 2006, and include testimony on the National Please include your name, the Monday, November 6, 2006. Assessment of Educational Progress organization you represent, and, if Times: Sunday, November 5, 2006, 4– (NAEPP); Trends in International appropriate, a brief description of the 5 p.m. Monday, November 6, 2006, Mathematics and Science Study issue you would like to present and the 8:15–11:45 a.m.; 12:45–2:45 p.m.; and (TIMSS); the use of instructional focus area(s) to which it correlates. 4:30–5:15 p.m. technology and calculators; and task Presenters will be allowed five minutes ADDRESSES: All meetings and the open group reports. Individuals interested in to make their comments. Presenters are session for public comment will be held attending the meeting are advised to requested to submit three written copies on the campus of Stanford University at register in advance to ensure space and an electronic file (CD or diskette) of the Schwab Residential Center, 680 availability. Please contact Jennifer their comments at the meeting, which Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305–6090. Graban at (202) 260–1491 or be e-mail should be labeled with their name and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES EN17OC06.062 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61033

contact information. Individuals agency is required to establish one or at this site. If you have questions about interested in solely attending the more PRBs. using PDF, call the U.S. Government meeting are advised to register in Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– Composition and Duties advance to ensure space availability. 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, Given the expected number of The PRB of the Department of DC, area at (202) 512–1530. Education for 2006 is composed of individuals interested in providing Note: The official version of this document comments at the meeting, reservations career senior executives, noncareer is the document published in the Federal for presenting comments should be senior executives, and Presidential Register. Free Internet access to the official made as soon as possible. Reservations appointees. edition of the Federal Register and the Code will be processed on a first-come, first- The PRB reviews and evaluates the of Federal Regulations is available on GPO served basis. Persons who are unable to initial appraisal of each senior Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ obtain reservations to speak during the executive’s performance, along with any index.html. meeting are encouraged to submit comments by that senior executive and by any higher-level executive or Dated: October 12, 2006. written comments, which will be Margaret Spellings, considered equally as those presented executives. The PRB makes Secretary of Education. on site. Written comments will be recommendations to the appointing accepted at the meeting site or via e- authority relative to the performance of [FR Doc. E6–17238 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the senior executive, including BILLING CODE 4000–01–P mail at [email protected]. If you recommendations on performance will be e-mailing written comments, awards. The Department of Education’s please do so by October 27, 2006. PRB also makes recommendations on The Panel will submit to the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SES pay adjustments for career senior President, through the Secretary, a executives. Energy Information Administration preliminary report not later than Membership January 31, 2007, and a final report not Agency Information Collection later than February 28, 2008. Both The Secretary has selected the Activities: Submission for OMB reports shall, at a minimum, contain following executives of the Department Review; Comment Request recommendations, based on the best of Education for the specified SES available scientific evidence. performance cycle: Chair: Michell Clark, AGENCY: Energy Information The meeting site is accessible to David Black, Kathleen Leos, Cheryl Administration (EIA), Department of individuals with disabilities. Oldham, Kent Talbert, Margo Anderson, Energy (DOE). Individuals who will need Dennis Berry, Sue Betka, Carol ACTION: Agency information collection accommodations in order to attend the Cichowski, Harry Feely, Patricia Guard, activities: Submission for OMB Review; meeting such as interpreting services, Danny Harris, Gary Hopkins, Jeannette comment request. assistive listening devices, or materials Lim, Philip Link, Andrew Pepin, SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the in alternative format should notify Thomas Skelly, Ricky Takai, and Petroleum Marketing Program package Jennifer Graban at (202) 260–1491 or Veronica Trietsch. Alternates include: to the Office of Management and Budget [email protected] no later than Susan Craig, Robert Eitel, and John (OMB) for review and a three-year November 1, 2006. We will attempt to McGrath. meet requests for accommodations after extension under section 3507(h)(1) of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: this date, but cannot guarantee their the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Debra Gibson, Director, Executive availability. (Pub. L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Resources Team, Human Resources DATES: Comments must be filed by Records are kept of all Panel Services, Office of Management, U.S. proceedings, and are available for public November 16, 2006. If you anticipate Department of Education, 400 Maryland that you will be submitting comments inspection at the staff office for the Avenue, SW., Room 2E124, FOB–6, Panel, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but find it difficult to do so within that Washington, DC 20202–4573. period, you should contact the OMB Dated: October 11, 2006. Telephone: (202) 401–2548. Desk Officer for DOE listed below as Margaret Spellings, If you use a telecommunications soon as possible. device for the deaf (TDD), you may call Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sarah the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– [FR Doc. 06–8713 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Garman, OMB Desk Officer for DOE, BILLING CODE 4000–01–M 800–877–8339. Individuals with disabilities may Office of Information and Regulatory obtain this document in an alternative Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on comments by the due date, submission by FAX at 202–395–7285 or e-mail to Office of Management, Notice of request to the contact person listed _ _ Membership under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Sarah P. [email protected] is CONTACT. recommended. The mailing address is AGENCY: Department of Education. 726 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC Electronic Access to This Document ACTION: Notice of Membership of the 20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may Performance Review Board. You may view this document, as well be telephoned at (202) 395–4650. (A as all other Department of Education copy of your comments should also be SUMMARY: The Secretary announces the documents published in the Federal provided to EIA’s Statistics and members of the Performance Review Register, in text or Adobe Portable Methods Group at the address below.) Board (PRB) for the Department of Document Format (PDF) on the Internet FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Education for the Senior Executive at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ Requests for additional information Service (SES) performance cycle that news/fedregister. should be directed to Grace Sutherland. ends September 30, 2006. Under 5 To use PDF, you must have Adobe To ensure receipt of the comments by U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), each Acrobat Reader, which is available free the due date, submission by FAX (202–

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61034 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

287–1705) or e-mail when to report, where to submit, the To ensure receipt of the comments by ([email protected]) is also elements to be reported, detailed the due date, submission by fax (202– recommended. The mailing address is instructions, provisions for 287–1705) or e-mail Statistics and Methods Group (EI–70), confidentiality, and uses (including ([email protected]) is also Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of possible nonstatistical uses) of the recommended. The mailing address is Energy, Washington, DC 20585–0670. information. For instructions on Statistics and Methods Group (EI–70), Ms. Sutherland may be contacted by obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of telephone at (202) 287–1712. INFORMATION CONTACT section. Energy, Washington, DC 20585–0670. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of Ms. Sutherland may be contacted by section contains the following the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. telephone at (202) 287–1712. information about the energy L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection submitted to 3507(h)(1)). section contains the following OMB for review: (1) The collection Issued in Washington, DC, October 12, information about the energy numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., 2006. information collection submitted to the Department of Energy component; Jay H. Casselberry, OMB for review: (1) The collection (3) the current OMB docket number (if Agency Clearance Officer, Agency Clearance numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e., OfficerEnergy Information Administration. the Department of Energy component); new, revision, extension, or [FR Doc. E6–17182 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] (3) the current OMB docket number (if reinstatement); (5) response obligation BILLING CODE 6450–01–P applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e., (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required new, revision, extension, or to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a reinstatement); (5) response obligation description of the need for and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required proposed use of the information; (7) a to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a categorical description of the likely Energy Information Administration description of the need for and respondents; and (8) an estimate of the Agency Information Collection proposed use of the information; (7) a total annual reporting burden (i.e., the Activities: Submission For OMB categorical description of the likely estimated number of likely respondents Review; Comment Request respondents; and (8) an estimate of the times the proposed frequency of total annual reporting burden (i.e., the response per year times the average AGENCY: Energy Information estimated number of likely respondents hours per response). Administration (EIA), Department of times the proposed frequency of 1. Forms EIA–14, 182, 782A/B/C, 821, Energy (DOE). response per year times the average 856, 863, 877, 878, and 888, ‘‘Petroleum ACTION: Agency Information Collection hours per response). Marketing Program’’. Activities: Submission for OMB Review; 1. Forms EIA–800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 2. Energy Information Administration. Comment Request. 805, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 3. OMB Number 1905–0174. 817, 819, 820 ‘‘Petroleum Supply 4. Three-year extension. SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the Reporting System’’. 5. Mandatory. Petroleum Supply Reporting System 2. Energy Information Administration. 6. EIA’s Petroleum Marketing Program package to the Office of Management 3. OMB Number 1905–0165. collects basic data necessary to meet and Budget (OMB) for review and a 4. Three-year extension. EIA’s legislative mandates as well as the three-year extension under section 5. Mandatory. needs of EIA’s public and private 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction 6. EIA’s Petroleum Supply Reporting customers. Data collected include costs, Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. System collects information needed for sales, prices, and distribution of crude 3501 et seq). determining the supply and disposition oil and petroleum products. The data DATES: Comments must be filed by of crude oil, petroleum products, and are used for analyses, publications, and November 16, 2006. If you anticipate natural gas liquids. The data are multi-fuel reports. Respondents are that you will be submitting comments published by EIA and are used by refiners, first purchasers, gas plant but find it difficult to do so within that public and private analysts. operators, resellers/retailers, motor period, you should contact the OMB Respondents are operators of petroleum gasoline wholesalers, suppliers, Desk Officer for DOE listed below as refineries, blending plants, bulk distributors and importers. soon as possible. terminals, crude oil and product 7. Business or other for-profit. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sarah pipelines, natural gas plant facilities, 8. 121,155 hours. Garman, OMB Desk Officer for DOE, tankers, barges, and oil importers. Earlier in 2006 EIA announced in the Office of Information and Regulatory 7. Business or other for-profit. Federal Register its plan to discontinue Affairs, Office of Management and 8. 73,693 hours. the collection of Forms EIA–182 and Budget. To ensure receipt of the Please refer to the supporting EIA–856 due to budget constraints. As comments by the due date, submission statement as well as the proposed forms subsequently announced in August, EIA by fax at 202–395–7285 or e-mail to and instructions for more information will continue collecting the forms [email protected] is about the purpose, who must report, temporarily. After EIA’s budget for recommended. The mailing address is when to report, where to submit, the Fiscal Year 2007 is finalized, EIA will 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, elements to be reported, detailed make a decision regarding further DC 20503. The OMB DOE Desk Officer instructions, provisions for continuation of those two surveys based may be telephoned at (202) 395–4650. confidentiality, and uses (including on funding availability and EIA (A copy of your comments should also possible nonstatistical uses) of the priorities. be provided to EIA’s Statistics and information. For instructions on Please refer to the supporting Methods Group at the address below.) obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER statement as well as the proposed forms FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: INFORMATION CONTACT section. and instructions for more information Requests for additional information Statutory Authority: Section 3507(h)(1) of about the purpose, who must report, should be directed to Grace Sutherland. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61035

L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at interventions in lieu of paper using the protests must be filed on or before the 3507(h)(1)). ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. comment date. Anyone filing a motion Issued in Washington, DC, October 12, Persons unable to file electronically to intervene or protest must serve a copy 2006. should submit an original and 14 copies of that document on the Applicant and Jay H. Casselberry, of the protest or intervention to the all the parties in this proceeding. Agency Clearance Officer, Energy Information Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, The Commission encourages Administration. 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC electronic submission of protests and [FR Doc. E6–17183 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 20426. interventions in lieu of paper using the BILLING CODE 6450–01–P This filing is accessible on-line at ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. http://www.ferc.gov, using the Persons unable to file electronically ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for should submit an original and 14 copies DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY review in the Commission’s Public of the protest or intervention to the Reference Room in Washington, DC. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Commission Web site that enables subscribers to 20426. [Docket No. RP07–13–000] receive e-mail notification when a These filings are accessible on-line at document is added to a subscribed http://www.ferc.gov, using the Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; docket(s). For assistance with any FERC ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and are available for Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Online service, please e-mail review in the Commission’s Public Gas Tariff [email protected], or call Reference Room in Washington, DC. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the October 11, 2006. (202) 502–8659. Web site that enables subscribers to Take notice that on October 6, 2006, receive e-mail notification when a Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC Magalie R. Salas, document is added to a subscribed (Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of Secretary. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised [FR Doc. E6–17214 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Online service, please e-mail Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in BILLING CODE 6717–01–P [email protected], or call Appendix A of the filing to be effective (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call November 6, 2006. (202) 502–8659. Algonquin states that the purpose of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on this filing is to modify the General October 24, 2006. Terms and Conditions of the Algonquin Federal Energy Regulatory Tariff to reflect the current procedures Commission Magalie R. Salas, that releasing customers and potential [Docket No. ER04–928–003] Secretary. prearranged and replacement customers [FR Doc. E6–17204 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] are required to follow in order to California Independent System; BILLING CODE 6717–01–P effectuate the temporary or permanent Operator Corporation; Notice of Filings release of capacity via Algonquin’s capacity release mechanism. October 10, 2006. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Algonquin states that copies of its Take notice that on August 1, 2005, filing have been mailed to all affected the Pacific Gas and Electric Company Federal Energy Regulatory customers and interested state (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Commission Company submitted filings to comply commissions. [Docket No. CP06–71–001] Any person desiring to intervene or to with the Commission’s July 1, 2005 protest this filing must file in Order in Docket No. ER04–928–000, Carolina Gas Transmission accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Public Utilities With Existing Contracts Corporation SCG Pipeline, Inc.; South the Commission’s Rules of Practice and In California Independent System Carolina Pipeline Corporation; Notice Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Operator Corporation Region, 112 FERC of Compliance Filing 385.214). Protests will be considered by ¶ 61,007 (2005). the Commission in determining the On November 14, 2005, PG&E October 11, 2006. appropriate action to be taken, but will submitted a new existing transmission Take notice that on September 29, not serve to make protestants parties to contract template to recognize the 2006, SCG Pipeline, Inc. and South the proceeding. Any person wishing to encumbrance created by the Midway- Carolina Pipeline Corporation, for become a party must file a notice of Sunset Agreement (Rate Schedule No. themselves and on behalf of Carolina intervention or motion to intervene, as 182) on PG&E’s facilities and Midway- Gas Transmission Corporation (Carolina appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Sunset’s right under the agreement. Gas) (collectively, ‘‘the SC Pipelines’’) protests must be filed in accordance Any person desiring to intervene or to submitted for filing the Carolina Gas with the provisions of section 154.210 protest these filings must file in FERC Gas Tariff Original Volume 1 in of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of compliance with the Commission’s 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Order Issuing Certificates, Granting or protest must serve a copy of that Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Abandonment Authority, And document on the Applicant. Anyone Protests will be considered by the Approving Offer Of Settlement, Carolina filing an intervention or protest on or Commission in determining the Gas Transmission Corporation, 116 before the intervention or protest date appropriate action to be taken, but will FERC ¶ 61,049 (July 20, 2006). The SC need not serve motions to intervene or not serve to make protestants parties to Pipelines request that the Commission protests on persons other than the the proceeding. Any person wishing to approve the tariff effective November 1, Applicant. become a party must file a notice of 2006. The Commission encourages intervention or motion to intervene, as Any person desiring to protest this electronic submission of protests and appropriate. Such notices, motions, or filing must file in accordance with Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61036 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

211 of the Commission’s Rules of Any person desiring to intervene or to Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR protest this filing must file in its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised 385.211). Protests to this filing will be accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in considered by the Commission in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Appendix A of the filing, to be effective determining the appropriate action to be Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and November 6, 2006. taken, but will not serve to make 385.214). Protests will be considered by East Tennessee states that copies of its protestants parties to the proceeding. the Commission in determining the Such protests must be filed on or before appropriate action to be taken, but will filing have been mailed to all affected the date as indicated below. Anyone not serve to make protestants parties to customers and interested state filing a protest must serve a copy of that the proceeding. Any person wishing to commissions. document on all the parties to the become a party must file a notice of Any person desiring to intervene or to proceeding. intervention or motion to intervene, as protest this filing must file in The Commission encourages appropriate. Such notices, motions, or accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of electronic submission of protests in lieu protests must be filed in accordance the Commission’s Rules of Practice and of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at with the provisions of section 154.210 Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR 385.214). Protests will be considered by file electronically should submit an 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention the Commission in determining the or protest must serve a copy of that original and 14 copies of the protest to appropriate action to be taken, but will document on the Applicant. Anyone the Federal Energy Regulatory not serve to make protestants parties to filing an intervention or protest on or Commission, 888 First Street, NE., the proceeding. Any person wishing to Washington, DC 20426. before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or become a party must file a notice of This filing is accessible on-line at intervention or motion to intervene, as http://www.ferc.gov, using the protests on persons other than the Applicant. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for protests must be filed in accordance review in the Commission’s Public The Commission encourages with the provisions of Section 154.210 Reference Room in Washington, DC. electronic submission of protests and of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the interventions in lieu of paper using the 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention Web site that enables subscribers to ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. receive e-mail notification when a Persons unable to file electronically or protest must serve a copy of that document is added to a subscribed should submit an original and 14 copies document on the Applicant. Anyone docket(s). For assistance with any FERC of the protest or intervention to the filing an intervention or protest on or Online service, please e-mail Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, before the intervention or protest date 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC [email protected], or call need not serve motions to intervene or 20426. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call protests on persons other than the This filing is accessible on-line at (202) 502–8659. Applicant. http://www.ferc.gov, using the Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for The Commission encourages on October 18, 2006. review in the Commission’s Public electronic submission of protests and Magalie R. Salas, Reference Room in Washington, DC. interventions in lieu of paper using the Secretary. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically [FR Doc. E6–17201 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a should submit an original and 14 copies BILLING CODE 6717–01–P document is added to a subscribed of the protest or intervention to the docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Online service, please e-mail 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC [email protected], or call 20426. Federal Energy Regulatory (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call This filing is accessible on-line at Commission (202) 502–8659. http://www.ferc.gov, using the [Docket No. RP03–36–020] Magalie R. Salas, ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Secretary. review in the Commission’s Public Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; [FR Doc. E6–17211 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Reference Room in Washington, DC. Notice of Negotiated Rate BILLING CODE 6717–01–P There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the October 11, 2006. Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a Take notice that on October 6, 2006, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY document is added to a subscribed Dauphin Island Gathering Partners docket(s). For assistance with any FERC (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as Federal Energy Regulatory part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Commission Online service, please e-mail Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets [email protected], or call listed below to become effective [Docket No. RP07–10–000] (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. November 6, 2006: Twenty-Seventh East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Sheet No. 9; Twenty-Third Revised Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Magalie R. Salas, Sheet No. 10. Gas Tariff Secretary. Dauphin Island states that copies of [FR Doc. E6–17212 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the filing are being served October 11, 2006. contemporaneously on its customers Take notice that on October 6, 2006, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P and other interested parties. East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61037

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory Web site that enables subscribers to Commission Commission receive e-mail notification when a [Docket No. RP07–9–000] document is added to a subscribed [Docket No. CP05–413–002] docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Egan Hub Storage, LLC; Notice of Online service, please email East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff [email protected], or call Notice of Compliance Filing (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call October 11, 2006. (202) 502–8659. October 11, 2006. Take notice that on October 6, 2006, Egan Hub Storage, LLC (Egan Hub) Magalie R. Salas, Take notice that on September 28, tendered for filing as part of its FERC Secretary. 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, [FR Doc. E6–17221 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third the filing to be effective November 6, Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheet 2006. listed in Appendix A to the filing with Egan Hub states that the purpose of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY an effective date of September 16, 2006, this filing is to modify the General or the date the Jewell Ridge Lateral Terms and Conditions of the Egan Hub Federal Energy Regulatory Project facilities are placed into service. Tariff to reflect the current procedures Commission Any person desiring to protest this that releasing customers and potential [Docket No. CP05–74–001] filing must file in accordance with Rule prearranged and replacement customers are required to follow in order to 211 of the Commission’s Rules of Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.; effectuate the temporary or permanent Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Notice of Compliance Filing release of capacity via Egan Hub’s 385.211). Protests to this filing will be capacity release mechanism. October 12, 2006. considered by the Commission in Egan Hub states that copies of its Take notice that on September 29, determining the appropriate action to be filing have been mailed to all affected 2006, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, taken, but will not serve to make customers and interested state L.L.C., (Maritimes) tendered for filing as protestants parties to the proceeding. commissions. part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Such protests must be filed on or before Any person desiring to intervene or to Volume No. 1, Eighth Revised Sheet No. the date as indicated below. Anyone protest this filing must file in 14, with an effective date of November filing a protest must serve a copy of that accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 1, 2006. document on all the parties to the the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Maritimes states that the filing is proceeding. Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and being made in compliance with the Commission’s order issued on July 27, The Commission encourages 385.214). Protests will be considered by 2005 in the above-captioned proceeding. electronic submission of protests in lieu the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will Any person desiring to protest this of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at not serve to make protestants parties to filing must file in accordance with Rule http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 211 of the Commission’s Rules of file electronically should submit an become a party must file a notice of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR original and 14 copies of the protest to intervention or motion to intervene, as 385.211). Protests to this filing will be the Federal Energy Regulatory appropriate. Such notices, motions, or considered by the Commission in Commission, 888 First Street, NE., protests must be filed in accordance determining the appropriate action to be Washington, DC 20426. with the provisions of section 154.210 taken, but will not serve to make This filing is accessible on-line at of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR protestants parties to the proceeding. http://www.ferc.gov, using the 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention Such protests must be filed on or before ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for or protest must serve a copy of that the date as indicated below. Anyone review in the Commission’s Public document on the Applicant. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that Reference Room in Washington, DC. filing an intervention or protest on or document on all the parties to the There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the before the intervention or protest date proceeding. Web site that enables subscribers to need not serve motions to intervene or The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu receive e-mail notification when a protests on persons other than the of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at document is added to a subscribed Applicant. The Commission encourages http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to docket(s). For assistance with any FERC electronic submission of protests and file electronically should submit an Online service, please e-mail interventions in lieu of paper using the original and 14 copies of the protest to [email protected], or call ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. the Federal Energy Regulatory (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Persons unable to file electronically Commission, 888 First Street, NE., (202) 502–8659. should submit an original and 14 copies Washington, DC 20426. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time of the protest or intervention to the This filing is accessible on-line at on October 18, 2006. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, http://www.ferc.gov, using the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Magalie R. Salas, 20426. review in the Commission’s Public Secretary. This filing is accessible on-line at Reference Room in Washington, DC. [FR Doc. E6–17222 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] http://www.ferc.gov, using the There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Web site that enables subscribers to review in the Commission’s Public receive e-mail notification when a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61038 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

document is added to a subscribed 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Persons unable to file electronically docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 20426. should submit an original and 14 copies Online service, please e-mail This filing is accessible on-line at of the protest or intervention to the [email protected], or call http://www.ferc.gov, using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC (202) 502–8659. review in the Commission’s Public 20426. Protest Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on Reference Room in Washington, DC. This filing is accessible on-line at October 17, 2006. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the http://www.ferc.gov, using the Web site that enables subscribers to ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Magalie R. Salas, receive e-mail notification when a review in the Commission’s Public Secretary. document is added to a subscribed Reference Room in Washington, DC. [FR Doc. E6–17198 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] docket(s). For assistance with any FERC There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Online service, please e-mail Web site that enables subscribers to [email protected], or call receive e-mail notification when a (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call document is added to a subscribed DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (202) 502–8659. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail Federal Energy Regulatory Magalie R. Salas, Commission [email protected], or call Secretary. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call [FR Doc. E6–17197 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] (202) 502–8659. Docket No. RP99–176–119] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time October 18, 2006. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Negotiated Rates DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. October 11, 2006. Federal Energy Regulatory [FR Doc. E6–17215 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Take notice that on October 5, 2006, Commission Natural Gas Pipeline Company of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P America (Natural) tendered for filing as [Docket No. RP07–14–000] part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Natural Gas Pipeline Company of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Revised Volume No. 1, Sub Second America; Notice of Refund Report Revised Sheet No. 26D.02, to become Federal Energy Regulatory effective November 1, 2006. October 11, 2006. Commission Natural states that copies of the filing Take notice that on October 6, 2006, [Docket No. RP07–5–000] are being mailed to all parties set out on Natural Gas Pipeline Company of the Commission’s official service list in America (Natural) filed its Refund Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice Docket No. RP99–176. Report regarding the penalty revenues of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Any person desiring to intervene or to for the period January 1, 2006 through Tariff protest this filing must file in June 30, 2006, that it refunded to its accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of customers pursuant to Section 12.8 of October 11, 2006. the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the General Terms and Conditions Take notice that on October 5, 2006, Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and (GT&C) of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Northern Natural Gas Company 385.214). Protests will be considered by Revised Volume No. 1. (Northern), tendered for filing in its the Commission in determining the Any person desiring to intervene or to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume appropriate action to be taken, but will protest this filing must file in No. 1 the following tariff sheets, with an not serve to make protestants parties to accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of effective date of November 5, 2006: 43 the proceeding. Any person wishing to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Revised Sheet No. 66; 6 Revised Sheet become a party must file a notice of Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and No. 66B; 6 Revised Sheet No. 66D. intervention or motion to intervene, as 385.214). Protests will be considered by Northern further states that copies of appropriate. Such notices, motions, or the Commission in determining the the filing have been mailed to each of protests must be filed in accordance appropriate action to be taken, but will its customers and interested State with the provisions of section 154.210 not serve to make protestants parties to Commissions. of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR the proceeding. Any person wishing to Any person desiring to intervene or to 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention become a party must file a notice of protest this filing must file in or protest must serve a copy of that intervention or motion to intervene, as accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of document on the Applicant. Anyone appropriate. Such notices, motions, or the Commission’s Rules of Practice and filing an intervention or protest on or protests must be filed on or before the Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and before the intervention or protest date date as indicated below. Anyone filing 385.214). Protests will be considered by need not serve motions to intervene or an intervention or protest must serve a the Commission in determining the protests on persons other than the copy of that document on the Applicant. appropriate action to be taken, but will Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest not serve to make protestants parties to The Commission encourages on or before the intervention or protest the proceeding. Any person wishing to electronic submission of protests and date need not serve motions to intervene become a party must file a notice of interventions in lieu of paper using the or protests on persons other than the intervention or motion to intervene, as ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Applicant. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Persons unable to file electronically The Commission encourages protests must be filed in accordance should submit an original and 14 copies electronic submission of protests and with the provisions of section 154.210 of the protest or intervention to the interventions in lieu of paper using the of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61039

or protest must serve a copy of that miscellaneous revisions to its tariff, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY document on the Applicant. Anyone including its right-of-first-refusal filing an intervention or protest on or provisions, discounting policy Federal Energy Regulatory before the intervention or protest date provisions, and its gas quality Commission need not serve motions to intervene or provisions. protests on persons other than the Paiute states that copies of this filing [Docket Nos. PH06–71–000; PH06–72–000; Applicant. are being served upon all of Paiute’s PH06–73–000; PH06–74–000; PH06–75–000; The Commission encourages customers and interested state PH06–76–000; PH06–77–000; PH06–78–000; regulatory commissions. electronic submission of protests and PH06–79–000; PH06–80–000; PH06–81–000; Any person desiring to intervene or to interventions in lieu of paper using the PH06–82–000; PH06–83–000; PH06–84–000; protest this filing must file in ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. PH06–85–000; PH06–87–000; PH06–88–000; accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Persons unable to file electronically PH06–89–000; PH06–90–000; PH06–91–000; the Commission’s Rules of Practice and should submit an original and 14 copies PH06–92–000; PH06–93–000; PH06–94–000; Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and of the protest or intervention to the PH06–95–000; PH06–96–000; PH06–97–000; 385.214). Protests will be considered by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, PH06–98–000; PH06–99–000; PH06–100– the Commission in determining the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 000; PH06–101–000; PH06–102–000] 20426. appropriate action to be taken, but will This filing is accessible on-line at not serve to make protestants parties to Questar Corporation; Questar the proceeding. Any person wishing to http://www.ferc.gov, using the Corporation; C&T Enterprises, Inc.; become a party must file a notice of ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for NWO Resources, Inc.; TECO Energy, intervention or motion to intervene, as review in the Commission’s Public Inc.; FPL Group, Inc.; Enbridge Gas Reference Room in Washington, DC. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Distribution, Inc.; Phelps Dodge There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the protests must be filed in accordance Corporation; Stanley Works; Sierra Web site that enables subscribers to with the provisions of section 154.210 Pacific Resources Operating receive e-mail notification when a of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR document is added to a subscribed 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention Companies; UnionBanCal Corporation; docket(s). For assistance with any FERC or protest must serve a copy of that UnionBanCal Equities, Inc.; Bankers Online service, please e-mail document on the Applicant. Anyone Commercial Corporation; [email protected], or call filing an intervention or protest on or EnergySouth, Inc.; Barrick Gold (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call before the intervention or protest date Corporation; PG&E Corporation; (202) 502–8659. need not serve motions to intervene or Trans-Elect, Inc.; Merrill Lynch & protests on persons other than the Company, Inc.; Energy West Magalie R. Salas, Applicant. Resources, Inc.; Horizon Asset Secretary. The Commission encourages Management, Inc.; Ironhill [FR Doc. E6–17217 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] electronic submission of protests and Transmission, LLC; UIL Holdings BILLING CODE 6717–01–P interventions in lieu of paper using the Corporation; Brookfield Asset ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Management Inc.; ATC Management Persons unable to file electronically Inc.; AES Corporation; Pinnacle West DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY should submit an original and 14 copies Capital Corporation; ArcLight Capital of the protest or intervention to the Holdings, LLC; National Fuel Gas Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Company; LGB Cap Rock LLC; Empire Commission 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Distribution Electrical Company; The [Docket No. RP07–12–000] 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at Laclede Group, Inc.; Sowood Capital Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of http://www.ferc.gov, using the Management LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Effectiveness of Holding Company and review in the Commission’s Public Transaction Exemptions and Waivers October 11, 2006. Reference Room in Washington, DC. October 11, 2006. Take notice that on October 6, 2006, There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Paiute Pipeline Company (Paiute) Web site that enables subscribers to Take notice that in August and tendered for filing as part of its FERC receive e-mail notification when a September 2006 the holding company Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. document is added to a subscribed and transaction exemptions and waivers 1–A, the following tariff sheets, to be docket(s). For assistance with any FERC requested in the above-captioned effective November 5, 2006: Second Online service, please e-mail proceedings are deemed to have been Revised Sheet No. 59; Second Revised [email protected], or call granted by operation of law pursuant to Sheet No. 60; Fifth Revised Sheet No. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 18 CFR 366.4. 65; Fourth Revised Sheet No. 66; Third (202) 502–8659. Revised Sheet No. 77; Eighth Revised Magalie R. Salas, Magalie R. Salas, Sheet No. 111; Third Revised Sheet No. Secretary. Secretary. 116. [FR Doc. E6–17210 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Paiute indicates that the purpose of its [FR Doc. E6–17213 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P filing is to propose several BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the authorizations necessary to expand Web site that enables subscribers to SLNG’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) Federal Energy Regulatory receive e-mail notification when a import terminal in Georgia and to Commission document is added to a subscribed construct, operate and acquire facilities [Docket No. RP07–6–000] docket(s). For assistance with any FERC to move re-vaporized LNG to Online service, please e-mail downstream markets in the United Rendezvous Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; [email protected], or call States. The projects are collectively Notice of Tariff Filing (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call known as the Elba III Project, all as more (202) 502–8659. fully set forth in the application which October 11, 2006. is on file with the Commission and open Take notice that on October 3, 2006 Magalie R. Salas, for public inspection. These filings are Rendezvous Pipeline Company, L.L.C. Secretary. available for review at the Commission (Rendezvous) tendered for filing its [FR Doc. E6–17218 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] in the Public Reference Room or may be FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P viewed on the Commission’s Web site at Rendezvous states that the purpose of http://www.ferc.gov using the this filing is to comply with the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket Commission’s orders issued on July 27, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY number excluding the last three digits in 2005, in Docket No. CP05–40–000 and the docket number field to access the CP05–41–000, and on November 17, Federal Energy Regulatory document. For assistance, please contact 2005, in Docket No. CP05–40–001 and Commission FERC Online Support at CP05–41–001. Rendezvous Gas [Docket Nos. EG06–51–000; EG06–63–000; [email protected] or toll Services, L.L.C., 112 FERC ¶ 61,141, EG06–64–000; EG06–65–000; EG06–66–000; free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, reh’g denied, 113 FERC ¶ 61,169 (2005). FC06–14–000] contact (202) 502–8659. Rendezvous has proposed a tariff SLNG seeks authorization under effective date of November 2, 2006. SAF Hydroelectric LLC; COSI ACE, section 3 of the NGA to expand its Rendezvous states that copies of the LLC; Mesquite Wind, LLC; FPL Energy existing LNG import terminal on Elba filing were served on all parties listed Mower County, LLC; Scurry County Island in Chatham County, Georgia in on the official service lists in Docket Wind L.P.; J-Power USA Investment two phases by: (i) Constructing two new Nos. CP05–40 and CP05–41, and on the Co., Ltd. ; Notice of Effectiveness of LNG storage tanks, each having a storage Wyoming Public Service Commission. Exempt Wholesale Generator or capacity equivalent to 4.22 Bcf, (ii) Any person desiring to intervene or to Foreign Utility Company Status constructing additional facilities to protest this filing must file in provide 900 MMcf per day of October 11, 2006. accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of vaporization capacity at the end of Take notice that during the month of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and phase two, and (iii) modifying marine September 2006, the status of the above- Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and facilities to accommodate larger LNG captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale 385.214). Protests will be considered by tankers and speed simultaneous Generators or Foreign Utility Companies the Commission in determining the unloading of two LNG tankers. SLNG became effective by operation of the appropriate action to be taken, but will proposes to provide service from the Commission’s regulations. 18 CFR not serve to make protestants parties to expansion under proposed Rate the proceeding. Any person wishing to 366.7(a). Schedule LNG–3 and also seeks become a party must file a notice of Magalie R. Salas, authority to provide service under intervention or motion to intervene, as Secretary. negotiated rates. Finally, SLNG seeks appropriate. Such notices, motions, or [FR Doc. E6–17203 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] authority under section 7(b) of the NGA protests must be filed in accordance BILLING CODE 6717–01–P to abandon an unutilized dock. with the provisions of Section 154.210 EEC requests authority under section of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR 7(c) of the NGA to: (i) Acquire an 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY undivided interest in SNG’s Twin 30s or protest must serve a copy of that pipelines which extend from SLNG’s document on the Applicant. Anyone Federal Energy Regulatory Elba Island terminal to SNG’s pipeline filing an intervention or protest on or Commission system in Port Wentworth, Georgia; (ii) before the intervention or protest date construct and operate a new 42-inch need not serve motions to intervene or [Docket No. CP06–470–000; Docket Nos. and 36-inch diameter, approximately CP06–471–000; CP06–472–000; CP06–473– protests on persons other than the 000; Docket No. CP06–474–000] 189 mile interstate pipeline extending Applicant. from Port Wentworth through The Commission encourages Southern LNG, Inc.; Elba Express Effingham, Screven, Jenkins, Burke, electronic submission of protests and Company, L.L.C.; Southern Natural Jefferson, Glascock, Warren, McDuffie, interventions in lieu of paper using the Gas Company; Notice of Applications Wilkes, and Elbert Counties, Georgia to ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. interconnections with Transcontinental Persons unable to file electronically October 10, 2006. Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) in should submit an original and 14 copies Take notice that on September 29, Hart County, Georgia and Anderson of the protest or intervention to the 2006, Southern LNG, Inc. (SLNG), Elba County, South Carolina; and to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Express Company, L.L.C. (EEC), and construct and operate a 10,000 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Southern Natural Gas Company (SNG), horsepower compressor station on the 20426. Post Office Box 2563, Birmingham, new line in Jenkins County. Upon This filing is accessible on-line at Alabama 35202–2563, concurrently installation of the compression the http://www.ferc.gov, using the filed related applications under sections pipeline will be able to provide up to ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 1,175 MMcf per day of transportation to review in the Commission’s Public and Parts 153,157, 284 and 380 of the the Transco interconnections. EEC also Reference Room in Washington, DC. Commission’s regulations for requests blanket construction and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61041

transportation certificates pursuant to to the proceeding. The Commission’s accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s rules require that persons filing the Commission’s Rules of Practice and regulations, respectively, and approval comments in opposition to the project Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and of its pro forma transportation tariff. provide copies of their protests only to 385.214). Protests will be considered by SNG seeks authority to transfer the party or parties directly involved in the Commission in determining the pursuant to section 7(b) of the NGA an the protest. appropriate action to be taken, but will undivided interest in its Twin 30s Persons who wish to comment only not serve to make protestants parties to pipelines to EEC and seeks authority on the environmental review of this the proceeding. Any person wishing to under section 7(c) to acquire an project should submit an original and become a party must file a notice of undivided interest in a portion of the two copies of their comments to the intervention or motion to intervene, as pipeline proposed by EEC. Secretary of the Commission. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Any questions regarding this Environmental commenters will be protests must be filed in accordance application should be directed to James placed on the Commission’s with the provisions of section 154.210 D. Johnston, Senior Counsel, Southern environmental mailing list, will receive of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR Natural Gas Company, 1900 Fifth copies of the environmental documents, 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama and will be notified of meetings or protest must serve a copy of that 35203, telephone: 205–326–2019, e- associated with the Commission’s document on the Applicant. Anyone mail: [email protected]. environmental review process. filing an intervention or protest on or On February 1, 2006, the Commission Environmental commenters will not be before the intervention or protest date granted SNG’s request to utilize the required to serve copies of filed need not serve motions to intervene or National Environmental Policy Act documents on all other parties. protests on persons other than the (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned However, the non-party commenters Applicant. Docket No. PF06–14–000 to staff will not receive copies of all documents The Commission encourages activities involving the Elba III Project. filed by other parties or issued by the electronic submission of protests and Now, as of the filing of these Commission (except for the mailing of interventions in lieu of paper using the applications on September 29, 2006, the environmental documents issued by the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project Commission) and will not have the right Persons unable to file electronically has ended. From this time forward, the to seek court review of the should submit an original and 14 copies Elba III Project proceeding will be Commission’s final order. of the protest or intervention to the conducted in the docket numbers listed Motions to intervene, protests and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, above in the caption of this Notice. comments may be filed electronically 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC There are two ways to become via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 20426. involved in the Commission’s review of CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the This filing is accessible on-line at this project. First, any person wishing to http://www.ferc.gov, using the obtain legal status by becoming a party instructions on the Commission’s Web ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for to the proceedings for this project site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The review in the Commission’s Public should, on or before the below listed Commission strongly encourages Reference Room in Washington, DC. comment date, file with the Federal electronic filings. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Comment Date: October 31, 2006. Web site that enables subscribers to First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Magalie R. Salas, a motion to intervene in accordance receive e-mail notification when a Secretary. document is added to a subscribed with the requirements of the [FR Doc. E6–17200 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Commission’s Rules of Practice and docket(s). For assistance with any FERC BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) Online service, please e-mail and the Regulations under the NGA (18 [email protected], or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY status will be placed on the service list (202) 502–8659. maintained by the Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Magalie R. Salas, Commission and will receive copies of Commission Secretary. all documents filed by the applicant and [Docket No. RP07–8–000] [FR Doc. E6–17220 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] by all other parties. A party must submit BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 14 copies of filings made with the Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Commission and must mail a copy to Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC the applicant and to every other party in Gas Tariff DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of October 11, 2006. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders in the proceeding. Take notice that on October 6, 2006, Commission However, a person does not have to Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas [Docket No. CP07–1–000] intervene in order to have comments Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its considered. The second way to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line participate is by filing with the Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Corporation; Notice of Application for Secretary of the Commission, as soon as Appendix A of the filing to be effective Abandonment possible, an original and two copies of November 6, 2006. comments in support of or in opposition Texas Eastern states that copies of its October 11, 2006. to this project. The Commission will filing have been mailed to all affected Take notice that on October 5, 2006, consider these comments in customers and interested state Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line determining the appropriate action to be commissions. Corporation (Transco), tendered for taken, but the filing of a comment alone Any person desiring to intervene or to filing an application under section 7 of will not serve to make the filer a party protest this filing must file in the Natural Gas Act to abandon a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61042 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

portion of the firm transportation DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 385.214). Protests will be considered by service provided to the City of Bessemer the Commission in determining the City, North Carolina (Bessemer City) Federal Energy Regulatory appropriate action to be taken, but will under Transco’s Rate Schedule FT. Commission not serve to make protestants parties to Any person desiring to intervene or to [Docket No. RP07–7–000] the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of protest this filing must file in Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line intervention or motion to intervene, as accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Corporation; Notice of Proposed appropriate. Such notices, motions, or the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Changes in FERC Gas Tariff protests must be filed in accordance Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and with the provisions of section 154.210 385.214). Protests will be considered by October 11, 2006. of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR the Commission in determining the Take notice that on October 5, 2006, 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention appropriate action to be taken, but will Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line or protest must serve a copy of that not serve to make protestants parties to Corporation (Transco) tendered for document on the Applicant. Anyone the proceeding. Any person wishing to filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, filing an intervention or protest on or become a party must file a notice of Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff before the intervention or protest date intervention or motion to intervene, as sheets listed on Appendix A to the need not serve motions to intervene or appropriate. Such notices, motions, or filing, to become effective October 1, protests on persons other than the protests must be filed on or before the 2006. Applicant. Transco states that the purpose of the date as indicated below. Anyone filing The Commission encourages instant filing is to track rate changes an intervention or protest must serve a electronic submission of protests and resulting from a reduction in the Annual interventions in lieu of paper using the copy of that document on the Applicant. Charge Adjustment (ACA) rate from ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone filing an intervention or protest $0.0018 to $0.0016 attributable to: (1) Persons unable to file electronically on or before the intervention or protest Storage service purchased from National should submit an original and 14 copies date need not serve motions to intervene Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National of the protest or intervention to the or protests on persons other than the Fuel) under its Rate Schedule SS–1, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Applicant. costs of which are included in the rates 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC and charges payable under Transco’s The Commission encourages 20426. Rate Schedules LSS and SS–2, (2) electronic submission of protests and This filing is accessible on-line at storage service purchased from interventions in lieu of paper using the http://www.ferc.gov, using the Dominion Transmission, Inc. ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for (Dominion) under its Rate Schedule Persons unable to file electronically review in the Commission’s Public GSS, the costs of which are included in should submit an original and 14 copies Reference Room in Washington, DC. the rates and charges payable under of the protest or intervention to the There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Transco’s Rate Schedules GSS and LSS, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Web site that enables subscribers to (3) transportation service purchased 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC receive e-mail notification when a from National Fuel under its Rate 20426. document is added to a subscribed Schedule X–54, the costs of which are docket(s). For assistance with any FERC This filing is accessible on-line at included in the rates and charges Online service, please e-mail http://www.ferc.gov, using the payable under Transco’s Rate Schedule [email protected], or call ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for SS–2, and (4) storage service purchased (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call review in the Commission’s Public from Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (202) 502–8659. Reference Room in Washington, DC. (Texas Eastern) under its Rate Schedule There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the X–28 the costs of which are included in Magalie R. Salas, Web site that enables subscribers to the rates and charges payable under Secretary. receive e-mail notification when a Transco’s Rate Schedule S–2. [FR Doc. E6–17219 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] document is added to a subscribed Transco states that this filing is being BILLING CODE 6717–01–P docket(s). For assistance with any FERC made pursuant to tracking provisions Online service, please e-mail under section 4 of Transco’s Rate [email protected], or call Schedule LSS, section 4 of Transco’s DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Rate Schedule SS–2, section 3 of (202) 502–8659. Transco’s Rate Schedule GSS and Federal Energy Regulatory section 26 of the General Terms and Commission Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time Conditions of Transco’s Third Revised October 25, 2006. Volume No. 1 Tariff. [Docket No. RP07–4–000] Magalie R. Salas, Included in Appendices B through E are the explanations of the rate changes Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Secretary. and details regarding the computation of Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC [FR Doc. E6–17202 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the revised GSS, LSS, SS–2, and S–2 Gas Tariff BILLING CODE 6717–01–P rates. Transco states that copies of the filing October 11, 2006. are being mailed to affected customers Take notice that on October 5, 2006, and interested State Commissions. Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC Any person desiring to intervene or to (Transwestern) tendered for filing as protest this filing must file in part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Sheet No. 15 to become effective Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and September 1, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61043

Transwestern states that the purpose Docket Numbers: ER96–780–015; Accession Number: 20061006–0005. of this filing is to add a contract to the ER01–1633–004; ER00–3240–007; Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time list of non-conforming agreements. ER03–1383–007. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to Applicants: Southern Company Docket Numbers: ER06–1001–001. protest this filing must file in Services, Inc.; Southern Company- Applicants: Midwest Independent accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of Florida LLC; Oleander Power Project, Transmission System Operator, Inc. the Commission’s Rules of Practice and L.P.; DeSoto County Generating Description: Midwest Independent Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Company, LLC. Transmission System Operator, Inc 385.214). Protests will be considered by Description: Southern Company submits its Substitute Third Revised the Commission in determining the Services, Inc. on behalf of Alabama Sheet 969 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, appropriate action to be taken, but will Power Co. et al. submits a notice of non- Third Revised Volume No. 1. not serve to make protestants parties to material change in status regarding the Filed Date: 10/04/2006. the proceeding. Any person wishing to characteristics that FERC previously Accession Number: 20061005–0188. become a party must file a notice of authorized to transact market-base rates. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time intervention or motion to intervene, as Filed Date: 10/02/2006. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Accession Number: 20061006–0026. appropriate. Such notices, motions, or Docket Numbers: ER06–1331–000. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time protests must be filed in accordance Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC. on Monday, October 23, 2006. with the provisions of Section 154.210 Description: CalPeak Power LLC of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR Docket Numbers: ER02–783–005; supplements its 8/2/06 application for 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention ER02–852–005; ER02–855–005; ER01– acceptance of their initial market-based or protest must serve a copy of that 2262–007. rate tariff etc, to clarify a statement in document on the Applicant. Anyone Applicants: EPCOR Merchant and the application. filing an intervention or protest on or Capital (US) Inc.; EPCOR Power Filed Date: 10/04/2006. before the intervention or protest date Development, Inc.; EPDC, Inc.; Accession Number: 20061006–0001. need not serve motions to intervene or Frederick Power L.P. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time protests on persons other than the Description: EPCOR Merchant and on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Applicant. Capital (US) Inc. et al. submits an Docket Numbers: ER06–1306–000. The Commission encourages amendment to its 8/14/06 filing of a Applicants: Sunbury Generation, LP. electronic submission of protests and Notice of Change in Status re Market- Description: Sunbury Generation LP interventions in lieu of paper using the Based Rate Authority. submits a notice of amendment to its 8/ ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Filed Date: 10/03/2006. 24/06 filing, notice of succession. Persons unable to file electronically Accession Number: 20061005–0216. Filed Date: 10/04/2006. should submit an original and 14 copies Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20061005–0218. of the protest or intervention to the on Tuesday, October 24, 2006. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Numbers: ER03–891–002. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Applicants: Gulf States Energy 20426. Investments L.P. Docket Numbers: ER06–1422–001. This filing is accessible on-line at Description: Gulf States Energy Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric http://www.ferc.gov, using the Investments, LP submits an amended Company; Kentucky Utilities Company ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for triennial updated market power analysis Description: Louisville Gas and review in the Commission’s Public in compliances with FERC’s Order 652. Electric Co and Kentucky Utilities Co Reference Room in Washington, DC. Filed Date: 10/06/2006. submit requests that the Commission There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Accession Number: 20061010–0030. find that they continue to be authorized Web site that enables subscribers to Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time to make sales of ARS energy to BREC receive e-mail notification when a on Friday, October 27, 2006. not-withstanding recent changes to document is added to a subscribed Docket Numbers: ER03–1288–002. market based rate tariff. docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Applicants: Rocky Mountain Energy Filed Date: 10/04/2006. Online service, please e-mail Center, LLC. Accession Number: 20061006–0004. [email protected], or call Description: Rocky Mountain Energy Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Center, LLC submits an triennial on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. (202) 502–8659. updated market analysis in accordance Docket Numbers: ER07–12–000. with the Commission’s 10/3/03 letter Applicants: Southern California Magalie R. Salas, order. Edison Company. Secretary. Filed Date: 10/03/2006. Description: Southern California [FR Doc. E6–17216 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Accession Number: 20061005–0044. Edison Company submits its revised BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time rate sheets to the Interconnection on Tuesday, October 24, 2006. Facilities Agreement with NM Mid- Docket Numbers: ER05–1508–003. Valley Genco, LLC. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Applicants: Midwest Independent Filed Date: 10/04/2006. Transmission System Operator, Inc. Accession Number: 20061006–0006. Federal Energy Regulatory Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Commission Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Combined Notice of Filings submits an amendment to its 9/8/06 Docket Numbers: ER07–13–000. filing of the Large Generator Applicants: Dynegy Midwest October 10, 2006. Interconnection Agreement with Power Generation, Inc. Take notice that the Commission Partners Midwest, LLC and Interstate Description: Dynegy Midwest received the following electric rate Power & Company. Generation, Inc submits revisions to its filings: Filed Date: 10/04/2006. market-based rate tariff that would

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61044 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

remove the outdated restriction on sales to a subscribed dockets(s). For proposed facilities. The pipeline to Illinois Power Co. assistance with any FERC Online company would seek to negotiate a Filed Date: 10/04/2006. service, please e-mail mutually acceptable agreement. Accession Number: 20061006–0009. [email protected]. or call However, if the project is approved by Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call the Commission, that approval conveys on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. (202) 502–8659. with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail Docket Numbers: ER07–14–000. Magalie R. Salas, to produce an agreement, the pipeline Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Secretary. Inc. company could initiate condemnation Description: Southwest Power Pool, [FR Doc. E6–17173 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] proceedings in accordance with state Inc submits notices of cancellation for BILLING CODE 6717–01–P law. Network Operating Agreements. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural Gas Filed Date: 10/04/2006. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Accession Number: 20061006–0008. Facility On My Land? What Do I Need Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Federal Energy Regulatory To Know?’’ was attached to the project on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. Commission notice Panhandle provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a Any person desiring to intervene or to [Docket No. CP06–428–000] number of typically asked questions, protest in any of the above proceedings including the use of eminent domain must file in accordance with Rules 211 Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, and how to participate in the and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Commission’s proceedings. It is Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 Environmental Assessment for the available for viewing on the FERC and § 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Proposed Tuscola East Project and Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Eastern time on the specified comment Request for Comments on date. It is not necessary to separately Environmental Issues and Notice of Summary of the Proposed Project intervene again in a subdocket related to Scoping Meeting Due to the age of Panhandle’s existing a compliance filing if you have line and the Department of October 11, 2006. previously intervened in the same Transportation’s Integrity Management The staff of the Federal Energy docket. Protests will be considered by Plan regulations, Panhandle reduced the Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission in determining the operating pressure on one line by 20 Commission) will prepare an appropriate action to be taken, but will percent in 2004. Additional measures to environmental assessment (EA) that will not serve to make protestants parties to mitigate risk for High Consequence discuss the environmental impacts of the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion Areas must be implemented by end of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, to intervene or protest must serve a copy 2011. Panhandle’s project purpose is to LP’s (Panhandle) planned Tuscola East of that document on the Applicant. In restore long-haul transportation capacity Project located in Douglas County, reference to filings initiating a new from Tuscola heading east to Michigan Illinois and Parke, Marion, Boone, and proceeding, interventions or protests by replacing the existing diameter Hamilton Counties, Indiana.1 This submitted on or before the comment pipeline with larger diameter pipeline. notice announces the opening of the deadline need not be served on persons In general, these facilities would consist scoping process we will use to gather other than the Applicant. of replacing about 31.3 miles of pipeline input from the public and interested The Commission encourages consisting of three segments and agencies on the project. Your input will electronic submission of protests and abandoning in place or by removal the help the Commission staff determine interventions in lieu of paper, using the existing 29.4 miles of pipelines that which issues need to be evaluated in the FERC Online links at http:// correspond with the new replacement EA. Please note that the scoping period www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic lines. Specifically, the project includes: service, persons with Internet access will close on November 13, 2006. • Tuscola 100-Line (Douglas County, Comments may be submitted in who will eFile a document and/or be IL)—Replacing 6.7 miles of existing 100- written form or presented verbally at the listed as a contact for an intervenor Line 20-inch diameter pipeline with 36- public meeting detailed below. Further must create and validate an inch diameter pipeline, designating the details on how to submit written eRegistration account using the new pipeline as the 500-Line, and comments are provided in the public eRegistration link. Select the eFiling installing a new pig launcher/receiver; link to log on and submit the participation section of this notice. In • Tuscola 200-Line (Douglas County, intervention or protests. lieu of sending written comments, you IL)—Replacing 1.9 miles of the existing Persons unable to file electronically are invited to attend the public scoping 200-Line 36-inch diameter pipeline with should submit an original and 14 copies meeting that is scheduled as follows: 20-inch diameter pipeline (the 1.9 miles of the intervention or protest to the Tuscola East Project of 36-inch pipeline replaced would be Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tuesday—October 24, 2006, 7 p.m. used for the new 500-Line); 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC • Montezuma 100-Line (Parke (EST), VFW in Noblesville, 654 S 9th 20426. County, IN)—Replacing 6.6 miles of the Street, Noblesville IN 46060. (317) 770– The filings in the above proceedings existing 100-Line 20-inch diameter 3954. are accessible in the Commission’s If you are a landowner receiving this pipeline with 36-inch diameter eLibrary system by clicking on the notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline, designating the new pipeline appropriate link in the above list. They pipeline company representative about as the 500-Line, and installing a new pig are also available for review in the the acquisition of an easement to launcher/receiver; and Commission’s Public Reference Room in • Zionsville 200-Line (Marion, Boone, construct, operate, and maintain the Washington, DC There is an and Hamilton Counties, IN)—Replacing eSubscription link on the Web site that 1 Panhandle’s application was filed with the 18.0 miles of the existing 200-Line 24- enables subscribers to receive e-mail Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act inch diameter pipeline with 30-inch notification when a document is added and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations. diameter pipeline, designating the new

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61045

pipeline as the 500-Line, and installing comments received are considered Public Participation a new pig launcher/receiver. during the preparation of the EA. State You can make a difference by The majority of all segments to be and local government representatives providing us with your specific replaced would be abandoned by are encouraged to notify their comments or concerns about the project. removal, and at stream, wetland, constituents of this proposed action and By becoming a commentor, your pipeline crossovers, and uncased road encourage them to comment on their concerns will be addressed in the EA crossing the pipeline would be areas of concern. and considered by the Commission. You abandoned in place. Also 16 taps would 3 In the EA, we will discuss impacts should focus on the potential be disconnected from the 100 and 200- that could occur as a result of the environmental effects of the proposal, Lines and reconnection to the nearest construction and operation of the alternatives to the proposal (including adjacent lines would be required in proposed project under these general order to continue providing service. The alternative locations and/or routes), and headings: measures to avoid or lessen general locations of the project facilities • Geology and soils. are shown in Appendix 1.2 • Land use. environmental impact. The more • Water resources, fisheries, and specific your comments, the more useful Land Requirements for Construction wetlands. they will be. Please carefully follow Panhandle proposes to use a 125-foot • Cultural resources. these instructions to ensure that your wide right-of-way, which would overlap • Vegetation and wildlife. comments are received in time and its existing permanent right-of-way. • Air quality and noise. properly recorded: However, a temporary construction • Endangered and threatened species. • Send an original and two copies of right-of-way may be required. • Hazardous waste. your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, • Panhandle would first install the new Public safety. Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 500-Line along each segment, and then We will also evaluate possible Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room remove the 100- and 200-Lines from alternatives to the proposed project or 1A, Washington, DC 20426. their respective rights-of-way. The new portions of the project, and make • Label one copy of the comments for 500-Line would be installed within the recommendations on how to lessen or the attention of Gas Branch 2. existing rights-of-way of each segment avoid impacts on the various resource • Reference Docket No. CP06–428– with a 25-foot offset from the existing areas. 000. mainlines. Construction of the proposed Our independent analysis of the • Mail your comments so that they facilities would require about 546.6 issues will be in the EA. Depending on will be received in Washington, DC on acres of land. Following construction, the comments received during the or before November 13, 2006. about 204.8 acres would be maintained scoping process, the EA may be Please note that the Commission as permanent easement or aboveground published and mailed to Federal, state, strongly encourages electronic filing of facility sites as part of Panhandle’s and local agencies, public interest any comments or interventions or existing permanent rights-of-way. No groups, interested individuals, affected protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR additional permanent rights-of-way landowners, newspapers, libraries, and 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions would be required because the proposed the Commission’s official service list for on the Commission’s Web site at http:// project would be operated within this proceeding. A comment period will www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link existing Panhandle rights-of-way. The be allotted for review if the EA is and the link to the User’s Guide. Before remaining 341.8 acres of land would be published. We will consider all you can file comments you will need to restored and allowed to revert to its comments on the EA before we make create a free account which can be former use. our recommendations to the created on-line. Commission. We may mail the EA for comment. If The EA Process To ensure your comments are you are interested in receiving it, please The National Environmental Policy considered, please carefully follow the return the Information Request Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to instructions in the public participation (Appendix 2). If you do not return the take into account the environmental section below. Information Request, you will be taken impacts that could result from an action Currently Identified Environmental off the mailing list. whenever it considers the issuance of a Issues Certificate of Public Convenience and Becoming an Intervenor Necessity. NEPA also requires us to We have already identified several In addition to involvement in the EA discover and address concerns the issues that we think deserve attention scoping process, you may want to public may have about proposals. This based on a preliminary review of the become an official party to the process is referred to as ‘‘scoping’’. The proposed facilities and the proceeding, or ‘‘intervenor’’. To become main goal of the scoping process is to environmental information provided by an intervenor you must file a motion to focus the analysis in the EA on the Panhandle. This preliminary list of intervene according to Rule 214 of the important environmental issues. By this issues may be changed based on your Commission’s Rules of Practice and Notice of Intent, the Commission staff comments and our analysis. Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Intervenors requests public comments on the scope Project-related impact on: • have the right to seek rehearing of the of the issues to address in the EA. All Threatened and Endangered Commission’s decision. Motions to Species; • Intervene should be electronically 2 The appendices referenced in this notice are not Noise impacts from construction submitted using the commission’s being printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all activities and operations eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov. appendices, other than Appendix 1 (maps), are • Pipeline Safety and reliability; and Persons without Internet access should available on the Commission’s Web site at the • Residences or structures within 50 ‘‘eLibrary’’ link or from the Commission’s Public send an original and 14 copies of their feet of the construction work space. Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, motion to the Secretary of the DC 20426, or call (202) 502–8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of 3 ’’We’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to the Commission at the address indicated this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects previously. Persons filing Motions to all those receiving this notice in the mail. (OEP). Intervene on or before the comment

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61046 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

deadline indicated above must send a EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along Lincoln People’s Utility District copy of the motion to the Applicant. All with other related information. (CLPUD), has identified at least nine filings, including late interventions, potential interconnections between the Magalie R. Salas, submitted after the comment deadline existing CLPUD near shore substations must be served on the Applicant and all Secretary. on the power distribution grid and other intervenors identified on the [FR Doc. E6–17199 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] possible ‘‘wave energy park’’ locations Commission’s service list for this BILLING CODE 6717–01–P off the coast of Lincoln County. A proceeding. Persons on the service list Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) with email addresses may be served substation in Toledo, Oregon can electronically; others must be served a DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY distribute power beyond the county on hard copy of the filing. Federal Energy Regulatory the electrical grid. Lincoln County’s Affected landowners and parties with Commission project will comply with all environmental concerns may be granted interconnection requirements as intervenor status upon showing good Notice of Application Accepted for specified by CLPUD and BPA. In cause by stating that they have a clear Filing and Soliciting Motions to addition, there are potentially other and direct interest in this proceeding Intervene, Protests, and Comments connections including utilizing an which would not be adequately existing outfall for a major power user represented by any other parties. You do October 11, 2006. and possible interconnections with not need intervenor status to have your Take notice that the following Pacific Power in the northern portion of environmental comments considered. hydroelectric application has been filed Lincoln County. with the Commission and is available Such wave parks have the potential of Environmental Mailing List for public inspection: generating up to 20 megawatts (MW) of An effort is being made to send this a. Type of Application: Preliminary power or more. Multiple sites would be notice to all individuals, organizations, Permit. beneficial to the immediate area and to and government entities interested in b. Project No: 12727–000. the Pacific Northwest in supplementing and/or potentially affected by the c. Date filed: August 17, 2006. the region’s hydropower capacity and in proposed project. This includes all d. Applicant: Lincoln County, Oregon. providing generation to the west of the e. Name of Project: Lincoln County landowners who are potential right-of- Cascade Mountain Range, thereby Wave Energy Project. way grantors, whose property may be f. Location: The project would be easing congestion on the east-west used temporarily for project purposes, located in the Pacific Ocean in Lincoln transmission grid in region. While or who own homes within distances County, Oregon. recognizing that wave energy will be an defined in the Commission’s regulations g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power intermittent energy source, and mindful of certain aboveground facilities. Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). of integration needs, waves are far less intermittent than wind energy and are Additional Information h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. Wayne Belmont, Lincoln County, Oregon, 225 predictable many hours ahead of their Additional information about the W, Olive Street, Room 110, Newport, occurrence. project is available from the OR 97365, phone: (541)–265–4108. Lincoln County will examine all the Commission’s Office of External Affairs, i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) available wave power technologies for at 1–866–208-FERC or on the FERC 502–6062. each location within the project Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) j. Deadline for filing comments, boundary. Lincoln County will work using the eLibrary link. Click on the protests, and motions to intervene: 60 closely with Oregon State University as eLibrary link, click on ‘‘General Search’’ days from the issuance date of this a leader in wave power development. and enter the docket number excluding notice. All the alternative Wave Energy the last three digits in the Docket The Commission’s Rules of Practice Conversion (WEC) devices capable of Number field. Be sure you have selected and Procedure require all intervenors generating commercially viable energy an appropriate date range. For filing documents with the Commission will be explored. assistance, please contact FERC Online to serve a copy of that document on Lincoln County will seek investment Support at [email protected] each person in the official service list of available economic development or toll free at 1–866–208–3676, or for for the project. Further, if an intervenor dollars to locate businesses to both TTY, contact (202)502–8659. The files comments or documents with the support wave parks off our county eLibrary link also provides access to the Commission relating to the merits of an shores and to create and test new texts of formal documents issued by the issue that may affect the responsibilities technologies. The Port of Newport has Commission, such as orders, notices, of a particular resource agency, they two deep-draft terminals for support and rulemakings. must also serve a copy of the document vessels servicing the wave power parks. In addition, the Commission now on that resource agency. Adequate industrial lands adjacent to offers a free service called eSubscription k. Description of project: Oregon’s those terminals, with full infrastructure which allows you to keep track of all offshore conditions present the most improvements including water, sewer, formal issuances and submittals in optimal wave environment for and highways, are available to develop specific dockets. This can reduce the extracting potential useful energy local wave park technology, amount of time you spend researching according to the Electrical Power manufacturing, maintenance and repair proceedings by automatically providing Research Institute (EPRI). The wave businesses. Oregon State University, you with notification of these filings, energy project would be bounded on the which has launched an initiative to document summaries and direct links to north and south by a 3-mile-long line, create the U.S. Ocean Wave Energy the documents. Go to http:// on the east by the shoreline defined by Research, Development and www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. the border of Lincoln County, and on Demonstration Center, maintains the Finally, public meetings or site visits the west by a parallel line 3 miles Hatfield Marine Science Center on will be posted on the Commission’s offshore. Within this area Lincoln Yaquina Bay in Newport, which could calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/ County together with the Central become a primary center for creating

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61047

and field testing new wave power filed, either a preliminary permit obtained by agencies directly from the technologies. application or a development Applicant. If an agency does not file The project is estimated to have an application (specify which type of comments within the time specified for annual generation of 87.5 to 790 application). A notice of intent must be filing comments, it will be presumed to gigawatt-hours. served on the applicant(s) named in this have no comments. One copy of an l. Locations of Applications: A copy of public notice. agency’s comments must also be sent to the application is available for q. Proposed Scope of Studies under the Applicant’s representatives. inspection and reproduction at the Permit: A preliminary permit, if issued, Commission in the Public Reference does not authorize construction. The Magalie R. Salas, Room, located at 888 First Street NE., term of the proposed preliminary permit Secretary. Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by would be 36 months. The work [FR Doc. E6–17205 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] calling (202) 502–8371. This filing may proposed under the preliminary permit BILLING CODE 6717–01–P also be viewed on the Commission’s would include economic analysis, Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using preparation of preliminary engineering the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket plans, and a study of environmental DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY number excluding the last three digits in impacts. Based on the results of these the docket number field to access the studies, the Applicant would decide Federal Energy Regulatory document. For assistance, call toll-free whether to proceed with the preparation Commission 1–866–208–3676 or e-mail of a development application to Notice of Application for Non-Project [email protected]. For TTY, construct and operate the project. Use of Project Lands and Waters and call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Soliciting Comments, Motions To available for inspection and Intervene: Anyone may submit Intervene, and Protests reproduction at the address in item h comments, a protest, or a motion to above. intervene in accordance with the October 10, 2006. m. Individuals desiring to be included requirements of Rules of Practice and Take notice that the following on the Commission’s mailing list should Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. application has been filed with the so indicate by writing to the Secretary In determining the appropriate action to Commission and is available for public of the Commission. take, the Commission will consider all inspection: n. Competing Preliminary Permit: protests or other comments filed, but a. Application Type: Non-Project Use Anyone desiring to file a competing only those who file a motion to of Project Lands and Waters. application for preliminary permit for a intervene in accordance with the b. Project No: 2183–039. proposed project must submit the Commission’s Rules may become a c. Date filed: September 5, 2006. competing application itself, or a notice party to the proceeding. Any comments, d. Applicant: Grand River Dam of intent to file such an application, to protests, or motions to intervene must Authority. the Commission on or before the be received on or before the specified e. Name of Project: Markham Ferry specified comment date for the comment date for the particular Hydroelectric Project. particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). application. f. Location: The project is located on Submission of a timely notice of intent Comments, protests and interventions the River Grand (Neosho) in Mayes allows an interested person to file the may be filed electronically via the County, Oklahoma. The project does not competing preliminary permit Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR occupy any Federal lands. application no later than 30 days after 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power the specified comment date for the on the Commission’s web site under ‘‘e- Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r) and particular application. A competing filing’’ link. The Commission strongly sections 799 and 801. preliminary permit application must encourages electronic filing. h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert W. conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36. s. Filing and Service of Responsive Sullivan, Assistant General Manager, o. Competing Development Documents: Any filings must bear in all Risk Management & Regulatory Application: Any qualified development capital letters the title ‘‘COMMENTS’’, Compliance, GRDA, P.O. Box 409, applicant desiring to file a competing ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS Vinita, Oklahoma 74301 (918)–256– development application must submit to AND CONDITIONS’’, 5545. the Commission, on or before a ‘‘PROTEST’’,’’COMPETING i. FERC Contact: Jon Cofrancesco at specified comment date for the APPLICATION’’ OR ‘‘MOTION TO 202–502–8951, or e-mail particular application, either a INTERVENE’’, as applicable, and the [email protected]. competing development application or a Project Number of the particular j. Deadline for filing comments and/ notice of intent to file such an application to which the filing refers. or motions: November 13, 2006. application. Submission of a timely Any of the above-named documents All documents (original and eight notice of intent to file a development must be filed by providing the original copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. application allows an interested person and the number of copies provided by Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy to file the competing application no the Commission’s regulations to: The Regulatory Commission, 888 First later than 120 days after the specified Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. comment date for the particular Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Please include the project number (P– application. A competing license Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any 2183–039) on any comments or motions application must conform with 18 CFR motion to intervene must also be served filed. Comments, protests, and 4.30(b) and 4.36. upon each representative of the interventions may be filed electronically p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent Applicant specified in the particular via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 must specify the exact name, business application. CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the address, and telephone number of the t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, instructions on the Commission’s Web prospective applicant, and must include and local agencies are invited to file site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The an unequivocal statement of intent to comments on the described application. Commission strongly encourages e- submit, if such an application may be A copy of the application may be filings.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61048 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

k. Description of Application: Grand p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and 0.6 MW and replace it with a new River Dam Authority requests and local agencies are invited to file powerhouse containing a 50 MW Commission authorization to grant 2- comments on the described application. generating unit. The project’s authorized year automatic, renewal leases to several A copy of the application may be installed capacity would increase from entities for the continued use of project obtained by agencies directly from the 11,875 kilowatts (KW) to 60,875 kW, land along Lake Hudson within the Applicant. If an agency does not file and the hydraulic capacity would Markham Ferry Project. The subject comments within the time specified for increase from 815 cubic feet per second entities and the associated uses are as filing comments, it will be presumed to (cfs) to 4,815 cfs. The IPC also requests follows: (1) Alfred & Zita Jensen d/b/a have no comments. One copy of an an extension of the license term for the Jensen’s RV Park—recreational vehicle agency’s comments must also be sent to project from 30 to 50 years. park and public camping area; (2) the Applicant’s representatives. l. Locations of Applications: A copy of Charles & Rita Pate d/b/a Lakeside q. Comments, protests and the application is available for Terrace Mobile Home Park— interventions may be filed electronically inspection and reproduction at the recreational vehicle park and public via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 Commission in the Public Reference camping area; (3) Robert & Cindy CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Snodgrass & Jacky & Sherry Wilkins instructions on the Commission’s Web Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by d/b/a Spring Cove West Resort—mobile site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘e- calling (202) 502–8371. This filing may home park; and (4) Jim & Kenny Packard Filing’’ link. also be viewed on the Commission’s (one-year automatic, renewal lease)— Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using Magalie R. Salas, haying purposes. the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket Secretary. l. Location of Application: The filing number excluding the last three digits in is available for review at the [FR Doc. E6–17207 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the docket number field to access the Commission in the Public Reference BILLING CODE 6717–01–P document. You may also register online Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or esubscription.asp to be notified via e- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY may be viewed on the Commission’s mail of new filings and issuances Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using related to this or other pending projects. Federal Energy Regulatory For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– the ‘‘e-Library’’ link. Enter the docket Commission number excluding the last three digits in 3676 or e-mail [email protected]. For TTY, the docket number field to access the Notice of Application for Amendment call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also document. For assistance, please contact of License and Soliciting Comments, available for inspection and FERC Online support at Motions To Intervene, and Protests [email protected] or toll reproduction at the address in item (h) free (866) 208–3676 or TTY, contact October 11, 2006. above. m. Individuals desiring to be included (202) 502–8659. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed on the Commission’s mailing list should m. Individuals desiring to be included so indicate by writing to the Secretary on the Commission’s mailing list should with the Commission and is available for public inspection: of the Commission. so indicate by writing to the Secretary n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to of the Commission. a. Application Type: Amendment of license to upgrade the installed Intervene—Anyone may submit n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to comments, a protest, or a motion to Intervene—Anyone may submit capacity. b. Project No.: 2778–035. intervene in accordance with the comments, a protest, or a motion to c. Date Filed: August 17, 2006. requirements of Rules of Practice and intervene in accordance with the d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company. Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. requirements of Rules of Practice and e. Name of Project: Shoshone Falls. In determining the appropriate action to Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. f. Location: The project is located on take, the Commission will consider all In determining the appropriate action to the Snake River in Jerome and Twin protests or other comments filed, but take, the Commission will consider all Falls Counties, Idaho. Part of the project only those who file a motion to protests or other comments filed, but occupies lands owned by the Bureau of intervene in accordance with the only those who file a motion to Land Management. Commission’s Rules may become a intervene in accordance with the g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power party to the proceeding. Any comments, Commission’s Rules may become a Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r. protests, or motions to intervene must party to the proceeding. Any comments, h. Applicant Contact: Tom R. Saldin, be received on or before the specified protests, or motions to intervene must Senior Vice President, Idaho Power Co., comment date for the particular be received on or before the specified P.O. Box 70, Boise, Idaho 83707. Tel: application. comment date for the particular (208) 388–2550. Also, Mr. Nathan F. o. Filing and Service of Responsive application. Gardiner, Idaho Power Co., P.O. Box 70, Documents—Any filings must bear in o. Filing and Service of Responsive Boise, Idaho 83707. Tel: (208) 388–2975. all capital letters the title Documents—Any filings must bear in i. FERC Contact: Any questions on ‘‘COMMENTS’’, all capital letters the title ‘‘Comments’’, this notice should be addressed to ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS ‘‘Recommendations for Terms and Vedula Sarma at (202) 502–6190 or AND CONDITIONS’’, ‘‘PROTEST’’, or Conditions’’, ‘‘Protest’’, or ‘‘Motion to [email protected]. ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, as Intervene’’, as applicable, and the j. Deadline for filing comments and/ applicable, and the Project Number of Project Number of the particular or motions: November 13, 2006. the particular application to which the application to which the filing refers. A k. Description of Filing: The Idaho filing refers. All documents (original copy of any motion to intervene must Power Company (IPC) proposes to and eight copies) should be filed with: also be served upon each representative demolish a section of the Shoshone Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal of the Applicant specified in the Falls powerhouse built in 1907 and Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 particular application. containing two generating units 0.4 MW First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61049

A copy of any motion to intervene must Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal o. Filing and Service of Responsive also be served upon each representative Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Documents—Any filings must bear in of the Applicant specified in the First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. all capital letters the title ‘‘Comments’’, particular application. Please include the project number (P– ‘‘Recommendations for Terms and p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, 349–116) on any comments or motions Conditions’’, ‘‘Protest’’, or ‘‘Motion to and local agencies are invited to file filed. Comments, protests, and Intervene’’, as applicable, and the comments on the described application. interventions may be filed electronically Project Number of the particular A copy of the application may be via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 application to which the filing refers. A obtained by agencies directly from the CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the copy of any motion to intervene must Applicant. If an agency does not file instructions on the Commission’s Web also be served upon each representative comments within the time specified for site under the ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The of the Applicant specified in the filing comments, it will be presumed to Commission strongly encourages e- particular application. have no comments. One copy of an filings. p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, agency’s comments must also be sent to k. Description of request: Alabama and local agencies are invited to file the Applicant’s representatives. Power Company, licensee for the Martin comments on the described q. Comments, protests and Dam Hydroelectric Project, has applications. A copy of the applications interventions may be filed electronically requested Commission approval to may be obtained by agencies directly via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 permit James A. Vann III to install five from the Applicant. If an agency does CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the wooden piers. The north pier would be not file comments within the time instructions on the Commission’s Web constructed to contain five boat slips specified for filing comments, it will be site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ‘‘e- and the south pier would have four boat presumed to have no comments. One Filing’’ link. slips, for a total of nine. The remaining copy of an agency’s comments must also piers would not contain slips. The piers Magalie R. Salas, be sent to the Applicant’s would vary in length from 64 to 100 feet representatives. Secretary. and a floating platform would be [FR Doc. E6–17208 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] constructed at the end of each. The boat Magalie R. Salas, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P slips would be 20 feet long and four feet Secretary. wide. These facilities are intended for [FR Doc. E6–17209 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] use by the residents of a subdivision BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY tentatively being developed by the applicant on adjoining non-project Federal Energy Regulatory lands. These facilities would be located DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Commission on the north side of Blue Creek, approximately eleven stream miles Federal Energy Regulatory Notice of Application for Non-Project above Martin Dam. Commission Use of Project Lands and Waters and l. Location of the Application: This Soliciting Comments, Motions To filing is available for review at the [Project No. 2100–134 California] Intervene, and Protests Commission or may be viewed on the October 11, 2006. Commission’s Web site at http:// California Department of Water Take notice that the following www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Resources; Notice of Intent To Hold a application has been filed with the Enter the docket number excluding the Public Meeting To Discuss the Draft Commission and is available for public last three digits in the docket number Environmental Impact Statement for inspection: field to access the document. For the Oroville Facilities assistance, contact FERC Online a. Application Type: Non-Project Use October 11, 2006. of Project Lands and Waters. Support at On September 29, 2006, the b. Project No.: 349–116. [email protected] or toll- c. Date Filed: September 11, 2006. free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, Commission staff delivered the Oroville d. Applicant: Alabama Power contact (202) 502–8659. Facilities Draft Environmental Impact Company. m. Individuals desiring to be included Statement (draft EIS) to the e. Name of Project: Martin Dam on the Commission’s mailing list should Environmental Protection Agency and Hydroelectric Project. so indicate by writing to the Secretary mailed it to resource and land f. Location: The project is located on of the Commission. management agencies, interested Lake Martin in Tallapoosa County, n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to organizations, and individuals. Alabama. Intervene—Anyone may submit The draft EIS was noticed in the g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power comments, a protest, or a motion to Federal Register on October 6, 2006 (71 Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r) and intervene in accordance with the FR 59106) and comments are due sections 799 and 801. requirements of Rules of Practice and November 20, 2006. The draft EIS h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Keith E. Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. evaluates the environmental Bryant, Senior Engineer; 600 18th Street In determining the appropriate action to consequences and developmental North, Birmingham, AL 35203, (205) take, the Commission will consider all benefits of issuing a new license for 257–1403. protests or other comments filed, but operating and maintaining the Oroville i. FERC Contact: Any questions on only those who file a motion to Facilities, located in Butte County, this notice should be addressed to Isis intervene in accordance with the California. The project would occupy Johnson at (202) 502–6346, or by e-mail: Commission’s Rules may become a 2,000 acres of federal lands, including [email protected]. party to the proceeding. Any comments, lands managed by the U.S. Department j. Deadline for filing comments and or protests, or motions to intervene must of Agriculture, Forest Service and the motions: November 13, 2006. be received on or before the specified U.S. Bureau of Land Management. All documents (original and eight comment date for the particular Besides evaluating the project as it now copies) should be filed with: Ms. application. operates, the draft EIS evaluates the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61050 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

project with the Settlement Agreement [email protected], or by telephone at DATE AND TIME: October 19, 2006, 10 a.m. and with staff-recommended measures. (202) 502–6095. PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., The public meeting, which will be Magalie R. Salas, Washington, DC 20426. recorded by an official stenographer, is Secretary. STATUS: Open. scheduled as follows. [FR Doc. E6–17206 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Date: Wednesday, November 8, 2006. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda. Time: 6–9 p.m. (PST). Note: Items listed on the agenda may be Place: State House Theater, 1489 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY deleted without further notice. Myers Street, Oroville, California 95965. Federal Energy Regulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: At the meeting, resource agency Commission Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Telephone personnel and other interested persons (202) 502–8400. For a recorded listing will have the opportunity to provide Sunshine Act Meeting item stricken from or added to the oral and written comments and meeting, call (202) 502–8627. recommendations regarding the DEIS for October 12, 2006. the Commission’s public record. The following notice of meeting is This is a list of matters to be published pursuant to section 3(a) of the considered by the Commission. It does For further information, please government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. not include a listing of all papers contact Jim Fargo at e-mail address L. 94–409), 5 U.S.C 552b:. relevant to the items on the agenda; AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal however, all public documents may be Energy Regulatory Commission. examined in the Public Reference Room.

909TH—MEETING [Regular Meeting, October 19, 2006, 10 a.m.]

Item No. Docket No. Company

Administrative Agenda

A–1 ...... AD02–1–000 ...... Agency Administrative Matters. A–2 ...... AD02–7–000 ...... Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A–3 ...... AD06–3–000 ...... Energy Market Update.

Electric

E–1 ...... RM06–16–000 ...... Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System. E–2 ...... RM06–10–000 ...... New PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations Applicable to Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities. E–3 ...... RR06–3–000 ...... North American Electric Reliability Corporation. E–4 ...... EL07–1–000 ...... California Independent System Operator Corp. EL07–2–000 ...... ISO New England, Inc. EL07–3–000 ...... PJM Interconnection, LLC. EL07–4–000 ...... Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. EL07–5–000 ...... New York Independent System Operator, Inc. EL07–6–000 ...... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–5 ...... ER06–94–001 ...... ISO New England Inc. ER06–94–003 ...... EL06–77–000 ...... EL06–77–002 ...... E–6 ...... PL06–4–001 ...... Informal Staff Advice on Regulatory Requirements. E–7 ...... EC06–125–000 ...... National Grid plc. EL06–85–000 ...... KeySpan Corporation. E–8 ...... EC06–127–000 ...... Northwestern Corporation. NorthWestern Energy Marketing, LLC. The Clark Fork and Blackfoot, LLC. Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited. BBI U.S. Holdings Pty Ltd. BBI U.S. Holdings II Corp. BBI Glacier Corp. E–9 ...... ER06–1384–000 ...... Entergy-Koch Trading, LP. ER01–2781–004 ...... E–10 ...... ER06–1464–000 ...... ISO New England Inc. New England Power Pool Participants Committee. E–11 ...... ER06–1443–000 ...... Pennsylvania Power Company. ER06–1443–001 ...... FirstEnergy Service Company. Metropolitan Edison Company. Pennsylvania Electric Company. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. Ohio Edison Company. The Toledo Electric Company.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61051

909TH—MEETING—Continued [Regular Meeting, October 19, 2006, 10 a.m.]

Item No. Docket No. Company

E–12 ...... EC06–126–000 ...... Boston Edison Company. Cambridge Electric Light Company. Commonwealth Electric Company. Canal Electric Company. E–13 ...... EC06–144–000 ...... Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc. EBG Holdings, LLC. Boston Generating, LLC. Mystic I, LLC. Mystic Development, LLC. Fore River Development, LLC. E–14 ...... EC06–147–000 ...... Entegra Power Group LLC. Gila River Power, L.P. Union Power Partners, L.P. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. E–15 ...... EC06–154–000 ...... Northeast Generation Company. Holyoke Water Power Company. NU Enterprises, Inc. Select Energy, Inc. NE Energy, Inc. Mt. Tom Generating Company LLC. ECP Energy, LLC. E–16 ...... ER06–1094–010 ...... Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (Long Sault Division). E–17 ...... ER03–647–008 ...... New York Independent System Operator, Inc. E–18 ...... ER06–729–001 ...... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E–19 ...... OMITTED. E–20 ...... EL06–75–000 ...... Alcoa Inc. E–21 ...... EL06–89–000 ...... Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. v. California Independent System Operator Corporation. E–22 ...... TS06–11–000 ...... Wabash Valley Power Association. E–23 ...... TS06–13–000 ...... American Transmission Company LLC. E–24 ...... EL05–15–001 ...... Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc. E–25 ...... ER04–928–002 ...... Public Utilities with Existing Contracts in the California Independent System Operator Corporation Region. ER02–1656–028 ...... California Independent System Operator Corporation. E–26 ...... ER06–451–005 ...... Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ER06–1047–001 ...... ER06–451–006 ...... ER05–1047–002 ...... E–27 ...... RM04–12–002 ...... Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities including RTOs. E–28 ...... ER02–2189–002 ...... Southern California Edison Company. ER02–2189–003 ......

Miscellaneous

M–1 ...... RM06–11–000 ...... Financial Accounting, Reporting and Records Retention Requirements Under the Pub- lic Utility Holding Company Act of 2005. M–2 ...... RM06–25–000 ...... Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 60. M–3 ...... RM96–1–027 ...... Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. RM05–5–001 ...... Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.

Gas

G–1 ...... RP04–274–000 ...... Kern River Gas Transmission Company. G–2 ...... OMITTED.

Hydro

H–1 ...... OMITTED. H–2 ...... P–382–034 ...... Southern California Edison Company. H–3 ...... P–20–072 ...... PacifiCorp. H–4 ...... P–2030–048 ...... Portland General Electric Company and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. H–5 ...... P–12462–009 ...... Indian River Power Supply, LLC. H–6 ...... P–5018–011 ...... Wellesley Rosewood Maynard Mills, L.P.

Certificates

C–1 ...... RM06–7–000 ...... Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and Clarification Regarding Rates.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61052 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

909TH—MEETING—Continued [Regular Meeting, October 19, 2006, 10 a.m.]

Item No. Docket No. Company

C–2 ...... RM06–1–000 ...... Regulations Implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Coordinating the Processing of Federal Authorizations for Applications under Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Maintaining a Complete Consolidated Record.

Magalie R. Salas, limited amounts of petcoke may be sold E-mail: [email protected]. Secretary. to buyers in Asian markets. The Fax: 202–408–2580. Immediately following the conclusion polypropylene will be consumed in Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Housing of the Commission Meeting, a press Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., briefing will be held in the Commission Interested parties may submit comments Washington, DC 20006, ATTENTION: Meeting Room. Members of the public on this transaction by e-mail to Public Comments. may view this briefing in the designated [email protected] or by mail Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// overflow room. This statement is to 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room www.regulations.gov. Follow the intended to notify the public that the 1238, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 instructions for submitting comments. If press briefings that follow Commission days of the date this notice appears in you submit your comment to the meetings may now be viewed remotely the Federal Register. Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by e-mail to the Finance Board at Commission headquarters, but will Helene S. Walsh, not be telecast through the Capitol at [email protected] to ensure timely Director, Policy Oversight and Review. Connection service. receipt by the agency. Include the A free webcast of this event is [FR Doc. E6–17156 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] following information in the subject line available through http://www.ferc.gov. BILLING CODE 6690–01–P of your submission: Federal Housing Anyone with Internet access who Finance Board. Notice: Privacy Act of desires to view this event can do so by 1974; System of Records. Docket navigating to http://www.ferc.gov’s FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD Number 2006–N–08. Calendar of Events and locating this We will post all public comments we [No. 2006–N–08] event in the Calendar. The event will receive without change, including any contain a link to its webcast. The personal information you provide, such Privacy Act of 1974; System of as your name and address, on the Capitol Connection provides technical Records support for the free webcasts. It also Finance Board Web site at http:// offers access to this event via television AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance www.fhfb.gov/ in the DC area and via phone bridge for Board. Default.aspx?Page=93&Top=93. a fee. If you have any questions, visit ACTION: Notice with request for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.CapitolConnection.org or comments. Janice A. Kaye, Privacy Act Official and contact Danelle Perkowski or David Senior Attorney-Advisor, Office of Reininger at 703–993–3100. SUMMARY: As part of a comprehensive General Counsel, [email protected] or 202– review of agency practices related to the 408–2505, or David A. Lee, Chief [FR Doc. E6–17322 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] collection, use, and protection of Privacy Officer and Deputy Director, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P personally identifiable information, the Office of Management, [email protected] or Federal Housing Finance Board 202–408–2514. You can send regular (Finance Board) is updating both its mail to the Federal Housing Finance EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE system of records and implementing Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., UNITED STATES rule under the Privacy Act of 1974 Washington, DC 20006. (Privacy Act). This notice concerns Economic Impact Policy SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In light of updates to the Finance Board’s Privacy the recent theft of sensitive personal This notice is to inform the public Act system of records. Elsewhere in this information from the various federal that the Export-Import Bank of the issue of the Federal Register, the agencies and in response to the Office United States has received an Finance Board is publishing an interim of Management and Budget’s application to finance the export of final rule with request for comments memorandum (M–06–15 (May 22, approximately $430 million in U.S. that revises the agency’s Privacy Act 2006)) directing agencies to review equipment and services to a petroleum regulation to include new sections privacy policies and processes, the refinery and petrochemicals facility in concerning security of systems of Finance Board has undertaken a India. The U.S. exports will enable the records, use and collection of social comprehensive review of agency facility to produce approximately 3 security numbers, and employee practices related to the collection, use, million metric tons of petroleum coke responsibilities under the Privacy Act. and protection of personally identifiable (petcoke), 600 thousand metric tons of DATES: This amendment will become information. As a result of that review, sulfur and 900 thousand metric tons of effective as proposed without further the Finance Board has enhanced the polypropylene. Initial production at this notice on November 16, 2006 unless safeguards for sensitive information by facility is expected to commence in comments dictate otherwise. The adding two-factor authentication and 2008. Finance Board will accept comments in data encryption to the agency’s network Available information indicates that writing on or before November 16, 2006. infrastructure and is beginning to the petcoke and sulfur will be Comments: Submit comments to the implement government-wide personal consumed primarily in India; however Finance Board only once, using any one identity verification management during the initial years of production, of the following methods: standards that will result in issuance of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61053

new ID cards for all employees and citizenship status, results of background FHFB–2 contractors that may include full name, investigation, and information necessary SYSTEM NAME: date of birth, image (photograph), to the request for a card, registration, General Travel and Transportation fingerprints, organization affiliation verification, and issuance procedures, Files. (e.g., employee or contractor), the index/database of active and invalid organization/office of assignment, grade, cards, and the information stored on the * * * * * e-mail address, United States cards. The Finance Board may retain SYSTEM LOCATION: citizenship status, and results of these records as part of the HSPD–12 Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 background investigation. The Finance credentialing process. Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Board also is updating both its Privacy For the reasons stated above, the * * * * * Act system of records and Privacy Act Finance Board hereby amends its implementing rule. system of records originally published POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR STORING, Pursuant to the requirements of the in the Federal Register in 1995, see 60 RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Privacy Act, the Finance Board is FR 46120 (September 5, 1995), as publishing a notice of the amendments amended in 1997, see 62 FR 66865 * * * * * to its system of records. See 5 U.S.C. (December 22, 1997), 1998, see 62 FR 552a(e)(4) and (11). In July 2005, the RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 66865 (December 22, 1997), and 2003, Records are retained for 6 years and Finance Board offices relocated and we see 68 FR 39947 (July 3, 2003), as are updating the office address in the 3 months after final payment and then follows: system of records. We also are updating, destroyed. as appropriate, certain document 1. Amend the system of records entitled FHFB–1 Employee Attendance SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: retention periods. Office of Management, Federal With respect to records related to Records as follows: Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye appointed Federal Home Loan Bank FHFB–1 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. directors (system number FHFB–4), responsibility has shifted from the SYSTEM NAME: NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Office of the Chairman to the Office of Employee Attendance Records. Direct inquiries as to whether this Supervision. system contains a record pertaining to With respect to records of the Office * * * * * an individual to the Privacy Act of Inspector General (OIG), we are SYSTEM LOCATION: Official, Federal Housing Finance adding audit files to the system of Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., records that already covers investigative Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Washington, DC 20006, in accordance files (system number FHFB–6). At the Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR request of the OIG, we also are updating * * * * * part 913. the OIG system of records to add several routine uses. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: The Finance Board is adding two new Office of Management, Federal Direct requests for access to a record systems of records. The first is titled Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye to the Privacy Act Official, Federal ‘‘FHFB–7 Federal Home Loan Bank Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Examination Work Papers.’’ It covers Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in documents a Finance Board examiner NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: accordance with the procedures set uses to determine whether a Federal Direct inquiries as to whether this forth in 12 CFR part 913. Home Loan Bank’s Affordable Housing system contains a record pertaining to Program (AHP) complies with CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: an individual to the Privacy Act Direct requests to amend a record to applicable laws and regulations. These Official, Federal Housing Finance records may include the names, address, the Privacy Act Official, Federal Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye and income information of members of Washington, DC 20006, in accordance households who participate in a Bank’s Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR accordance with the procedures set AHP. These records may be retained as part 913. part of the examiner’s work papers to forth in 12 CFR part 913. document exam conclusions and RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: * * * * * findings. 3. Amend the system of records The second new system of records is Direct requests for access to a record entitled FHFB–3 Administrative titled ‘‘FHFB–8 Personal Identity to the Privacy Act Official, Federal Grievance Files as follows: Verification (PIV) Management System.’’ Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye FHFB–3 In August 2004, the President issued Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in Homeland Security Presidential accordance with the procedures set SYSTEM NAME: Directive 12 (HSPD–12), which requires forth in 12 CFR part 913. Administrative Grievance Files. development and use of a common CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: * * * * * identification standard for federal employees and contractors. The Finance Direct requests to amend a record to SYSTEM LOCATION: Board intends to begin implementing the Privacy Act Official, Federal Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 the HSPD–12 PIV requirements this Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. month. In compliance with HSPD–12, Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in * * * * * the Finance Board PIV cards may accordance with the procedures set POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR STORING, include full name, date of birth, image forth in 12 CFR part 913. RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND * * * * * (photograph), fingerprints, organization DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: affiliation (e.g., employee or contractor), 2. Amend the system of records * * * * * organization/office of assignment, grade, entitled FHFB–2 General Travel and e-mail address, United States Transportation Files as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61054 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Records are destroyed 2 years after Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in FHFB–6 closure of a case. accordance with the procedures set SYSTEM NAME: forth in 12 CFR part 913. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Office of Inspector General Audit and Office of Management, Federal CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Investigative Records. Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Direct requests to amend a record to SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. the Privacy Act Official, Federal None. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in SYSTEM LOCATION: Direct inquiries as to whether this accordance with the procedures set Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 system contains a record pertaining to forth in 12 CFR part 913. Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. an individual to the Privacy Act Official, Federal Housing Finance * * * * * CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., 5. Amend the system of records SYSTEM: Washington, DC 20006, in accordance entitled FHFB–5 Agency Personnel 1. Current and former Finance Board with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR Investigative Records as follows: employees, others involved in or part 913. FHFB–5 associated with Finance Board programs or operations including contractors and RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: SYSTEM NAME: subcontractors, and any other persons Direct requests for access to a record Personnel Investigative Records. who are or have been audited or under to the Privacy Act Official, Federal investigation by the Finance Board’s * * * * * Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Office of Inspector General (OIG) in Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in SYSTEM LOCATION: order to determine whether the agency accordance with the procedures set or these individuals have been or are forth in 12 CFR part 913. Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. engaging in waste, fraud, or abuse with CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: respect to Finance Board programs or operations or other activities that violate Direct requests to amend a record to CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: federal criminal laws, regulations, or the Privacy Act Official, Federal Current and former Finance Board procedures. Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye 2. Complainants and witnesses. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in employees and current and former accordance with the procedures set contractor personnel. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: forth in 12 CFR part 913. * * * * * Files on audits and investigations * * * * * including audit and investigative SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 4. Amend the system of records reports and related documents entitled FHFB–4 Federal Home Loan Office of Management, Federal generated or obtained prior to, during Bank Appointive Director Eligibility Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye the course of, or subsequent to an audit Certification Forms as follows: Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. or investigation. It includes electronic and hard copy case tracking systems, NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: FHFB–4 databases containing investigatory Direct inquiries as to whether this SYSTEM NAME: information, ‘‘Hotline’’ telephone logs, system contains a record pertaining to auditor or investigator work papers and Federal Home Loan Bank Appointive an individual to the Privacy Act Director Certification Forms. memoranda, and letter referrals to or Official, Federal Housing Finance from management or others. * * * * * Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in accordance AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: SYSTEM LOCATION: with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR 5 U.S.C. App. 4(a)(1) and 6(a)(2). Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 part 913. Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. PURPOSE(S): * * * * * RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: The OIG and other audit and Direct requests for access to a record investigative agencies collect, maintain, SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: to the Privacy Act Official, Federal and use these records to conduct Office of Supervision, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye inquiries and investigations and prepare Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in audits, reports, or other documents Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. accordance with the procedures set relating to potential violations of law in the administration of Finance Board NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: forth in 12 CFR part 913. programs and operations and to manage Direct inquiries as to whether this CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: the OIG investigatory program. system contains a record pertaining to Direct requests to amend a record to an individual to the Privacy Act ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE the Privacy Act Official, Federal Official, Federal Housing Finance SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in Washington, DC 20006, in accordance Under normal circumstances, the OIG accordance with the procedures set with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR will not provide individually forth in 12 CFR part 913. part 913. identifiable records. However, under * * * * * those unusual circumstances when the RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 6. Amend the system of records OIG must release information contained Direct requests for access to a record entitled FHFB–6 Office of Inspector in an individually identifiable record, to the Privacy Act Official, Federal General Investigative Records to read as the OIG will maintain proper safeguards Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye follows: to protect the information from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61055

unwarranted invasion of personal hiring or retention of an individual, the DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING privacy. Subject to this general issuance of a security clearance, the AGENCIES: limitation, these records, or information reporting of an investigation of an None. therefrom, may be disclosed as a routine individual, the letting of a contract or use to: POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR STORING, issuance of a grant, license, or other RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND 1. The appropriate Federal, State, benefit by the requesting agency, or the DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: local, or international agency or rendering of advice requested by the authority responsible for auditing, OIG. STORAGE: investigating, or prosecuting a violation Records are maintained in file folders, 9. Other federal Offices of Inspector or potential violation of a criminal or computer disks, electronic media, and General, the Government Accountability civil law, rule, or regulation or for reports on each investigation. enforcing or implementing a statute, Office, or a private party with which the rule, regulation, or order, if information OIG or the Finance Board has RETRIEVABILITY: in the system of records indicates such contracted, for the purpose of auditing, Records generally are indexed by a violation. reviewing, or conducting quality name of person under audit or 2. A court, magistrate, administrative assessments or peer reviews of the OIG, investigation, audit or investigation tribunal, or alternative dispute provided the record will not be number, referral number, or audit or resolution mediator in the course of transferred in a form that is individually investigative subject matter. presenting evidence, including identifiable, and provided further that SAFEGUARDS: disclosures to counsel or witnesses in the entity acknowledges in writing that the course of civil discovery, litigation, it is required to maintain Privacy Act File folders are maintained in safes or or settlement negotiations or in safeguards for the information. lockable metal file cabinets stored in connection with criminal proceedings 10. A consultant, person, or entity offices that are locked when not in use. when the information is relevant and that contracts or subcontracts with the Computer disks and electronic media necessary and the Finance Board is a Finance Board or the OIG, to the extent are locked in the lockable metal file cabinets with their related file folders, party to the proceeding or has a necessary for the performance of the and information not so lockable is kept significant interest in the proceeding. contract or subcontract, provided that in individual offices in locked or 3. The legal representative of the the person or entity acknowledges in password protected computer hardware. Finance Board or another federal writing that it is required to maintain Only specifically authorized personnel agency, including the U.S. Department Privacy Act safeguards for the have access to the information in the of Justice, or other retained counsel, information. when the Finance Board or any of its cabinets and individual offices. 11. A governmental, public, employees are a party to or have a RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: significant interest in litigation or an professional, or self-regulatory licensing administrative proceeding. organization when the record indicates, Records in file folders are retained as 4. A grand jury agent pursuant to a either by itself or in combination with long as needed and then destroyed by grand jury subpoena or to a prosecutor other information, a violation or shredding. Computer disks are cleared, for the purpose of introducing the potential violation of professional retired, or destroyed when no longer record to a grand jury. standards, or reflects on the useful. Entries on electronic media are 5. A congressional office in response qualifications of an individual who is deleted or erased when no longer to an inquiry made at the request of the licensed or who is seeking to become needed. licensed. subject individual. SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 6. The subjects of an audit or 12. A federal agency responsible for Office of Inspector General, Federal investigation and their representatives considering a suspension or debarment or third party sources during the course Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye action to the extent the record is Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. of an investigation, in order to obtain necessary and relevant to the action. information or assistance relevant or 13. The U.S. Department of the NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: pertinent to the audit or investigation or Treasury, federal debt collection Direct inquiries as to whether this relating to an audit, trial, hearing, or any centers, other appropriate federal system contains a record pertaining to other authorized activity of the OIG. agencies, and private collection an individual to the Privacy Act 7. Any source, including a federal, Official, Federal Housing Finance state, or local agency maintaining civil, contractors or other third parties authorized by law, for the purpose of Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., criminal, or other relevant enforcement Washington, DC 20006, in accordance information or other pertinent collecting or assisting in the collection of delinquent debts owed to the Finance with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR information, such as current licenses, part 913. but only to the extent necessary for the Board. Disclosure will be limited to the individual’s name, Social Security OIG to obtain information relevant to an RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: OIG audit or investigation or for the number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the Direct requests for access to a record Finance Board to obtain information to the Privacy Act Official, Federal concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, and the existence, validity, amount, status, and history of the debt. Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye individual, the issuance of a security Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in clearance, the letting of a contract, or In addition to the foregoing routine accordance with the procedures set issuance of a grant, license, or other uses, a record that is contained in this forth in 12 CFR part 913. benefit. system and derived from another 8. Another federal agency if the Finance Board system of records may be CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: records are relevant and necessary to disclosed as a routine use as specified Direct requests to amend a record to carry out that agency’s authorized in the Federal Register notice of the the Privacy Act Official, Federal functions and to the decision on a system of records from which the Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye matter, including, but not limited to, the records derived. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61056 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

accordance with the procedures set CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Only specifically authorized personnel forth in 12 CFR part 913. Records may contain information have access to the information in the relating to the household including cabinets and individual offices. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: names, address, and incomes. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: The OIG collects information from many sources including the subject AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: Records in file folders are retained as individuals, employees of the Finance 12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3), 1430(j), and long as needed and then destroyed by Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank 1440. shredding. Computer disks are cleared, retired, or destroyed when no longer System, other government sources, PURPOSE(S): witnesses and informants, and useful. 1. Records are collected and nongovernmental sources. maintained in order to provide SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: documentation necessary to determine Office of Supervision, Federal whether a Federal Home Loan Bank is Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) or (5), operating safely and soundly and in Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. a record contained in this system is compliance with applicable laws and exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), regulations governing the Bank’s NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) and (f), Affordable Housing Program. Direct inquiries as to whether this to the extent that the records consists of 2. To provide information necessary system contains a record pertaining to investigatory material compiled: to schedule and conduct examinations an individual to the Privacy Act (1) For law enforcement purposes and compliance audits of the Federal Official, Federal Housing Finance (552a(k)(2)); or Home Loan Banks. Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., (2) For the purpose of determining Washington, DC 20006, in accordance suitability, eligibility, or qualifications ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR for federal civilian employment or SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND part 913. THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES: federal contracts, if disclosure of the RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: record would reveal the identity of a RECORDS OR INFORMATION THEREFROM, MAY BE source who furnished information to the DISCLOSED AS A ROUTINE USE TO: Direct requests for access to a record government under an express promise 1. Finance Board staff to determine to the Privacy Act Official, Federal that his or her identity would be held statutory and regulatory program Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye in confidence (552a(k)(5)). compliance by Federal Home Loan Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in Notwithstanding these exemptions, Banks. accordance with the procedures set the Finance Board will provide a record 2. The Federal, State, or local agency forth in 12 CFR part 913. if any right, privilege, or benefit to responsible for investigating, CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing which an individual otherwise would Direct requests to amend a record to a statute, rule, regulation, or order be entitled by Federal law, or for which the Privacy Act Official, Federal where there is an indication of a the individual otherwise would be Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye violation or potential violation of civil eligible, is denied as a result of the Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in maintenance of the record, except to the or criminal law or regulation. 3. A congressional office in response accordance with the procedures set extent that disclosure of the record forth in 12 CFR part 913. would reveal the identity of a source to an inquiry made at the request of that who furnished information to the individual. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: government under an express promise 4. In litigation before a court or in an Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal that his or her identity would be held administrative proceeding being Home Loan Bank members, and in confidence. conducted by a federal agency. information submitted by individuals to 7. Add a new system of records 5. Respond to a request for discovery members for program enrollment and entitled FHFB–7 Federal Home Loan or for appearance of a witness. for qualification for a mortgage loan. Bank Examination Work Papers to read DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: as follows: AGENCIES: None. None. FHFB–7 8. Add a new system of records POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR STORING, entitled FHFB–8 Personal Identity SYSTEM NAME: RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Verification (PIV) Management System Federal Home Loan Bank DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: to read as follows: Examination Work Papers. STORAGE: FHFB–8 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Records may be maintained in file folders and computer disks. SYSTEM NAME: None. Personal Identity Verification (PIV) RETRIEVABILITY: SYSTEM LOCATION: Management System. Records are filed as part of the work Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 papers for an examination or audit of a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Federal Home Loan Bank, by name of None. Bank and date of the audit or CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM LOCATION: examination. SYSTEM: Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Households participating in certain SAFEGUARDS: Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, affordable housing programs File folders are maintained in safes or and Operational Research Consultants, administered by the Federal Home Loan lockable metal file cabinets stored in Inc., 11250 Waples Mill, South Tower Banks. offices that are locked when not in use. Suite 210, Fairfax VA 22030.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61057

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE 3. The appropriate federal, state, local, POLICIES AND PRACTICE FOR STORING, SYSTEM: or international agency or authority RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND Individuals who require regular, responsible for enforcing, investigating, DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: ongoing access to Finance Board or prosecuting a violation or potential STORAGE: facilities, including employees, violation of a criminal or civil law, rule, Records are maintained in file folders applicants for employment or contracts, or regulation, or for enforcing or and electronic media. contractors, students, interns, affiliates, implementing a statute, rule, regulation, and individuals formerly in any of these or order, if, except as noted on Standard RETRIEVABILITY: positions. Forms 85, 85–P, and 86, information in Records are retrievable by name, the system of records indicates such a e-mail address, other ID number, PIV CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: violation. card serial number, image (photograph), Records may include full name, date 4. A congressional office in response or fingerprint. of birth, image (photograph), to an inquiry made at the request of the fingerprints, organization affiliation SAFEGUARDS: subject individual. (e.g., employee or contractor), File folders are maintained in locked organization/office of assignment, grade, 5. A consultant, person, or entity that cabinets in secure facilities and access e-mail address, United States contracts or subcontracts with the to the files is restricted to individuals citizenship status, results of background Finance Board, to the extent necessary whose role requires use of the records. investigation, and information necessary for the performance of the contract or The computer servers in which records to the request for a card, registration, subcontract, provided that the person or are stored are located in facilities that verification, and issuance procedures, entity acknowledges in writing that it is are secured by alarm systems and off- the index/database of active and invalid required to maintain Privacy Act master key access. The computer servers PIV cards, and the information stored on safeguards for the information. themselves are password-protected. the PIV cards. 6. Any source, including a federal, Individuals accessing the system are state, or local agency maintaining civil, authenticated using encrypted AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: criminal, or other relevant enforcement certificates and data stored to the Homeland Security Presidential information or other pertinent database require digital signatures. Directive 12, Policy for a Common information, such as current licenses, Communication between client and Identification Standard for Federal but only to the extent necessary to servers is encrypted by https or VPN Employees and Contractors (August 27, obtain information relevant to the hiring (virtual private network). Access to 2004). or retention of an individual, the individuals working at guard stations is password-protected; each person PURPOSE(S): issuance of a security clearance, the granted access to the system at guard 1. To ensure the safety and security of letting of a contract, or issuance of a grant, license, or other benefit. stations is individually authorized to Finance Board facilities, systems, and use the system. A Privacy Act Warning information, and our occupants and 7. Another federal agency if the Notice appears on the monitor screen users. records are relevant and necessary to when records containing information on 2. To verify that all persons entering carry out that agency’s authorized individuals are first displayed. Data Finance Board facilities are authorized functions and to the decision on a exchanged between the servers and the to do so. matter, including, but not limited to, the client PCs at the guard stations and 3. To track and control PIV cards hiring or retention of an individual, the badging office are encrypted. Backup issued to persons entering and exiting issuance of a security clearance, the tapes are stored in a locked and Finance Board facilities. reporting of an investigation of an controlled room in a secure, off-site individual, the letting of a contract or location. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE issuance of a grant, license, or other SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND An audit trail is maintained and benefit by the requesting agency. THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES: reviewed periodically to identify 8. A federal, state, or local agency, unauthorized access. Persons given RECORDS OR INFORMATION THEREFROM, MAY BE other appropriate entities or roles in the PIV process must complete DISCLOSED AS A ROUTINE USE TO: individuals, or through established training specific to their roles to ensure 1. The legal representative of the liaison channels to selected foreign they are knowledgeable about how to Finance Board or another federal governments, to enable an intelligence protect individually identifiable agency, including the U.S. Department agency to carry out its responsibilities information. of Justice, or other retained counsel, under the National Security Act of 1947 RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: when the Finance Board or any of its as amended, the CIA Act of 1949 as employees are a party to or have a amended, Executive Order 12333 or any Records relating to persons’ access significant interest in litigation or an successor order, applicable national covered by this system are retained in administrative proceeding. security directives, or classified accordance with General Records 2. A court, magistrate, administrative implementing procedures approved by Schedule 18 Security and Protective tribunal, or alternative dispute the Attorney General and promulgated Services Records approved by the resolution mediator in the course of pursuant to such statutes, orders, or National Archives and Records presenting evidence, including directives. Administration. The records are disclosures to counsel or witnesses in disposed in accordance with our the course of civil discovery, litigation, 9. Notify another federal agency disposal policies. Unless retained for or settlement negotiations or in when, or verify whether, a PIV card is specific, ongoing security investigations, connection with criminal proceedings no longer valid. records of access are maintained for 2 when the information is relevant and years and then destroyed. necessary and the Finance Board or any DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING In accordance with HSPD–12, the AGENCIES: of its employees are a party to or have Finance Board deactivates PIV cards a significant interest in the proceeding. None. within 18 hours of cardholder

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61058 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

separation, loss of card, or expiration. The notices are available for Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, The information on PIV cards is immediate inspection at the Federal Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521: maintained in accordance with General Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 1. Conestoga Bancorp, Inc., Chester Records Schedule 11 Space and also will be available for inspection at Springs, Pennsylvania; to merge with Maintenance Records. PIV cards are the office of the Board of Governors. PSB Bancorp, Inc., Philadelphia, destroyed by cross-cut shredding no Interested persons may express their Pennsylvania, and thereby indirectly later than 90 days after deactivation. views in writing to the Reserve Bank acquire voting shares of First Penn indicated for that notice or to the offices SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. of the Board of Governors. Comments Office of Management, Federal must be received not later than In connection with this application, Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye November 1, 2006. Applicant also has applied to acquire Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Ironbridge Holding, Inc., Philadelphia, Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Pennsylvania, and thereby engage in NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: providing management consulting and Direct inquiries as to whether this Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, counseling activities, pursuant to system contains a record pertaining to section 225.28(b)(9)(i)(A)(1) of an individual to the Privacy Act Minnesota 55480-0291: 1. Walter W. Hilgenberg, Prior Lake, Regulation Y. Official, Federal Housing Finance Minnesota, and Eric W. Hilgenberg Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., In addition, Applicant also has Trust, Eric W. Hilgenberg, and Jennifer Washington, DC 20006, in accordance applied to acquire Jade Abstract J. Hilgenberg, individually and as with the procedures set forth in 12 CFR Company, Feasterville,Pennsylvania, trustee, Rosemont, Minnesota, and part 913. and engage in providing real estate Stuart A. Voigt, Apple Valley, settlement services, and Jade Insurance RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Minnesota; to acquire voting shares of Agency, Inc., Feasterville, Pennsylvania, Direct requests for access to a record Commercial Bancshares, Inc., and engage in providing credit to the Privacy Act Official, Federal Bloomington, Minnesota, and thereby insurance, pursuant to sections Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye indirectly acquire voting shares of First 225.28(b)(2)(viii) and 225.28(b)(11)(i) of Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in Commercial Bank, Bloomington, Regulation Y respectively. accordance with the procedures set Minnesota. Comments on this application must B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas forth in 12 CFR part 913. be received by November 3, 2006. City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Direct requests to amend a record to City, Missouri 64198-0001: System, October 11, 2006. the Privacy Act Official, Federal 1. Jeffrey D. and Ruby L. Johnson, Robert deV. Frierson, Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye both of Midwest City, Oklahoma, and Deputy Secretary of the Board. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, in Jack L. and Linda J. Justice, both of [FR Doc. E6–17152 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] accordance with the procedures set Pauls Valley, Oklahoma; to acquire BILLING CODE 6210–01–S forth in 12 CFR part 913. voting shares of MidWest Community Financial Corporation, Midwest City, RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Employee, contractor, or applicant; acquire voting shares of Canute sponsoring agency; former sponsoring Bancshares, Inc., Midwest City, Formations of, Acquisitions by, and agency; other federal agencies; contract Oklahoma, and The First State Bank of Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; employer; former employer. Canute, Canute, Oklahoma. Correction EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. System, None. E6-16468) published on page 58864 of Date: October 11, 2006. Robert deV. Frierson, the issue for Thursday, October 5, 2006. Deputy Secretary of the Board. By the Federal Housing Finance Board. Under the Federal Reserve Bank of [FR Doc. E6–17196 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] John P. Kennedy, Kansas City heading, the entry for First General Counsel. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Miami Bancshares, Inc., is revised to [FR Doc. E6–17176 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] read as follows: BILLING CODE 6725–01–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice Formations of, Acquisitions by, and President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; City, Missouri 64198-0001: Correction Change in Bank Control Notices; 1. First Miami Bancshares, Inc., Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. Miami, Oklahoma; to acquire up to 100 Holding Companies E6-16705) published on page 59789 of percent of the voting shares of Bank of the issue for Wednesday, October 11, Billings, Billings, Missouri. The notificants listed below have 2006. Comments on this application must applied under the Change in Bank be received by October 30, 2006. Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Under the Federal Reserve Bank of § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 Philadephia heading, the entry for Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank Connestoga Bancorp, Inc., Chester System, October 11, 2006. holding company. The factors that are Springs, Pennsylvania, is revised to read Robert deV. Frierson, considered in acting on the notices are as follows: Deputy Secretary of the Board. set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 A. Federal Reserve Bank of [FR Doc. E6–17152 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior BILLING CODE 6210–01–S

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61059

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM holding companies may be obtained FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM from the National Information Center Formations of, Acquisitions by, and website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Unless otherwise noted, comments Correction regarding each of these applications The companies listed in this notice This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. must be received at the Reserve Bank have applied to the Board for approval, E6-16468) published on page 58864 of indicated or the offices of the Board of pursuant to the Bank Holding Company the issue for Thursday, October 5, 2006. Governors not later than November 9, Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Under the Federal Reserve Bank of 2006. (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part Kansas City heading, the entry for First 225), and all other applicable statutes A. Federal Reserve Bank of Miami Bancshares, Inc., is revised to and regulations to become a bank Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice read as follows: holding company and/or to acquire the President) 701 East Byrd Street, A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas assets or the ownership of, control of, or City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528: the power to vote shares of a bank or President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas 1. TransCommunity Financial bank holding company and all of the City, Missouri 64198-0001: Corporation, Glen Allen, Virginia; to banks and nonbanking companies 1. First Miami Bancshares, Inc., acquire 100 percent of the voting shares owned by the bank holding company, Miami, Oklahoma; to acquire up to 100 of Bank of Rockbridge, Lexington, including the companies listed below. percent of the voting shares of Bank of Virginia (in organization). The applications listed below, as well Billings, Billings, Missouri. B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta as other related filings required by the Comments on this application must Board, are available for immediate (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 be received by October 30, 2006. inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia indicated. The application also will be Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 30309: System, October 11, 2006. available for inspection at the offices of Robert deV. Frierson, 1. 1st Jackson Bancshares, Inc., the Board of Governors. Interested Stevenson, Alabama; to acquire 100 Deputy Secretary of the Board. persons may express their views in percent of the voting shares of The writing on the standards enumerated in [FR Doc. E6–17153 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Peoples Bancshares, Inc., Sardis, the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Tennessee, and thereby indirectly proposal also involves the acquisition of acquire voting shares of The Peoples a nonbanking company, the review also FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Bank, Sardis, Tennessee. includes whether the acquisition of the 2. Ameris Bancorp, Moultrie, Georgia; nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act Formations of, Acquisitions by, and to merge with Islands Bancorp, and (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Mergers of Bank Holding Companies thereby indirectly acquire Islands noted, nonbanking activities will be Community Bank, National Association, The companies listed in this notice conducted throughout the United States. have applied to the Board for approval, both of Beaufort, South Carolina. Additional information on all bank pursuant to the Bank Holding Company 3. CPB Bancshares, Inc., Church holding companies may be obtained Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) Point, Louisiana; to become a bank from the National Information Center (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part holding company by acquiring 100 Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 225), and all other applicable statutes percent of the voting shares of Church Unless otherwise noted, comments and regulations to become a bank Point Bank and Trust Company, both of regarding each of these applications holding company and/or to acquire the Church Point, Louisiana. must be received at the Reserve Bank assets or the ownership of, control of, or indicated or the offices of the Board of 4. Oglethorpe Bank Holding the power to vote shares of a bank or Governors not later than November 9, Company, Brunswick, Georgia; to bank holding company and all of the 2006. banks and nonbanking companies become a bank holding company by A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta owned by the bank holding company, acquiring 100 percent of the voting (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 including the companies listed below. shares of Oglethorpe Bank, Brunswick, Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia The applications listed below, as well Georgia. 30309: as other related filings required by the C. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 1. Central Financial Holdings, Inc., Board, are available for immediate (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice Tampa, Florida; to become a bank inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank President) 230 South LaSalle Street, holding company by acquiring 100 indicated. The application also will be Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: percent of the voting shares of Central available for inspection at the offices of Bank, Tampa, Florida (in organization). 1. Northstar Financial Group, Inc., the Board of Governors. Interested 2. Heywood Bancshares, Inc., persons may express their views in Bad Axe, Michigan; to merge with Northfield, Minnesota; to become a bank writing on the standards enumerated in Valley Financial Corp., and thereby holding company by acquiring 100 the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the indirectly acquire voting shares of percent of the voting shares of The First proposal also involves the acquisition of Community Bank, both of Caro, National Bank of Northfield, Northfield, a nonbanking company, the review also Michigan. Minnesota. includes whether the acquisition of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve B. Federal Reserve Bank of nonbanking company complies with the System, October 11, 2006. Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, standards in section 4 of the BHC Act Robert deV. Frierson, Community Affairs Officer) 90 (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Deputy Secretary of the Board. noted, nonbanking activities will be Minnesota 55480-0291: conducted throughout the United States. [FR Doc. E6–17154 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 1. United Bancorporation, Osseo, Additional information on all bank BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Wisconsin; to merge with Midwest

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61060 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Bancorporation, Billings, Montana, and engage in the operation of a savings ACTION: Notice. thereby indirectly acquire Clarke association and lending activities, County State Bank, Osceola, Iowa, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(1) and SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging Farmers & Merchants State Bank, (b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. (AoA) is announcing an opportunity for Iroquois, South Dakota, and Farmers public comment on the extension of Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve collection of certain information by the State Bank, Stickney, South Dakota. System, October 12, 2006. agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Robert deV. Frierson, Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies System, October 12, 2006. Deputy Secretary of the Board. are required to publish notice in the Robert deV. Frierson, [FR Doc. E6–17195 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Federal Register concerning each Deputy Secretary of the Board. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S proposed collection of information, [FR Doc. E6–17194 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] including each proposed extension of an BILLING CODE 6210–01–S existing collection of information, and FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM to allow 60 days of public comment in response to the notice. This notice FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Sunshine Act Meeting solicits comments on the information Notice of Proposals to Engage in AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Board of collection requirements relating to Title Permissible Nonbanking Activities or Governors of the Federal Reserve III and VII State Program Report. to Acquire Companies that are System. DATES: Submit written or electronic Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking TIME AND DATE: 12:00 p.m., Monday, comments on the collection of Activities October 23, 2006. information by December 18, 2006. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal ADDRESSES: Submit electronic The companies listed in this notice Reserve Board Building, 20th and C comments on the collection of have given notice under section 4 of the Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. information to: Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. [email protected]. Submit 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel written comments on the collection of CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to information to Administration on Aging, acquire or control voting securities or actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary Office of Evaluation, Washington, DC assets of a company, including the 20201 Attention: SPR Comments. companies listed below, that engages actions) involving individual Federal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: either directly or through a subsidiary or Reserve System employees. other company, in a nonbanking activity 2. Any items carried forward from a Saadia Greenberg at 202–357–3554 or e- that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y previously announced meeting. mail: [email protected]. (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the determined by Order to be closely Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal related to banking and permissible for Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office agencies must obtain approval from the bank holding companies. Unless of Board Members at 202–452–2955. Office of Management and Budget otherwise noted, these activities will be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may (OMB) for each collection of conducted throughout the United States. call 202–452–3206 beginning at information they conduct or sponsor. Each notice is available for inspection approximately 5 p.m. two business days ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. before the meeting for a recorded in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR The notice also will be available for announcement of bank and bank 1320.3(c) and includes agency request inspection at the offices of the Board of holding company applications or requirements that members of the Governors. Interested persons may scheduled for the meeting; or you may public submit reports, keep records, or express their views in writing on the contact the Board’s Web site at http:// provide information to a third party. question whether the proposal complies www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 with the standards of section 4 of the announcement that not only lists U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal BHC Act. Additional information on all applications, but also indicates agencies to provide a 60-day notice in bank holding companies may be procedural and other information about the Federal Register concerning each obtained from the National Information the meeting. proposed collection of information, Center Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/ including each proposed extension of an Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve existing collection of information, nic/. System, October 13, 2006. before submitting the collection to OMB Unless otherwise noted, comments Robert deV. Frierson, regarding the applications must be for approval. To comply with this Deputy Secretary of the Board. received at the Reserve Bank indicated requirement, AoA is publishing notice or the offices of the Board of Governors [FR Doc. 06–8757 Filed 10–13–06; 2:47 pm] of the extension of collection of not later than November 1, 2006. BILLING CODE 6210–01–M information set forth in this document. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago With respect to the following collection (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice of information, AoA invites comments President) 230 South LaSalle Street, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND on: (1) Whether the collection of Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: HUMAN SERVICES information is necessary for the proper 1. First Internet Bancorp, performance of AoA’s functions, Indianapolis, Indiana; to acquire Administration on Aging including whether the information will Landmark Financial Corporation, Agency Information Collection have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of Indianapolis, Indiana, and thereby Activities; Extension of Collection; AoA’s estimate of the burden of the indirectly acquire Landmark Savings Comment Request; Title III and VII collection of information, including the Bank, Indianapolis, Indiana, and State Program Report validity of the methodology and Landmark Mortgage Company, assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance Indianapolis, Indiana, and thereby AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS. the quality, utility, and clarity of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61061

information to be collected; and (4) debarment and her opportunity to 1410.35), finds that Ms. Butkovitz has ways to minimize the burden of the request a hearing within the timeframe been convicted of a felony under collection of information on prescribed by regulation, Ms. Butkovitz Federal law for conduct relating to the respondents, including through the use failed to request a hearing. Ms. development or approval, including the of automated collection techniques Butkovitz’s failure to request a hearing process for development or approval, of when appropriate, and other forms of constitutes a waiver of her right to a a drug product. information technology. hearing concerning this action. As a result of the foregoing finding, The Older Americans Act (OAA) DATES: This order is effective October Ms. Butkovitz is permanently debarred requires annual program performance 17, 2006. reports from States. In compliance with from providing services in any capacity ADDRESSES: Submit applications for to a person with an approved or this OAA provision, AoA developed a termination of debarment to the new State Program Report (SPR) in 1996 pending drug product application Division of Dockets Management (HFA– (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the act). A drug as part of its National Aging Program 305), Food and Drug Administration, product means a drug, including a Information System (NAPIS). The SPR 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, biological product, subject to regulation collects information about how State MD 20852. under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the Agencies on Aging expend their OAA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or funds as well as funding from other Brenda R. Friend, Center for Biologics under section 351 of the Public Health sources for OAA authorized supportive Evaluation and Research (HFM–17), Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262). Any person services. The SPR also collects Food and Drug Administration, 1401 information on the demographic and Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852– with an approved or pending drug functional status of the recipients. This 1448, 301–827–6210. product application including, but not collection was revised in November limited to, a biologics license SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2004 (OMB Approval Number 0985– application, who knowingly employs or 0008). The proposed data collection I. Background retains as a consultant or contractor, or continuation format remains unchanged On June 7, 2005, the U.S. District otherwise uses the services of Ms. from the November 2004 document. It Court for the District of Massachusetts Butkovitz, in any capacity, during Ms. may be found on the AoA Web site at accepted Ms. Anne L. Butkovitz’s plea Butkovitz’s permanent debarment, will http://www.aoa.gov/prof/agingnet/ of guilty to one count of making a false be subject to civil money penalties NAPIS/docs/SPR-Modified-Form- statement, a Federal felony offense (section 307(a)(6) of the act (21 U.S.C. 11.08.04.pdf. AoA estimates the burden under 18 U.S.C. 1001. This offense was 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Butkovitz, during her of this collection of information as committed while Ms. Butkovitz was the permanent debarment, provides services follows: 2,606 hours. clinical study coordinator at a safety site in any capacity to a person with an Dated: October 12, 2006. for a clinical trial. approved or pending drug product Josefina G. Carbonell, As a result of this conviction, FDA application including, but not limited Assistant Secretary for Aging. served Ms. Butkovitz by certified mail to, a biologics license application, Ms. [FR Doc. E6–17251 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] on March 7, 2006, a notice proposing to Butkovitz will be subject to civil money BILLING CODE 4154–01–P permanently debar Ms. Butkovitz from penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the act). providing services in any capacity to a In addition, FDA will not accept or person that has an approved or pending review any abbreviated new drug DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND drug product application including, but applications submitted by or with the not limited to, a biologics license HUMAN SERVICES assistance of Ms. Butkovitz during Ms. application. The proposal also offered Butkovitz’s permanent debarment Food and Drug Administration Ms. Butkovitz an opportunity for a hearing on the proposal. The proposal (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the act). [Docket No. 2006N–0018] was based on a finding, under section Any application by Ms. Butkovitz for Anne L. Butkovitz; Debarment Order 306(a)(2)(A) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) of the act termination of debarment under section (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(A) and 306(d)(4) of the act should be identified AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, (c)(2)(A)(ii)), that Ms. Butkovitz was with Docket Number 2006N–0018 and HHS. convicted of a felony under Federal law sent to the Division of Dockets ACTION: Notice. for conduct relating to the development Management (see ADDRESSES). All such or approval of a drug product, including submissions are to be filed in four SUMMARY: The Food and Drug the process for development or copies (21 CFR 10.20(a)). The public Administration (FDA) is issuing an approval, of a drug product. Ms. availability of information in these order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Butkovitz was provided 30 days to file submissions is governed by 21 CFR Cosmetic Act (the act) permanently objections and request a hearing. Ms. 10.20(j). Publicly available submissions debarring Ms. Anne L. Butkovitz from Butkovitz did not request a hearing. Ms. may be seen in the Division of Dockets providing services in any capacity to a Butkovitz’s failure to request a hearing Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., person that has an approved or pending constitutes a waiver of her opportunity Monday through Friday (21 CFR drug product application including, but for a hearing and a waiver of any 10.20(j)(1)). not limited to, a biologics license contentions concerning her debarment application. FDA bases this order on a (21 CFR 12.22(b)(1)). Dated: September 25, 2006. finding that Ms. Butkovitz was Jesse Goodman, II. Findings and Order convicted of a felony under Federal law Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and for conduct relating to the development Therefore, the Director of the Center Research. or approval, including the process for for Biologics Evaluation and Research, [FR Doc. E6–17178 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] development or approval, of a drug under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the act, product under the act. After being given and under authority delegated to the BILLING CODE 4160–01–S notice of the proposed permanent Director (FDA Staff Manual Guide

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61062 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron first-month period of the previous SECURITY Wyman, Revenue Division, Collection quarter. and Refunds Branch, 6650 Telecom In Revenue Ruling 2006–49, the IRS Customs and Border Protection Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana determined the rates of interest for the 46278; telephone (317) 614–4516. calendar quarter beginning October 1, Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in 2006, and ending December 31, 2006. Calculating Interest on Overdue SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The interest rate paid to the Treasury for Accounts and Refunds on Customs Background underpayments will be the Federal Duties Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and short-term rate (5%) plus three AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Treasury Decision 85–93, published in percentage points (3%) for a total of Department of Homeland Security. the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 eight percent (8%). For corporate ACTION: General notice. (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on overpayments, the rate is the Federal applicable overpayments or short-term rate (5%) plus two SUMMARY: This notice advises the public underpayments of customs duties must percentage points (2%) for a total of of the quarterly Internal Revenue be in accordance with the Internal seven percent (7%). For overpayments Service interest rates used to calculate Revenue Code rate established under 26 made by non-corporations, the rate is interest on overdue accounts U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 was the Federal short-term rate (5%) plus (underpayments) and refunds amended (at paragraph (a)(1)(B) by the three percentage points (3%) for a total (overpayments) of customs duties. For Internal Revenue Service Restructuring of eight percent (8%). These interest the calendar quarter beginning October and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law rates are subject to change for the 1, 2006, the interest rates for 105–206, 112 Stat. 685) to provide calendar quarter beginning January 1, overpayments will remain at 7 percent different interest rates applicable to 2007, and ending March 31, 2007. for corporations and 8 percent for non- overpayments: one for corporations and For the convenience of the importing corporations, and the interest rate for one for non-corporations. public and Customs and Border underpayments will remain at 8 The interest rates are based on the Protection personnel the following list percent. This notice is published for the Federal short-term rate and determined of IRS interest rates used, covering the convenience of the importing public by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on period from before July of 1974 to date, and Customs and Border Protection behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury to calculate interest on overdue personnel. on a quarterly basis. The rates effective accounts and refunds of customs duties, DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2006. for a quarter are determined during the is published in summary format.

Corporate Underpay- Overpayments overpayments Beginning date Ending date ments (percent) (Eff. 1–1–99) (percent) (percent)

070174 ...... 063075 6 6 ...... 070175 ...... 013176 9 9 ...... 020176 ...... 013178 7 7 ...... 020178 ...... 013180 6 6 ...... 020180 ...... 013182 12 12 ...... 020182 ...... 123182 20 20 ...... 010183 ...... 063083 16 16 ...... 070183 ...... 123184 11 11 ...... 010185 ...... 063085 13 13 ...... 070185 ...... 123185 11 11 ...... 010186 ...... 063086 10 10 ...... 070186 ...... 123186 9 9 ...... 010187 ...... 093087 9 8 ...... 100187 ...... 123187 10 9 ...... 010188 ...... 033188 11 10 ...... 040188 ...... 093088 10 9 ...... 100188 ...... 033189 11 10 ...... 040189 ...... 093089 12 11 ...... 100189 ...... 033191 11 10 ...... 040191 ...... 123191 10 9 ...... 010192 ...... 033192 9 8 ...... 040192 ...... 093092 8 7 ...... 100192 ...... 063094 7 6 ...... 070194 ...... 093094 8 7 ...... 100194 ...... 033195 9 8 ...... 040195 ...... 063095 10 9 ...... 070195 ...... 033196 9 8 ...... 040196 ...... 063096 8 7 ...... 070196 ...... 033198 9 8 ...... 040198 ...... 123198 8 7 ...... 010199 ...... 033199 7 7 6 040199 ...... 033100 8 8 7 040100 ...... 033101 9 9 8 040101 ...... 063001 8 8 7 070101 ...... 123101 7 7 6 010102 ...... 123102 6 6 5 010103 ...... 093003 5 5 4

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61063

Corporate Underpay- Overpayments overpayments Beginning date Ending date ments (percent) (Eff. 1–1–99) (percent) (percent)

100103 ...... 033104 4 4 3 040104 ...... 063004 5 5 4 070104 ...... 093004 4 4 3 100104 ...... 033105 5 5 4 040105 ...... 093005 6 6 5 100105 ...... 063006 7 7 6 070106 ...... 123106 8 8 7

Dated: October 6, 2006. and an orientation for new Public Division of Planning, P.O. Box 1306, Jayson P. Ahern, Advisory Committee members. Albuquerque, NM 87103; or, Andy Loranger, Complex Manager, Texas Acting Commissioner, Customs and Border Willie R. Taylor, Protection. Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Complex, 509 Washington Street, [FR Doc. E6–17150 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Compliance. Anahuac, TX 77514. Written comments BILLING CODE 9111–14–P [FR Doc. E6–17232 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] may be mailed to the above addresses or BILLING CODE 4310–RG–P submitted via electronic mail to: [email protected]. You may also access and download copies of the draft DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR document at the following website Office of the Secretary Fish and Wildlife Service address: http://southwest.fws.gov/ refuges/Plan/index.html. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; Notice of Availability of Draft FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE Notice of Meeting Environmental Impact Statement, Draft CONTACT: Doug St. Pierre, at 505–248– Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 6636. AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. and Draft Land Protection Plan for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife ACTION: Notice of meeting date change. National Wildlife System Refuge Complex Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge SUMMARY: AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Department of the Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. Interior, Office of the Secretary is Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability. 668dd–668ee et seq.) requires a CCP. rescheduling the October 18, 2006, The purpose in developing CCPs is to public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife provide refuge managers with a 15-year Spill Public Advisory Committee to Service (Service) announces that the strategy for achieving refuge purposes November 2, 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and contributing toward the mission of DATES: November 2, 2006, at 8:30 a.m. (EIS), Draft Comprehensive the National Wildlife Refuge System, Conservation Plan (CCP), and Draft consistent with sound principles of fish ADDRESSES: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Land Protection Plan (LPP) are available and wildlife science, conservation, legal Trustee Council Office, 441 West 5th for the Texas Chenier Plain National mandates, and Service policies. In Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska. Wildlife Refuge Complex. We prepared addition to outlining broad management this CCP pursuant to the National FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: direction on conserving wildlife and Wildlife Refuge System Administration Douglas Mutter, Department of the their habitats, the CCPs identify Act of 1966, as amended by the National wildlife-dependent recreational Interior, Office of Environmental Policy Wildlife Refuge System Improvement opportunities available to the public, and Compliance, 1689 C Street, Suite Act of 1997, and the National including opportunities for hunting, 119, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501, (907) Environmental Policy Act of 1969 fishing, wildlife observation and 271–5011. (NEPA); and we describe how the photography, and environmental SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service intends to manage this Refuge education and interpretation. We will Public Advisory Committee was created Complex over the next 15 years. This review and update these CCPs at least by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum draft LPP was prepared pursuant to every 15 years in accordance with the Service policy and the National of Agreement and Consent Decree National Wildlife Refuge System Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and entered into by the United States of Administration Act of 1966, as amended would expand the approved acquisition America and the State of Alaska on by the National Wildlife Refuge System boundary for the four refuges within the Improvement Act of 1997, and the August 27, 1991, and approved by the Complex. United States District Court for the National Environmental Policy Act of DATES: We must receive your comments District of Alaska in settlement of 1969 (42 U.S.C 4321–4370d). on or before January 16, 2007. Background: The Texas Chenier Plain United States of America v. State of ADDRESSES: A copy of the Draft EIS, National Wildlife Refuge Complex Alaska, Civil Action No. A91–081 CV. CCP, and LPP is available on a compact contains four refuges: Moody National The meeting agenda will include review disk (CD), and you may obtain a copy Wildlife Refuge, Anahuac National and recommendations on the draft fiscal by writing: Doug St. Pierre, Natural Wildlife Refuge, McFaddin National year 2007 work plan, an update on the Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge, and Texas Point injured resources and services list, an Wildlife Service, National Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge. The refuges update on the herring restoration effort, Refuge System, Southwest Region, are located along the Texas Coast,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61064 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

between Houston, Texas, and the Four refuge boundary expansion DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Louisiana state line in Chambers, alternatives are proposed and evaluated. Jefferson, and Galveston Counties, The first expansion alternative is the Geological Survey Texas. All four refuges include the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative, required by Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Migratory Bird Conservation Act as a NEPA, which would retain the current Committee primary authority and purpose. refuge acquisition boundaries. The Moody NWR was established in 1961 second expansion alternative would AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey. and today consists of a conservation expand the refuge boundary for Moody ACTION: Notice of meeting. easement on approximately 3,516 acres NWR by 5,050 acres; for Anahuac NWR of coastal marsh. Anahuac NWR was by 20,500 acres; for McFaddin NWR by SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 106– established in 1963 and contains 34,339 7,190 acres; and for Texas Point NWR 503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies acres of coastal marsh and adjoining by 850 acres. The total expansion of Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold uplands in fee title ownership. 33,590 acres continues the historic focus its fourteenth meeting. The meeting McFaddin NWR was established in 1980 location is the Albuquerque and is 58,861 acres of primarily coastal on land acquisition primarily in coastal marsh and adjacent agricultural Seismological Laboratory, 10002 Isleta marsh in a mix of fee title and Road, SE, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico conservation easements. Texas Point uplands. The third expansion alternative, the Service’s preferred 87117. The Committee is comprised of NWR was established in 1979 and members from academia, industry, and consists of 8,952 acres of coastal marsh alternative, would expand the refuge boundary for Moody NWR by 7,920 State government. The Committee shall in fee title ownership. advise the Director of the U.S. acres; for Anahuac NWR by 47,750 The integrated EIS contains two sets Geological Survey (USGS) on matters of alternatives addressing two separate acres; for McFaddin NWR by 7,190 relating to the USGS’s participation in but related Federal Actions: (1) Refuge acres; and for Texas Point NWR by the National Earthquake Hazards management alternatives for 1,400 acres. The total expansion of Reduction Program. development of a CCP for the Complex, 64,260 acres includes all of the coastal The Committee will provide guidance and (2) alternatives for expansion of the marsh and adjacent agricultural uplands on the USGS’s contributions to the refuge acquisition boundaries. from the second expansion alternative Global Seismographic Network and Five refuge management alternatives plus two important areas of native are proposed and evaluated for the report preparation. coastal prairie. The fourth expansion Meetings of the Scientific Earthquake Refuge Complex. The first management alternative would expand the refuge alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’ Studies Advisory Committee are open to boundary for Moody NWR by 7,920 the public. alternative, required by NEPA, which acres, for Anahuac NWR by 64,910, for would continue the current refuge DATES: October 30, 2006, commencing at McFaddin NWR by 29,890 acres, and for management activities. Current habitat 9 a.m. and adjourning at noon on Texas Point NWR by 1,400 acres. The management activities include (1) water October 31, 2006. total expansion of 104,120 acres management; (2) wetland, prairie, and Contact: Dr. David Applegate, U.S. woodlot restoration; (3) moist soil includes all of the lands in the third Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 management units; (4) cooperative rice expansion alternative along with a large Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia farming; (5) fire management; (6) freshwater marsh north of the current 20192, (703) 648–6714, controlled livestock grazing; and (7) McFaddin NWR and a near-coast [email protected]. exotic/invasive species management. bottomland hardwood area important to Dated: October 2, 2006. The second management alternative neotropical migratory birds. Lands Rama Kotra, acquired in the future would be emphasizes intensifying management of Acting Associate Director for Geology. wetland habitats for waterfowl, managed according to the strategies [FR Doc. 06–8716 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] shorebirds, wading birds, and other contained in the Service’s preferred wetland-dependent migratory birds. The management alternative. BILLING CODE 4311–AM–M third management alternative Public Meetings: The Service will emphasizes native habitat restoration hold at least two public meetings in DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and addressing threats from coastal land Chambers and Jefferson Counties, Texas, loss, altered hydrology, exotic species, 30 days after publication of this notice Bureau of Land Management and contaminants. The fourth to present the draft document, answer management alternative, the Service’s [WY–060–1320–EL, WYW163340] questions, and receive formal public preferred alternative, emphasizes an comments. Notice of the meetings will Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare an integrated management approach Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) combining (1) expanded habitat be posted in local newspapers and other and Notice of Public Meeting on a management and restoration programs, media outlets and given through special Federal Coal Lease Application Filed (2) new research and wildlife mailings to individuals and by the Antelope Coal Company in the population monitoring, and (3) organizations that have expressed Decertified Powder River Federal Coal increased efforts to address major interest in this planning effort. Production Region, Wyoming threats to ecosystem health. The fifth Editorial note: This document was received management alternative emphasizes a at the Office of the Federal Register October AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, passive management approach. All five 11, 2006. Interior. of these refuge management alternatives Dated: April 3, 2006. ACTION: Notice of intent and notice of make wildlife-dependent recreational public hearing. opportunities available to the public, Geoffrey L. Haskett, including opportunities for hunting, Acting, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102 (2) fishing, wildlife observation and Wildlife Service,Albuquerque, New Mexico. (C) of the National Environmental photography, and environmental [FR Doc. E6–17087 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, education and interpretation. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61065

Casper Field Office announces its intent 2005 for a competitive coal lease for a Quality and Air Quality Divisions of the to prepare an EIS on the potential maintenance tract adjacent to the Wyoming Department of Environmental impacts of a proposal to surface mine a company’s Antelope Mine in Campbell Quality. tract of Federal coal as requested by and Converse Counties, Wyoming. A The FS and the Office of Surface Antelope Coal Company (Antelope) in maintenance tract is a parcel of land Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Lease-by-Application (LBA) case containing Federal coal reserves that (OSM) will be cooperating agencies in number WYW163340. Under the can be leased to maintain production at the preparation of the EIS. Before the provisions of 43 Code of Federal an existing mine. The tract is known as tract can be leased the FS must consent Regulations (CFR) 3425.1, the Antelope the West Antelope II Tract. Consistent to leasing the portion of the tract that is Coal Company (Antelope) has submitted with Federal regulations under NEPA part of the TBNG. If the West Antelope a competitive coal LBA for a and Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as II Tract is leased to the applicant, the maintenance tract of Federal coal. The amended, the BLM must prepare an new lease must be incorporated into the tract is known as the West Antelope II environmental analysis prior to holding existing mining and reclamation plan Tract and is adjacent to the Antelope a competitive Federal coal lease sale. for the adjacent mine. Before the Federal Mine in Campbell and Converse The Powder River Regional Coal Team coal in the tract can be mined the Counties. reviewed this LBA at a public meeting Secretary of the Interior must approve DATES: This notice initiates the public held on April 27, 2005, in Gillette, the revised Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) scoping process. To provide the public Wyoming, and recommended that the mining plan. The OSM is the Federal with an opportunity to review the BLM process it. agency that is responsible for proposal and gain understanding of the The West Antelope II Tract recommending approval, approval with LBA process, the BLM will host a application includes approximately conditions, or disapproval of the revised meeting on November 1, 2006 at 7 p.m. 429.7 million tons of in-place Federal MLA mining plan to the Office of the at the Best Western Douglas Inn, 1450 coal underlying the following lands in Secretary of the Interior. Other Riverbend Drive, Douglas, Wyoming. At Campbell and Converse counties, cooperating agencies may be identified the meeting, the public is invited to Wyoming: during the scoping process. submit comments and resource T. 40 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Wyoming information, plus identify issues or The BLM will provide interested Section 5: Lot 18; parties the opportunity to submit concerns to be considered in the LBA Section 8: Lots 1 through 3, 6 through 11, process. The BLM can best use public 14 through 16; comments or relevant information or input if comments and resource Section 9: Lots 2 through 16; both. This information will help the information are submitted by December Section 10: Lots 5, 6, 11 through 14; BLM identify issues to be considered in 1, 2006. The BLM will announce future T. 41 N., R. 71 W., 6th PM, Wyoming preparing a draft EIS for the West public meetings and other opportunities Section 9: Lots 9 through 16; Antelope II Tract. Issues that have been to submit comments on this project at Section 10: Lots 11 through 15; identified in analyzing the impacts of least 15 days prior to the events. Section 14: Lots 3 and 4; previous Federal coal leasing actions in Announcements will be made through Section 15: Lots 1 through 5, 12, 13; the Wyoming Powder River Basin (PRB) Section 20: Lots 14 through 16; include the need for resolution of local news media and the Casper Field Section 21: Lots 1 through 16; Office’s Web site, which is: http:// Section 22: Lots 2, 7, 8, 14 through 16; conflicts between existing and proposed www.wy.blm.gov/cfo. Section 27: Lots 6 through 11; oil and gas development and coal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Section 28: Lots 1 through 8; mining on the tracts proposed for coal Nancy Doelger or Mike Karbs, BLM Section 29: Lots 1 through 3, 6 through 8. leasing; potential impacts to big game Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Containing 4,108.6 acres more or less. herds and hunting; potential impacts to Drive, Casper, Wyoming 82604. Ms. Antelope proposes to mine the tract as sage grouse; potential impacts to listed Doelger or Mr. Karbs may also be a part of the Antelope Mine. At the 2005 threatened and endangered species; reached at (307) 261–7600. mining rate of 30 million tons per year, potential health impacts related to ADDRESSES: Please submit written the coal included in the West Antelope blasting operations conducted by the comments or concerns to the BLM II Tract would extend the life of the mines to remove overburden and coal; Casper Field Office, Attn: Nancy Antelope Mine by as many as 14 years. the need to consider the cumulative Doelger, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, In accordance with 43 CFR 3425.1–9, impacts of coal leasing decisions Wyoming 82604. Written comments or the BLM may modify the LBA adding or combined with other existing and resource information may also be hand- subtracting lands to avoid bypassing proposed development in the Wyoming delivered to the BLM Casper Field Federal coal or to increase potential PRB; and potential site-specific and Office or sent by facsimile to the competitive interest in the tract. The cumulative impacts on air and water attention of Nancy Doelger at (307) 261– BLM has identified a study area that quality. 7587. Comments may be sent includes unleased Federal coal in and Your response is important and will electronically to around the tract that will be evaluated be considered in the EIS process. If you [email protected]. Please put for inclusion in the tract. do respond, we will keep you informed ‘‘West Antelope II LBA Tract/Nancy Lands in the application contain of the availability of environmental Doelger’’ in the subject line. private surface estate overlying the Members of the public may examine documents that address impacts that Federal coal. In the study area, the might occur from this proposal. documents pertinent to this proposal by surface estate overlying the Federal coal visiting the Casper Field Office during is both privately- and federally-owned. We release all comments to the its business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 The federally-owned lands are part of public, including names, addresses, p.m.), Monday through Friday, except the Thunder Basin National Grassland phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and holidays. (TBNG), National Forest System other personal identifying information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the administered by the U.S. Department of If you comment as a private provisions of 43 Code of Federal Agriculture Forest Service (FS). individual in your personal capacity, Regulation (CFR) 3425.1, Antelope The Antelope Mine is operating under you may ask us to withhold personal submitted an application on April 6, approved mining permits from the Land identifying information from the public.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61066 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

You must do so prominently in writing identifying information from release to ADDRESSES: Address all written at the beginning of your comments and the public. comments to Joan Suther, Three Rivers must tell us precisely what you want us Dated: September 22, 2006. Resource Area Field Manager, Burns to withhold. You also must explain in Robert A. Bennett, District Office, 28910 Hwy 20 West, detail why releasing that personal State Director. Hines, Oregon 97738. Comments identifying information to the public [FR Doc. E6–17143 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] expressed verbally or in electronic would constitute a clearly unwarranted format will not be accepted. invasion of privacy. General assertions BILLING CODE 4310–22–P that are not supported by specific facts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Skip Renchler, Realty Specialist, at (541) will not meet that burden. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 573–4443. We will withhold personal identifying information from release to the public in Bureau of Land Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The response to your request only where, in [OR–025–06–5870–EU; HAG 06–0165] following described public lands in our judgment, you present sufficient Harney County, Oregon are suitable for factual justification for our doing so Sale of Public Land; Harney County, sale under Sections 203 and 209 of the under current laws, regulations, and OR Federal Land Policy and Management court decisions. Typically, AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2750, 43 U.S.C. notwithstanding your request, in all but Interior. 1713 and 1719). The lands are difficult the most exceptional circumstances, we ACTION: Notice of realty action. and uneconomic to manage as a part of will release to the public all of the the public lands and are not suitable for personal identifying information that SUMMARY: This notice announces the management by another Federal agency. you submit. proposed sale of 24 parcels of public No significant resource values will be If you comment as or on behalf of an land, totaling 2905.42 acres, located in affected by this disposal. The parcels organization or business, we will release Harney County, Oregon at not less than proposed for sale are identified as your comments to the public in their appraised market value. These parcels suitable for disposal in the Three Rivers entirety, including all personal are proposed to be sold through Resource Management Plan, dated identifying information. We will not competitive and modified competitive August 1992. All of the land described consider a request from an organization procedures. is within the Willamette Meridian. The or business, or anyone commenting on DATES: Written comments concerning parcels proposed for sale are identified behalf of an organization or business, the proposed sale must be received by as follows. that we withhold any personal the BLM on or before December 1, 2006.

Market value/ Bidding pro- Serial No. Legal description Acres minimum cedure Designated bidder(s) bid

OR–56577 ... T.27 S., R.34 E., sec. 21, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 .... 40.00 $3,400 CompetitiveNone. OR–61541 ... T.19 S., R.34 E., sec. 17, E1⁄2NW1⁄4 ...... 80.00 16,000 Modified John and Judy Ahmann. Competi- tive. OR–61542 ... T.22 S., R.30 E., sec. 7, lot 3, 119.53 22,700 CompetitiveNone. NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4. OR–61543 ... T.22 S., R.30 E., sec. 10, lot 1...... 0.51 200 Modified Gerard J. LaBrecque Competi- tive. OR–61544 ... T.24 S., R.33 E., sec. 30, NE1⁄4 ...... 160.00 21,600 CompetitiveNone. OR–61545 ... T.24 S., R.33 E., sec. 33, E1⁄2NE1⁄4; 240.00 58,100 CompetitiveNone. sec. 34, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4. OR–61546 ... T.25 S., R.321⁄2 E., sec. 13, W1⁄2NE1⁄4 .. 80.00 9,100 CompetitiveNone. OR–61547 ... T.25 S., R321⁄2 E., sec. 24, lot 2, 79.81 9,200 CompetitiveNone. NW1⁄4NE1⁄4. OR–61548 ... T.26 S., R.30 E., South of Malheur 119.76 19,100 CompetitiveNone. Lake, sec. 35, E1⁄2SE1⁄4; T.27 S., R.30 E., sec. 2, lot 1. OR–61549 ... T.26 S., R.31 E., North of Malheur Lake, 160.00 16,800 CompetitiveNone. sec. 5, four unnumbered government lots in N1⁄2N1⁄2. OR–61550 ... T.26 S., R.31 E., North of Malheur Lake, 200.00 19,600 CompetitiveNone. sec. 5, S1⁄2SW1⁄4; sec. 6, S1⁄2SE1⁄4; sec. 7, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4. OR–61551 ... T.26 S., R.31 E., North of Malheur Lake, 80.00 8,000 CompetitiveNone. sec. 9, S1⁄2NW1⁄4. OR–61552 ... T.26 S., R.31 E., North of Malheur Lake, 80.00 8,000 CompetitiveNone. sec. 22, S1⁄2NW1⁄4. OR–61553 ... T.26 S., R.33 E., sec 34, N1⁄2NW1⁄4 ...... 80.00 9,800 CompetitiveNone. OR–61554 ... T.26 S., R.34 E., sec. 4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 80.00 6,800 Modified Bell A Grazing Cooperative, Thompson sec. 5, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4. Competi- Ranches, Inc. tive.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61067

Market value/ Bidding pro- Serial No. Legal description Acres minimum cedure Designated bidder(s) bid

OR–61555 ... T.26 S., R.34 E., sec. 8, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 ..... 40.00 3,900 Modified Bell A Grazing Cooperative, Thompson Competi- Ranches, Inc. tive. OR–61556 ... T.26 S., R.34 E., sec. 17, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 120.00 9,700 Modified Nevin L. and Shirley M. Thompson. SE1⁄4SE1⁄4. Competi- tive. OR–61557 ... T.26 S., R.34 E., sec. 22, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 ... 40.00 3,200 Modified Walter B. Smith Estate, Nevin L. and Competi- Shirley M. Thompson. tive. OR–61558 ... T.26 S., R.34 E., sec. 28, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 .... 40.00 3,200 Modified Nevin L. and Shirley M. Thompson, Competi- Zachary O. Sword. tive. OR–61559 ... T.27 S., R.31 E., sec. 5, S1⁄2SW1⁄4, 440.00 48,400 CompetitiveNone. SW1⁄4SE1⁄4; sec. 8, W1⁄2. OR–61560 ... T.27 S., R.31 E., sec. 6, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 240.00 28,800 CompetitiveNone. SE1⁄4. OR–61561 ... T.27 S., R.34 E., sec. 9, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 160.00 18,400 CompetitiveNone. W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4. OR–62938 ... T.22 S., R.33 E., sec. 19, lot 4; sec. 30, 185.81 33,100 Modified Rattlesnake Creek Land and Cattle Co., lots 1, and 2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4. Competi- Gene Watson., Don G. Toelle—Trust- tive. ee, and John L. Toelle. OR–63606 ... T.25 S., R.31 E., sec. 19, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 .... 40.00 7,200 Modified Juniper Basin Ranch, Stanley L. and Competi- Barbara F. Kull. tive.

Total ...... 2,905.42

The sale will include all mineral improvements on the land are allowed OR–61549, OR–61550, OR–61551 interests of the United States unless 60 days from the date of sale to remove 1. A flood plain covenant pursuant to otherwise noted below. the improvements. the authority contained in Section 3(d) The following will be included in, OR–61543 and OR–61544 of Executive Order 11988 of May 24, and will survive, the sale and 1977. conveyances of the land: 1. A wetland/riparian covenant OR–62938 All Parcels pursuant to the authority contained in Section (4) of Executive Order 11990 of 1. A reservation to the United States 1. A right-of-way for ditches and May 24, 1977. for a right-of-way for access road canals will be reserved to the United 2. A flood plain covenant pursuant to purposes. States under the authority of the Act of the authority contained in Section 3(d) 2. A portion of the property (150.65 August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 291; 43 U.S.C. of Executive Order 11988 of May 24, acres) will be conveyed by quitclaim 945). 1977. deed issued by the United States. 2. A notice and indemnification Mineral estate is held by a third party statement under the Comprehensive OR–61545 and cannot be conveyed by the United Environmental Response, Compensation 1. A reservation to the United States States. and Liability Act (CERCLA). All parcels of all geothermal steam resources 3. Remaining 35.16 acres will be are subject to the requirements of subject to the provisions of the Act of conveyed by patent and will include all Section 120(h) (42 U.S.C. 9620) holding December 24, 1970 (84 Stat. 1566). mineral interests of the United States. the United States harmless from any It is recommended that before release of hazardous materials that may 2. A wetland/riparian covenant pursuant to the authority contained in submitting a bid, a prospective have occurred as a result of the purchaser obtain a title search, conduct unauthorized use of the property by Section (4) of Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977. an inspection of the property and check other parties. with the appropriate city or county 3. No representation, warranty, or 3. A flood plain covenant pursuant to planning department to verify approved covenant of any kind, express or the authority contained in Section 3(d) uses. implied, is given or made by the United of Executive Order 11988 of May 24, The land described herein is hereby States as to access to or from any parcel 1977. segregated from appropriation under the of land, the title, whether or to what OR–61547 public land laws, including the mining extent the land may be developed, its laws, pending disposition of the action physical condition, present or potential 1. A flood plain covenant pursuant to or 270 days from the date of publication uses, or any other circumstance or the authority contained in Section 3(d) of this notice, whichever occurs first. condition. of Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 4. All conveyance documents will be 1977. Competitive Bidding Procedures issued subject to all valid existing rights 2. A reservation for a road right-of- The Federal Land Policy and and reservations of record. All persons, way for access to the Malheur National Management Act and its implementing other than the successful bidders, Wildlife Refuge held by the U.S. Fish sale regulations at 43 CFR part 2710 claiming to own unauthorized and Wildlife Service. provide that competitive bidding will be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61068 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

the general method of selling land apparent high bid. Failure to submit an of any State or of the United States; (3) supported by factors such as agreement or a bid shall be considered a State, State instrumentality or political competitive interest, accessibility, and a waiver of the option to divide the subdivision authorized to hold property; usability of the parcel, regardless of property equitably and forfeiture of the or (4) an entity legally capable of adjacent ownership. preference consideration. Failure to act conveying and holding lands or Under competitive procedures the by all of the designated bidders will interests therein under the laws of the land will be sold to any qualified bidder result in the parcel being offered to the State within which the lands to be submitting the highest bid. Bidding will apparent high bidder or being declared conveyed are located. Certifications and be by sealed bid followed by an oral unsold, if no bids were received in the evidence to this effect will be required auction to be held at 2 p.m. PST on initial round of bidding. of the prospective purchaser prior to Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at the sale. Burns District Office, Bureau of Land Additional Terms and Conditions of A successful bid for a parcel will Management, 28910 Hwy 20 West, Sale constitute an application for conveyance Hines, Oregon. All sealed bids must be submitted to of those portions of the mineral estate To qualify for the oral auction bidders the Burns District Office, at the address being conveyed in accordance with must submit a sealed bid meeting the stated above, no later than 2 p.m. PST Section 209 of the Federal Land Policy requirements as stated below. The on Wednesday, December 13, 2006, and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. highest valid sealed bid will become the when the bid opening and oral auction 1719). A nonrefundable fee of $50 will starting bid for the oral auction. Bidding will be held. be required from the prospective in the oral auction will be in minimum The outside of bid envelopes must be purchaser for purchase of the mineral increments of $100. The highest bidder clearly marked with ‘‘BLM Land Sale,’’ interests. Those mineral interests, to be from the oral auction will be declared the parcel number and the bid opening conveyed simultaneously with the sale the prospective purchaser. If no valid date. Bids must be for not less than the of the land, have been determined to bids are received, the parcel will be appraised market value (minimum bid). have no known mineral value. declared unsold and offered using Separate bids must be submitted for Public Comments competitive procedures for unsold each parcel. Each sealed bid shall be parcels on a continuing basis until sold accompanied by a certified check, postal On or before December 1, 2006, any or withdrawn from sale. money order, bank draft, or cashier’s person may submit written comments check made payable in U.S. dollars to regarding the proposed sale to the Three Modified Competitive Procedures the Department of the Interior-BLM for Rivers Resource Area Field Manager at Modified competitive procedures are not less than 20 percent of the amount the Burns District Office, Bureau of allowed by the regulations at 43 CFR bid. The bid envelope must also contain Land Management, 28910 Hwy 20 West, 2710.0–6(c)(3)(ii) to provide exceptions a statement showing the total amount Hines, Oregon 97738. Comments or to competitive bidding to assure bid and the name, mailing address, and protests applicable to a specific parcel compatibility with existing and phone number of the entity making the must be identified with the appropriate potential land uses. bid. A successful bidder for competitive serial number. Under modified competitive parcels shall make an additional deposit Comments, including names, street procedures the designated bidders at the close of the auction to bring the addresses, and other contact identified in the table above will be total bid deposit up to the required 20 information of respondents, will be given the opportunity to match or percent of the high bid. Personal checks available for public review. Individual exceed the apparent high bid. or cash will be acceptable for this respondents may request The apparent high bid will be additional deposit only. confidentiality. If you wish to request established by the highest valid sealed If any of the parcels are not sold using that BLM consider withholding your bid received in an initial round of the procedures described above, the name, street address, and other contact public bidding. If two or more valid parcel will be reoffered on a continuing information (such as Internet address, sealed bids of the same amount are basis in accordance with the procedures FAX or phone number) from public received for the same parcel, that described in 43 CFR 2711.3–1. Sealed review or from disclosure under the amount shall be determined to be the bids for unsold parcels will be accepted Freedom of Information Act, you must apparent high bid. from any qualified bidder and held until state this prominently at the beginning The designated bidders are required the second Wednesday of each month at of your comment. The BLM will honor to submit a valid bid in the initial round 2 p.m. PST when they will be opened. requests for confidentiality on a case-by- of public bidding to maintain their Bid openings will take place every case basis to the extent allowed by law. preference consideration. The bid month until the parcels are sold or The BLM will make available for public deposit for the apparent high bid(s) and withdrawn from sale. Bids for unsold inspection in their entirety all the designated bidders will be retained parcels must meet the requirements submissions from organizations or and all others will be returned. The bid described above for sealed bids. businesses, and from individuals opening for this initial round of public Prospective purchasers will be identifying themselves as bidding will be held at 2 p.m. PST on allowed 180 days to submit the balance representatives or officials of Wednesday, December 13, 2006, at the of the purchase price. Failure to meet organizations or businesses. Burns District Office, BLM. this timeframe shall cause the deposit to Detailed information, including The designated bidders will be be forfeited. The parcel will then be appraisal and environmental reports, notified by certified mail of the apparent offered to the next lowest qualified relative to this public land sale is high bid. Where there are two or more bidder, or if no other bids were available on the Internet at http:// designated bidders for a single parcel, received, the parcel will be declared www.or.blm.gov/Burns or at the Burns they will be allowed 30 days to provide unsold. District Office during business hours. the authorized officer with (i) an Federal law requires that public land Inquiries also may be directed to Joan agreement as to the division of the may be sold only to either (1) citizens Suther, Field Manager, Skip Renchler or property or, (ii) if agreement cannot be of the United States, 18 years of age or Holly Orr, Realty Specialists, Three reached, sealed bids for not less than the over; (2) corporations subject to the laws Rivers Resource Area, Burns District

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61069

Office at the above address, or by phone west boundaries and a portion of the Act (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the (541) 573–4400. subdivisional lines, the subdivision of Minerals Management Service (MMS) Objections will be reviewed by the section 31, and a metes-and-bounds announced Public Hearings to solicit BLM, Burns District Manager, who may survey in section 31, T. 47 N., R. 4 W., comments on the Draft EIS for the sustain, vacate, or modify this realty Boise Meridian, Idaho, was accepted Proposed 2007–2012 OCS Oil and Gas action. In the absence of any objections, July 7, 2006. 5-Year Leasing Program in the Federal this realty action will become the final The plat representing the dependent Register notice on September 26, 2006. determination of the Department of the resurvey of a portion of the The notice did not include specific Interior. subdivisional lines and the subdivision information on place and time for the (Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2) of section 17, T. 46 N., R. 4 W., Boise Public Hearing in Norfolk, Virginia. Meridian, Idaho, was accepted Dated: August 28, 2006. That specific information is now September 28, 2006. attached below. Statements, both oral Joan M. Suther, The plat representing the dependent and written, will be received at the Three Rivers Resource Area Field Manager. resurvey of a portion of the west hearing. Persons wishing to speak may [FR Doc. E6–17139 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] boundary and a portion of the be put on the speakers’ list by the MMS BILLING CODE 4310–33–P subdivisional lines and the subdivision contact listed below in advance of the of section 7, T. 46 N., R. 4 W., Boise public hearing or may sign up at the Meridian, Idaho, was accepted hearing. Time limits may be set on oral DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR September 29, 2006. testimony to allow time for all speakers Summary: The Bureau of Land to participate. Bureau of Land Management Management (BLM) will file the plat of DATE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: [ID–957–1420–BJ] survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, November 14, 2006—Radisson Hotel, Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey Idaho, 30 days from the date of 700 Monticello Avenue, Norfolk, publication in the Federal Register. Virginia, 1 p.m., contact: Dr. Norman AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, This survey was executed at the request Froomer, (703) 787–1644. Information Interior. of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet concerning the Draft EIS for the ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plats of certain administrative and management Proposed 5-Year Outer Continental Surveys. purposes: Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for The plat representing the corrective 2007–2012 can be accessed at http:// SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land dependent resurvey of portions of the www.mms.gov/5-year/. Management (BLM) has officially filed west boundary and the subdivisional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the plats of survey of the lands lines, and the dependent resurvey of the Minerals Management Service, Mr. described below in the BLM Idaho State west boundary, portions of the south James Bennett, Chief, Branch of Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9 a.m., on and north boundaries, subdivisional Environmental Assessment, 381 Elden the dates specified. lines, and subdivision of sections 5, 8, Street, Mail Stop 4042, Herndon, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 17, 18, and 19, and the further Virginia 20170, (703) 787–1660. Bureau of Land Management, 1387 subdivision of sections 5, 8, 17, 19, 30, Dated: October 2, 2006. South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, and 31, and the survey of a portion of 83709–1657. Walter D. Cruickshank, the subdivisional lines, the 2002–2006 Acting Director, Minerals Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These meanders of the Snake River and certain Service. surveys were executed at the request of islands in the Snake River in sections 6 [FR Doc. E6–17243 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] the Bureau of Land Management to meet and 7, and the north boundary of the BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P their administrative needs. The lands Fort Hall Indian Reservation in section surveyed are: 6, T. 4 S., R. 34 E., Boise Meridian, The plat representing the dependent Idaho, was accepted August 31, 2006. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR resurvey of a portion of the west October 11, 2006. boundary and subdivisional lines and National Park Service the subdivision of section 31, T. 10 N., Stanley G. French, R. 4 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, was Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho. 60-Day Notice of Intention to Request accepted July 5, 2006. [FR Doc. E6–17189 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Clearance of Information Collection; The plat representing the dependent BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P Opportunity for Public Comment resurvey of the south boundary and portion of the subdivisional lines, and AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. the subdivision of sections 27, 33, 34, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACTION: Notice and request for and 35, T. 8 S., R. 41 E., and the comments. Minerals Management Service dependent resurvey of a portion of the SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the west boundary and portions of the Notice of Additional Information for a Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. subdivisional lines and the subdivision Public Hearing on the Draft L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3507) and 5 CFR of sections 2 through 7, T. 9 S., R. 41 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, were for the Proposed 5-Year Outer requirements, the National Park Service accepted September 27, 2006. Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas (NPS) invites public comment on a These surveys were executed at the Leasing Program for 2007–2012 request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs revision of a currently approved to meet certain administrative and AGENCY: Minerals Management Service collection of information (OMB #1024– management purposes. The lands (MMS), Interior. 0026). surveyed are: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the regulations DATES: Public Comments on this notice The plat representing the dependent implementing the procedural provisions will be accepted until December 18, resurvey of a portion of the south and of the National Environmental Policy 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61070 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Lee c. The quality, utility, and clarity of information are encouraged. Your Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program the information to be collected; and comments should address one or more Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C d. How to minimize the burden of the of the following four points: Street, NW., (org. code 2465), collection of information on those who —Evaluate whether the proposed Washington, DC 20240, e-mail at are to respond, including the use of collection of information is necessary [email protected]. All responses appropriate automated, electronic, for the proper performance of the to this notice will be summarized and mechanical or other forms of functions of the agency, including included in the request for Office of information technology. whether the information will have Management and Budget (OMB) Description of Respondents: practical utility; approval. All comments will become a Individuals, not-for-profit institutions, matter of public record. for profit businesses. —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Estimated annual number of estimate of the burden of the proposed Dickinson, Special Park Uses Program respondents: 18,600 annually. collection of information, including the Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Estimated annual burden on validity of the methodology and Street, NW., (org. code 2465), respondents: 11,150 hours. assumptions used; Washington, DC 20240, by telephone at Estimated average burden hours per —Enhance the quality, utility, and 202–513–7092, fax at 202–371–2401, or response: 35 minutes. clarity of the information to be by e-mail at [email protected]. Estimated frequency of response: collected; and You are entitled to a copy of the entire 18,600 annually. —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to ICR package free of charge. Dated: September 7, 2006. respond, including through the use of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Leonard E. Stowe, Title: Special Park Use Applications appropriate automated, electronic, NPS, Information and Collection Clearance mechanical, or other technological (Portions of 36 CFR 1–7, 13, 20, 34). Officer. Form Numbers: 10–930, 10–931, 10– collection techniques or other forms 932. [FR Doc. 06–8724 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] of information technology, e.g., OMB Number: 1024–0026. BILLING CODE 4312–52–M permitting electronic submission of Expiration Date: December 31, 2006. responses. Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Overview of This Information Description of Need: The NPS’ Collection legislative mandate is to preserve Office of Justice Programs (1) Type of Information Collection: America’s natural and cultural [OMB Number 1121–NEW] Existing collection in use without OMB treasurers unimpaired for future control number. generations, while also making them Agency Information Collection (2) Title of the Form/Collection: available for the enjoyment of the visitor Activities: Existing Collection in Use Firearms Inquiry Statistics (FIST) (16 U.S.C. 1). NPS regulations, codified Without OMB Control Number; Program. at title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Comments Requested (3) Agency form number, if any, and (CFR), are promulgated to allow for the the applicable component of the enjoyment and use of the resource by ACTION: 60-day notice of information Department of Justice sponsoring the the public while protecting the resource. collection under review: Firearms collection: Not applicable. These forms are intended to gather Inquiry Statistics (FIST) Program. (4) Affected public who will be asked sufficient information to enable park or required to respond, as well as a brief managers to approve or deny the The Department of Justice (DOJ), abstract: Primary: State and Local requested uses of public lands Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Government. This information authorized in 36 CFR and, if approved, Justice Statistics (BJS), has submitted collection is a survey of State and local to provide sufficient information to craft the following information collection agencies that conduct background permit terms and conditions sufficient request to the Office of Management and checks on individuals applying to to protect park lands from impairment Budget (OMB) for review and approval purchase firearms from federally of the park resources, values and in accordance with the Paperwork licensed firearm dealers. The purposes for which the park was Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information will provide national created. The uses considered under information collection is published to statistics on the total number of these information collection obtain comments from the public and applications and rejections annually. applications generally include those affected agencies. Comments are (5) An estimate of the total number of which regulate or limit those activities encouraged and will be accepted for respondents and the amount of time not available to the public at large, such sixty days until December 18, 2006. estimated for an average respondent to as special events, commercial filming, This process is conducted in accordance respond: It is estimated that 683 and grazing in parks where such activity with 5 CFR 1320.10. respondents will complete a fifteen is authorized by law. If you have comments especially on minute form twice annually. The NPS specially invites public the estimated public burden or (6) An estimate of the total public comments as to: associated response time, suggestions, burden (in hours) associated with the a. Whether the collection of or need a copy of the proposed collection: There are an estimated 341.5 information is necessary for the proper information collection instrument with total annual burden hours associated performance of the functions of the instructions or additional information, with this collection. Service, whether the information will please contact Matthew Hickman, If additional information is required have practical utility. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh contact: Lynn Bryant, Department b. The accuracy of the Service’s St., NW., Washington, DC 20531. Clearance Officer, United States estimate of the burden of the collection Written comments and suggestions Department of Justice, Justice of information, including the validity of from the public and affected agencies Management Division, Policy and the methodology and assumptions used; concerning the proposed collection of Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61071

Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., (3) Enhance the quality, utility and Dated: October 12, 2006. Washington, DC 20530. clarity of the information to be Lynn Bryant, Dated: October 12, 2006. collected; and Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Lynn Bryant, (4) Minimize the burden of the Department of Justice. Department Clearance Officer, Department of collection of information on those who [FR Doc. E6–17250 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Justice. are to respond, including through the BILLING CODE 4410–18–P [FR Doc. E6–17248 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] use of appropriate automated, BILLING CODE 4410–18–P electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or DEPARTMENT OF LABOR other forms of information technology, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE e.g. permitting electronic submission of Office of the Secretary responses. Office of Justice Programs Submission for OMB Review: Overview of this information Comment Request [OMB Number 1121–0094] collection: (1) Type of information collection: October 11, 2006. Agency Information Collection Revision of a currently approved The Department of Labor (DOL) has Activities: Proposed Collection; collection. submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to Comments Requested (2) The title of the Form/Collection: the Office of Management and Budget The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). ACTION: 60-day notice of information (OMB) for review and approval in collection under review: Extension of a (3) Agency form number, if any, and accordance with the Paperwork previously approved collection: The the applicable component of the Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, Annual Survey of Jails. Department of Justice sponsoring the 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this collection: Form Number: CJ–5, CJ–5A, ICR, with applicable supporting The Department of Justice (DOJ), CJ–5B, and CJ–5B Addendum. Bureau of documentation, may be obtained from Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ Justice Statistics has submitted the Programs, United States Department of public/do/PRAMain or by contacting following information collection request Justice. Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is to the Office of Management and Budget (4) Affected public who will be asked not a toll-free number)/e-mail: (OMB) for review and approval in to respond, as well as a brief abstract: [email protected]. accordance with the Paperwork Primary: County and city jail authorities Comments should be sent to Office of Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed and tribal authorities. This form is the Information and Regulatory Affairs, information collected is published to only collection effort that provides an Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau obtain comments from the public and ability to maintain important jail of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of affected agencies. Comments are statistics in years between jail censuses. Management and Budget, Room 10235, encouraged and will be accepted for The ASJ enables the Bureau; Federal, Washington, DC 20503, telephone: 202– sixty days until December 18, 2006. State, and local correctional 395–7316/fax: 202–395–6974 (these are This process is conducted in accordance administrators; legislators; researchers; not a toll-free numbers), within 30 days with 5 CFR 1320.10. and planners to track growth in the from the date of this publication in the If you have comments especially the number of jails and their capacities Federal Register. estimated public burden or associated nationally; as well as, track changes in The OMB is particularly interested in response time, suggestions, or need a the demographics and supervision comments which: copy of the proposed information status of jail population and the • Evaluate whether the proposed collection instrument with instructions prevalence of crowding. collection of information is necessary or additional information, please (5) An estimate of the total number of for the proper performance of the contact Todd D. Minton, Statistician respondents and the amount of time functions of the agency, including (202) 305–9630, Bureau of Justice estimated for an average respondent to whether the information will have Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, respond: Nine hundred and forty-five practical utility; U.S. Department of Justice, 810 Seventh • respondents each taking an average 75 Evaluate the accuracy of the Street NW., Washington, DC 20531. minutes to respond for collection forms agency’s estimate of the burden of the Request written comments and CJ–5, CJ–5A, and CJ–5B. Sixty-eight proposed collection of information, suggestions from the public and affected respondents each taking an average of including the validity of the agencies concerning the proposed 30 minutes to respond for collection methodology and assumptions used; collection of information are • form CJ–5BAddendum. Enhance the quality, utility, and encouraged. Your comments should clarity of the information to be address one or more of the following (6) An estimate of the total public collected; and four points: burden (in hours) associated with the • Minimize the burden of the (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection: There are an estimated 1,215 collection of information on those who collection of information is necessary annual total burden hours associated are to respond, including through the for the proper performance of the with the collection. use of appropriate automated, functions of the agency, including If additional information is required electronic, mechanical, or other whether the information will have contact: Lynn Bryant, Department technological collection techniques or practical utility; Clearance Officer, United States other forms of information technology, (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Department of Justice, Justice e.g., permitting electronic submission of agency’s estimate of the burden of the Management Division, Policy and responses. proposed collection of information, Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics. including the validity of the Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Type of Review: Revision of a methodology and assumptions used; Washington, DC 20530. currently approved collection.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61072 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Title: Telephone Point of Purchase SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections Survey. 14(b)(1)and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory I. Abstract OMB Number: 1220–0044. Committee Act (Public Law 92–463), Type of Response: Reporting. The analysis of the Effective and after consultation with the Frequency: Quarterly. Messaging Research survey will position Committee Management Secretariat, Affected Public: Individuals or NASA to effectively communicate General Services Administration, the households. Agency messages. Administrator of the National Estimated Number of Respondents: II. Method of Collection Aeronautics and Space Administration 19,374. (NASA) has determined that a renewal Annual Responses: 51,340. All survey responses will be collected and amendment of the Charter for the Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,268. by telephone and tabulated Agency-established NASA Advisory Total Annualized capital/startup electronically. costs: $0. Council is necessary and in the public Total Annual Costs (operating/ III. Data interest in connection with the maintaining systems or purchasing Title: Effective Messaging Research. performance of duties imposed upon services): $0. OMB Number: 2700–0113. NASA by law. In connection with this Description: The purpose of this Type of review: Extension of currently renewal, several amendments have been collection is to develop and maintain a approved collection. made to the Charter as part of the timely list of retail, wholesale, and Affected Public: Individuals and overall restructuring of the NASA service establishments at which people households, Business or other for-profit, Advisory Council. The purpose of the shop for specific consumer items. The not-for-profit institutions, Federal NASA Advisory Council is to provide information collected is used to select Government, and State, Local or Tribal advice and make recommendations to establishments for pricing market based Government. the NASA Administrator on Agency items as needed for the Consumer Price Number of Respondents: 2700. programs, policies, plans, financial Index. Responses Per Respondent: 1. controls and other matters pertinent to Annual Responses: 2700. the Agency’s responsibilities. Ira L. Mills, Hours Per Request: 0.33 hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annual Burden Hours: 900. Ms. Departmental Clearance Officer. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee [FR Doc. E6–17230 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] IV. Request for Comments Management Officer, Office of External BILLING CODE 4510–24–P Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Relations, National Aeronautics and the proposed collection of information Space Administration, Washington, DC is necessary for the proper performance 20546, 202/358–4510. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND of the functions of NASA, including SPACE ADMINISTRATION P. Diane Rausch, whether the information collected has Advisory Committee Management Officer, [Notice: 06–080] practical utility; (2) the accuracy of National Aeronautics and Space NASA’s estimate of the burden Administration. Notice of Information Collection (including hours and cost) of the [FR Doc. E6–17162 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] proposed collection of information; (3) BILLING CODE 7510–13–P AGENCY: National Aeronautics and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Space Administration (NASA). clarity of the information to be ACTION: Notice of information collection. collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and NATIONAL CREDIT UNION Space Administration, as part of its on respondents, including automated ADMINISTRATION continuing effort to reduce paperwork collection techniques or the use of other and respondent burden, invites the forms of information technology. Notice of Meeting Comments submitted in response to general public and other Federal this notice will be summarized and Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, agencies to take this opportunity to included in the request for OMB October 19, 2006. comment on proposed and/or approval of this information collection. Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room continuing information collections, as They will also become a matter of 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA required by the Paperwork Reduction public record. 22314–3428. Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Status: Open. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Gary Cox, Matters to be Considered: DATES: All comments should be Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). 1. Quarterly Insurance Fund Report. submitted within 60 calendar days from [FR Doc. E6–17252 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 2. Interim Final Rule: Part 701 of the date of this publication. BILLING CODE 7510–13–P NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, General ADDRESSES: All comments should be Lending Maturity and Other Financial addressed to Mr. Walter Kit, National Services. Aeronautics and Space Administration, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 3. Final Rule: Section 748.1(c) of Washington, DC 20546–0001. SPACE ADMINISTRATION NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Notice (06–078)] Suspicious Activity Reports. Requests for additional information or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: copies of the information collection NASA Advisory Committee; Notice of Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, instrument(s) and instructions should Renewal telephone: 703–518–6304. be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Mary Rupp, PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Space Administration (NASA). Street SW., JE000, Washington, DC Secretary of the Board. ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Charter 20546, (202) 358–1350, Walter.Kit- [FR Doc. 06–8739 Filed 10–12–06; 5:02 pm] for the NASA Advisory Council. [email protected]. BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61073

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Minutes: May be obtained from the contact NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION person listed above. Business and Operations Advisory Purpose of Meeting: Retreat of the Board to Proposal Review Panel for Materials Committee; Notice of Meeting brainstorm strategy direction. To advise NSF Research; Notice of Meeting on the impact of its policies, programs and In accordance with Federal Advisory activities on the CI community. To provide In accordance with the Federal Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as advice to the Director/NSF on issues related Advisory Committee Act (Pub L. 92–463 amended), the National Science to long-range planning, and to form ad hoc as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following subcommittees to carry out needed studies Foundation announces the following meeting: and tasks. meeting: Name: Business and Operations Advisory Agenda: Report from the Director. Name: Proposal Review Panel for Materials Committee (9556). Discussion of research initiatives, education, Date/Time: November 8, 2006; 1 p.m. to Research (DMR) #1203. diversity, workforce issues in CI and long- Dates & Times: November 2, 2006; 7:45 5:45 p.m. (est). November 9, 2006; 8 a.m. to range funding outlook. 12:30 p.m. (est). a.m.–9:30 p.m. November 3, 2006; 8 a.m.–4 Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Dated: October 12, 2006. p.m. Place: University of Minnesota, Wilson Boulevard, Room 1235. Susanne Bolton, Type of Meeting: Open. Minneapolis, MN. Contact Person: Joan Miller, National Committee Management Officer. Type of Meeting: Part—Open. Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, [FR Doc. 06–8722 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Contact Person: Dr. Maija M. Kukla, Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 292–8200. BILLING CODE 9555–01–M Program Director, Materials Research Science Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and Engineering Centers Program, Division of concerning issues related to the oversight, Materials Research, Room 1065, National integrity, development and enhancement of NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, NSF’s business operations. Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292– Agenda: Advisory Committee for Engineering; 4940. Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and November 8, 2006 Notice of Meeting recommendations concerning further support PM: Welcome; Updates—Office of Budget, of the Materials Research Science and Finance, and Award Management, Office of In accordance with Federal Advisory Engineering Center. Information and Resource Management, Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as Agenda: Chief Information Officer activities. amended), the National Science Presentation and Discussion—New Thursday, November 2, 2006 Framework for Strategic Goal Assessment; Foundation announces the following 7:45 a.m.–8:45 a.m. Closed—Briefing of Site Committee Discussion; Meeting with NSF meeting: Visit Panel and Continental Breakfast. Director/Deputy Director; Committee Name: Advisory Committee for Discussion. 8:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m. Open—Welcome Engineering (1170). (institutional representatives, etc.). November 9, 2006 Date/Time: November 16, 2006; 8 a.m.–5 12:15 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Closed—Lunch with AM: Presentation and Discussion—Grants p.m. November 17, 2006; 8 a.m.–12 p.m. students and postdocs. Management Line of Business (GMLoB) and Place: National Science Foundation, Room 1:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m. Open—Technical Grants.gov Update; Information and Resource 1235. Presentation. Management Discussion; Committee Type of Meeting: Open Session. 4:45 p.m.–5:45 p.m. Closed—Executive Discussion/Wrap-Up. Contact Person: Deborah Young, Session for Site Visit Team. Dated: October 12, 2006. Administrative Officer, Office of the 5:45 p.m.–7:30 p.m. Open—Site Visit Panel meets with MRSEC Director & Center Susanne Bolton, Assistant Director for Engineering, 703–292– Leaders. 8301. Committee Management Officer. 7:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m. Closed—Dinner Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, [FR Doc. 06–8720 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Meeting of Site Visit Panel. recommendations and counsel on major goals BILLING CODE 7555–01–M and policies pertaining to engineering Friday, November 3, 2006 programs and activities. 8 a.m.–9 a.m. Closed—Executive session/ NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agenda: Major topics will include: Continental Breakfast/Director’s Overview and Discussion of Engineering Response to Feedback. Advisory Committee for Themes 9 a.m.–11:15 a.m. Open—Industrial Cyberinfrastructure; Notice of Meeting —Biology in Engineering. Outreach and Other Collaborations. —Complexity in Engineered and Natural 11:15 a.m.–3:30 p.m. Closed—Executive In accordance with the Federal Session of Site Visit Panel. Systems. Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 3:30 p.m.–4 p.m. Open—Debriefing with —Critical Infrastructure Systems. 463, as amended), the National Science MRSEC Director and Center Leaders. —Manufacturing Frontiers. Reason for Closing: The work being Foundation announces the following —New Frontiers in Nanotechnology. meeting: reviewed may include information of a Update on Cyberinfrastructure and proprietary or confidential nature, including Name: Advisory Committee for Simulation-Based Engineering Science. technical information, financial data, such as Cyberinfrastructure—(25150). K–12 Subcommittee. salaries and personal information concerning Date and Time: October 31, 2006, 10 a.m.– Industry Partnerships Subcommittee. individuals associated with the proposals. 5 p.m. November 1, 2006, 8 a.m.–2 p.m. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Diversity. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Wilson Blvd., Room 375, Arlington, VA Dated: October 12, 2006. Sunshine Act. 22230 Susanne Bolton, Type of Meeting: Open. Dated: October 12, 2006. Contact Person: Judy Hayden, Office of the Committee Management Officer. Susanne Bolton, Director, Office of Cyberinfrastructure (CI), [FR Doc. 06–8719 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Committee Management Officer. National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson BILLING CODE 7555–01–M Blvd., Suite 1145, Arlington, VA 22230. [FR Doc. 06–8721 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Telephone: (703) 292–8970. BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61074 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

NUCLEAR REGULATORY overall integrated leak rate test radiological impacts associated with the COMMISSION measurement. Option B, section III.B of proposed action. 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, requires Accordingly, the NRC concludes that [Docket No. 50–298] that the sum of the leakage rates of Type there are no significant environmental Nebraska Public Power District; B and Type C local leak rate tests be less impacts associated with the proposed Cooper Nuclear Station; Environmental than the performance criterion (La) with action. margin, as specified in the TSs. The Assessment and Finding of No Environmental Impacts of the Significant Impact licensee’s letter also requests an exemption from this requirement, to Alternatives to the Proposed Action The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory permit exclusion of the MSIV As an alternative to the proposed Commission (NRC) is considering contribution to the sum of the Type B action, the staff considered denial of the issuance of an exemption from Title 10 and Type C tests. proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no action’’ of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 The above-cited requirements of alternative). Denial of the application CFR), paragraph 50.54(o), and 10 CFR Appendix J require that MSIV leakage would result in no change in current part 50, Appendix J, for Facility measurements be grouped with the environmental impacts. The Operating License No. DPR–46, issued leakage measurements of other environmental impacts of the proposed to Nebraska Public Power District containment penetrations when action and the alternative action are (NPPD or the licensee) for operation of containment leakage tests are similar. the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), performed. These requirements are located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. inconsistent with the design of the CNS Alternative Use of Resources Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, and the analytical models used to This action does not involve the use the NRC is issuing this environmental calculate the radiological consequences of any different resources than those assessment and finding of no significant of design-basis accidents. At CNS, and previously considered in the Final impact. similar facilities, the leakage from Environmental Statement dated primary containment penetrations, February 1973 for CNS. Environmental Assessment under accident conditions, is collected Identification of the Proposed Action and treated by the secondary Agencies and Persons Consulted containment system, or would bypass In accordance with its stated policy, The proposed action would exempt the secondary containment. However, NPPD from requirements to include on September 26, 2006, the NRC staff the leakage from the MSIVs is collected consulted with the Nebraska State main steam isolation valve (MSIV) and treated via an Alternative Leakage leakage in (a) the overall integrated official, Ms. Julia Schmitt the Nebraska Treatment (ALT) path having different Department of Public Service, regarding leakage rate test measurement required mitigation characteristics. In performing by section III.A of Appendix J, Option the environmental impact of the accident analyses, it is appropriate to proposed action. The State official had B, and (b) the sum of local leak rate test group various leakage effluents measurements required by section III.B no comments on the environmental according to the treatment they receive impact of the proposed exemption. of Appendix J, Option B. before being released to the The proposed action is in accordance environment (i.e., bypass leakage is Finding of No Significant Impact with the licensee’s application, dated grouped, leakage into secondary On the basis of the environmental March 15, 2006, for exemption from containment is grouped, and ALT certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(o) assessment, the NRC concludes that the leakage is grouped), with specific limits proposed action will not have a as defined in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix for each group defined in the TSs. The J. significant effect on the quality of the proposed exemption would permit ALT human environment. Accordingly, the The Need for the Proposed Action path leakage to be independently NRC has determined not to prepare an grouped with its unique leakage limits. Paragraph 50.54(o) of 10 CFR part 50 environmental impact statement for the requires that primary reactor Environmental Impacts of the Proposed proposed action. containments for water cooled power Action For further details with respect to this reactors be subject to the requirements The NRC has completed its evaluation action, see the licensee’s letter dated of Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50. of the proposed action and concludes March 15, 2006. Documents may be Appendix J specifies the leakage test that the environmental impacts would examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the requirements, schedules, and not be significant. The proposed action NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), acceptance criteria for tests of the leak will not significantly increase the located at One White Flint North, 11555 tight integrity of the primary reactor probability or consequences of Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, containment, and of systems and accidents. No changes are being made in Maryland. Publically available records components which penetrate the the types of effluents that may be will be accessible electronically from containment. Option B, section III.A released off site. There is no significant the Agencywide Documents Access and requires that the overall integrated leak increase in occupational or public Management System (ADAMS) Public rate not exceed the allowable leakage radiation exposure. Therefore, there are Electronic Reading Room on the NRC (La) with margin, as specified in the no significant radiological Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading- Technical Specifications (TSs). The environmental impacts associated with rm/adams.html. Persons who do not overall integrated leak rate, as specified the proposed action. have access to ADAMS or who in the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J With regard to potential non- encounter problems in accessing the definitions, includes the contribution radiological impacts, the proposed documents located in ADAMS, should from MSIV leakage. By letter dated action does not have a potential to affect contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by March 15, 2006, the licensee has any historical sites. It does not affect telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301– requested an exemption from Option B, non-radiological plant effluents and has 415–4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. section III.A, requirements to permit no other environmental impact. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day exclusion of MSIV leakage from the Therefore, there are no significant non- of October 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61075

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Resolution of This notice is distributed by mail to Brian Benney, GSI–191, Assessment of Debris several hundred subscribers; if you no Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Accumulation on PWR Sump longer wish to receive, or would like to Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Performance (Public Meeting) (Contact: be added to the distribution, please Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Michael L. Scott, 301–415–0565). contact the Office of the Secretary, [FR Doc. E6–17245 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] These meetings will be Webcast live Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). BILLING CODE 7590–01–P at the Web address—http:// In addition, distribution of this meeting www.nrc.gov. notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in Week of October 30, 2006—Tentative NUCLEAR REGULATORY receiving this Commission meeting COMMISSION There are not meetings scheduled for schedule electronically, please send an the Week of October 30, 2006. electronic message to [email protected]. Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Week of November 8, 2006—Tentative Dated: October 12, 2006. AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear R. Michelle Schroll, Wednesday, November 8, 2006 Regulatory Commission. Office of the Secretary. DATE: Weeks of October 16, 23, 30, 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Digital [FR Doc. 06–8740 Filed 10–13–06; 10:12 am] November 6, 13, 20, 2006. Instrumentation and Control (Public BILLING CODE 7590–01–M PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Meeting) (Contact: Paul Rebstock, 301– Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 415–3295). Maryland. This meeting will be Webcast live at NUCLEAR REGULATORY STATUS: Public and Closed. the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. COMMISSION MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Thursday, November 9, 2005 Notice of Opportunity To Comment on WEEK OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Draft Final Model Safety Evaluation on Technical Monday, October 16, 2006 Rule—Part 52 (Early Site permits/ Specification Improvement To Modify 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Status of New Standard Design Certification/Combined Requirements Regarding Control Reactor Issues—Combined Operating Licenses) (Public Meeting) (Contact: Room Envelope HabitabilityUsing the Licenses (COLS) (morning session). Dave Matthews, 301–415–1199). Consolidated Line Item Improvement 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Status on New This meeting will be Webcast live at Process the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. Reactor Issues—Combined Operating AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Licenses (COLS) (afternoon session) Week of November 13, 2006—Tentative Commission. (Public Meetings) (Contact: Dave ACTION: Request for comment. Matthews, 301–415–1199). There are not meetings scheduled for the Week of November 13, 2006. These meetings will be Webcast live SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that at the Web address—http:// Week of November 20, 2006—Tentative the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory www.nrc.gov. Commission (NRC) has prepared a There are not meetings scheduled for model safety evaluation (SE) and model Friday, October 20, 2006 the Week of November 20, 2006. application relating to the modification 2:30 p.m. Meeting with Advisory * * * * * of technical specification (TS) Committee on Reactor Safeguards *The schedule for Commission requirements regarding the habitability (ACRS) (Public Meeting) (Contact: John meetings is subject to change on short of the control room envelope (CRE). The Larkins, 301–415–7360). notice. To verify the status of meetings These meetings will be Webcast live NRC staff has also prepared a model no- call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. significant-hazards-consideration at the Web address—http:// Contact person for more information: www.nrc.gov. (NSHC) determination relating to this Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. matter. The purpose of these models is Week of October 23, 2006—Tentative * * * * * to permit the NRC to efficiently process The NRC Commission Meeting Tuesday, October 24, 2006 amendments that propose to revise the Schedule can be found on the Internet CRE emergency ventilation system TS 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Transshipment at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/ action and surveillance requirements for and Domestic Shipment Security of policy-making/schedule.html. the CRE boundary, and to add a new TS Radioactive Material Quantities of * * * * * administrative controls program, Concern (RAMQC) (Closed—Ex. 3) The NRC provides reasonable ‘‘Control Room Envelope Habitability (morning session). accommodation to individuals with Program.’’ Licensees of nuclear power 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Transshipment disabilities where appropriate. If you reactors to which the models apply and Domestic Shipment Security of need a reasonable accommodation to could then request amendments, Radioactive Material Quantities of participate in these public meetings, or confirming the applicability of the SE Concern (RAMQC) (Closed—Ex. 3 & 9) need this meeting notice or the and NSHC determination to their (afternoon session). transcript or other information from the reactors. The NRC staff is requesting Wednesday, October 25, 2006 public meetings in another format (e.g. comment on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to 9:30 a.m. Briefing on braille, large print), please notify the announcing their availability for Institutionalization and Integration of NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, referencing in license amendment Agency Lessons Learned (Public Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD: applications. Meeting) (Contact: John Lamb, 301–415– 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at 1727). [email protected]. Determinations on DATES: The comment period expires These meetings will be Webcast live requests for reasonable accommodation November 16, 2006. Comments received at the Web address—http:// will be made on a case-by-case basis. after this date will be considered if it is www.nrc.gov. * * * * * practical to do so, but the Commission

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61076 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

is able to ensure consideration only for response to the notice of availability amendment to facility operating comments received on or before this will be processed and noticed in licenses, a proposed no significant date. accordance with applicable rules and hazards consideration determination, ADDRESSES: Comments may be NRC procedures. and a notice of opportunity for a submitted either electronically or via This notice involves a change to hearing. The staff will also publish a U.S. mail. Submit written comments to establish more effective and appropriate notice of issuance of an amendment to Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and action, surveillance, and administrative an operating license to announce the Editing Branch, Division of TS requirements related to ensuring modification of TS requirements related Administrative Services, Office of CRE habitability. This change was to CRE habitability, for each plant that Administration, Mail Stop: T–6 D59, proposed for incorporation into the STS receives the requested change. by the owners groups participants in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day Washington, DC 20555–0001. Hand Technical Specification Task Force of October, 2006. (TSTF) and is designated TSTF–448, deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 Revision 3 (Rev 3). TSTF–448, Rev 3, can be viewed on the NRC’s Web page Timothy J. Kobetz, a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Copies of comments received may be at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/ operating/licensing/techspecs.html . Division of Inspection and Regional Support, examined at the NRC’s Public Document Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Room, 11555 Rockville Pike (Room O– Applicability Model Safety Evaluation 1F21), Rockville, Maryland. Comments This proposal to modify TS to may be submitted by electronic mail to establish more effective and appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; [email protected]. action, surveillance, and administrative Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. requirements related to maintaining Consolidated Line Item Improvement; Craig Harbuck, Mail Stop: O–12H2, CRE habitability, as proposed in TSTF– Adoption of Changes to Standard Technical Specifications Branch, 448, Rev 3, is applicable to all licensees. Technical Specifications; Under Division of Inspection and Regional To efficiently process the incoming Technical Specifications Task Force Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor license amendment applications, the (TSTF) Change Number TSTF–448, Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory staff requests that each licensee Revision 3; Regarding Control Room Commission, Washington, DC 20555– applying for the changes proposed in Envelope Habitability 0001, telephone 301–415–3140. TSTF–448, Rev 3, use the CLIIP. The 1.0 Introduction SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative approach or By application dated [ ] [as Background proposing the changes without the supplemented by letters dated[ and ]], Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, requested TS bases and TS bases control [Name of Licensee] (the licensee) ‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement program. Variations from the approach requested changes to the Technical Process for Adopting Standard recommended in this notice may require Specifications (TS) for the [Name of Technical Specification Changes for additional review by the NRC staff, and Facility]. [The supplements dated Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March may increase the time and resources [and], provided additional information 20, 2000. The consolidated line item needed for the review. Significant that clarified the application, did not improvement process (CLIIP) is variations from the approach, or expand the scope of the application as intended to improve the efficiency of inclusion of additional changes to the originally noticed, and did not change NRC licensing processes by processing license, will result in staff rejection of the staff’s original proposed no proposed changes to the standard the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant hazards consideration technical specifications (STS) in a significant variations and/or additional determination as published in the manner that supports subsequent changes should submit a license Federal Register on [Date (PM/LA will license amendment applications. The amendment request (LAR) that does not fill in FR information)] (XX FR XXXX).] CLIIP includes an opportunity for the claim to adopt TSTF–448, Rev 3. On August 8, 2006, the commercial public to comment on a proposed nuclear electrical power generation change to the STS after a preliminary Public Notices industry owners group Technical assessment by the NRC staff and a This notice requests comments from Specifications Task Force (TSTF) finding that the change will likely be interested members of the public within submitted a proposed change, TSTF– offered for adoption by licensees. This 30 days of the date of publication in the 448, Revision 3, to the improved notice solicits comments on a proposed Federal Register. After evaluating the standard technical specifications (STS) change to establish more effective and comments received as a result of this (NUREGs 1430–1434) on behalf of the appropriate action, surveillance, and notice, the staff will either reconsider industry (TSTF–448, Revisions 0, 1, and administrative TS requirements related the proposed change or announce the 2 were prior draft iterations). TSTF–448, to maintaining CRE habitability. The availability of the change in a Revision 3, is a proposal to establish CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate subsequent notice (perhaps with some more effective and appropriate action, any comments received for a proposed changes to the safety evaluation or the surveillance, and administrative STS change to the STS and to either proposed no significant hazards requirements related to ensuring the reconsider the change or announce the consideration determination as a result habitability of the control room availability of the change for adoption of public comments). If the staff envelope (CRE). by licensees. Licensees opting to apply announces the availability of the In United States Nuclear Regulatory for this TS change are responsible for change, licensees wishing to adopt the Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 2003– reviewing the staff’s evaluation, change must submit an application in 01 (Reference 1), licensees were alerted referencing the applicable technical accordance with applicable rules and to findings at facilities that existing TS justifications, and providing any other regulatory requirements. For each surveillance requirements for the necessary plant-specific information. application the staff will publish a [Control Room Envelope Emergency Each amendment application made in notice of consideration of issuance of Ventilation System (CREEVS)] may not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61077

be adequate. Specifically, the results of 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation room envelope for 30 days of ASTM E741 (Reference 2) tracer gas continuous occupancy after a Design 2.1 Control Room and Control Room tests to measure control room envelope Basis Accident (DBA) without Envelope (CRE) unfiltered inleakage at facilities exceeding a [5 rem whole body dose or indicated that the differential pressure NRC Regulatory Guide 1.196, its equivalent to any part of the body] surveillance is not a reliable method for ‘‘Control Room Habitability at Light- [5 rem total effective dose equivalent demonstrating CRE boundary water Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ (TEDE)]. operability. Licensees were requested to Revision 0, May 2003, (Reference 4) The [CREEVS] consists of two address existing TS as follows: uses the term ‘‘control room envelope redundant trains [subsystems], each (CRE)’’ in addition to the term ‘‘control capable of maintaining the habitability Provide confirmation that your technical room’’ and defines each term as follows: of the CRE. The [CREEVS] is considered specifications verify the integrity [i.e., operable when the individual operability] of the CRE [boundary], and the Control Room: The plant area, defined in the facility licensing basis, in which actions components necessary to limit operator assumed [unfiltered] inleakage rates of can be taken to operate the plant safely under exposure are operable in both trains potentially contaminated air. If you currently normal conditions and to maintain the [subsystems]. A [CREEVS] train have a differential pressure surveillance reactor in a safe condition during accident [subsystem] is considered operable requirement to demonstrate CRE [boundary] situations. It encompasses the integrity, provide the basis for your when the associated: instrumentation and controls necessary for a • Fan is operable; conclusion that it remains adequate to safe shutdown of the plant and typically • High efficiency particulate air demonstrate CRE integrity in light of the includes the critical document reference file, (HEPA) filters and charcoal adsorbers ASTM E741 testing results. If you conclude computer room (if used as an integral part of are not excessively restricting flow, and that your differential pressure surveillance the emergency response plan), shift are capable of performing their filtration requirement is no longer adequate, provide a supervisor’s office, operator wash room and kitchen, and other critical areas to which schedule for: 1) revising the surveillance functions; frequent personnel access or continuous • Heater, demister, ductwork, valves, requirement in your technical specification occupancy may be necessary in the event of and dampers are operable, and air to reference an acceptable surveillance an accident. methodology (e.g., ASTM E741), and 2) circulation can be maintained; and Control Room Envelope: The plant area, • CRE boundary is operable (the making any necessary modifications to your defined in the facility licensing basis, that in single boundary supports both trains CRE [boundary] so that compliance with your the event of an emergency, can be isolated new surveillance requirement can be from the plant areas and the environment [subsystems]). The CRE boundary is considered demonstrated. external to the CRE. This area is served by operable when the measured unfiltered If your facility does not currently have a an emergency ventilation system, with the technical specification surveillance intent of maintaining the habitability of the air inleakage is less than or equal to the control room. This area encompasses the requirement for your CRE integrity, explain inleakage value assumed by the control room, and may encompass other non- licensing basis analyses of design basis how and at what frequency you confirm your critical areas to which frequent personnel CRE integrity and why this is adequate to accident consequences to CRE access or continuous occupancy is not occupants. demonstrate CRE integrity. necessary in the event of an accident. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.197, 2.3 Regulations Applicable to Control To promote standardization and to Room Habitability minimize the resources that would be ‘‘Demonstrating Control Room Envelope needed to create and process plant- Integrity At Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ In Appendix A, ‘‘General Design specific amendment applications in Revision 0, May 2003 (Reference 5), also Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ to 10 response to the concerns described in contains these definitions, but uses the CFR Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of the generic letter, the industry and the term CRE to mean both. This is because Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ NRC proposed revisions to CRE the protected environment provided for General Design Criteria (GDC) 1, 2, 3, 4, habitability system requirements operators varies with the nuclear power 5, and 19 apply to CRE habitability. A contained in the STS, using the STS facility. At some facilities, this summary of these GDCs follows. change traveler process. This effort environment is limited to the control GDC 1, ‘‘Quality Standards and culminated in Revision 3 to traveler room; at others, it is the CRE. In this Records,’’ requires that structures, TSTF–448, ‘‘Control Room safety evaluation, consistent with the systems, and components (SSCs) Habitability,’’ which the NRC staff proposed changes to the STS, the CRE important to safety be designed, approved on [month dd, 2006]. will be used to designate both. For fabricated, erected, and tested to quality consistency, facilities should use the standards commensurate with the Consistent with the traveler as term CRE with an appropriate facility- importance of the safety functions incorporated into NUREG–143xx, the specific definition derived from the performed. licensee proposed revising action and above CRE definition. GDC 2, ‘‘Design Basis for Protection surveillance requirements in Against Natural Phenomena,’’ requires [Specification 3.7.10, ‘‘Control Room 2.2 [Control Room Envelope that structures, systems, and Envelope Emergency Ventilation System Emergency Ventilation System components (SSCs) important to safety (CREEVS),’’] and adding a new (CREEVS)] be designed to withstand the effects of administrative controls program, The [CREEVS] provides a protected earthquakes and other natural hazards. [Specification 5.5.18, ‘‘CRE Habitability environment from which operators can GDC 3, ‘‘Fire Protection,’’ requires Program.’’] The purpose of the changes control the unit, during airborne SSCs important to safety be designed is to ensure that CRE boundary challenges from radioactivity, hazardous and located to minimize the effects of operability is maintained and verified chemicals, and fire byproducts, such as fires and explosions. through effective surveillance and fire suppression agents and smoke, GDC 4, ‘‘Environmental and Dynamic programmatic requirements, and that during both normal and accident Effects Design Bases,’’ requires SSCs appropriate remedial actions are taken conditions. important to safety to be designed to in the event of an inoperable CRE The [CREEVS] is designed to maintain accommodate the effects of and to be boundary. a habitable environment in the control compatible with the environmental

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61078 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

conditions associated with normal facilities) is not a reliable method for operation will be met.’’ (Emphasis operation, maintenance, testing, and demonstrating CRE boundary added.) postulated accidents, including loss-of- operability. That is, licensees were able The NRC staff also expects facilities to coolant accidents (LOCAs). to obtain differential pressure and flow propose unambiguous remedial actions, GDC 5, ‘‘Sharing of Structures, measurements satisfying the SR limits consistent with 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2), for Systems, and Components,’’ requires even though unfiltered inleakage was the condition of not meeting the that SSCs important to safety not be determined to exceed the value assumed limiting condition for operation (LCO) shared among nuclear power units in the safety analyses. due to an inoperable CRE boundary. The unless it can be shown that such sharing In addition to an inadequate action requirements should specify a will not significantly impair their ability surveillance requirement, the action reasonable completion time to restore to perform their safety functions, requirements of these specifications conformance to the LCO before including, in the event of an accident in were ambiguous regarding CRE requiring a facility to be shut down. one unit, the orderly shutdown and boundary operability in the event CRE This completion time should be based cooldown of the remaining units. unfiltered inleakage is found to exceed on the benefits of implementing GDC 19, ‘‘Control Room,’’ requires the analysis assumption. The ambiguity mitigating actions to ensure CRE that a control room be provided from stemmed from the view that the CRE occupant safety and sufficient time to which actions can be taken to operate boundary may be considered operable resolve most problems anticipated with the nuclear reactor safely under normal but degraded in this condition, and that the CRE boundary, while minimizing conditions and to maintain the reactor it would be deemed inoperable only if the chance that operators in the CRE in a safe condition under accident calculated radiological exposure limits will need to use mitigating actions conditions, including a LOCA. for CRE occupants exceeded a licensing during accident conditions. Adequate radiation protection is to be basis limit; e.g., as stated in GDC–19, provided to permit access and 2.4 Adoption of TSTF–448, Revision 3, even while crediting compensatory by [Facility Name] occupancy of the control room under measures. Adoption of TSTF–448, Revision 3, accident conditions without personnel NRC Administrative Letter 98–10, will assure that the facility’s TS LCO for receiving radiation exposures in excess ‘‘Dispositioning of Technical the [CREEVS] is met by demonstrating of specified values. Specifications That Are Insufficient to Prior to incorporation of TSTF–448, unfiltered leakage into the CRE is within Assure Plant Safety,’’ (AL 98–10) states Revision 3, the STS requirements limits; i.e., the operability of the CRE that ‘‘ the discovery of an improper or addressing control room habitability boundary. In support of this inadequate TS value or required action resided only in the following CRE surveillance, which specifies a is considered a degraded or ventilation system specifications: relatively long test interval (frequency) nonconforming condition,’’ which is • NUREG–1430, TS 3.7.10, ‘‘Control of 6 years, TSTF–448 also adds TS defined in [NRC Inspection Manual Room Emergency Ventilation System administrative controls to assure the Chapter 9900; see latest guidance in RIS (CREVS);’’ habitability of the CRE between 2005–20 (Reference 3)]. ‘‘Imposing • NUREG–1431, TS 3.7.10, ‘‘Control performances of the ASTM E741 test. In administrative controls in response to Room Emergency Filtration System addition, adoption of TSTF–448 will an improper or inadequate TS is (CREFS);’’ establish clearly stated and reasonable • considered an acceptable short-term NUREG–1432, TS 3.7.11, ‘‘Control required actions in the event CRE corrective action. The [NRC] staff Room Emergency Air Cleanup System unfiltered inleakage is found to exceed expects that, following the imposition of (CREACS);’’ the analysis assumption. • administrative controls, an amendment REG–1433, TS 3.7.4, ‘‘[Main Control The changes made by TSTF–448 to to the [inadequate] TS, with appropriate Room Environmental Control (MCREC)] the STS requirements for the [CREEVS] justification and schedule, will be System;’’ and and the CRE boundary conform to 10 • submitted in a timely fashion.’’ NUREG–1434, TS 3.7.3, ‘‘[Control CFR 50.36(c)(2) and 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3). Room Fresh Air (CRFA)] System.’’ Licensees that have found unfiltered Their adoption will better assure that In these specifications, the inleakage in excess of the limit assumed [facility name]’s CRE will remain surveillance requirement associated in the safety analyses and have yet to habitable during normal operation and with demonstrating the operability of either reduce the inleakage below the design basis accident conditions. These the CRE boundary requires verifying limit or establish a higher bounding changes are, therefore, acceptable from that one [CREEVS] train [subsystem] can limit through re-analysis, have a regulatory standpoint. maintain a positive pressure of [0.125] implemented compensatory actions to inches water gauge, relative to the ensure the safety of CRE occupants, 3.0 Technical Evaluation adjacent [turbine building] during the pending final resolution of the The NRC staff reviewed the proposed pressurization mode of operation at a condition, consistent with RIS 2005–20. changes against the corresponding makeup flow rate of [3000] cfm. However, based on GL 2003–01 and AL changes made to the STS by TSTF–448, Facilities that pressurize the CRE during 98–10, the staff expects each licensee to Revision 3, which the NRC staff has the emergency mode of operation of the propose TS changes that include a found to satisfy applicable regulatory [CREEVS] have similar surveillance surveillance to periodically measure requirements, as described above in requirements. Other facilities that do CRE unfiltered inleakage in order to Section 2.0. [The emergency operational not pressurize the CRE have only a satisfy 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3), which mode of the [CREEVS] at [facility name] system flow rate criterion for the requires a facility’s TS to include [pressurizes] [isolates but does not emergency mode of operation. surveillance requirements, which it pressurize] the CRE to minimize Regardless, the results of ASTM E741 defines as ‘‘requirements relating to test, unfiltered air inleakage.] The proposed (Reference 2) tracer gas tests to measure calibration, or inspection to assure that changes are consistent with this design. CRE unfiltered inleakage at facilities the necessary quality of systems and indicated that the differential pressure components is maintained, that facility 3.1 Proposed Changes surveillance (or the alternative operation will be within safety limits, The proposed amendment would surveillance at non-pressurization and that limiting conditions for strengthen CRE habitability TS

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61079

requirements by changing TS [3.7.10, that CRE occupants are protected from the use of mitigating actions as directed CREEVS] and adding a new TS by the [CREEVS]. [The licensee also by Required Action B.1. The 90-day administrative controls program on CRE proposed to correct a typographical Completion Time of new Required habitability. Accompanying the error by replacing ‘‘irradiate’’ with Action B.3 is reasonable based on the proposed TS changes are appropriate ‘‘irradiated’’ in TS 3.7.10 Condition E.] determination that the mitigating conforming technical changes to the TS These changes improve the usability actions will ensure protection of CRE Bases. and quality of the presentation of the occupants within analyzed limits while The proposed revision to the Bases TS, have no impact on safety, and limiting the probability that CRE also includes editorial and therefore, are acceptable. occupants will have to implement administrative changes to reflect protective measures that may adversely 3.3 TS [3.7.10, CREEVS] applicable changes to the corresponding affect their ability to control the reactor STS Bases, which were made to day Completion Time is a reasonable factual errors, and achieve more time to diagnose, plan and possibly consistency among the STS NUREGs. The licensee proposed to revise the action requirements of TS [3.7.10, repair, and test most anticipated [Except for plant specific differences, all problems with the CRE boundary. of] these changes are consistent with ‘‘CREEVS,’’] to acknowledge that an inoperable CRE boundary, depending Therefore, proposed Action B is STS as revised by TSTF–448, Revision acceptable. 3. upon the location of the associated The NRC staff compared the proposed degradation, could cause just one, instead of both [CREEVS] [trains] to be TS changes to the STS and the STS basis of plant-specific design or to address one or more [CREEVS] retention of current licensing basis.] The [trains], as follows: The licensee proposed to establish • NRC staff also reviewed the proposed Condition A One [CREEVS] [train] new action requirements in TS [3.7.10, changes to the TS Bases for consistency inoperable for reasons other than ‘‘CREEVS,’’] for an inoperable CRE with the STS Bases and the plant- Condition B. boundary. Currently, if one [CREEVS] • specific design and licensing bases, Condition B One or more [train] is determined to be inoperable although approval of the Bases is not a [CREEVS] [trains] inoperable due to due to an inoperable CRE boundary, condition for accepting the proposed inoperable CRE boundary in MODE 1, 2, existing Action A would apply and amendment. However, TS 5.5.[11], ‘‘TS [or] 3[, or 4]. require restoring the [train] (and the Bases Control Program,’’ provides This change clarifies how to apply the CRE boundary) to operable status in 7 assurance that the licensee has action requirements in the event just days. If two [trains] are determined to be established and will maintain the one [CREEVS] [train] is unable to ensure inoperable due to an inoperable CRE adequacy of the Bases. CRE occupant safety within licensing boundary, existing Action [E] specifies [The proposed Bases for TS 3.7.10 basis limits because of an inoperable no time to restore the [trains] (and the reference NEI 99–03, ‘‘Control Room CRE boundary. It enhances the usability CRE boundary) to operable status, but Habitability Assessment Guidance,’’ of Conditions A and B with a requires immediate entry into the Revision 1, dated March 2003, which presentation that is more consistent shutdown actions of LCO 3.0.3. These the NRC staff has not formally endorsed. with the intent of the existing existing Actions are more restrictive However, NEI 99–03, Revision 0 requirements. This change is an than would be appropriate in situations (Reference 6), dated June 2001, has been administrative change because it neither for which CRE occupant endorsed through Regulatory Guide reduces nor increases the existing action implementation of compensatory 1.196, ‘‘Control Room Habitability at requirements, and, therefore, is measures or mitigating actions would Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ acceptable. temporarily afford adequate CRE dated May 2003 (Reference 4). Listing The licensee proposed to replace occupant protection from postulated Revision 1 instead of Revision 0 is existing Required Action B.1, ‘‘Restore airborne hazards. To account for such acceptable because the NRC staff control room boundary to OPERABLE situations, the licensee proposed to reviewed the descriptions and status,’’ which has a 24-hour revise the action requirements to add a justifications of the differences between Completion Time, with Required Action new Condition B, ‘‘One or more Revision 0 and Revision 1, provided in B.1, to immediately initiate action to [CREEVS] [trains] inoperable due to the licensee’s application, and has implement mitigating actions; Required inoperable CRE boundary in MODE 1, 2, determined that referencing Revision 1 Action B.2, to verify, within 24 hours, [or] 3[, or 4].’’ New Action B would does not conflict with the endorsement that in the event of a DBA, CRE allow 90 days to restore the CRE of Revision 0, as stated in RG 1.196.] occupant radiological exposures will boundary (and consequently, the not exceed the calculated dose of the affected [CREEVS] [trains]) to operable 3.2 Editorial Changes licensing basis analyses of DBA status, provided that mitigating actions The licensee proposed editorial consequences, and that CRE occupants are immediately implemented and changes to TS [3.7.10, ‘‘CREEVS,’’] to are protected from hazardous chemicals within 24 hours are verified to ensure, establish standard terminology, such as and smoke; and Required Action B.3, to that in the event of a DBA, CRE ‘‘control room envelope (CRE)’’ in place restore CRE boundary to operable status occupant radiological exposures will of ‘‘control room,’’ except for the plant- within 90 days. not exceed the calculated dose of the specific name for the [CREEVS], and The 24-hour Completion Time of new licensing basis analyses of DBA ‘‘radiological, chemical, and smoke Required Action B.2 is reasonable based consequences, and that CRE occupants hazards (or challenges)’’ in place of on the low probability of a DBA are protected from hazardous chemicals various phrases to describe the hazards occurring during this time period, and and smoke.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61080 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

The 24-hour Completion Time of new is indicated.’’ The allowance of this note accordance with the STS writer’s guide Required Action B.2 is reasonable based is acceptable because the administrative (TSTF–GG–05–01, ‘‘Writer’s Guide for on the low probability of a DBA controls will ensure that the opening Plant-Specific Improved Technical occurring during this time period, and will be quickly sealed to maintain the Specifications,’’ June 2005). The the use of mitigating actions. The 90-day validity of the licensing basis analyses practical result of this presentation in Completion Time is reasonable based on of DBA consequences. format is the same as specifying two the determination that the mitigating separately numbered Actions, one for actions will ensure protection of CRE each condition. Its advantage is to make occupants within analyzed limits while the TS Actions table easier to use by limiting the probability that CRE The existing TS 3.7.10 condition for avoiding having an additional occupants will have to implement two control room emergency ventilation numbered row in the Actions table. The protective measures that may adversely system (CREVS) trains inoperable new condition in Action E is needed affect their ability to control the reactor during refueling, Condition E, is revised and maintain it in a safe shutdown because proposed Action B will only to also apply during plant operation in apply in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. As such, condition in the event of a DBA. The 90- Modes 5 and 6. It will state, ‘‘Two this change will ensure that the Actions day Completion Time of new Required CREVS trains inoperable [in MODE 5 or table continues to specify a condition Action B.3 is a reasonable time to 6, or] during movement of [recently] diagnose, plan and possibly repair, and irradiated fuel assemblies.’’ This change for an inoperable CRE boundary during test most anticipated problems with the clarifies the applicability of this Modes 5 and 6 and during refueling. CRE boundary. Therefore, proposed condition for dual unit facilities when Therefore, this change is administrative Action B is acceptable. the unit is in Mode 5 or 6, and the other and acceptable. To distinguish new Condition B from unit is moving [recently] irradiated fuel the existing condition for one [CREEVS] assemblies. Similarly, Condition D, for [train] inoperable, Condition A is failing to meet Action A during inoperable for reasons other than assemblies, is revised to also apply in Condition B.’’ To distinguish new Modes 5 and 6. These changes are The licensee proposed to add a new Condition B from the existing condition administrative because they only clarify condition to Action F of TS 3.7.4 that for two [CREEVS] [trains] inoperable, the intended applicability of the states, ‘‘One or more [CREEVS] Condition [E] (renumbered as Condition existing conditions, and are, therefore, subsystems inoperable due to an [F]) is revised to state, ‘‘Two [CREEVS] acceptable. Required Actions D.2 and inoperable CRE boundary during [trains] inoperable during MODE 1, 2, E.1, to immediately suspend movement movement of [recently] irradiated fuel [or] 3[, or 4] for reasons other than of [recently] irradiated fuel assemblies, assemblies in the [[primary or] Condition B.’’ The changes to existing ensures that a fuel handling accident secondary] containment or during Conditions A and [E] are less restrictive cannot occur while the unit is in these operations with a potential for draining because these Conditions will no longer conditions. With only one CREVS train the reactor vessel (OPDRVs).’’ The apply in the event one or two [CREEVS] inoperable, Required Action D.1 specified Required Actions proposed for [trains] are inoperable due to an specifies an alternative to immediately this condition are the same as for the inoperable CRE boundary during unit suspending fuel movement; it requires other existing condition for Action F, operation in Mode 1, 2, [or] 3[, or 4]. immediately placing the operable This is acceptable because the new which states, ‘‘Two [CREEVS] CREVS train in its emergency operating Action B establishes adequate remedial subsystems inoperable during alignment, or mode, to minimize the measures in this condition. With the movement of [recently] irradiated fuel chance the train will fail to properly addition of a new Condition B, existing assemblies in the [secondary] switch to this mode if called upon in Conditions B, C, D, and E are re- containment or during OPDRVs.’’ response to a fuel handling accident, or designated C, D, E, and F, respectively. Accordingly, the new condition is stated The licensee also proposed to modify other airborne hazards challenge. with the other condition in Action F the [CREEVS] LCO by adding a note using the logical connector ‘‘OR’’ in allowing the CRE boundary to be accordance with the STS writer’s guide (TSTF–GG–05–01, ‘‘Writer’s Guide for administrative controls. As stated in the Plant-Specific Improved Technical LCO Bases, this Note ‘‘only applies to The licensee proposed to add a new Specifications,’’ June 2005). The openings in the CRE boundary that can condition to Action E of TS 3.7.10 that practical result of this presentation in be rapidly restored to the design states, ‘‘One or more [CREEVS] trains format is the same as specifying two inoperable due to an inoperable CRE condition, such as doors, hatches, floor separately numbered Actions, one for boundary [in Mode 5 or 6, or] during plugs, and access panels. For entry and each condition. Its advantage is to make movement of [recently] irradiated fuel exit through doors, the administrative the TS Actions table easier to use by control of the opening is performed by assemblies.’’ The specified Required avoiding having an additional the person(s) entering or exiting the Action proposed for this condition is area. For other openings, these controls the same as for the existing condition of numbered row in the Actions table. This should be proceduralized and consist of Action E [(revised as discussed new actions condition is needed stationing a dedicated individual at the previously) ], which states apply in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. As such, communication with operators in the ‘‘[Two [CREEVS] trains inoperable [in this change will ensure that the Actions CRE. This individual will have a MODE 5 or 6, or] during movement of table continues to specify a condition method to rapidly close the opening and [recently] irradiated fuel assemblies.’’ for an inoperable CRE boundary during to restore the CRE boundary to a Accordingly, the new condition is stated refueling and OPDRVs. Therefore, this condition equivalent to the design with the other condition in Action E change is administrative and acceptable. condition when a need for CRE isolation using the logical connector ‘‘OR’’ in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61081

method. [The NRC staff reviewed the 0 (Reference 5), and measurement of it meets the criteria for such methods and at the frequencies stated in Sections given in RG 1.197.] [Insert plant-specific C.1 and C.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.197. In the [emergency radiation state] of technical evaluation by the staff of the [The licensee proposed the following operation, the [CREEVS] isolates alternative method.] [The NRC staff exception[s] to Sections C.1 and C.2 of unfiltered ventilation air supply intakes, finds that the proposed alternative Regulatory Guide 1.197, to be listed in filters the emergency ventilation air method is adequate for satisfying the the TS with this program element.] supply to the CRE, and pressurizes the criteria of RG 1.197.] Therefore, the [Insert plant-specific evaluation of CRE to minimize unfiltered air proposed CRE inleakage measurement licensee’s proposed exceptions.] This inleakage past the CRE boundary. The SR is acceptable. element is intended to ensure that the licensee proposed to delete the CRE plant assesses CRE habitability 3.4 TS 5.5.[18], CRE Habitability pressurization surveillance requirement consistent with Sections C.1 and C.2 of Program (SR). This SR requires verifying that one Regulatory Guide 1.197 [and NRC [CREEVS] [train][subsystem], operating The proposed administrative controls approved exceptions]. Assessing CRE in the [emergency radiation state], can program TS is consistent with the model habitability at the NRC accepted maintain a pressure of [0.125] inches program TS in TSTF–448, Revision 3. In frequencies provides assurance that water gauge, relative to the adjacent combination with SR 3.7.[10].[4], this significant degradation of the CRE [turbine building] during the program is intended to ensure the boundary will not go undetected pressurization mode of operation at a operability of the CRE boundary, which between CRE inleakage determinations. makeup flow rate of [3000] cfm. The as part of an operable [CREEVS] will Determination of CRE inleakage using deletion of this SR is proposed because ensure that CRE habitability is test methods acceptable to the NRC staff measurements of unfiltered air leakage maintained such that CRE occupants assures that test results are reliable for into the CRE at numerous reactor can control the reactor safely under ascertaining CRE boundary operability. facilities demonstrated that a basic normal conditions and maintain it in a Determination of CRE inleakage at the assumption of this SR, an essentially safe condition following a radiological NRC accepted frequencies provides leak-tight CRE boundary, was incorrect event, hazardous chemical release, or a assurance that significant degradation of for most facilities. Hence, meeting this smoke challenge. The program shall the CRE boundary will not occur SR by achieving the required CRE ensure that adequate radiation between CRE inleakage determinations. pressure is not necessarily a conclusive protection is provided to permit access Measurement of CRE pressure with indication of CRE boundary leak and occupancy of the CRE under design respect to all areas adjacent to the CRE tightness, i.e., CRE boundary basis accident (DBA) conditions without boundary at designated locations for use operability. In its response to GL 2003– personnel receiving radiation exposures in assessing the CRE boundary at a 01, [dated month, dd, yyyy], the in excess of [5 rem whole body or its frequency of [18] months on a staggered licensee reported that it had determined equivalent to any part of the body] [5 test basis (with respect to the [CREEVS] that the [facility name] CRE rem total effective dose equivalent trains). This element is intended to pressurization surveillance, SR (TEDE)] for the duration of the accident. ensure that CRE differential pressure is 3.7.[10].[4], was inadequate to A CRE Habitability Program TS regularly measured to identify changes demonstrate the operability of the CRE acceptable to the NRC staff requires the in pressure warranting evaluation of the boundary, and proposed to replace it program to contain the following condition of the CRE boundary. with an inleakage measurement SR and elements: Obtaining and trending pressure data a CRE Habitability Program in TS Definitions of CRE and CRE boundary. provides additional assurance that Section 5.5, in accordance with the This element is intended to ensure that significant degradation of the CRE approved version of TSTF–448. Based these definitions accurately describe the boundary will not go undetected on the adoption of TSTF–448, Revision plant areas that are within the CRE, and between CRE inleakage determinations. 3, the licensee’s proposal to delete SR also the interfaces that form the CRE Quantitative limits on unfiltered 3.7.[10].[4] is acceptable. boundary, and are consistent with the inleakage. This element is intended to general definitions discussed in Section establish the CRE inleakage limit as the 2.1 of this safety evaluation. CRE unfiltered infiltration rate assumed The proposed CRE inleakage Establishing what is meant by the CRE in the CRE occupant radiological measurement SR states, ‘‘Perform and the CRE boundary will preclude consequence analyses of design basis required CRE unfiltered air inleakage ambiguity in the implementation of the accidents. Having an unambiguous testing in accordance with the Control program. criterion for the CRE boundary to be Room Envelope Habitability Program.’’ Configuration control and preventive considered operable in order to meet The CRE Habitability Program TS, maintenance of the CRE boundary. This LCO 3.7.[10], will ensure that associated proposed TS 5.5.[18], requires that the element is intended to ensure the CRE action requirements will be consistently program include ‘‘Requirements for boundary is maintained in its design applied in the event of CRE degradation determining the unfiltered air inleakage condition. Guidance for implementing resulting in inleakage exceeding the past the CRE boundary into the CRE in this element is contained in NEI 99–03 limit. accordance with the testing methods (Reference 6) and Regulatory Guide Consistent with TSTF–448, Revision and at the Frequencies specified in 1.196 (Reference 4). Maintaining the 3, the program states that the provisions Sections C.1 and C.2 of Regulatory CRE boundary in its design condition of SR 3.0.2 are applicable to the program Guide 1.197, Revision 0 (Reference 5). provides assurance that its leak- frequencies for performing the activities This guidance references ASTM E741 tightness will not significantly degrade required by program paragraph number (Reference 2) as an acceptable method between CRE inleakage determinations. c, parts (i) and (ii) (assessment of CRE for ascertaining the unfiltered leakage Assessment of CRE habitability at the habitability and measurement of CRE into the CRE. The licensee has frequencies stated in Sections C.1 and inleakage), and paragraph number d [,however, not] proposed to follow this C.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.197, Revision (measurement of CRE differential

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61082 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

pressure). This statement is needed to compliance with the Commission’s analysis of the issue of no significant avoid confusion. SR 3.0.2 is applicable regulations, and (3) the issuance of the hazards consideration is presented to the surveillance that references the amendments will not be inimical to the below: testing in the CRE Habitability Program. common defense and security or to the Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does However, SR 3.0.2 is not applicable to health and safety of the public. Not Involve a Significant Increase in Administrative Controls unless theProbability or Consequences of an specifically invoked. Providing this 7.0 References Accident Previously Evaluated statement in the program eliminates any 1. NRC Generic Letter 2003–01, confusion regarding whether SR 3.0.2 is ‘‘Control Room Habitability,’’ dated June The proposed change does not applicable, and is acceptable. 12, 2003, (GL 2003–01). adversely affect accident initiators or Consistent with TSTF–448, Revision 2. ASTM E 741–00, ‘‘Standard Test precursors nor alter the design 3, proposed TS 5.5.[18] states that (1) a Method for Determining Air Change in assumptions, conditions, or CRE Habitability Program shall be a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas configuration of the facility. The established and implemented, (2) the Dilution,’’ 2000, (ASTM E741). proposed change does not alter or program shall include all of the NRC- 3. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary prevent the ability of structures, staff required elements, as described 2005–20: Revision to Guidance systems, and components (SSCs) to above, and (3) the provisions of SR 3.0.2 Formerly Contained in NRC Generic perform their intended function to shall apply to program frequencies. Letter 91–18,’’ Information to Licensees mitigate the consequences of an Therefore, TS 5.5.[18], which is Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual initiating event within the assumed consistent with the model program TS Sections on Resolution of Degraded and acceptance limits. The proposed change approved by the NRC staff in TSTF–448, Nonconforming Conditions and on revises the TS for the CRE emergency Revision 3, is acceptable. Operability,’’ dated September 26, 2005 ventilation system, which is a (RIS 2005–20). mitigation system designed to minimize 4.0 State Consultation 4. Regulatory Guide 1.196, ‘‘Control unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and In accordance with the Commission’s Room Habitability at Light-Water to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect regulations, the [ ] State official was Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ dated May the CRE occupants in the event of notified of the proposed issuance of the 2003. accidents previously analyzed. An amendment. The State official had [(1) 5. Regulatory Guide 1.197, important part of the CRE emergency no comments or (2) the following ‘‘Demonstrating Control Room Envelope ventilation system is the CRE boundary. comments—with subsequent Integrity at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ The CRE emergency ventilation system disposition by the staff]. Revision 0, May 2003. is not an initiator or precursor to any 6. NEI 99–03, Revision 0, ‘‘Control accident previously evaluated. 5.0 Environmental Consideration Room Habitability Assessment Therefore, the probability of any The amendments change a Guidance’’ datedJune 2001. accident previously evaluated is not requirement with respect to the Principal contributors: C. Harbuck. increased. Performing tests to verify the installation or use of a facility Proposed No-Significant-Hazards- operability of the CRE boundary and component located within the restricted implementing a program to assess and Consideration Determination area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and maintain CRE habitability ensure that change surveillance requirements. The Description of Amendment Request: A the CRE emergency ventilation system is NRC staff has determined that the change is proposed to the standard capable of adequately mitigating amendments involve no significant technical specifications (STS) (NUREGs radiological consequences to CRE increase in the amounts and no 1430 through 1434) and plant specific occupants during accident conditions, significant change in the types of any technical specifications (TS), to and that the CRE emergency ventilation effluents that may be released offsite, strengthen TS requirements regarding system will perform as assumed in the and that there is no significant increase control room envelope (CRE) consequence analyses of design basis in individual or cumulative habitability by changing the action and accidents. Thus, the consequences of occupational radiation exposure. The surveillance requirements associated any accident previously evaluated are Commission has previously issued a with the limiting condition for not increased. Therefore, the proposed proposed finding that the amendments operation operability requirements for change does not involve a significant involve no-significant-hazards the CRE emergency ventilation system, increase in the probability or considerations, and there has been no and by adding a new TS administrative consequences of an accident previously public comment on the finding [xx FR controls program on CRE habitability. evaluated. xxxx]. Accordingly, the amendments Accompanying the proposed TS change Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does meet the eligibility criteria for are appropriate conforming technical Not Create the Possibility of a New or categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR changes to the TS Bases. The proposed Different Kind of Accident From Any 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 revision to the Bases also includes Previously Evaluated CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact editorial and administrative changes to statement or environmental assessment reflect applicable changes to the The proposed change does not impact need be prepared in connection with the corresponding STS Bases, which were the accident analysis. The proposed issuance of the amendments. made to improve clarity, conform with change does not alter the required the latest information and references, mitigation capability of the CRE 6.0 Conclusion correct factual errors, and achieve more emergency ventilation system, or its The Commission has concluded, on consistency among the STS NUREGs. functioning during accident conditions the basis of the considerations discussed The proposed revision to the TS and as assumed in the licensing basis above, that (1) There is reasonable associated Bases is consistent with STS analyses of design basis accident assurance that the health and safety of as revised by TSTF–448, Revision 3. radiological consequences to CRE the public will not be endangered by Basis for proposed no significant occupants. No new or different operation in the proposed manner, (2) hazards consideration determination: accidents result from performing the such activities will be conducted in As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an new surveillance or following the new

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61083

program. The proposed change does not TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS requirements related to control room involve a physical alteration of the plant REGARDING CONTROL ROOM envelope habitability in TS 3.7.[10], (i.e., no new or different type of ENVELOPE HABITABILITY IN [Control Room Envelope Emergency equipment will be installed) or a ACCORDANCE WITH TSTF–448, Ventilation System (CREEVS)] and TS significant change in the methods REVISION 3, USING THE Section 5.5, ‘‘Administrative Controls— governing normal plant operation. The CONSOLIDATED LINE ITEM Programs.’’ proposed change does not alter any IMPROVEMENT PROCESS The changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions and is Gentlemen: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consistent with current plant operating In accordance with the provisions of approved Industry/Technical practice. Therefore, this change does not 10 CFR 50.90 [LICENSEE] is submitting Specification Task Force (TSTF) STS create the possibility of a new or a request for an amendment to the change TSTF–448 Revision 3. The different kind of accident from an technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT availability of this TS improvement was accident previously evaluated. NAME, UNIT NOS.]. The proposed amendment would published in the Federal Register on Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does modify TS requirements related to [DATE] as part of the consolidated line Not Involve a Significant Reduction in control room envelope habitability in item improvement process (CLIIP). the Margin of Safety accordance with TSTF–448, Revision 3. 2.0 Assessment The proposed change does not alter Attachment 1 provides a description the manner in which safety limits, of the proposed change, the requested 2.1 Applicability of Published Safety limiting safety system settings or confirmation of applicability, and plant- Evaluation limiting conditions for operation are specific verifications. Attachment 2 [LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety determined. The proposed change does provides the existing TS pages marked evaluation dated [DATE] as part of the not affect safety analysis acceptance up to show the proposed change. criteria. The proposed change will not Attachment 3 provides revised (clean) CLIIP. This review included a review of result in plant operation in a TS pages. Attachment 4 provides a the NRC staff’s evaluation, as well as the configuration outside the design basis summary of the regulatory commitments supporting information provided to for an unacceptable period of time made in this submittal. support TSTF–448. [LICENSEE] has without compensatory measures. The [LICENSEE] requests approval of the concluded that the justifications proposed change does not adversely proposed License Amendment by presented in the TSTF proposal and the affect systems that respond to safely [DATE], with the amendment being safety evaluation prepared by the NRC shut down the plant and to maintain the implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X staff are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT plant in a safe shutdown condition. DAYS]. NOS.] and justify this amendment for Therefore, the proposed change does not In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a the incorporation of the changes to the involve a significant reduction in a copy of this application, with [PLANT] TS. margin of safety. attachments, is being provided to the 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations Based upon the reasoning presented designated [STATE] Official. above and the previous discussion of I declare under penalty of perjury [LICENSEE] is not proposing any the amendment request, the requested under the laws of the United States of variations or deviations from the TS change does not involve a no- America that I am authorized by changes described in the TSTF–448, significant-hazards consideration. [LICENSEE] to make this request and Revision 3, or the NRC staff’s model Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4 day of that the foregoing is true and correct. safety evaluation dated [DATE]. (Note that request may be notarized in October, 2006. [Note: The Applicant should choose one of For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. lieu of using this oath or affirmation the following.] Timothy J. Kobetz, Branch Chief , Technical statement). Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection If you should have any questions [LICENSEE] proposes to reference NEI and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear regarding this submittal, please contact 99–03, Revision 0, dated June 2001, in Reactor Regulation. [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER] the TS bases for TS 3.7.[10], instead of The Following Example Of An Sincerely, Revision 1, dated March 2003, because Application Was Prepared By The NRC [Name, Title] the NRC has not formally endorsed Staff To Facilitate Use Of The Attachments: 1. Description and Revision 1. Assessment Consolidated Line Item Improvement [LICENSEE] proposes to reference NEI Process (Cliip). The Model Provides The 2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes 99–03, Revision 1, dated March 2003, in Expected Level Of Detail And Content the TS bases for TS 3.7.[10], and For An Application To Revise 3. Revised Technical Specification provides the following descriptions and According To Tstf–448, Revision 3, Pages justifications of the differences with Technical Specifications Regarding 4. Regulatory Commitments Revision 0, dated June 2003. These Control Room Envelope Habitability 5. Proposed Technical Specification justifications demonstrate that Using Cliip. Licensees Remain Bases Changes referencing Revision 1 does not conflict Responsible For Ensuring That Their cc: NRC Project Manager Actual Application Fulfills Their NRC Regional Office with the positions taken by the NRC Administrative Requirements As Well NRC Resident Inspector staff in its endorsement of Revision 0 as As Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Contact stated in Regulatory Guide 1.196, Regulations. ‘‘Control Room Habitability at Light- Attachment 1—Description and Water Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ dated U.S. Nuclear Regular Commission Assessment Document Control Desk May 2003. Washington, DC 20555 1.0 Description [Insert descriptions and justifications SUBJECT: PLANT NAME DOCKET NO. The proposed amendment would for differences between Revision 0 and 50-APPLICATION TO REVISE modify technical specification (TS) Revision 1 here.]

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61084 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

2.3 License Condition Regarding Initial the time period since the most recent 2. [LICENSEE] will revise procedures Performance of New Surveillance and successful tracer gas test is greater than to implement the new surveillance and Assessment Requirements 3 years. programmatic TS requirements related [LICENSEE] proposes the following as (c) The first performance of the to CRE habitability. a license condition to support periodic measurement of CRE pressure, 3. [LICENSEE] commits to Regulatory implementation of the proposed TS Specification 5.5.[18].d, shall be within Positions C.1 and C.2 of Regulatory changes: [18] months, plus the [138] days Guide 1.197, ‘‘Demonstrating Control Upon implementation of Amendment allowed by SR 3.0.2, as measured from Room Envelope Integrity at Nuclear No. xxx adopting TSTF–448, Revision 3, [date], the date of the most recent Power Reactors,’’ Revision 0, May 2003, the determination of control room successful pressure measurement test, with the following exceptions: envelope (CRE) unfiltered air inleakage or within [138] days if not performed [Add descriptions of proposed as required by SR 3.7.[10].[4], in previously. exceptions.] accordance with TS 5.5.[18].c.(i), the 3.0 Regulatory Analysis 4.0 Environmental Evaluation assessment of CRE habitability as required by Specification 5.5.[18].c.(ii), 3.1 No Significant Hazards [LICENSEE] has reviewed the and the measurement of CRE pressure as Consideration Determination environmental evaluation included in required by Specification 5.5.[18].d, [LICENSEE] has reviewed the the model safety evaluation dated shall be considered met. Following proposed no significant hazards [DATE] as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] implementation: consideration determination (NSHCD) has concluded that the staff’s findings (a) The first performance of SR published in the Federal Register as presented in that evaluation are 3.7.[10.5], in accordance with part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has applicable to [PLANT] and the Specification 5.5.[18].c.(i), shall be concluded that the proposed NSHCD evaluation is hereby incorporated by within the specified Frequency of 6 presented in the Federal Register notice reference for this application. years, plus the 15-month allowance of is applicable to [PLANT] and is hereby SR 3.0.2, as measured from [date], the Attachment 2—Proposed Technical incorporated by reference to satisfy the Specification Changes (Mark-Up) date of the most recent successful tracer requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). gas test, as stated in the [date] letter Attachment 3—Proposed Technical response to Generic Letter 2003–01, or 3.2 Verification and Commitments Specification Pages within the next 15 months if the time As discussed in the notice of Attachment 4—List of Regulatory period since the most recent successful availability published in the Federal Commitments tracer gas test is greater than 6 years. Register on [DATE] for this TS (b) The first performance of the improvement, plant-specific The following table identifies those periodic assessment of CRE habitability, verifications were performed as follows: actions committed to by [LICENSEE] in Specification 5.5.[18].c.(ii), shall be 1. [LICENSEE] commits to the this document. Any other statements in within 3 years, plus the 9-month guidance of NEI 99–03, Revision 0, this submittal are provided for allowance of SR 3.0.2, as measured from ‘‘Control Room Habitability Assessment information purposes and are not [date], the date of the most recent Guidance’’ dated June 2001, which considered to be regulatory successful tracer gas test, as stated in the provides guidance and details on the commitments. Please direct questions [date] letter response to Generic Letter assessment and management of control regarding these commitments to 2003–01, or within the next 9 months if room envelope (CRE) habitability. [CONTACT NAME].

Regulatory commitments Due date/event

[LICENSEE] commits to the guidance of NEI 99–03, Revision 0, ‘‘Control Room Habitability Assessment [Ongoing or implement with amend- Guidance’’ dated June 2001, which provides guidance and details on the assessment and management ment]. of control room envelope (CRE) habitability. [LICENSEE] will revise procedures to implement the new surveillance and programmatic TS requirements [Implement with amendment]. related to CRE habitability. [LICENSEE] commits to Regulatory Positions C.1 and C.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.197, ‘‘Demonstrating [Implement with amendment]. Control Room Envelope Integrity at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ Revision 0, May 2003, with the following exceptions:. [Add descriptions of proposed exceptions.]

Attachment 5—Proposed Changes to OFFICE OF PERSONNEL Management (OPM) has submitted to Technical Specification Bases Pages MANAGEMENT the Office of Management and Budget [FR Doc. E6–17246 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] (OMB) a request for review of a revised Submission for OMB Review; information collection. RI 25–41, Initial BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Comment Request for Review of a Certification of Full-Time School Revised Information Collection: RI 25– Attendance, is used to determine 41 whether a child is unmarried and a full- AGENCY: Office of Personnel time student in a recognized school. Management. OPM must determine this in order to ACTION: Notice. pay survivor annuity benefits to children who are age 18 or older. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. Approximately 1,200 RI 25–41 forms L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice are completed annually. It takes announces that the Office of Personnel approximately 90 minutes to complete

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61085

the form. The annual burden is 1,800 Application for Refund of Retirement OFFICE OF PERSONNEL hours. Deductions Under FERS, is used by MANAGEMENT For copies of this proposal, contact refund applicants to notify their Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606– current/former spouse(s) that they are Submission for OMB Review; 8358, FAX (202) 418–3251 or via E-mail applying for a refund of retirement Comment Request for Reclearance of to [email protected]. deductions, which is required by law. a Revised Information Collection: RI Please include a mailing address with 30–2 your request. Comments are particularly invited on: whether this collection of information is DATES: Comments on this proposal AGENCY: Office of Personnel necessary for the proper performance of should be received within 30 calendar Management. functions of the Office of Personnel days from the date of this publication. Management, and whether it will have ACTION: Notice. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments practical utility; whether our estimate of to— the public burden of this collection of SUMMARY: In accordance with the Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations information is accurate, and based on Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. Support Group, Center for Retirement valid assumptions and methodology; L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of and ways in which we can minimize the announces that the Office of Personnel Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, burden of the collection of information Management (OPM) has submitted to NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC 20415–3540. on those who are to respond, through the Office of Management and Budget and the use of appropriate technological (OMB) a request for reclearance of a Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, collection techniques or other forms of revised information collection. RI 30–2, Office of Information & Regulatory information technology. Annuitant’s Report of Earned Income, is Affairs, Office of Management and Approximately 17,000 SF 3106 forms used annually to determine if disability Budget, New Executive Office will be processed annually. The SF 3106 retirees under age 60 have earned Building, NW., Room 10235, takes approximately 30 minutes to income which will result in the Washington, DC 20503. complete for a total of 8,500 hours termination of their annuity benefits. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING annually. Approximately 13,600 of SF We estimate 21,000 RI 30–2 forms are ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT: 3106A forms will be processed completed annually. The RI 30–2 takes Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, annually. The SF 3106A takes approximately 35 minutes to complete Publications Team, RIS Support approximately 5 minutes to complete for an estimated annual burden of Services/Support Group, (202) 606– for a total of 1,133 hours. The total 12,250 hours. 0623. annual burden is 9,633 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Office of Personnel Management. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606– Dan G. Blair, Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606– 8358, Fax (202) 418–3251 or via e-mail Deputy Director. 8358, FAX (202) 418–3251 or via E-mail to [email protected]. [FR Doc. E6–17157 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] to [email protected]. Please include a mailing address with BILLING CODE 6325–38–P Please include a mailing address with your request. your request. DATES: Comments on this proposal OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar MANAGEMENT should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. days from the date of this publication. Proposed Collection; Comment ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments Request for Review of a Revised ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Information Collection: SF 3106 and SF to—Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Center for Retirement 3106A Support Group, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, AGENCY: Office of Personnel Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349, Washington, DC Management. NW., Room 3349,Washington, DC 20415–3540 andBrenda Aguilar, OPM ACTION: Notice. 20415–3540. Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Office of SUMMARY: In accordance with the For Information Regarding Administrative CoordinatioN Contact: Management and Budget, New Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Executive Office Building, NW., Room (Public Law 104–13, May 22, 1995), this Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, 10235, Washington, DC 20503. notice announces that the Office of Publications Team, RIS Support Personnel Management (OPM) intends Services/Support Group, (202) 606– For Information Regarding to submit to the Office of Management 0623. Administrative Coordination Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, and Budget (OMB) a request for review Office of Personnel Management. of a revised information collection. SF Publications Team, RIS Support Dan G. Blair, 3106, Application for Refund of Services/Support Group, (202) 606– Retirement Deductions/Federal Deputy Director. 0623, Room 10235, Washington, DC Employees Retirement System (FERS), [FR Doc. E6–17158 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 20503. is used by former Federal employees BILLING CODE 6325–38–P Office of Personnel Management. under FERS, to apply for a refund of retirement deductions withheld during Dan G. Blair, Federal employment, plus any interest Deputy Director. provided by law. SF 3106A, Current/ [FR Doc. E6–17160 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Former Spouse(s) Notification of BILLING CODE 6325–38–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61086 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL Census figures on State resident Portfolio for Class I shares of The MANAGEMENT populations. Universal Institutional Funds, Inc.— Office of Personnel Management. Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio; (8) Federal Employees Health Benefits Linda M. Springer, Class IA shares of the EQ/FI Mid Cap Program:Medically Underserved Areas Director. Portfolio for shares of the Old Mutual for 2007 Insurance Series Fund—Mid-Cap [FR Doc. E6–17161 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Portfolio; (9) Class IA shares of the EQ/ AGENCY: Office of Personnel BILLING CODE 6325–39–P Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio for Management. Class VC shares of the Lord Abbett ACTION: Notice of medically underserved Series Fund—Mid-Cap Value Portfolio; SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE areas for 2007. (10) Class IA shares of the EQ/JPMorgan COMMISSION Core Bond Portfolio for Administrative SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has completed its [Release No. IC–27516; File No. 812–13301] Class shares of the PIMCO Variable annual determination of the States that Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio; MONY Life Insurance Company of and (11) Class A shares of the AXA qualify as Medically Underserved Areas America, et al. under the Federal Employees Health Premier VIP High Yield Portfolio for Benefits (FEHB) Program for calendar October 12, 2006. Class VC shares of the Lord Abbett year 2007. This is necessary to comply AGENCY: The Securities and Exchange Series Fund—Bond Debenture Portfolio. with a provision of the FEHB law that Commission (‘‘Commission’’). Applicants also request an order of exemption to permit certain in-kind mandates special consideration for ACTION: Notice of application for an enrollees of certain FEHB plans who order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the transactions in connection with the receive covered health services in States Investment Company Act of 1940 (the proposed Substitutions (the ‘‘In-Kind with critical shortages of primary care ‘‘1940 Act’’) approving certain Transactions’’). Each of the portfolios physicians. Accordingly, for calendar substitutions of securities and an order involved in the Substitutions serves as year 2007, OPM’s calculations show that of exemption pursuant to Section 17(b) an underlying investment option for the following states are Medically of the 1940 Act from Section 17(a) of the certain variable annuity contracts and/ Underserved Areas under the FEHB 1940 Act. or variable life insurance policies Program: Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, (‘‘Contracts’’) issued by the Insurance Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: The Section Companies (as defined below). The Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North 26 Applicants (as defined below) portfolios receiving assets in the Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, request an order approving the proposed Substitutions are referred to in this Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. For substitution of shares of certain series of notice as the ‘‘Replacement Portfolios.’’ the 2007 calendar year Texas is being EQ Advisors Trust (‘‘EQAT’’) and AXA The portfolios from which the assets are added and Alaska is being removed Premier VIP Trust (‘‘VIP’’, together with transferred in connection with the from the list. EQAT, the ‘‘Trusts,’’ and each, a Substitutions are referred to in this ‘‘Trust’’), by the Separate Accounts (as notice as the ‘‘Removed Portfolios.’’ DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2007. defined below) for shares of similar APPLICANTS: MONY Life Insurance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: series of unaffiliated registered Company of America (‘‘MLOA’’), MONY Ingrid Burford, 202–606–0004. investment companies (the Life Insurance Company (‘‘MONY’’, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEHB law ‘‘Substitutions’’). In particular, the with MLOA, each an ‘‘Insurance (5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(2)) mandates special Section 26 Applicants request an order Company’’ and collectively, the consideration for enrollees of certain pursuant to Section 26(c) approving the ‘‘Insurance Companies’’), MONY FEHB plans who receive covered health substitution of: (1) Class IA shares of the America Variable Account A (‘‘MLOA services in States with critical shortages EQ/Calvert Socially Responsible Separate Account A’’), MONY America of primary care physicians. The FEHB Portfolio for Initial Class shares of The Variable Account L (‘‘MLOA Separate law also requires that a State be Dreyfus Socially Responsible Growth Account L’’ and together with MLOA designated as a Medically Underserved Fund, Inc.; (2) Class IA shares of the EQ/ Separate Account A, ‘‘MLOA Separate Area if 25 percent or more of the Mercury International Value Portfolio Accounts’’), MONY Variable Account A population lives in an area designated for Initial Class shares of the Dreyfus (‘‘MONY Separate Account A’’) and by the Department of Health and Human Variable Investment Fund— MONY Variable Account L (‘‘MONY Services (HHS) as a primary medical International Value Portfolio; (3) Class Separate Account L’’ and together with care manpower shortage area. Such IA shares of the EQ/Lord Abbett Growth MONY Separate Account A, ‘‘MONY States are designated as Medically and Income Portfolio for Class VC Separate Accounts’’) (the MONY Underserved Areas for purposes of the shares of the Lord Abbett Series Fund— Separate Accounts and the MLOA FEHB Program, and the law requires Growth and Income Portfolio; (4) Class Separate Accounts are referred to as the non-HMO FEHB plans to reimburse IA shares of the EQ/Short Duration ‘‘Separate Accounts’’ and individually beneficiaries, subject to their contract Bond Portfolio for shares of the T. Rowe as a ‘‘Separate Account’’) (the Separate terms, for covered services obtained Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.— Accounts and the Insurance Companies from any licensed provider in these Limited-Term Bond Portfolio; (5) Class are referred to as the ‘‘Section 26 States. IA shares of EQ/Money Market Portfolio Applicants’’). EQAT is also an applicant FEHB regulations (5 CFR 890.701) for shares of the T. Rowe Price Fixed for purposes of the order pursuant to require OPM to make an annual Income Series, Inc.—Prime Reserve Section 17(b) together with the determination of the States that qualify Portfolio; (6) Class IA shares of the EQ/ Insurance Companies and the Separate as Medically Underserved Areas for the Alliance International Portfolio for Accounts (the ‘‘Section 17 Applicants’’). next calendar year by comparing the shares of the T. Rowe Price International latest HHS State-by-State population Series, Inc.—International Stock FILING DATE: The application was filed counts on primary medical care Portfolio; (7) Class IA shares of the EQ/ on June 1, 2006 and amended on manpower shortage areas with U.S. Van Kampen Emerging Markets Equity October 6, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61087

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An 2. MLOA Separate Account A and average daily net assets attributable to order granting the application will be MLOA Separate Account L were the Class IB or Class B shares of each issued unless the Commission orders a established under Arizona law in 1987 Portfolio may be used to pay for hearing. Interested persons may request and 1985, respectively, pursuant to distribution and shareholder services. a hearing by writing to the Secretary of authority granted by MLOA’s Board of The distributors for the shares of each the Commission and serving Applicants Directors. Each MLOA Separate Portfolio are AXA Advisors, LLC (‘‘AXA with a copy of the request personally or Account is a segregated asset account of Advisors’’) and AXA Distributors, LLC by mail. Hearing requests should be MLOA and is registered with the (‘‘AXA Distributors’’). Under the received by the Commission by 5:30 Commission as a unit investment trust Distribution Agreements with respect to p.m. on November 2, 2006 and should under the 1940 Act. The MLOA the promotion, sale and servicing of be accompanied by proof of service on Separate Accounts fund the respective shares of each Portfolio, payments to Applicants, in the form of an affidavit variable benefits available under the AXA Advisors and AXA Distributors, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Contracts issued by MLOA. Units of with respect to activities under the Hearing requests should state the nature interest in the MLOA Separate Accounts distribution plan, are currently limited of the writer’s interest, the reason for the under the Contracts are registered under to payments at an annual rate equal to request and the issues contested. the Securities Act of 1933 (‘‘1933 0.25% of the average daily net assets of Persons may request notification of a Act’’).1 each Portfolio (including the hearing by writing to the Secretary of 3. MONY Separate Account A and Replacement Portfolios) attributable to the Commission. MONY Separate Account L were each its Class IB or Class B shares. established under New York law in 6. The Manager has retained ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and 1990 pursuant to authority granted by investment sub-advisers (‘‘Advisers’’) to Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, provide day-to-day investment advisory Washington, DC 20549–1090. MONY’s Board of Trustees. Each MONY Separate Account is a segregated asset services for each of the 61 of the 63 Applicants: c/o Steven M. Joenk, Senior current EQAT Portfolios and 11 of the Vice President, AXA Equitable Life account of MONY and is registered with the Commission as a unit investment 20 current VIP Portfolios. The Trusts Insurance Company, 1290 Avenue of the have received an exemptive order from Americas, New York, New York 10104. trust under the 1940 Act. The MONY Separate Accounts fund the respective the Commission (‘‘Multi-Manager FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: variable benefits available under the Order’’) that permits the Manager, or Ellen Sazzman, Senior Counsel, at (202) Contracts issued by MONY. Units of any entity controlling, controlled by, or 551–6762, or Harry Eisenstein, Branch interest in the MONY Separate under common control (within the Chief, Office of Insurance Products at Accounts under the Contracts are meaning of Section 2(a)(9) of the 1940 (202) 551–6795, Office of Insurance registered under the 1933 Act.2 Act) with the Manager, subject to certain Products, Division of Investment 4. EQAT and VIP are each organized conditions, including approval of the Management. as a Delaware statutory trust and Board of Trustees of the relevant Trust, registered as an open-end management and without the approval of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The shareholders to: (i) Select new or following is a summary of the investment company under the 1940 Act. Each is an affiliate of the Section additional Advisers for each Portfolio; application. The complete application (ii) enter into new Investment Advisory may be obtained for a fee from the 26 Applicants. The shares of each Trust are registered under the 1933 Act. Each Agreements with Advisers (‘‘Advisory Public Reference Branch of the Agreements’’) and/or materially modify Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Trust is a series investment company. EQAT currently has 63 separate series the terms of any existing Advisory Washington, DC 20549 (tel. (202) 551– Agreement; (iii) terminate any existing 8090). and VIP currently has 20 separate series (each a ‘‘Portfolio’’ and collectively, the Adviser and replace the Adviser; and Applicants’ Representations ‘‘Portfolios’’). AXA Equitable Life (iv) continue the employment of an existing Adviser on the same contract 1. MLOA is a stock life insurance Insurance Company currently serves as investment manager (‘‘Manager’’) of terms where the Advisory Agreement company organized in 1969 under the has been assigned because of a change laws of the State of Arizona. MLOA is each of the Portfolios. The Replacement Portfolios are series of the Trusts. The of control of the Adviser. licensed to sell life insurance and 7. The variable annuity Contracts Removed Portfolios are series of annuities in 49 states (not including subject to this Application include unaffiliated registered investment New York), the District of Columbia, flexible premium deferred variable Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. companies. 5. Each Trust currently offers two annuity contracts with a variety of sales MONY is a stock life insurance classes of shares, Class IA and Class IB charge structures. These variable company organized in 1998 under the shares for EQAT and Class A and Class annuity Contracts are issued to or on laws of New York. MONY is licensed to B shares for VIP, which differ only in behalf of individuals. All variable sell life insurance and annuities in 50 that Class IB and Class B shares are annuity Contracts allow the Contract states, the District of Columbia, Puerto owner to allocate contributions or subject to a distribution plan adopted Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Each premium payments among the variable and administered pursuant to Rule 12b- Insurance Company is a wholly owned and any fixed investment options 1 under the 1940 Act. Under that subsidiary of AXA Financial, Inc., a available under the variable annuity distribution plan, up to 0.50% of the diversified financial services company, Contracts. The contributions or which is a wholly owned subsidiary of premium payments accumulate in the 1 See File Nos. 333–72632, 333–91776, 333– the AXA Group, the holding company 59717, 333–92066 (MLOA Separate Account A) and investment options. The variable life for an international group of insurance 333–06071, 333–104162, 333–72596, 333–56969, insurance Contracts issued by the and related financial services 33–82570, 333–64417, 333–72578 (MLOA Separate Insurance Companies include flexible companies. MLOA serves as depositor Account L). premium individual variable life, 2 See File No. 333–72714, 333–92320, 333–92312, for each of the MLOA Separate 333–72259 (MONY Separate Account A) and 333– second to die and corporate variable life Accounts; MONY serves as depositor for 104156, 333–71417, 333–01581, 333–72590, 333– policies. Premium payments under the each of the MONY Separate Accounts. 71677, 333–72594 (MONY Separate Account L). variable life insurance Contracts

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61088 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

accumulate in variable and any fixed investment option, except with respect a guaranteed account may only be made investment options. to New York variable annuity Contracts, once a year. With respect to certain 8. The Section 26 Applicants have transfers from the guaranteed account variable life insurance Contracts, reserved the right under the Contracts to are subject to a market value adjustment including New York life insurance substitute shares of another eligible if the transfer request is not received at Contracts, there are a minimum number investment fund for one of the current the end of the prescribed accumulation of free transfers guaranteed. With investment funds offered as a funding period. In addition, for New York respect to corporate-owned life option under the Contracts. The variable annuity Contracts, a minimum insurance Contracts, transfers are not prospectuses for the Contracts and the amount must be maintained in a permitted between a guaranteed account Separate Accounts contain appropriate guaranteed account for those Contracts and a fixed separate account. disclosure of this right. that have investments in such accounts 9. The Contracts do not restrict and a minimum number of free transfers 10. Each Insurance Company, on its transfers from a variable subaccount and are guaranteed. For variable life own behalf and on behalf of its Separate there are no limits on transfers into a insurance Contracts that offer a Accounts, proposes to exercise its variable subaccount or a guaranteed guaranteed account investment option, contractual right to substitute a different account (for those Contracts that offer a there is a dollar limit on the amount that eligible investment fund for one of the guaranteed account investment option), can be held in, and the amount that may current investment funds offered as a although transfer charges may apply. be transferred from, the guaranteed funding option under the Contracts. In For those variable annuity Contracts account. Also with respect to variable particular, the Section 26 Applicants that offer a guaranteed account life insurance Contracts, transfers from propose the following substitutions:

Removed portfolios Replacement portfolios

The Dreyfus Socially Responsible Growth Fund, Inc. (Initial Class EQ/Calvert Socially Responsible Portfolio (Class IA shares). shares). Dreyfus Variable Investment Fund—International Value Portfolio (Initial EQ/Mercury International Value Portfolio (Class IA shares). Class shares). Lord Abbett Series Fund—Growth and Income Portfolio (Class VC EQ/Lord Abbett Growth and Income Portfolio (Class IA shares). shares). T. Rowe Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.—Limited-Term Bond Portfolio EQ/Short Duration Bond Portfolio (Class IA shares). T. Rowe Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.—Prime Reserve Portfolio ...... EQ/Money Market Portfolio (Class IA shares). T. Rowe Price International Series, Inc.—International Stock Portfolio .. lEQ/Alliance International Portfolio (Class IA shares). The Universal Institutional Funds, Inc.—Emerging Markets Equity Port- EQ/Van Kampen Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class IA shares). folio (Class I shares). Old Mutual Insurance Series Fund—Mid-Cap Portfolio ...... EQ/FI Mid Cap Portfolio (Class IA shares). Lord Abbett Series Fund—Mid-Cap Value Portfolio (Class VC shares) EQ/Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class IA shares). PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio (Administrative EQ/JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class IA shares). Class shares). Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond-Debenture Portfolio (Class VC shares) AXA Premier VIP High Yield Portfolio (Class A shares).

11. The Section 26 Applicants and the investment options available performance from the Portfolio and its propose the Substitutions as part of a through the Separate Accounts. portfolio managers. Finally, the continued and overall business plan by Additionally, each Substitution will Substitutions are designed to provide each of the Insurance Companies to substitute shares of the Replacement Contract owners with an opportunity to make its Contracts more attractive to Portfolio for shares of the Removed continue their investment in a similar existing Contract owners or to Portfolio, which has similar investment Portfolio without interruption and prospective purchasers, as the case may objectives, policies and risks as the without any cost to them. be. Each Insurance Company has Replacement Portfolio. In addition, the 12. The Insurance Companies have reviewed its Contracts and each Insurance Companies have agreed to agreed to bear all expenses incurred in investment option offered under its impose certain expense limits with connection with the Substitutions and Contracts with the goal of providing a respect to the Replacement Portfolios for related filings and notices, including superior choice of investment certain periods after the Substitutions, legal, accounting, brokerage and other alternatives. The Substitutions are being as described below. Furthermore, the fees and expenses. On the effective date proposed to address the lack of Contract Substitutions ultimately may enable the of the Substitutions (‘‘Substitution owner interest in the Removed Insurance Companies to reduce certain Portfolios, which generally have not of the costs that they incur in Date’’), the amount of any Contract attracted sufficient Contract owner administering the Contracts by owner’s Contract value or the dollar interest to support maintaining them as removing overlapping and unpopular value of a Contract owner’s investment separate investment options under the Portfolios. Moreover, the proposed in the relevant Contract will not change Contracts, particularly where they Substitutions would replace an as a result of the Substitutions. duplicate or substantially overlap with unaffiliated Portfolio with a Portfolio for 13. The following is a description and other investment options offered which AXA Equitable serves as Manager comparison of the investment through the Separate Accounts. The and, thus, would permit AXA Equitable objectives, policies and risks of each Substitutions also are intended to to appoint, dismiss and replace Removed Portfolio and its simplify the prospectuses and related Advisers and amend Advisory corresponding Replacement Portfolio: materials with respect to the Contracts Agreements as necessary to seek optimal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61089

(1)

Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio

The Dreyfus Socially Re- EQ/Calvert Socially Responsible Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio seeks long-term capital appreciation. sponsible Growth Fund, Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio invests at least 80% of its net assets in large-cap companies that Inc. (Initial Class shares): meet both investment and social criteria. The Adviser utilizes multiple investment styles in selecting securities in- The Portfolio seeks to cluding growth, growth at a reasonable price, value and momentum models. The Portfolio may invest up to 10% provide capital growth, of its total assets in foreign securities and up to 15% of its net assets in illiquid securities. The Portfolio also may with current income as a invest in derivatives and in securities issued in an IPO. secondary goal. Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio invests at least 80% of its assets in common stocks of com- panies that the manager believes meet traditional investment standards and conduct their business in a manner that contributes to the enhancement of the quality of life in Amer- ica. The Portfolio nor- mally focuses on large- cap growth stocks. The Portfolio may also invest in value-oriented stocks, mid-cap stocks and small-cap stocks. The Portfolio may invest in foreign securities. The Portfolio may invest in securities of companies in initial public offerings (‘‘IPOs’’) and derivatives. The Portfolio may invest up to 15% of the value of its net assets in illiquid securities. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Market Risk • Issuer Risk • Asset Class Risk • Market Sector Risk • Equity Risk • Social Investment • Adviser Selection Risk Risk • Small and Midsize • Security Selection Risk Company Risk • Growth Stock Risk • Derivatives Risk • Value Stock Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Foreign Investment • Security Risk Risk • Liquidity Risk • Mid-Cap Company Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe note that each Portfolio invests virtually Portfolio’s assets and that, while the that The Dreyfus Socially Responsible all of its assets in securities of principal risks are stated somewhat Growth Fund, Inc. and the EQ/Calvert companies that satisfy both social and differently, the Portfolios have Socially Responsible Portfolio have investment criteria. Each Portfolio substantially similar risk profiles. Each substantially similar investment invests mostly in large-cap companies, Portfolio is subject to general objectives, policies and risks and that but also may invest in small- and mid- investment risks, such as market risk, the essential objectives and expectations cap companies. In addition, the Section asset class risk and security risk, and to of Contract owners will continue to be 26 Applicants believe that the very similar portfolio risks, such as met after the Substitution. In this Portfolios’ advisers use comparable equity risk, social investing risk and connection, the Section 26 Applicants investment styles in managing each foreign securities risk.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61090 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

(2)

Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio

Dreyfus Variable Invest- EQ/Mercury International Value Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio seeks to provide current income and ment Fund—International long-term growth of income, accompanied by growth of capital. Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio in- Value Portfolio (Initial vests at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in stocks that pay dividends. Class shares): The Port- Stocks may include common stocks, preferred stocks, securities convertible into common or preferred stocks folio seeks long term cap- and warrants. The Portfolio invests primarily in securities of companies located in developed foreign markets, ital growth. The Portfolio but may invest in securities issued by companies located in emerging markets. In investing the Portfolio’s as- normally invests at least sets, the Adviser follows a value investment style. The Portfolio may invest in companies of any size, although it 80% of its assets in generally will invest in large cap companies. The Portfolio also may invest in derivatives and in securities issued stocks. The Portfolio in- in an IPO. vests most of its assets in securities of foreign companies which the ad- viser considers to be value companies. The Portfolio may invest in securities of companies of any size and may in- vest in companies lo- cated in emerging mar- kets. The Portfolio also may invest in stocks issued in an IPO, it may invest in derivatives and it may make short sales. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Market Risk • Issuer Risk • Asset Class Risk • Market Sector Risk • Equity Risk • Small and Midsize • Adviser Selection Risk Company Risk • Value Stock Risk • Security Selection Risk • Foreign Investment • Convertible Securities Risk Risk • Foreign Currency • Derivatives Risk Risk • Emerging Market • Liquidity Risk Risk • Derivatives Risk • Small-Cap and Mid-Cap Company Risk • Short Sale Risk • Value Investing Risk • IPO Risk • Security Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Currency Risk • Depositary Receipts Risk • Emerging Market Risk • Settlement Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe connection, the Section 26 Applicants principal risks are stated somewhat that the Dreyfus Variable Investment note that each Portfolio invests virtually differently, the Portfolios have Fund—International Value Portfolio and all of its assets in foreign stocks. In substantially similar risk profiles. The the EQ/Mercury International Value addition, the Section 26 Applicants Section 26 Applicants note that each Portfolio have similar investment believe that the Portfolios’ advisers use Portfolio is subject to general objectives and substantially similar a value investment style in managing investment risks, such as market risk, investment policies and risks. The each Portfolio’s assets. Each Portfolio asset class risk and security risk, and to Section 26 Applicants also believe that may invest in companies of any size and very similar portfolio risks, such as the essential objectives and expectations in companies located in emerging equity risk, foreign securities and of Contract owners will continue to be markets. Moreover, the Section 26 emerging markets risk and value met after the Substitution. In this Applicants believe that while the investing risk.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61091

(3)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

Lord Abbett Series Fund—Growth and Income Portfolio (Class VC EQ/Lord Abbett Growth and Income Portfolio (Class IA shares): The shares): The Portfolio seeks long term growth of capital and income Portfolio seeks capital appreciation and growth of income without ex- without excessive fluctuations in market value. Under normal cir- cessive fluctuation in market value. Under normal circumstances, the cumstances, the Portfolio will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Portfolio invests at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of equity securities of large companies. The Portfolio primarily pur- large companies. The Portfolio primarily purchases equity securities chases equity securities of large, seasoned U.S. and multi-national of large, seasoned U.S. and multi-national companies that the Ad- companies that the adviser believes are undervalued. Equity securi- viser believes are undervalued. Equity securities in which the Port- ties in which the Portfolio may invest may include common stocks, folio may invest include common stocks, preferred stocks, convert- preferred stocks, convertible securities, warrants, and similar instru- ible securities, warrants, and similar instruments. The Portfolio may ments. The Portfolio may purchase and write national securities ex- purchase and write exchange-listed put and call options on securities change-listed put and call options on securities or securities indices or securities indices for hedging or cross-hedging purposes or to and it may use options for hedging or cross-hedging purposes or to seek to increase total return. seek to increase total return. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Convertible Securities Risk • Asset Class Risk • Derivatives Risk • Equity Risk • Futures and Options Risk • Security Selection Risk • Security Selection Risk • Liquidity Risk • Equity Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Security Risk • Value Investing Risk • Value Investing Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Asset Class Risk • Market Risk • Security Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe Portfolio invests virtually all of its assets principal risks are stated somewhat that the Lord Abbett Series Fund— in equity securities of large companies. differently, the Portfolios have Growth and Income Portfolio and the Each Portfolio also may invest in foreign substantially identical risk profiles. EQ/Lord Abbett Growth and Income securities and derivatives for hedging Each Portfolio is subject to general Portfolio have substantially identical and non-hedging purposes to the same investment risks, such as market risk, investment objectives, policies and risks extent. In addition, the Section 26 asset class risk and security risk, and to and that the essential objectives and Applicants believe that the adviser to substantially identical portfolio risks, expectations of Contract owners will each Portfolio, which is the same for such as equity risk, foreign securities continue to be met after the both Portfolios, uses an identical risk and value investing risk. Substitution. In this connection, the investment style in managing each Section 26 Applicants note that each Portfolio’s assets and that, while the (4)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

T. Rowe Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.—Limited-Term Bond Portfolio: EQ/Short Duration Bond Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio The Portfolio seeks a high level of current income consistent with seeks current income and reduced volatility of principal. Under nor- moderate fluctuations in principal value. Normally, the Portfolio in- mal circumstances, the Portfolio invests at least 80% of its net as- vests at least 80% of its net assets in bonds and 65% of total assets sets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in bonds and other in short- and intermediate-term bonds. There are no maturity limita- debt securities. These securities include U.S. Government bonds tions on individual securities purchased, but the Portfolio’s average and notes, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, asset-backed bonds, effective maturity will not exceed five years. At least 90% of the Port- mortgage-related bonds, convertible securities and preferred stocks. folio’s assets will consist of investment grade securities and up to The Portfolio intends to invest only in investment grade fixed income 10% of its assets can be invested in below investment grade securi- securities and seeks to maintain a minimum average credit quality ties. The Portfolio’s holdings may include mortgage-backed securi- rating of ‘‘A.’’ The Portfolio may invest in securities with effective or ties, derivatives and foreign securities. There is no limit on the Port- final maturities of any length at the time of purchase, but it is antici- folio’s investments in U.S. dollar-denominated debt securities issued pated that the average effective maturity of the Portfolio will range by foreign issuers, foreign branches of U.S. banks, and U.S. from one to four years. The average duration of the overall Portfolio branches of foreign banks, however, the Portfolio may only invest up will be between one and three years. The Portfolio also may invest to 10% of its total assets (excluding reserves) in non-U.S. dollar-de- in derivatives and up to 20% of its total assets in U.S. dollar denomi- nominated fixed-income securities. nated fixed income securities of foreign issuers. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Interest Rate Risk • Market Risk • Credit Risk • Asset Class Risk • Prepayment and Extension Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Derivatives Risk • Security Selection Risk • Foreign Investing Risk • Derivatives Risk • Fixed Income Risk • Asset-Backed Securities Risk • Credit Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Investment Grade Securities Risk

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61092 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

(4)—Continued

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

• Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Security Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe Portfolio invests virtually all of its assets believe that while the principal risks are that the T. Rowe Price Fixed Income in investment grade bonds and seeks to stated somewhat differently, the Series, Inc.—Limited-Term Bond maintain an average effective maturity Portfolios have substantially similar risk Portfolio and the EQ/Short Duration that is generally within the same range. profiles. Each Portfolio is subject to Bond Portfolio have substantially Each Portfolio may invest in the same general investment risks, such as asset similar investment objectives, policies types of debt securities, such as asset- class risk and security risk, and to very and risks and that the essential backed and mortgage-backed securities. similar portfolio risks, such as fixed objectives and expectations of Contract Each Portfolio also may invest in U.S. income risk, including credit risk and owners will continue to be met after the dollar-denominated debt securities of interest rate risk, foreign securities risk Substitution. In this connection, the foreign issuers and derivatives. and derivatives risk. Section 26 Applicants note that each Moreover, the Section 26 Applicants (5)

Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio

T. Rowe Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.—Prime Reserve Portfolio: EQ/Money Market Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio seeks to The Portfolio seeks to preserve capital, liquidity and, consistent with obtain a high level of current income, preserve its assets and main- these, the highest possible current income. The Portfolio is a money tain liquidity. The Portfolio invests primarily in a diversified portfolio of market fund, which is managed to provide a stable share price of high-quality U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments. The $1.00 and invests in high-quality U.S. dollar-denominated money Portfolio will maintain a dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity of market securities. The fund’s average weighed maturity will not ex- 90 days or less and will invest only in instruments with a remaining ceed 90 days and it will not purchase any security with a maturity maturity of 397 calendar days or less. The Portfolio may invest in longer than 13 months. mortgaged-backed and asset-backed securities and normally invests at least 25% of its net assets in bank obligations. The Portfolio may also invest up to 20% of its total assets in U.S. dollar denominated money market instruments of foreign branches of foreign banks. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Credit Risk • Market Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Asset Class Risk • Money Market Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Security Selection Risk • Banking Industry Sector Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Security Risk • Money Market Risk • Fixed Income Risk • Credit Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Asset-Backed Securities Risk • Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe note that each Portfolio is a money Portfolios also have substantially that the T. Rowe Price Fixed Income market fund and invests all of its assets identical risk profiles. Each Portfolio is Series, Inc.—Prime Reserve Portfolio in high-quality U.S. dollar denominated subject to general investment risks, such and the EQ/Money Market Portfolio money market instruments permitted as asset class risk and security risk, and have substantially identical investment under Rule 2a–7 under the 1940 Act. In to very similar portfolio risks, such as objectives, policies and risks and that addition, each Portfolio is managed to money market risk and fixed income the essential objectives and expectations maintain a stable share price of $1.00 risk, including credit risk and interest of Contract owners will continue to be and has an average weighted maturity rate risk. met after the Substitution. In this that will not exceed 90 days. The connection, the Section 26 Applicants Section 26 Applicants believe that the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61093

(6)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

T. Rowe Price International Series, Inc.—International Stock Portfolio: EQ/Alliance International Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio The Portfolio seeks long-term growth of capital through investments seeks to achieve long-term growth of capital. The Portfolio intends, primarily in common stocks of established, non-U.S. companies. Nor- under normal market conditions, to invest primarily in equity securi- mally, at least 80% of the Portfolio’s net assets will be invested in ties. The Portfolio invests in both growth-oriented and value-oriented stocks. The Portfolio expects to invest substantially all of its assets in stocks of non-U.S. companies. The growth portion of the Portfolio in- stocks outside the U.S. and to diversify broadly among developed vests primarily in a diversified portfolio of equity securities of non- and emerging countries throughout the world. The Portfolio utilizes U.S. companies or foreign governmental enterprises from anywhere an investment style that incorporates growth and value investing in the world (including in emerging markets). The value portion of the components. The Portfolio may purchase securities of any size, but Portfolio invests primarily in equity securities of issuers in countries focuses on large and, to a lesser extent, medium-sized companies. that comprise the MSCI EAFE Index and Canada. The Portfolio also The Portfolio may invest in derivatives. may invest in any investment grade fixed income security and in de- rivatives. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Currency Risk • Market Risk • Geographic Risk • Asset Class Risk • Emerging Market Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Foreign Investing Risk • Security Selection Risk • Futures/Options Risk • Security Risk • Convertible Securities Risk • Derivatives Risk • Equity Risk • Fixed Income Risk • Investment Grade Securities Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Currency Risk • Emerging Markets Risk • Value Investing Risk • Growth Investing Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe note that each Portfolio invests virtually Portfolio’s assets and that, while the that the T. Rowe Price International all of its assets in equity securities of principal risks are stated somewhat Series, Inc.—International Stock foreign companies. Each Portfolio may differently, the Portfolios have Portfolio and the EQ/Alliance invest companies in developed and substantially similar risk profiles. Each International Portfolio have emerging markets. Each Portfolio also Portfolio is subject to general substantially similar investment invests mostly in large-cap companies, investment risks, such as market risk, objectives, policies and risks and that but may invest in smaller companies as asset class risk and security risk, and to the essential objectives and expectations well. In addition, the Section 26 very similar portfolio risks, such as of Contract owners will continue to be Applicants believe that the adviser to equity risk, foreign securities and met after the Substitution. In this each Portfolio uses comparable emerging markets risk and growth connection, the Section 26 Applicants investment styles in managing each investing risk. (7)

Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio

The Universal Institutional Funds, Inc.—Emerging Markets Equity Port- EQ/Van Kampen Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class IA shares): folio (Class I shares): The Portfolio seeks long-term capital apprecia- The Portfolio seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal cir- tion by investing primarily in growth-oriented equity securities of cumstances, the Portfolio invests at least 80% of its net assets, plus issuers in emerging market countries. Under normal circumstances, borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of compa- at least 80% of the Portfolio’s assets will be invested in equity securi- nies located in emerging market countries or other equity invest- ties located in emerging market countries. The Portfolio combines ments that are tied economically to emerging market countries. Such top-down country allocation with bottom-up stock selection. The Port- equity securities may include common stocks, securities convertible folio also may invest in derivatives and, to a limited extent, in U.S. into common stocks, preferred stocks, depositary receipts, rights and Government securities and debt securities rated below investment warrants. The Portfolio combines top-down country allocation with grade (also known as ‘‘junk bonds’’). bottom-up stock selection. The Portfolio also may invest, to a limited extent, in debt securities rated below investment grade (also known as ‘‘junk bonds’’). The Portfolio currently is non-diversified, however, it is expected that the Portfolio’s subclassification will be changed from non-diversified to diversified prior to the Substitution. The Port- folio may also invest in derivatives to a limited extent. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Market Risk • Emerging Markets Risk • Asset Class Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Currency Risk • Security Selection Risk • Security Risk • Convertible Securities Risk • Derivatives Risk • Derivatives Risk

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61094 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

(7)—Continued

Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio

• Equity Risk • Equity Risk • Fixed Income Risk • Junk Bonds and Lower Rated Securities Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Currency Risk • Emerging Markets Risk • Security Risk • Growth Investing Risk • Liquidity Risk • Portfolio Turnover Risk • Focused Portfolio Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe connection, the Section 26 Applicants the principal risks are stated somewhat that The Universal Institutional Funds, note that each Portfolio invests virtually differently, the Portfolios have Inc.—Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio all of its assets in equity securities of substantially identical risk profiles. and the EQ/Van Kampen Emerging companies located in emerging markets Each Portfolio is subject to general Markets Equity Portfolio have countries. In addition, the Portfolios’ investment risks, such as market risk, substantially identical investment advisers are affiliated companies. The asset class risk and security risk, and to objectives, policies and risks and that Section 26 Applicants believe that the substantially identical portfolio risks, the essential objectives and expectations Portfolios’ advisers use a substantially such as equity risk, foreign securities of Contract owners will continue to be identical investment style in managing and emerging markets risk and growth met after the Substitution. In this each Portfolio’s assets and that, while investing risk. (8)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

Old Mutual Insurance Series Fund—Mid-Cap Portfolio: The Portfolio EQ/FI Mid Cap Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio seeks long- seeks to provide above-average total return over a 3 to 5 year mar- term growth of capital. The Portfolio normally invests at least 80% of ket cycle, consistent with reasonable risk. The Portfolio normally in- its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in com- vests at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for invest- mon stocks of companies with medium market capitalizations. The ment purposes, in equity securities of mid-cap companies. The Port- Portfolio may also invest in companies with smaller or larger market folios also may invest in small-cap companies. The Portfolio invests capitalization and securities of foreign issuers. The Portfolio is not in companies believed to have attractive valuations relative to the constrained by any particular investment style and may buy growth- sector and the market, near-term business dynamics and long-term oriented or value-oriented stock or a combination of both. The Port- earnings growth. The Portfolio may invest up to 20% of its net assets folio may invest up to 20% of its net assets in derivatives and, while in foreign-traded securities and derivatives.. the Portfolio does not have a stated limit with respect to investments in securities of foreign issuers, from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006, the Portfolio generally has invested between 10–20% of its net assets in such securities. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Market Risk • Small and Mid-Size Company Risk • Asset Class Risk • Industry and Sector Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Security Selection Risk • Equity Risk • Derivatives Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Security Risk • Portfolio Turnover Risk • Small-Cap and Mid-Cap Company Risk • Growth Investing Risk • Value Investing Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe on investments in equity securities of Portfolio’s net investment income that the Old Mutual Insurance Series mid-cap companies. The Section 26 (including dividend income) was only Fund—Mid-Cap Portfolio and the EQ/FI Applicants do not believe that the approximately $122,000 on an asset Mid Cap Portfolio have very similar income component of the Removed base of about $55 million. The Section investment objectives and substantially Portfolio’s investment objective is a 26 Applicants also note that each similar investment policies and risks significant difference between the Portfolio may also invest, to a limited and that the essential objectives and Portfolios given that, as a general matter, extent, in securities of small-cap expectations of Contract owners will mid-cap companies do not pay companies, foreign securities and continue to be met after the significant, if any, dividends. In this derivatives. The Section 26 Applicants Substitution. The Section 26 Applicants connection, the Section 26 Applicants believe that the Portfolios’ advisers also believe that the Portfolios are note that, for the fiscal year ended use comparable investment styles in substantially similar given their focus December 31, 2005, the Removed managing each Portfolio’s assets and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61095

that, while the principal risks are stated Each Portfolio is subject to general very similar portfolio risks, such as somewhat differently, the Portfolios investment risks, such as market risk, equity risk, mid-cap company risk and have substantially similar risk profiles. asset class risk and security risk, and to foreign securities risk. (9)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

Lord Abbett Series Fund—Mid-Cap Value Portfolio (Class VC shares): EQ/Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Port- The Portfolio seeks capital appreciation through investments, pri- folio seeks capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the marily in equity securities, which are believed to be undervalued in Portfolio invests at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings the marketplace. The Portfolio normally invests at least 80% of its for investment purposes, in equity securities of mid-sized companies. net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in equity The Portfolio uses a value approach that seeks to identify stocks of securities of mid-sized companies. The Portfolio may invest in con- companies that have the potential for significant market appreciation vertible bonds, convertible preferred stocks, warrants and similar in- due to growing recognitions of improvement (or anticipated improve- struments. The Portfolio uses a value approach. The Portfolio may ment) in their financial results. The Portfolio may invest: (1) Without invest up to 10% of its net assets in foreign securities that are pri- limit in ADRs and similar depositary receipts; (2) up to 10% of its as- marily traded outside the United States and may also invest in ADRs sets in other foreign securities; and (3) in convertible securities. The (which are not included in the 10% limitation). The Portfolio may also Portfolio may also purchase and write exchange-listed put and call purchase and write national securities exchange-listed put and call options on securities or securities indices for hedging or cross-hedg- options on securities or securities indices and it may use options for ing purposes or to seek to increase total return. hedging or cross-hedging purposes or to seek to increase total return. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Market Risk • Security Selection Risk • Asset Class Risk • Equity Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Value Investing Risk • Security Selection Risk • Mid-Cap Company Risk • Security Risk • Security Risk • Convertible Securities Risk • Derivatives Risk • Futures and Options Risk • Equity Risk • Mid-Cap Company Risk • Value Investing Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe note that each Portfolio invests virtually style in managing each Portfolio’s assets that the Lord Abbett Series Fund—Mid all of its assets in equity securities of and that, while the principal risks are Cap Value Portfolio and the EQ/Lord mid-sized companies. Each Portfolio stated somewhat differently, the Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio have also may invest in foreign securities and Portfolios have substantially identical substantially identical investment derivatives for hedging and non-hedging risk profiles. Each Portfolio is subject to objectives, policies and risks and that purposes to the same extent. In general investment risks, such as market the essential objectives and expectations addition, the Section 26 Applicants risk, asset class risk and security risk, of Contract owners will continue to be believe that the adviser to each and to substantially similar portfolio met after the Substitution. In this Portfolio, which is the same for both risks, such as equity risk, mid-cap connection, the Section 26 Applicants Portfolios, uses an identical investment company risk and value investing risk. (10)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio (Administrative EQ/JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class IA shares): The Portfolio Class shares): The Portfolio seeks maximum real return consistent seeks a high total return consistent with moderate risk to capital and with preservation of real capital and prudent investment manage- maintenance of liquidity. Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio ment. Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio invests at least 80% invests at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment of its net assets in inflation-indexed bonds of varying maturities purposes, in investment grade debt securities. These securities prin- issued by United States and non-U.S. issuers, their agencies or gov- cipally include U.S. Government and agency securities, corporate se- ernment-sponsored enterprises and corporations. The Portfolio in- curities, private placements, asset-backed securities, mortgage-re- vests primarily in investment grade securities, but also may invest up lated securities and direct mortgage obligations. The overall duration to 10% in high yield bonds. The average duration varies within 3 generally will be within one year of the Portfolio’s benchmark, the years (plus or minus) of the Lehman Brothers U.S. TIPS Index (as of Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index (as of March 31, 2006, 4.68 March 31, 2006, 6.9 years). The Portfolio may invest up to 30% in years). The Portfolio may invest up to 25% of assets in foreign securities denominated in foreign currencies and beyond this limit in issuers, including up to 20% in debt securities denominated in cur- U.S. dollar denominated securities of foreign issuers. The Portfolio rencies of developed foreign countries. The Portfolio may invest in also may invest in derivatives. The Portfolio is non-diversified. derivatives. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Market Risk • Issuer Risk • Asset Class Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Credit Risk • Security Selection Risk • High Yield Risk • Derivatives Risk • Liquidity Risk • Fixed Income Risk • Derivatives Risk • Mortgage-Backed Securities Risk

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61096 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

(10)—Continued

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

• Mortgage Risk • Asset-Backed Securities Risk • Foreign Investment Risk • Credit Risk • Currency Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Issuer Non-Diversification Risk • Investment Grade Securities Risk • Leveraging Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Management Risk • Security Risk • Liquidity Risk • Portfolio Turnover Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe note that each Portfolio invests substantially similar risk profiles. Each that the PIMCO Variable Insurance primarily in investment grade debt Portfolio is subject to general Trust—Real Return Portfolio and the securities and seeks to maintain a investment risks, such as asset class risk EQ/JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio have duration that is generally within the and security risk, and to substantially substantially similar investment same range. Each Portfolio also may similar portfolio risks, such as fixed objectives, policies and risks and that invest, to a limited extent, in foreign income risk, including investment grade the essential objectives and expectations securities and derivatives. Moreover, the securities risk, credit risk and interest of Contract owners will continue to be Section 26 Applicants believe that while rate risk, and foreign securities risk. met after the Substitution. In this the principal risks are stated somewhat connection, the Section 26 Applicants differently, the Portfolios have (11)

Removed portfolio Replacement portfolio

Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond-Debenture Portfolio (Class VC AXA Premier VIP High Yield Portfolio (Class A shares): The Portfolio shares): The Portfolio seeks high current income and the opportunity seeks high total return through a combination of current income and for capital appreciation to produce a high total return. Under normal capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio in- circumstances, the Portfolio invests at least 80% of its net assets, tends to invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for in- plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in fixed vestment purposes, in a diversified mix of bonds that are rated below income securities of various types. The Portfolio may invest in high- investment grade. The Advisers select bonds from several sectors, yield debt securities and mortgage- and asset-backed securities. The including commercial and residential mortgage-backed securities, Portfolio has found good value in high-yield securities and has in- asset-backed securities, corporate bonds and bonds of foreign vested more than half of its assets in these securities. At least 20% issuers. The Portfolio also may invest in equity securities, derivatives of the Portfolio’s net assets must be invested in any combination of and, to a limited extent, illiquid securities. In addition, the Portfolio investment grade debt securities, U.S. Government securities and may invest up to 20% of its net assets in investment grade debt se- cash equivalents. The Portfolio may also invest up to 20% of its net curities. assets in equity securities and up to 20% of its net assets in foreign securities. Principal Risks: Principal Risks: • Market Risk • Adviser Selection Risk • Issuer Risk • Credit/Default Risk • Debt Securities Risk • Currency Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Derivatives Risk • High-Yield Debt Securities Risk • Foreign Investing and Emerging Markets Risk • Mortgage-Related Securities Risk • Interest Rate Risk • Credit Risk • Liquidity Risk • Equity Risk • Lower-Rated Securities Risk • Foreign Securities Risk • Loan Participation Risk • Mortgage-Backed and Asset-Backed Securities Risk • Portfolio Management Risk • Issuer-Specific Risk

The Section 26 Applicants believe invests largely in high-yield securities overall risk profile of either Portfolio. In that the Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond and also may invest in investment grade this connection, Applicants note that Debenture Portfolio and the AXA debt securities. Applicants note that the the Removed Portfolio has only invested Premier VIP High Yield Portfolio have Removed Portfolio generally invests at approximately 23% of its assets in substantially similar investment least 20% of its net assets in investment investment grade debt securities over objectives, policies and risks and that grade debt securities, while the the past three fiscal years, while the the essential objectives and expectations Replacement Portfolio generally invests Replacement Portfolio has invested of Contract owners will continue to be no more than 20% of its net assets in approximately 8% of its assets in such met after the Substitution. In this such securities. Applicants believe, securities over the same period. Thus, connection, the Section 26 Applicants however, that this is neither a each Portfolio has invested the note that each Portfolio invests virtually significant difference in the investment substantial majority (indeed, more than all of its assets in fixed income policies of the Portfolios nor a three quarters of the Portfolio) in high- securities. In addition, each Portfolio difference that significantly alters the yield debt securities over the last three

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61097

fiscal years. Each Portfolio also may grade securities risk, credit risk and discussion) and the Class IA shares of invest, to a limited extent, in equity interest rate risk, and foreign securities the EQ/Calvert Socially Responsible securities and foreign securities. risk. Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ Moreover, the Section 26 Applicants 14. The following chart compares the for purposes of this discussion). The believe that while the principal risks are fees paid for advisory services and the total annual operating expenses of the stated somewhat differently, as noted total annual operating expenses (before Replacement Portfolio have been above, the Portfolios have substantially and after any waivers and restated to reflect recent changes to the similar risk profiles. Each Portfolio is reimbursements) for the fiscal year administration fees charged with respect ended December 31, 2005, expressed as subject to general investment risks, such to that Portfolio.3 Class IA shares of the an annual percentage of average daily as asset class risk and security risk, and Replacement Portfolio and the Initial net assets, of the Initial Class shares of to substantially similar portfolio risks, The Dreyfus Socially Responsible Class shares of the Removed Portfolio such as fixed income risk, including Growth Fund, Inc. (the ‘‘Removed have not adopted plans pursuant to Rule high-yield securities risk, investment Portfolio’’ for purposes of this 12b–1 under the 1940 Act.

The Dreyfus Socially Re- EQ/Calvert So- sponsible cially Respon- Growth Fund, sible Portfolio Inc. (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 4 ...... 0.75 0.65 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.06 0.27 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.81 0.92 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 5 ...... N/A (0.12) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.81 0.80

For the fiscal year ended December due to the expense limitation reimbursements) for the fiscal year 31, 2005, the net annual operating arrangement in effect. The Section 26 ended December 31, 2005, expressed as expense ratio of the Replacement Applicants assert that the proposed an annual percentage of average daily Portfolio was lower than the Removed Substitution of the Replacement net assets, of the Initial Class shares of Portfolio’s net annual operating expense Portfolio for the Removed Portfolio will the Dreyfus Variable Investment Fund— ratio due primarily to the Replacement therefore benefit the Contract owners by International Value Portfolio (the Portfolio’s lower management fee rate lowering the annual operating expense ‘‘Removed Portfolio’’ for purposes of and an expense limitation arrangement ratio. To ensure that Contract owners this discussion) and the Class IA shares in effect for the Replacement Portfolio. with amounts allocated to the Removed of the EQ/Mercury International Value As of December 31, 2005, the assets of Portfolio on the date of the Substitution Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ the Replacement Portfolio were do not incur higher expenses with for purposes of this discussion). The approximately $72.5 million, while the respect to such amounts for a period of total annual operating expenses of the assets of the Removed Portfolio were two years after the Substitution, MLOA Replacement Portfolio have been approximately $431.2 million. Although and MONY also have agreed to impose restated to reflect recent changes to the the Replacement Portfolio is smaller a two-year expense limitation with administration fees charged with respect than the Removed Portfolio, it is respect to such amounts, as summarized to that Portfolio (as described above). anticipated that the Replacement below. Class IA shares of the Replacement Portfolio’s net annual operating expense 15. The following chart compares the Portfolio and the Initial Class shares of ratio will be lower than the Removed fees paid for advisory services and the the Removed Portfolio have not adopted Portfolio’s annual operating expense total annual operating expenses (before plans pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the ratio immediately after the Substitution and after any waivers and 1940 Act.

Dreyfus Vari- able Invest- EQ/Mercury ment Fund— International International Value Portfolio Value Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 6 ...... 1.00 0.85

3 Effective May 1, 2006, each EQAT Portfolio pays of the Trust’s asset-based administration fee, which Portfolio, as well as the management fee schedule an administration fee equal to $30,000 per year, was equal to an annual rate of 0.04% of the first for each Removed Portfolio in Substitutions 2, 4, 5, plus its pro rata portion of the Trust’s asset-based $3 billion of total EQAT average daily net assets, 6 and 10 discussed herein, does not include administration fee, which is equal to an annual rate 0.03% of the next $3 billion, 0.025% of the next breakpoints. of 0.12% of the first $3 billion of total EQAT $4 billion, and 0.0225% of the total EQAT average 5 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has average daily net assets, 0.11% of the next $3 daily net assets in excess of $10 billion. agreed to make payments or waive its management, billion, 0.105% of the next $4 billion, 0.10% of the 4 The management fee schedule for the next $20 billion of total EQAT average daily net Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal administrative and other fees to limit the expenses assets and 0.975% of the total EQAT average daily to 0.650% of the first $1 billion; 0.600% on the next of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to net assets in excess of $30 billion. Prior to that date, $1 billion; 0.575% on the next $3 billion; 0.550% an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total the administration fee for each EQAT Portfolio was on the next $5 billion; and 0.525% thereafter. The Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares equal to $30,000 per year, plus its pro rata portion management fee schedule for the Removed of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.80%.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Dreyfus Vari- able Invest- EQ/Mercury ment Fund— International International Value Portfolio Value Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Rule 12b-1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.20 0.23 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.20 1.08 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 7 ...... N/A (0.08) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.20 1.00

For the fiscal year ended December fee rate and economies of scale from the reimbursements) for the fiscal year 31, 2005, the annual operating expense substantially larger asset base as well as ended December 31, 2005, expressed as ratio of the Replacement Portfolio the expense limitation arrangement in an annual percentage of average daily (before and after waivers and effect. The Section 26 Applicants assert net assets, of the Class VC shares of the reimbursements) was lower than the that the proposed Substitution of the Lord Abbett Series Fund—Growth and annual operating expense ratio of the Replacement Portfolio for the Removed Income Portfolio (the ‘‘Removed Removed Portfolio due primarily to the Portfolio will therefore benefit the Portfolio’’ for purposes of this Replacement Portfolio’s lower Contract owners by lowering the annual discussion) and the Class IA shares of management fee rate and an expense operating expense ratio. To ensure that the EQ/Lord Abbett Growth and Income limitation arrangement in effect for the Contract owners with amounts allocated Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ Replacement Portfolio. In addition, as of to the Removed Portfolio on the date of for purposes of this discussion). The December 31, 2005, the assets of the the Substitution do not incur higher Replacement Portfolio were expenses with respect to such amounts total annual operating expenses of the approximately $1.4 billion, while the for a period of two years after the Replacement Portfolio have been assets of the Removed Portfolio were Substitution, MLOA and MONY also restated to reflect recent changes to the approximately $149.2 million. have agreed to impose a two year administration fees charged with respect It is anticipated that the Replacement expense limitation with respect to such to that Portfolio (as described above). Portfolio’s net annual operating expense amounts, as summarized below. Class IA shares of the Replacement ratio will be lower than the Removed 16. The following chart compares the Portfolio and the Class VC shares of the Portfolio’s net annual operating expense fees paid for advisory services and the Removed Portfolio have not adopted ratio immediately after the Substitution total annual operating expenses (before plans pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the due primarily to the lower management and after any waivers and 1940 Act.

Lord Abbett Series Fund— EQ/Lord Abbett Growth and In- Growth and In- come Portfolio come Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 8 ...... 0.48 0.65 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.41 0.93 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.89 .58 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 9 ...... N/A (0.83) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.89 0.75

For the fiscal year ended December management fee rate and the higher rate than the Removed Portfolio, it is 31, 2005, the net annual operating of ‘‘other expenses.’’ The Class VC anticipated that the Replacement expense ratio of the Replacement shares of the Removed Portfolio are not Portfolio’s net annual operating expense Portfolio was lower than the net annual subject to any expense limit. ratio will be lower than the Removed operating expense ratio of the Removed As of December 31, 2005, the assets of Portfolio’s net annual operating expense Portfolio due primarily to an expense the Replacement Portfolio were ratio immediately after the Substitution limitation arrangement in effect for the approximately $38.3 million, while the due to the expense limitation Replacement Portfolio. This assets in the Removed Portfolio were arrangement in effect. In addition, after arrangement more than offset the approximately $1.6 billion. Although the Substitution, the Replacement Replacement Portfolio’s higher the Replacement Portfolio is smaller Portfolio will be substantially larger,

6 The management fee schedule for the of the Portfolio do not exceed 1.00%. With respect management fee schedule for the Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal to the Removed Portfolio, the investment adviser on an annual basis is equal to 0.50% on the first to 0.850% of the first $1 billion; 0.800% on the next has agreed to waive its fees and/or assume expenses $1 billion and 0.45% over $1 billion. $1 billion; 0.775% on the next $3 billion; 0.750% of the Portfolio to the extent that the Total Annual 9 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has on the next $5 billion; and 0.725% thereafter. Operating Expenses exceed 1.40% for the fiscal year agreed to make payments or waive its management, 7 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has ended December 31, 2006. agreed to make payments or waive its management, 8 The management fee schedule for the administrative and other fees to limit the expenses administrative and other fees to limit the expenses Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to to 0.650% of the first $1 billion; 0.600% on the next an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total $1 billion; 0.575% on the next $3 billion; 0.550% Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares on the next $5 billion; and 0.525% thereafter. The of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.75%.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61099

which should enable the Portfolio to permanent expense limitation with this discussion) and the Class IA shares realize greater economies of scale. The respect to such amounts, as summarized of the EQ/Short Duration Bond Portfolio Section 26 Applicants assert that the below. (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ for proposed Substitution of the 17. The following chart compares the purposes of this discussion). The total Replacement Portfolio for the Removed fees paid for advisory services and the annual operating expenses of the Portfolio will therefore benefit the total annual operating expenses (before Replacement Portfolio have been Contract owners by lowering the annual and after any waivers and restated to reflect recent changes to the operating expense ratio. To ensure that reimbursements) for the fiscal year administration fees charged with respect Contract owners with amounts allocated ended December 31, 2005, expressed as to that Portfolio (as described above). to the Removed Portfolio on the date of an annual percentage of average daily Class IA shares of the Replacement the Substitution do not incur higher net assets, of the shares of the T. Rowe Portfolio and the shares of the Removed expenses with respect to such amounts Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.— Portfolio have not adopted plans after the Substitution, MLOA and Limited-Term Bond Portfolio (the pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the 1940 MONY also have agreed to impose a ‘‘Removed Portfolio’’ for purposes of Act.

T. Rowe Price Fixed Income EQ/Short Du- Series, Inc.— ration Bond Limited-Term Portfolio Bond Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 10 ...... 0.70 0.45 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... None 0.14 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.70 0.59 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 11 ...... N/A N/A Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.70 0.59

For the fiscal year ended December Portfolio’s net annual operating expense total annual operating expenses (before 31, 2005, the annual operating expense ratio immediately after the Substitution and after any waivers and ratio of the Replacement Portfolio due to the lower management fee rate reimbursements) for the fiscal year (before and after waivers and and economies of scale from the ended December 31, 2005, expressed as reimbursements) was lower than the substantially larger asset base. The an annual percentage of average daily annual operating expense ratio of the Section 26 Applicants assert that the net assets, of the shares of the T. Rowe Removed Portfolio due primarily to the proposed Substitution of the Price Fixed Income Series, Inc.—Prime Replacement Portfolio’s lower Replacement Portfolio for the Removed Reserve Portfolio (the ‘‘Removed management fee rate. In addition, the Portfolio will therefore benefit the Portfolio’’ for purposes of this Class IA shares of the Replacement Contract owners by lowering the annual discussion) and the Class IA shares of Portfolio are subject to a 0.60% annual operating expense ratio. To ensure that the EQ/Money Market Portfolio (the expense limit, while the shares of the Contract owners with amounts allocated ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ for purposes of Removed Portfolio are not subject to any to the Removed Portfolio on the date of this discussion). The total annual expense limit. Moreover, as of December the Substitution do not incur higher operating expenses of the Replacement 31, 2005, the assets of the Replacement expenses with respect to such amounts Portfolio have been restated to reflect Portfolio were approximately $1.3 for a period of two years after the recent changes to the administration billion, while the assets in the Removed Substitution, MLOA and MONY also fees charged with respect to that Portfolio were approximately $86.5 have agreed to impose a two-year Portfolio (as described above). Class IA million. expense limitation with respect to such shares of the Replacement Portfolio and It is anticipated that the Replacement amounts, as summarized below. the shares of the Removed Portfolio Portfolio’s net annual operating expense 18. The following chart compares the have not adopted plans pursuant to Rule ratio will be lower than the Removed fees paid for advisory services and the 12b–1 under the 1940 Act.

T. Rowe Price Fixed Income EQ/Money Series, Inc.— Market Port- Prime Reserve folio Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 12 ...... 0.55 0.34 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... None 0.13 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.55 0.47 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement ...... N/A N/A

10 The management fee schedule for the 11 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has 12 The management fee schedule for the Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal agreed to make payments or waive its management, Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal to 0.450% of the first $750 million; 0.425% on the administrative and other fees to limit the expenses to 0.350% of the first $750 million; 0.325% on the next $750 million; 0.400% on the next $1 billion; of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to next $750 million; 0.280% on the next $1 billion; an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total 0.380% on the next $2.5 billion; and 0.370% 0.270% on the next $2.5 billion; and 0.250% Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares thereafter. of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.60%. thereafter.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61100 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

T. Rowe Price Fixed Income EQ/Money Series, Inc.— Market Port- Prime Reserve folio Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.55 0.47

For the fiscal year ended December substantially larger asset base. The ended December 31, 2005, expressed as 31, 2005, the annual operating expense Section 26 Applicants assert that the an annual percentage of average daily ratio of the Replacement Portfolio proposed Substitution of the net assets, of the shares of the T. Rowe (before and after waivers and Replacement Portfolio for the Removed Price International Series, Inc.— reimbursements) was lower than the Portfolio will therefore benefit the International Stock Portfolio (the annual operating expense ratio of the Contract owners by lowering the annual ‘‘Removed Portfolio’’ for purposes of Removed Portfolio due primarily to the operating expense ratio. To ensure that this discussion) and the Class IA shares Replacement Portfolio’s lower Contract owners with amounts allocated of the EQ/Alliance International management fee rate. In addition, as of to the Removed Portfolio on the date of Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ December 31, 2005, the assets of the the Substitution do not incur higher for purposes of this discussion). The Replacement Portfolio were expenses with respect to such amounts total annual operating expenses of the approximately $1.5 billion, while the for a period of two years after the assets in the Removed Portfolio were Substitution, MLOA and MONY also Replacement Portfolio have been approximately $24.1 million. have agreed to impose a two-year restated to reflect recent changes to the It is anticipated that the Replacement expense limitation with respect to such administration fees charged with respect Portfolio’s net annual operating expense amounts, as summarized below. to that Portfolio (as described above). ratio will be lower than the Removed 19. The following chart compares the Class IA shares of the Replacement Portfolio’s net annual operating expense fees paid for advisory services and the Portfolio and the shares of the Removed ratio immediately after the Substitution total annual operating expenses (before Portfolio have not adopted plans due to the lower management fee rate and after any waivers and pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the 1940 and economies of scale from the reimbursements) for the fiscal year Act.

T. Rowe Price International EQ/Alliance Series, Inc.— International International Portfolio Stock Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 13 ...... 1.05 0.72 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... None 0.21 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.05 0.93 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 14 ...... N/A (0.08) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.05 0.85

For the fiscal year ended December of December 31, 2005, the assets of the for a period of two years after the 31, 2005, the annual operating expense Replacement Portfolio were Substitution, MLOA and MONY also ratio of the Replacement Portfolio approximately $2.3 billion, while the have agreed to impose a two-year (before and after waivers and assets in the Removed Portfolio were expense limitation with respect to such reimbursements) was lower than the approximately $467.5 million. amounts, as summarized below. annual operating expense ratio of the It is anticipated that the Replacement 20. The following chart compares the Removed Portfolio due primarily to the Portfolio’s net annual operating expense fees paid for advisory services and the Replacement Portfolio’s lower ratio will be lower than the Removed total annual operating expenses (before management fee rate and an expense Portfolio’s net annual operating expense and after any waivers and limitation arrangement in effect for the ratio immediately after the Substitution reimbursements) for the fiscal year Replacement Portfolio. The Removed due to the lower management fee rate, ended December 31, 2005, expressed as Portfolio is not subject to any expense economies of scale from the an annual percentage of average daily limitation arrangement. In addition, as substantially larger asset base and the net assets, of the Class I shares of The expense limitation arrangement in Universal Institutional Funds, Inc.— 13 The management fee schedule for the effect. The Section 26 Applicants assert Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (the Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal that the proposed Substitution of the ‘‘Removed Portfolio’’ for purposes of to 0.750% of the first $1 billion; 0.700% on the next Replacement Portfolio for the Removed this discussion) and the Class IA shares $1 billion; 0.675% on the next $3 billion; 0.650% on the next $5 billion; and 0.625% thereafter. Portfolio will therefore benefit the of the EQ/Van Kampen Emerging 14 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has Contract owners by lowering the annual Markets Equity Portfolio (the agreed to make payments or waive its management, operating expense ratio. To ensure that ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ for purposes of administrative and other fees to limit the expenses Contract owners with amounts allocated this discussion). The total annual of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total to the Removed Portfolio on the date of operating expenses of the Replacement Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares the Substitution do not incur higher Portfolio have been restated to reflect of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.85%. expenses with respect to such amounts recent changes to the administration

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61101

fees charged with respect to that the Class I shares of the Removed pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the 1940 Portfolio (as described above). Class IA Portfolio have not adopted plans Act. shares of the Replacement Portfolio and

The Universal Institutional EQ/Van Funds, Inc.— Kampen Emerging Mar- Emerging Mar- kets Equity kets Equity Portfolio Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 15 ...... 1.25 1.15 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.41 0.48 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.66 1.63 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 16 ...... (0.01) (0.08) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.65 1.55

For the fiscal year ended December economies of scale from the reimbursements) for the fiscal year 31, 2005, the annual operating expense substantially larger asset base and the ended December 31, 2005, expressed as ratio of the Replacement Portfolio expense limitation arrangement in an annual percentage of average daily (before and after waivers and effect. The Section 26 Applicants assert net assets, of the shares of the Old reimbursements) was lower than the that the proposed Substitution of the Mutual Insurance Series FundlMid- annual operating expense ratio of the Replacement Portfolio for the Removed Cap Portfolio (the ‘‘Removed Portfolio’’ Removed Portfolio due primarily to the Portfolio will therefore benefit the for purposes of this discussion) and the Replacement Portfolio’s lower Contract owners by lowering the annual Class IA shares of the EQ/FI Mid Cap management fee rate and an expense operating expense ratio. To ensure that Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ limitation arrangement in effect for the Contract owners with amounts allocated for purposes of this discussion). The Replacement Portfolio. In addition, as of to the Removed Portfolio on the date of total annual operating expenses of the December 31, 2005, the assets of the the Substitution do not incur higher Replacement Portfolio were expenses with respect to such amounts Replacement Portfolio have been approximately $1.3 billion, while the for a period of two years after the restated to reflect recent changes to the assets in the Removed Portfolio were Substitution, MLOA and MONY also administration fees charged with respect approximately $740.0 million. have agreed to impose a two-year to that Portfolio (as described above). It is anticipated that the Replacement expense limitation with respect to such Class IA shares of the Replacement Portfolio’s net annual operating expense amounts, as summarized below. Portfolio and the shares of the Removed ratio will be lower than the Removed 21. The following chart compares the Portfolio have not adopted plans Portfolio’s net annual operating expense fees paid for advisory services and the pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the 1940 ratio immediately after the Substitution total annual operating expenses (before Act. due to the lower management fee rate, and after any waivers and

Old Mutual In- surance Series EQ/FI Mid Cap Fund—Mid-Cap Portfolio Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 17 ...... 0.95 0.69 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.22 0.14 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.17 0.83 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 18 ...... (0.18) (0.08) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.99 0.75

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, the annual operating expense

15 The management fee schedule for the an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total on an annual basis is equal to 0.950% of the first Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares $300 million; 0.900% from $300 million to $500 to 1.150% of the first $1 billion; 1.100% on the next of the Portfolio do not exceed 1.55%. With respect million; 0.850% from $500 million to $750 million; $1 billion; 1.075% on the next $3 billion; 1.050% to the Removed Portfolio, the investment adviser 0.800% from $750 million to $1 billion; 0.750% on the next $5 billion; and 1.025% thereafter. The has agreed to reduce its advisory fee and/or from $1 billion to $1.5 billion; 0.700% from $1.5 management fee schedule for the Removed Portfolio reimburse the Portfolio to the extent that the Total billion to $2.0 billion; and 0.65% thereafter. on an annual basis is equal to 1.25% of the first Annual Operating Expenses exceed 1.65% for the 18 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has $500 million; 1.20% from $500 million to $1 fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. agreed to make payments or waive its management, billion; 1.15% from $1 billion to $2.5 billion; and 17 The management fee schedule for the administrative and other fees to limit the expenses 1.00% thereafter. Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to 16 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has to 0.700% of the first $1 billion; 0.65% on the next an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total agreed to make payments or waive its management, $1 billion; 0.625% on the next $3 billion; 0.600% Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares administrative and other fees to limit the expenses on the next $5 billion; and 0.575% thereafter. The of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.75%. With respect of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to management fee schedule for the Removed Portfolio to the Removed Portfolio, the investment adviser Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61102 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

ratio for the Replacement Portfolio the lower rate of other expenses, and after any waivers and (before and after waivers and economies of scale from the reimbursements) for the fiscal year reimbursements) was lower than the substantially larger asset base and the ended December 31, 2005, expressed as annual operating expense ratio for the expense limitation arrangement in an annual percentage of average daily Removed Portfolio due to a lower effect. The Section 26 Applicants assert net assets, of the Class VC shares of the management fee rate and a lower rate of that the proposed Substitution of the Lord Abbett Series Fund—Mid-Cap ‘‘other expenses.’’ In addition, the Class Replacement Portfolio for the Removed Value Portfolio (the ‘‘Removed IA shares of the Replacement Portfolio Portfolio will therefore benefit the Portfolio’’ for purposes of this are subject to a 0.75 annual expense Contract owners by lowering the annual discussion) and the Class IA shares of limit, while the shares of the Removed operating expense ratio. To ensure that the EQ/Lord Abbett Mid Cap Value Portfolio are subject to a 0.99 fee cap. Contract owners with amounts allocated Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ Moreover, as of December 31, 2005, the to the Removed Portfolio on the date of for purposes of this discussion). The assets of the Replacement Portfolio were the Substitution do not incur higher total annual operating expenses of the approximately $1.4 billion, while the expenses with respect to such amounts Replacement Portfolio have been assets in the Removed Portfolio were for a period of two years after the restated to reflect recent changes to the approximately $54.8 million. Substitution, MLOA and MONY also administration fees charged with respect It is anticipated that the Replacement have agreed to impose a two-year to that Portfolio (as described above). Portfolio’s net annual operating expense expense limitation with respect to such Class IA shares of the Replacement ratio will be lower than the Removed amounts, as summarized below. Portfolio and the Class VC shares of the Portfolio’s net annual operating expense 22. The following chart compares the Removed Portfolio have not adopted ratio immediately after the Substitution fees paid for advisory services and the plans pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the due to the lower management fee rate, total annual operating expenses (before 1940 Act.

Lord Abbett Series Fund— EQ/Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value Mid Cap Value Portfolio Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 19 ...... 0.74 0.70 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.38 0.40 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.12 1.10 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 20 ...... N/A (0.30) Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 1.12 0.80

For the fiscal year ended December ratio immediately after the Substitution and after any waivers and 31, 2005, the annual operating expense due to the lower management fee rate reimbursements) for the fiscal year ratio of the Replacement Portfolio and the expense limitation arrangement ended December 31, 2005, expressed as (before and after waivers and in effect. The Section 26 Applicants an annual percentage of average daily reimbursements) was lower than the assert that the proposed Substitution of net assets, of the Administrative Class annual operating expense ratio for the the Replacement Portfolio for the shares of the PIMCO Variable Insurance Removed Portfolio due primarily to the Removed Portfolio will therefore benefit Trust—Real Return Portfolio (the lower management fee rate for the the Contract owners by lowering the ‘‘Removed Portfolio’’ for purposes of Replacement Portfolio and an expense annual operating expense ratio. To this discussion) and the Class IA shares limitation arrangement in effect for the ensure that Contract owners with of the EQ/JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio Replacement Portfolio. amounts allocated to the Removed (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ for As of December 31, 2005, the assets of Portfolio on the date of the Substitution purposes of this discussion). The total the Replacement Portfolio were do not incur higher expenses with annual operating expenses of the approximately $123.6 million, while the respect to such amounts for a period of Replacement Portfolio have been assets in the Removed Portfolio were two years after the Substitution, MLOA restated to reflect recent changes to the approximately $1.2 billion. Although and MONY also have agreed to impose administration fees charged with respect the Replacement Portfolio is smaller a two-year expense limitation with to that Portfolio (as described above). than the Removed Portfolio, it is respect to such amounts, as summarized Class IA shares of the Replacement anticipated that the Replacement below. Portfolio and the Administrative Class Portfolio’s net annual operating expense 23. The following chart compares the shares of the Removed Portfolio have ratio will be lower than the Removed fees paid for advisory services and the not adopted plans pursuant to Rule Portfolio’s net annual operating expense total annual operating expenses (before 12b–1 under the 1940 Act.

has contractually agreed to waive a portion of its to 0.700% of the first $1 billion; 0.650% on the next 20 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has management fee or to pay certain expenses of the $1 billion; 0.625% on the next $3 billion; 0.600% agreed to make payments or waive its management, Portfolio to the extent that the Total Annual on the next $5 billion; and 0.575% thereafter. The administrative and other fees to limit the expenses Operating Expenses exceed 0.99% for the fiscal year management fee schedule for the Removed Portfolio of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to ended December 31, 2006. on an annual basis is equal to 0.75% of the $1 an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total 19 The management fee schedule for the billion; 0.70% on the next $1 billion; and 0.65% Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal over $2 billion. of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.80%.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61103

PIMCO Vari- able Insurance EQ/JPMorgan Trust—Real Core Bond Return Port- Portfolio folio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 21 ...... 0.25 0.44 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses ...... 0.41 0.13 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.66 0.57 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement 22 ...... N/A N/A Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.66 0.57

For the fiscal year ended December assets in the Removed Portfolio were expense limitation with respect to such 31, 2005, the annual operating expense approximately $1.1 billion. amounts, as summarized below. ratio of the Replacement Portfolio was It is anticipated that the Replacement 24. The following chart compares the Portfolio’s net annual operating expense lower than the annual operating fees paid for advisory services and the ratio will be lower than the Removed expense ratio of the Removed Portfolio, total annual operating expenses (before Portfolio’s net annual operating expense even though the management fee rate for and after any waivers and ratio immediately after the Substitution the Replacement Portfolio was higher reimbursements) for the fiscal year than the Removed Portfolio’s due primarily to the lower rate of ‘‘other expenses’’ due to economies of scale as ended December 31, 2005, expressed as management fee rate. The lower total well as the expense limitation an annual percentage of average daily annual operating expense ratio of the arrangement in effect. The Section 26 net assets, of the Class VC shares of the Replacement Portfolio was due Applicants assert that the proposed Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond- primarily to the Portfolio’s lower rate of Substitution of the Replacement Debenture Portfolio (the ‘‘Removed ‘‘other expenses.’’ In addition, the Class Portfolio for the Removed Portfolio will Portfolio’’ for purposes of this IA shares of the Replacement Portfolio therefore benefit the Contract owners by discussion) and the Class A shares of are subject to a 0.60% annual expense lowering the annual operating expense the AXA Premier VIP High Yield limit, while the Administrative Class ratio. To ensure that Contract owners Portfolio (the ‘‘Replacement Portfolio’’ shares of the Removed Portfolio are not with amounts allocated to the Removed for purposes of this discussion). Class A subject to any expense limit. Moreover, Portfolio on the date of the Substitution shares of the Replacement Portfolio and as of December 31, 2005, the assets of do not incur higher expenses with the Class VC shares of the Removed the Replacement Portfolio were respect to such amounts after the Portfolio have not adopted plans approximately $1.4 billion, while the Substitution, MLOA and MONY also pursuant to Rule 12b–1 under the 1940 have agreed to impose a permanent Act.

Lord Abbett Se- ries Fund— AXA Premier Bond-Deben- VIP High Yield ture Portfolio Portfolio (percent) (percent)

Management Fee 23 ...... 0.50 0.58 Rule 12b–1 Fee ...... None None Other Expenses 24 ...... 0.44 0.18 Total Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.94 0.76 Less Fee Waiver/Expense Reimbursement ...... (0.04 ) N/A Net Annual Operating Expenses ...... 0.90 0.76

For the fiscal year ended December Replacement Portfolio was higher than approximately $1.8 billion, while the 31, 2005, the annual operating expense the Removed Portfolio’s management assets in the Removed Portfolio were ratio of the Replacement Portfolio was fee rate. The lower annual operating approximately $212.3 million. lower than the annual operating expense ratio was due primarily to the It is anticipated that the Replacement expense ratio of the Removed Portfolio Replacement Portfolio’s lower rate of Portfolio’s total annual operating (before and after waivers and ‘‘other expenses.’’ In addition, as of expense ratio will be lower than the reimbursements), even though the December 31, 2005, the assets of the Removed Portfolio’s total annual management fee rate for the Replacement Portfolio were operating expense ratio immediately

21 The management fee schedule for the Annual Operating Expenses of the Class IA shares for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal of the Portfolio do not exceed 0.60%. reflected in the total annual operating expenses to 0.450% of the first $750 million; 0.425% on the 23 The management fee schedule for the table above, was 0.50% and did not include next $750 million; 0.400% on the next $1 billion; Replacement Portfolio on an annual basis is equal breakpoints. 0.380% on the next $2.5 billion; and 0.370% to 0.600% of the first $750 million; 0.575% on the 24 With respect to the Removed Portfolio, the thereafter. next $750 million; 0.550% on the next $1 billion; 22 The Manager of the Replacement Portfolio has 0.530% on the next $2.5 billion; and 0.520% investment adviser has contractually agreed agreed to make payments or waive its management, thereafter. The management fee schedule for the through April 30, 2007 to reimburse a portion of the administrative and other fees to limit the expenses Removed Portfolio on an annual basis, as of January Portfolio’s expenses to maintain its ‘‘Other of the Portfolio through April 30, 2007, pursuant to 1, 2006, is equal to 0.50% of the first $1 billion; and Expenses’’ at an annualized rate of 0.40%. an expense limitation agreement, so that the Total 0.45% thereafter. However, the management fee rate

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61104 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

after the Substitution, notwithstanding the proposed Substitutions. In addition, timing activity) each Insurance the difference in the management fee the supplements will advise Contract Company will not exercise any rights rates, due primarily to the lower rate of owners that any Contract value reserved by it under the Contracts to other expenses as a result of economies remaining in a Removed Portfolio impose additional restrictions on of scale attributable to the Replacement subaccount on the Substitution Date transfers or to impose any charges on Portfolio’s substantially larger asset will be transferred to the corresponding transfers until at least 30 days after each base. The Section 26 Applicants assert Replacement Portfolio subaccount and proposed Substitution. The Insurance that the proposed Substitution of the that the Substitutions will take place at Companies will also send each Contract Replacement Portfolio for the Removed relative net asset value. The owner a current prospectus for each of Portfolio will therefore benefit the supplements will also advise Contract the relevant Replacement Portfolios to Contract owners by lowering the annual owners that for at least 30 days the extent they have not previously operating expense ratio. To ensure that following each proposed Substitution, received a current version. Each Contract owners with amounts allocated the Insurance Companies will permit Insurance Company also is seeking to the Removed Portfolio on the date of Contract owners to make transfers of approval of the proposed Substitutions the Substitution do not incur higher Contract value (or annuity unit value) from any state insurance regulators expenses with respect to such amounts out of each Replacement Portfolio whose approval may be necessary or after the Substitution, MLOA and subaccount to one or more other appropriate. MONY also have agreed to impose a subaccounts without the transfers (or 29. The proposed Substitutions will permanent expense limitation with exchanges) being treated as one of a take place at relative net asset value respect to such amounts, as summarized limited number of permitted transfers determined on the date of the below. (or exchanges) or a limited number of Substitutions pursuant to Section 22 of 25. Appendix A describes each transfers (or exchanges) permitted the 1940 Act and Rule 22c–1 proposed substitution with respect to without a transfer charge, as applicable. thereunder, with no change in the each portfolio’s comparative 27. Each Insurance Company also will amount of any Contract owner’s performance history. Information send affected Contract owners Contract value, cash value, or death regarding the average annual total prospectuses for the Replacement benefit or in the dollar value of his or returns of each Replacement and Portfolio prior to the Substitutions. Also her investment in the Separate Removed Portfolio for the one-, five- the Section 26 Applicants will send the Accounts. Each Substitution will be and ten-year periods (or since inception, appropriate prospectus supplement (or effected by redeeming shares of the if shorter) ended December 31, 2005 is other notice, in the case of Contracts no Removed Portfolio in cash and/or in- included in the Appendix. longer actively marketed and for which kind on the Substitution Date at their 26. By supplements to the there are a relatively small number of net asset value and using the proceeds prospectuses for the Contracts and existing Contract owners (‘‘Inactive of those redemptions to purchase shares Separate Accounts which will be Contracts’’)), containing this disclosure of the Replacement Portfolio at their net delivered to Contract owners at least to all existing Contract owners. asset value on the same date. All in-kind thirty (30) days before the Substitutions, Prospective purchasers and new redemptions from a Removed Portfolio each Insurance Company will notify all purchasers of Contracts will be provided of which any of the Applicants is an Contract owners of its intention to take with a Contract prospectus and the affiliated person will be effected in the necessary actions, including seeking supplement containing disclosure the order requested by the Application, regarding the Substitutions, as well as a accordance with the conditions set forth to substitute shares of the Replacement prospectus and/or supplement for the in the no-action letter issued by the staff Portfolios for the Removed Portfolios as Replacement Portfolios. Applicants of the Commission to Signature described in this notice. The represent that the Contract prospectus Financial Group, Inc. (Dec. 28, 1999). supplements will advise Contract and the supplement and the prospectus 30. Contract owners will not incur owners that from the date of the and/or supplement for the Replacement any fees or charges as a result of the supplement until the date of the Portfolios will be delivered to proposed Substitutions, nor will their proposed Substitutions, owners are purchasers of new Contracts in rights or insurance benefits or the permitted to make transfers of Contract accordance with all applicable legal Insurance Companies’ obligations under value (or annuity unit value) out of each requirements. the Contracts be altered in any way. All Removed Portfolio subaccount to one or 28. In addition to the prospectus expenses incurred in connection with more other subaccounts without the supplements distributed to Contract the proposed Substitutions, including transfers (or exchanges) being treated as owners, within five business days after any brokerage, legal, accounting, and one of a limited number of permitted the proposed Substitutions are other fees and expenses, will be paid by transfers (or exchanges) or a limited completed, Contract owners will be sent the Insurance Companies. In addition, number of transfers (or exchanges) a written notice of the Substitutions the proposed Substitutions will not permitted without a transfer charge. The informing them that each Substitution impose any tax liability on Contract supplements also will inform Contract was carried out and that they may owners. The proposed Substitutions owners that the Insurance Companies transfer all Contract value or cash value will not cause the Contract fees and will not exercise any rights reserved under a Contract invested in any one of charges currently being paid by Contract under any Contract to impose additional the subaccounts on the date of the owners to be greater after the proposed restrictions on transfers until at least 30 notice to one or more other subaccounts Substitutions than before the proposed days after each proposed Substitution available under their Contract at no cost Substitutions. All Contract-level fees (other than with respect to and without regard to the usual limit on will remain the same after the proposed implementing policies and procedures the frequency of transfers among the Substitutions. No fees will be charged designed to prevent disruptive transfer variable account options. The notice on the transfers made at the time of the and other market timing activity). The will also reiterate that (other than with proposed Substitutions because each supplements also will advise Contract respect to implementing policies and proposed Substitution will not be owners how to provide instructions on procedures designed to prevent treated as a transfer for purposes of reallocating Contract value in light of disruptive transfers and other market assessing transfer charges or computing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61105

the number of permissible transfers waivers or reimbursements) for any similar or identical, investment under the Contracts. existing owner of the Contracts on the objectives, policies and risks. In 31. With respect to those who were date of the proposed Substitutions. With addition, the proposed Substitutions Contract owners on the date of the respect to the Lord Abbett Series retain for Contract owners the proposed Substitutions, the Insurance Fund—Growth and Income Portfolio, investment flexibility that is a central Companies will reimburse, on the last PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust—Real feature of the Contracts. According to business day of each fiscal period (not Return Portfolio and Lord Abbett Series the Applicants, any impact on the to exceed a fiscal quarter) during the Fund—Bond-Debenture Portfolio, at no investment programs of affected two years following the date of the time after the date of the proposed Contract owners, including the proposed Substitutions, the subaccounts Substitutions will the Insurance appropriateness of the available investing in the Replacement Portfolios Companies increase the total Separate investment options, should therefore be such that the sum of each Replacements Account charges (net of any waiver or negligible. Portfolio’s net operating expense ratio reimbursements) of each Contract 5. Applicants maintain that the (taking into account any expense outstanding on the date of the proposed ultimate effect of each Substitution waivers or reimbursements) and Substitutions. would be to remove overlapping and subaccount expense ratio (asset-based Applicants’ Legal Analysis duplicative investment options and that fees and charges deducted on a daily each Substitution will permit each basis from subaccount assets and 1. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act Insurance Company to present reflected in the calculations of prohibits the depositor of a registered information to its Contract owners in a subaccount unit value) for such period unit investment trust that invests in the simpler and more concise manner. will not exceed, on an annualized basis, securities of a single issuer from Applicants anticipate that after each the sum of the corresponding Removed substituting the securities of another proposed Substitution, Contract owners issuer without Commission approval. Portfolio’s net operating expense ratio will be provided with disclosure Section 26(c) provides that ‘‘[t]he (taking into account any expense documents that contain a simpler Commission shall issue an order waivers or reimbursements) and presentation of the available investment approving such substitution if the subaccount expense ratio for fiscal year options under their Contracts. 2005, except for the Substitutions evidence establishes that it is consistent 6. Applicants also state that, as a involving the Lord Abbett Series Fund— with the protection of investors and the result of each proposed Substitution, Growth and Income Portfolio, PIMCO purposes fairly intended by the policy Contract owners with subaccount Variable Insurance Trust—Real Return and provisions of this title.’’ Section balances invested in each Replacement Portfolio and Lord Abbett Series Fund— 26(c) protects the expectation of Portfolio will have lower net operating Bond-Debenture Portfolio. With respect investors that the unit investment trust expenses. Each Insurance Company has to the Lord Abbett Series Fund—Growth will accumulate shares of a particular agreed to impose a two year expense and Income Portfolio, PIMCO Variable issuer and is intended to ensure that limit, except with respect to the Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio unnecessary or burdensome sales loads, and Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond- additional reinvestment costs and other proposed Substitutions involving the Debenture Portfolio, the Insurance charges will not be incurred due to Lord Abbett Series Fund—Growth and Companies will reimburse, on the last unapproved substitutions of securities. Income Portfolio, PIMCO Variable business day of each fiscal period (not 2. The proposed Substitutions involve Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio to exceed a fiscal quarter) for the life of a substitution of securities within the and Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond- each Contract outstanding on the date of meaning of Section 26(c) of the 1940 Debenture Portfolio for which each the proposed Substitutions, the Act. The Section 26 Applicants, Insurance Company has agreed to subaccounts investing in the therefore, request an order from the impose an expense limit for the life of Replacement Portfolios such that the Commission pursuant to Section 26(c) each Contract, so that the sum of each sum of each Replacement Portfolio’s net approving the proposed Substitutions. Replacement Portfolio’s net operating operating expense ratio (taking into 3. The Section 26 Applicants have expense ratio (taking into account any account any expense waivers or reserved the right under the Contracts to expense waivers and reimbursements) reimbursements) and subaccount substitute shares of another eligible and subaccount expense ratio (asset- expense ratio (asset-based fees and investment fund for one of the current based charges deducted on a daily basis charges deducted on a daily basis from investment funds offered as a funding from subaccount assets and reflected in subaccount assets and reflected in the option under the Contracts. The the calculation of subaccount unit calculations of subaccount unit value) prospectuses for the Contracts and the values) for each fiscal period (not to for such period will not exceed, on an Separate Accounts contain appropriate exceed a fiscal quarter) will not exceed, annualized basis, the sum of the disclosure of this right. The Section 26 on an annualized basis, the sum of the corresponding Removed Portfolio’s net Applicants have reserved this right of corresponding Removed Portfolio’s net operating expense ratio (taking into substitution both to protect themselves operating expense ratio and subaccount account any expense waivers or and their Contract owners in situations expense ratio for fiscal year 2005. reimbursements) and subaccount where either might be harmed or 7. Applicants contend that, therefore, expense ratio for fiscal year 2005. disadvantaged by events affecting the each Substitution protects the Contract 32. For a period of two years from the issuer of the securities held by a owners who have allocated Contract date of each proposed Substitution, Separate Account and to preserve the value to each Removed Portfolio by: (i) except the Substitutions involving the opportunity to replace such shares in Providing an underlying investment Lord Abbett Series Fund—Growth and situations where a substitution could option for subaccounts invested in the Income Portfolio, PIMCO Variable benefit the Insurance Companies and Removed Portfolio that is similar to the Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio their respective Contract owners. Removed Portfolio; (ii) providing such and Lord Abbett Series Fund—Bond- 4. Applicants assert that each Contract owners with simpler disclosure Debenture Portfolio, the Insurance Replacement Portfolio and its documents; and (iii) providing such Companies will not increase total corresponding Removed Portfolio have Contract owners with an investment Separate Account charges (net of any similar, and in some cases substantially option that would have net operating

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61106 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

expenses that are lower than the current 11. The Section 17 Applicants state principal, and a sale of portfolio investment option. that shares held by a separate account securities by certain Removed 8. Applicants assert that the proposed of an insurance company are legally Portfolios, acting as principal, to certain Substitutions are not of the type that owned by the insurance company and Replacement Portfolios. In addition, the Section 26(c) was designed to prevent. that, the Insurance Companies and their proposed In-Kind Transactions could be Unlike traditional unit investment trusts affiliates collectively own substantially viewed as a purchase of securities from where a depositor could only substitute all of the shares of EQAT. Accordingly, certain Removed Portfolios, and a sale investment securities in a manner EQAT and its respective Portfolios are of securities to certain Replacement which permanently affected all the arguably under the control of the Portfolios, by MONY or MLOA (or their investors in the trust, the Contracts Insurance Companies, notwithstanding Separate Accounts), acting as principal. provide each Contract owner with the the fact that the Contract owners may be If categorized in this manner, the right to exercise his or her own considered the beneficial owners of proposed In-Kind Transactions may be judgment, and transfer Contract values those shares held in the Separate deemed to contravene Section 17(a) due and cash values into and among other Accounts. If EQAT is under the to the affiliated status of these investment options available to Contract common control of the Insurance participants. owners under their Contracts. Companies, then each Insurance 15. Rule 17a–7 under the 1940 Act Additionally, the Section 26 Applicants Company is an affiliated person or an exempts from the prohibitions of claim that the Substitutions will not, in affiliated person of an affiliated person Section 17(a), subject to certain any manner, reduce the nature or of EQAT and its respective Portfolios. If enumerated conditions, a purchase or quality of the available investment EQAT and its respective Portfolios are sale transaction between registered options. Moreover, the Section 26 under the control of the Insurance investment companies or separate series Applicants will offer Contract owners Companies, then EQAT and its of registered investment companies, the opportunity to transfer amounts out respective affiliates are affiliated which are affiliated persons, or affiliated of the affected subaccounts without any persons of the Insurance Companies. persons of affiliated persons, of each cost or other penalty that may otherwise 12. The Section 17 Applicants note other, between separate series of a have been imposed for a period that, regardless of whether or not the registered investment company, or beginning on the date of the supplement Insurance Companies can be considered between a registered investment notifying Contract owners of the to control EQAT and its respective company or a separate series of a proposed Substitutions (which Portfolios, because the Insurance registered investment company and a supplement will be delivered to Companies and their affiliates own of person which is an affiliated person of Contract owners at least thirty (30) days record more than 5% of the shares of such registered investment company (or before the Substitutions) and ending no each of them and are under common affiliated person of such person) solely earlier than thirty (30) days after the control with each Replacement by reason of having a common Substitution Date. The Substitutions, Portfolio’s investment adviser, the investment adviser or investment therefore, will not result in the type of Insurance Companies are affiliated advisers which are affiliated persons of costly forced redemption that Section persons of EQAT and its respective each other, common directors, and/or 26(c) was designed to prevent. Portfolios. Likewise, EQAT’s respective common officers. 9. Applicants maintain that the Portfolios are each an affiliated person 16. MONY, MLOA, their Separate proposed Substitutions are also unlike of the Insurance Companies. Accounts, certain Removed Portfolios, the type of substitution that Section 13. In addition to the above, the and certain Replacement Portfolios, in 26(c) was designed to prevent in that by Insurance Companies, through their connection with their participation in purchasing a Contract, Contract owners respective Separate Accounts, in the the proposed In-Kind Transactions, select much more than a particular aggregate own more than 5% of the must rely on that portion of Rule 17a– underlying fund in which to invest their outstanding shares of certain of the 7 that requires that they be affiliated Contract values. They also select the Removed Portfolios, including the persons of each other solely by reason specific type of insurance coverage Dreyfus Variable Investment Fund— of having a common investment adviser offered by the Section 26 Applicants International Value Portfolio, Lord or affiliated investment advisers, under the applicable Contract, as well as Abbett Series Fund—Bond-Debenture common directors, and/or common numerous other rights and privileges set Portfolio, T. Rowe Price Fixed Income officers. That is not the case as detailed forth in the Contract. Contract owners Series, Inc.—Prime Reserve Portfolio, above. Moreover, one of the conditions also may have considered the Insurance Old Mutual Insurance Series Fund— enumerated in Rule 17a–7 requires that Company’s size, financial condition, Mid-Cap Portfolio and PIMCO Variable the transaction be a purchase or sale, for and its reputation for service in Insurance Trust—Real Return Portfolio. no consideration other than cash selecting their Contract. These factors Therefore, each Insurance Company is payment against prompt delivery of a will not change as a result of the an affiliated person of those portfolios. security for which market quotations are proposed Substitution. 14. The Section 17 Applicants state readily available. If the proposed In- 10. Section 17(a)(1) of the 1940 Act that the proposed In-Kind Transactions Kind Transactions are viewed as prohibits any affiliated person (as could be seen as the indirect purchase purchases and sales of securities, the defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the 1940 of shares of certain Replacement consideration in the proposed Act) of a registered investment Portfolios with portfolio securities of redemptions of shares of certain company, or any affiliated person of certain Removed Portfolios and the Removed Portfolios and the proposed such a person, acting as principal, from indirect sale of portfolio securities of purchases of shares of certain knowingly selling any security or other certain Removed Portfolios for shares of Replacement Portfolios would not be property to that company. Section certain Replacement Portfolios. cash, but would be the portfolio 17(a)(2) of the 1940 Act generally Pursuant to this analysis, the proposed securities received from the Removed prohibits the same persons, acting as In-Kind Transactions also could be Portfolio. principals, from knowingly purchasing categorized as a purchase of shares of 17. Section 17(b) of the 1940 Act any security or other property from the certain Replacement Portfolios by provides that the Commission may, registered investment company. certain Removed Portfolios, acting as upon application, issue an order

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61107

exempting any proposed transaction Account’s investment in a Replacement normal valuation procedures, as set from Section 17(a) if: (i) The terms of Portfolio will equal the value of its forth in the registration statement for the the proposed transactions are reasonable investments in the Removed Portfolio relevant investment company. and fair and do not involve (together with the value of any pre- 23. Even though the proposed In-Kind overreaching on the part of any person existing investments in the Replacement Transactions will not comply with the concerned; (ii) the proposed Portfolio) before the In-Kind cash consideration requirement of transactions are consistent with the Transactions. paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–7, the Section policy of each registered investment 21. When the Commission initially 17 Applicants state that the terms of the company concerned; and (iii) the proposed and adopted Rule 17a–7, it proposed In-Kind Transactions will proposed transactions are consistent noted that the purpose of the rule was offer to each of the relevant Removed with the general purposes of the 1940 to eliminate the filing and processing of Portfolios and each of the relevant Act. applications ‘‘in circumstances where Replacement Portfolios the same degree 18. The Section 17 Applicants request there appears to be no likelihood that of protection from overreaching that an order pursuant to Section 17(b) of the the statutory finding for a specific Rule 17a–7 generally provides in 1940 Act exempting them from the exemption under Section 17(b) could connection with the purchase and sale provisions of Section 17(a) to the extent not be made’’ by establishing of securities under that Rule in the necessary to permit them to carry out ‘‘conditions as to the availability of the ordinary course of business. In the In-Kind Transactions in connection exemption to those situations where the particular, the Insurance Companies and with the proposed Substitutions. Commission, upon the basis of its their affiliates cannot effect the 19. The Section 17 Applicants submit experience, considers that there is no proposed In-Kind Transactions at a that the terms of the proposed In-Kind likelihood of overreaching of the price that is disadvantageous to any Transactions, including the investment companies participating in Replacement Portfolio. consideration to be paid and received the transaction.’’ When the Commission 24. The Section 17 Applicants are reasonable and fair and do not amended Rule 17a–7 in 1981 to cover represent that the proposed redemption involve overreaching on the part of any transactions involving non-investment of shares of each of the relevant person concerned. The Section 17 company affiliates, it indicated that Removed Portfolios will be consistent Applicants also submit that the such transactions could be reasonable with the investment policies of each proposed In-Kind Transactions are and fair and not involve overreaching if Removed Portfolio and the consistent with the policies of the appropriate conditions were imposed on corresponding Replacement Portfolio, as relevant Removed Portfolios and the the transaction. In this regard, the recited in their respective current relevant corresponding Replacement Section 17 Applicants state they will registration statements, provided that Portfolios, as recited in the current assure themselves that the In-Kind the shares are redeemed at their net registration statement and reports of the Transactions will be in substantial asset value in conformity with Rule relevant investment company filed with compliance with the conditions of Rule 22c–1 under the 1940 Act. Likewise, the the Commission under the federal 17a–7 under the 1940 Act. The Section proposed sale of shares of each of the securities laws. Finally, the Section 17 17 Applicants assert that because the relevant Replacement Portfolios for Applicants submit that the proposed In- proposed In-Kind Transactions would investment securities is consistent with Kind Transactions are consistent with comply in substance with the principal the investment policies of the relevant the general purposes of the 1940 Act. conditions of Rule 17a–7, the Replacement Portfolio, as recited in the 20. The Section 17 Applicants state Commission should consider the extent relevant Trust’s registration statement, that they will assure themselves that the to which the In-Kind Transactions provided that: (i) The shares are sold at investment companies will carry out the would meet these or other similar their net asset value; and (ii) the proposed In-Kind Transactions in conditions and issue an order if such investment securities are of the type and conformity with the conditions of Rule conditions would provide the substance quality that a Replacement Portfolio 17a–7 (or, as applicable, a Removed of the protections embodied in Rule could have acquired with the proceeds Portfolio’s and a Replacement 17a–7. from the sale of its shares had the shares Portfolio’s normal valuation procedures, 22. The Section 17 Applicants state been sold for cash. To assure the second as set forth in the relevant investment that the proposed In-Kind Transactions of these conditions is met, the Manager company’s registration statement), will be effected based upon the and relevant Adviser will examine the except that the consideration paid for independent current market price of the portfolio securities being offered to each the securities being purchased or sold portfolio securities as specified in Replacement Portfolio and accept only will not be cash. The In-Kind paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–7. The those securities as consideration for Transactions will be effected at the proposed In-Kind Transactions will shares that it would have acquired for respective net asset values of each comply with paragraph (d) of Rule 17a– each such Portfolio in a cash Removed Portfolio and the 7 because no brokerage commission, fee transaction. corresponding Replacement Portfolio, as or other remuneration (except for any 25. Applicants also assert that the determined in accordance with the customary transfer fees) will be paid to proposed In-Kind Transactions are procedures disclosed in the Portfolios’ any party in connection with the consistent with the general purposes of registration statements and as required proposed In-Kind Transactions. the 1940 Act and that the proposed In- by Rule 22c–1 under the 1940 Act. The Furthermore, a written record of the Kind Transactions do not present any In-Kind Transactions will not change proposed In-Kind Transactions will be conditions or abuses that the 1940 Act the dollar value of any Contract owner’s maintained and preserved in accordance was designed to prevent. In particular, investment in any of the Separate with paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–7. With Sections 1(b)(2) and 1(b)(3) of the 1940 Accounts, the value of any Contract, the respect to those securities for which Act state, among other things, that the accumulation value or other value market quotations are not readily national public interest and the interest credited to any Contract, or the death available, the Substitutions will be of investors are adversely affected benefit payable under any Contract. effected in accordance with the relevant ‘‘when investment companies are After the proposed In-Kind Removed Portfolios’ and the relevant organized, operated, managed, or their Transactions, the value of a Separate corresponding Replacement Portfolios’ portfolio securities are selected in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61108 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

interest of directors, officers, investment consideration to be paid and received, Substitutions and the related In-Kind advisers, depositors, or other affiliated are reasonable and fair to: (i) Each of the Transactions meet the standards of persons thereof, * * * or in the interest relevant Replacement Portfolios and Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act and of of other investment companies or each of the relevant Removed Portfolios; Section 17(b) of the 1940 Act, and persons engaged in other lines of and (ii) Contract owners. The Section 17 request that the Commission issue an business, rather than in the interest of Applicants also assert that the proposed order of approval pursuant to Section all classes of such companies’ security In-Kind Transactions do not involve 26(c) of the 1940 Act and an order of holders; * * * when investment overreaching on the part of any person exemption pursuant to Section 17(b) of companies issue securities containing concerned. Furthermore, the Section 17 the 1940 Act. Applicants represent that the proposed inequitable or discriminatory For the Commission, by the Division of In-Kind Transactions are, or will be, provisions, or fail to protect the Investment Management, under delegated consistent with all relevant policies of preferences and privileges of holders in authority. (i) the relevant Replacement Portfolios their outstanding securities.’’ As J. Lynn Taylor, explained above, the terms of the and the relevant Removed Portfolios as Assistant Secretary. proposed In-Kind Transactions are stated in the relevant investment designed to prevent the abuses company’s registration statement and Appendix A described in Sections 1(b)(2) and 1(b)(3) reports filed under the 1940 Act, and (ii) The charts below compare the average of the 1940 Act. the general purposes of the 1940 Act. annual total returns of the Class IA shares of 26. The Section 17 Applicants submit Conclusion each Replacement Portfolio and relevant that, for all the reasons stated above, the For the reasons set forth in the class of shares (as indicated below) of each terms of the proposed In-Kind Application, the Section 26 Applicants Removed Portfolio for the one-, five- and ten- Transactions as set forth in the and the Section 17 Applicants year or since inception periods ended Application, including the respectively state that the proposed December 31, 2005.

1.—THE DREYFUS SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE GROWTH FUND, INC. (INITIAL CLASS SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/CALVERT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

Portfolio 1 year 5 years Since inception* Periods Ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 8.92 (2.00) (0.87) Russell 1000 Growth Index ...... 5.26 (3.58 ) (3.74) Russell 3000 Index25 ...... 6.12 1.58 1.86 Removed Portfolio ...... 3.62 (5.27 ) 5.93 S&P 500 ...... 4.91 0.54 9.07 * The Replacement Portfolio commenced operations on September 1, 1999. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on December 31, 2000.

2.—DREYFUS VARIABLE INVESTMENT FUND—INTERNATIONAL VALUE PORTFOLIO (INITIAL CLASS SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/MERCURY INTERNATIONAL VALUE PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

Since Portfolio 1 year 5 years inception* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 11.07 2.46 8.80 MSCI EAFE Index ...... 13.54 4.55 6.17 Removed Portfolio ...... 11.89 6.88 7.97 MSCI EAFE Index ...... 13.54 4.55 5.42 * The Replacement Portfolio commenced operations on March 25, 2002. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on May 1, 1996.

3.—LORD ABBETT SERIES FUND—GROWTH AND INCOME PORTFOLIO (CLASS VC SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/LORD ABBETT GROWTH AND INCOME PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)**

Portfolio 1 year 5 years 10 years* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Removed Portfolio ...... 3.25 3.10 10.22

25 Replaced November 30, 2005.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61109

3.—LORD ABBETT SERIES FUND—GROWTH AND INCOME PORTFOLIO (CLASS VC SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) RE- PLACED BY EQ/LORD ABBETT GROWTH AND INCOME PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORT- FOLIO’’)**—Continued

Portfolio 1 year 5 years 10 years* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

S&P 500 ...... 4.91 0.54 9.07 * The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on December 11, 1989. ** The inception date for the Replacement Portfolio is April 29, 2005 and, therefore, the Portfolio does not have performance information for a full fiscal year.

4.—T. ROWE PRICE FIXED INCOME SERIES, INC.—LIMITED-TERM BOND PORTFOLIO (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/SHORT DURATION BOND PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

10 years or Portfolio 1 year 5 years since periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) inception* (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 1.38 N/A 1.58 Lehman 1–3 Year Government Credit Index ...... 1.77 N/A 1.72 Removed Portfolio ...... 1.74 4.17 4.80 Merrill Lynch 1–5 Year U.S. Corporate and Government Index ...... 1.44 4.63 5.35 * The predecessor of the Replacement Portfolio, the Enterprise Short Duration Portfolio, commenced operations on May 1, 2003. The assets of the Enterprise Short Duration Portfolio were transferred to the Replacement Portfolio on July 9, 2004. The Removed Portfolio commenced op- erations on May 13, 1994.

5.—T. ROWE PRICE FIXED INCOME SERIES, INC.—PRIME RESERVE PORTFOLIO (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/MONEY MARKET PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

10 years or Portfolio 1 year 5 years since periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) inception* (percent

Replacement Portfolio ...... 2.85 2.00 3.72 3-Month Treasury Bill ...... 3.07 2.34 3.85 Removed Portfolio ...... 2.79 1.96 3.48 Lipper Variable Annuity Underlying Money Market Funds Average ...... 2.69 1.85 3.38 *The predecessor of the Replacement Portfolio, the HRT/Alliance Money Market Portfolio, commenced operations on July 13, 1981. The as- sets of the HRT/Alliance Money Market Portfolio were transferred to the Replacement Portfolio on October 18, 1999. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on December 31, 1996.

6.—T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL SERIES, INC.—INTERNATIONAL STOCK PORTFOLIO (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

Portfolio 1 year 5 years 10 years* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 15.61 5.20 4.87 MSCI EAFE Index ...... 13.54 4.55 5.84 Removed Portfolio ...... 16.03 1.84 5.09 MSCI EAFE Index ...... 14.02 4.94 6.18 *The predecessor of the Replacement Portfolio, the HRT/Alliance International Portfolio, commenced operations on April 3, 1995. The assets of the HRT/Alliance International Portfolio were transferred to the Replacement Portfolio on October 18, 1999. The Removed Portfolio com- menced operations on March 31, 1994.

7.—THE UNIVERSAL INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS, INC.—EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY PORTFOLIO (CLASS I SHARES) (‘‘RE- MOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/VAN KAMPEN EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

Since Portfolio 1 year 5 years inception* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 33.04 17.97 5.48 MSCI EMF Gross Dividend Index ...... 34.54 19.44 7.13 Removed Portfolio ...... 33.85 16.01 6.95 MSCI Emerging Markets Free Net Index ...... 34.00 19.09 6.62 * The Replacement Portfolio commenced operations on August 20, 1997. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on October 1, 1996.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61110 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

8.—OLD MUTUAL INSURANCE SERIES FUND—MID-CAP PORTFOLIO (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/FI MID CAP PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

Since Portfolio 1 year 5 years inception* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 6.63 4.58 4.38 S&P MidCap 400 Index ...... 12.56 8.60 6.91 Removed Portfolio ...... 5.71 8.18 14.78 S&P MidCap 400 Index ...... 10.26 6.52 11.35 * The Replacement Portfolio commenced operations on September 1, 2000. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on November 30, 1998.

9.—LORD ABBETT SERIES FUND—MID-CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO (CLASS VC SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/LORD ABBETT MID CAP VALUE PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)**

Since Portfolio 1 year 5 years inception* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Removed Portfolio ...... 8.22 10.30 15.34 Russell MidCap Value Index ...... 12.65 12.21 12.50 * The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on September 15, 1999. ** The inception date for the Replacement Portfolio is April 29, 2005 and, therefore, the Portfolio does not have performance information for a full fiscal year.

10.—PIMCO VARIABLE INSURANCE TRUST—REAL RETURN PORTFOLIO (ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY EQ/JPMORGAN CORE BOND PORTFOLIO (CLASS IA SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

Since Portfolio 1 year 5 years inception* periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 2.50 5.41 5.69 Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index ...... 2.43 5.87 6.06 Removed Portfolio ...... 2.09 9.34 9.68 Lehman Brothers U.S. TIPS Index ...... 2.84 8.74 9.07 * The Replacement Portfolio commenced operations on January 1, 1998. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on September 30, 1999.

11.—LORD ABBETT SERIES FUND—BOND-DEBENTURE PORTFOLIO (CLASS VC SHARES) (‘‘REMOVED PORTFOLIO’’) REPLACED BY AXA PREMIER VIP HIGH YIELD PORTFOLIO (CLASS A SHARES) (‘‘REPLACEMENT PORTFOLIO’’)

10 years or Portfolio 1 year 5 years since periods ended 12/31/2005 (percent) (percent) inception* (percent)

Replacement Portfolio ...... 3.26 6.32 5.17 Merrill Lynch High Yield Master Cash Pay Only Index ...... 2.83 8.76 6.80 Credit Suisse First Boston Global High Yield Index26 ...... 2.25 9.82 7.13 Removed Portfolio ...... 1.31 N/A 8.53 Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index ...... 2.43 N/A 4.97 CSFB High Yield Bond Index ...... 2.26 N/A 10.64 * The predecessor of the Replacement Portfolio, the EQ/High Yield Portfolio, merged with the AXA Premier VIP High Yield Portfolio on August 15, 2003. The assets of the HRT Alliance High Yield Portfolio were transferred to the EQ/High Yield Portfolio on October 19, 1999. The HRT Alli- ance High Yield Portfolio commenced operations on January 2, 1987. The Removed Portfolio commenced operations on December 3, 2001.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61111

existing bid or buying stock at the because of the requirement to first [FR Doc. E6–17236 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] existing offer for his own account, he obtain floor official approval. Floor BILLING CODE 8011–01–P must first obtain a Floor Official’s officials are also over burdened and this approval (except in the case of proposal could help to alleviate some of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and their administrative burdens and permit SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Trust Issued Receipts if the transaction the reallocation of their time to the COMMISSION is 0.10 point or less away from the prior oversight and administration of other transaction).[, and] A[a]ll stop orders so [Release No. 34–54584; File No. SR–Amex– rules. 2006–57] elected must be executed at the same In addition, the requirement to obtain price as his electing transaction. floor official approval is absolute Self-Regulatory Organizations; (c) No Change. without taking into account how large .05—.15 No Change. American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice or small the price variation of the stop of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s order is from the last trading price. The Relating to Stop Orders for Exchange Statement of the Purpose of, and New York Stock Exchange LLC (the Traded Funds and Trust Issued Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule ‘‘NYSE’’) has adopted a threshold so Receipts Change that a minimum price variation of 0.10 October 6, 2006. In its filing with the Commission, point or less from the last trading price 3 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Amex included statements concerning does not require floor official approval; Securities Exchange Act of 1934 the purpose of and basis for the therefore, in order to remain (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 proposed rule change and discussed any competitive, the Exchange proposes to notice is hereby given that on August comments it received on the proposed match the NYSE threshold whereby 18, 2006, the American Stock Exchange rule change. The text of these statements floor official approval would not be LLC (‘‘Amex’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with may be examined at the places specified required if the price variation from the the Securities and Exchange in Item IV below. Amex has prepared last trading price is 0.10 point or less. Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, Similar to the NYSE’s rules, the proposed rule change as described in and C below, of the most significant proposed rule change retains the Items I, II, and III below, which Items aspects of such statements. requirement that the specialist have been prepared by Amex. The guarantees that stop orders be executed A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission is publishing this notice to at the same price as the electing sale. Statement of the Purpose of, and solicit comments on the proposed rule Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule The Exchange believes that change from interested persons. Change eliminating the requirement for such I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s transactions could help foster a more 1. Purpose Statement of the Terms of Substance of efficient and orderly marketplace, the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend alleviate the administrative burden for floor officials and enable the Exchange The Exchange proposes to amend the Commentary .04(b) to Amex Rule 154 to provide that a specialist who elects a to more effectively compete, while rules applicable to stop orders for maintaining the requirement of floor exchange traded funds and trust issued stop order on his book by selling stock to the existing bid or buying stock at the official approval for the specialist stop receipts. The text of the proposed rule order elections that are most likely to change is available on the Amex’s Web existing offer for his own account is not required to obtain floor official approval warrant floor official scrutiny (i.e., site at (http://www.amex.com), the where the electing transaction is more Amex Office of the Secretary, and at the if the transaction is 0.10 point or less away from the prior transaction. This than 0.10 point away from the previous Commission’s Public Reference Room. sale). The Exchange acknowledges that Below is the text of the proposed rule exception would only apply to transactions in Exchange-Traded Fund the elimination of the floor official change. Proposed new language is in approval pursuant to this proposal may italics; proposed deletionsare in Shares and Trust Issued Receipts increase the frequency of specialists [brackets]. (collectively, ‘‘ETFs’’). Currently, Exchange rules provide electing stop orders by selling to the General and Floor Rules that when a specialist elects a stop order existing bid or buying from the existing offer. Accordingly, the Exchange will Rule 154. Orders Left with Specialist on the specialist’s book by selling to the existing bid or buying from the existing continue to conduct its existing No member or member organization offer, floor official approval must first be surveillances to monitor specialists’ shall place with a specialist, acting as obtained. This current rule causes time compliance with the specific broker, any order to effect on the delays and other impediments to an requirements of Commentary .04 to Exchange any transaction except at the efficient and orderly marketplace and Amex Rule 154 (i.e., obtaining floor market or at a limited price. overly burdens floor officials when their official approval when required and * * * Commentary time could be used more efficiently and executing the stop order at the same .01 No Change. effectively elsewhere. With the price as the electing trade) as well as .02 No Change. their agency obligations to the impacted .03 No Change. increasing use of technology and the .04 (a) A specialist shall accept both increased competition in the stop orders. The Exchange seeks stop orders and stop limit orders in marketplace, specifically auto-quoting approval of this proposal to amend securities in which he is so registered. and multiple market centers, timing in Commentary .04(b) to Amex Rule 154 to (b) When a specialist elects a stop the market has become much faster and provide that floor official approval is order on his book by selling stock to the the ability to be fast has become much not required for a stop order in ETFs if more important. The current Rule does the transaction is 0.10 point or less from 26 Replaced December 31, 2005. not adequately account for these market the last trading price. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). structure changes thereby placing the 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. specialist at a competitive disadvantage 3 See NYSE Rule 123A.40.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61112 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

2. Statutory Basis Electronic Comments SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION The Exchange believes that the • Use the Commission’s Internet proposed rule change is consistent with comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ [Release No. 34–54585; File No. SR–NASD– Section 6(b) of the Act,4 in general, and rules/sro.shtml); or 2005–101] furthers the objectives of Sections • Send an e-mail to rule- 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,5 in Self-Regulatory Organizations; particular in that it will enhance the [email protected]. Please include File National Association of Securities ability of the Exchange to enforce Number SR–Amex–2006–57 on the Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving compliance by its members and persons subject line. Proposed Rule Change and Notice of associated with its members with the Paper Comments Filing and Order Granting Accelerated provisions of the Act, the rules and Approval to Amendment No. 1 Thereto regulations thereunder, and the rules of • Send paper comments in triplicate Relating to Expansion of OATS the Exchange; and it is designed to to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Reporting Requirements to OTC Equity prevent fraudulent and manipulative Securities and Exchange Commission, Securities acts and practices, to promote just and Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., October 10, 2006. equitable principles of trade, to foster Washington, DC 20549–1090. cooperation and coordination with I. Introduction persons engaged in facilitating All submissions should refer to File On August 25, 2005, the National transactions in securities, and to remove Number SR–Amex–2006–57. This file Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. impediments to and perfect the number should be included on the (‘‘NASD’’) filed with the Securities and mechanism of a free and open market subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) and a national market system. Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s only one method. The Commission will Securities Exchange Act of 1934 1 2 Statement on Burden on Competition post all comments on the Commission’s (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, the proposed rule change relating to The Exchange does not believe that Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ expansion of the Order Audit Trail the proposed rule change will result in rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the System (‘‘OATS’’) reporting any burden on competition that is not submission, all subsequent requirements to OTC equity securities. necessary or appropriate in furtherance amendments, all written statements The proposed rule change was of the purposes of the Act. with respect to the proposed rule published for comment in the Federal C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change that are filed with the Register on October 18, 2005.3 The Statement on Comments on the Commission, and all written Commission received three comment Proposed Rule Change Received From communications relating to the letters on the proposal.4 NASD filed Members, Participants or Others proposed rule change between the Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Commission and any person, other than proposed rule change on September 21, Written comments were neither those that may be withheld from the 2006 (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’).5 This order solicited nor received. public in accordance with the approves the proposed rule change, III. Date of Effectiveness of the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be grants accelerated approval to Proposed Rule Change and Timing for available for inspection and copying in Amendment No. 1, and solicits Commission Action the Commission’s Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l). Within 35 days of the date of available for inspection and copying at 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. publication of this notice in the Federal the principal office of the Amex. All 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52581 Register or within such longer period (i) (October 11, 2006), 70 FR 60592 (the ‘‘Notice’’). comments received will be posted As the Commission may designate up to 4 Two comment letters were specific to this without change; the Commission does 90 days of such date if it finds such proposal. See letters to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, longer period to be appropriate and not edit personal identifying Commission, from John Polanin Jr., Chair, SIA Self- information from submissions. You Regulation and Supervisory Practices Committee, publishes its reasons for so finding or dated December 2, 2005 (‘‘SIA Letter’’) and from (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, should submit only information that Phylis M. Esposito, Executive Vice President, Chief the Commission will: you wish to make available publicly. All Strategy Officer, Ameritrade, Inc., dated November submissions should refer to File 8, 2005 (‘‘Ameritrade Letter’’). One comment letter (A) By order approve such proposed Number SR–Amex–2006–57 and should expressed general opposition to OATS. See letter rule change; or filed via the Commission’s Web Comment Form, be submitted on or before November 7, (B) Institute proceedings to determine from Rich Bertematti, dated September 7, 2006 2006. (‘‘Bertematti Letter’’). In addition, NASD received whether the proposed rule change comment letters about the proposed rule change should be disapproved. For the Commission, by the Division of following publication in NASD’s Notice to Members Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 04–80 (November 2004). NASD addressed those IV. Solicitation of Comments authority.6 comment letters in the Notice. 5 In Amendment No. 1, NASD proposes to (1) Interested persons are invited to Jill M. Peterson, amend NASD Rule 6955(b)(2) to clarify that submit written data, views, and Assistant Secretary. members will not be required to comply with OATS reporting obligations with respect to an OTC equity arguments concerning the foregoing, [FR Doc. E6–17169 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] including whether the proposed rule security until a symbol has been assigned to the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P security; (2) exclude direct participation programs change is consistent with the Act. (‘‘DPPs’’) from the proposed definition of ‘‘OTC Comments may be submitted by any of equity security;’’ (3) extend the implementation the following methods: period; and (4) make technical changes necessary in light of the commencement of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’) as a national securities 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). exchange. NASD also responded to comment letters 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5). 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). received.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61113

comments from interested persons on A. Scope of a Member’s OATS which NASD will publish following this Amendment No. 1. Obligations Relating to OTC Equity approval of the proposed rule change. Securities II. Description of the Proposed Rule 2. Comments Relating to DPPs Change 1. Comments Relating to the Issuance of One commenter stated that DPPs a Security Symbol NASD Rules 6950 through 6957 should not be OATS reportable because impose obligations on member firms to One of the commenters requested they are ‘‘effectively subscriptions, not record in electronic form and report to clarification of the definition and scope trades’’ and sold through a process that NASD on a daily basis certain of ‘‘OTC equity security’’ and suggested is not captured in automated systems 15 information with respect to orders that the appropriate scope of OATS within the firm. Additionally, this originated, received, transmitted, reporting should include only those commenter stated that the volume for modified, canceled or executed by securities currently subject to these securities is low, and OATS NASD members relating to equity Automated Confirmation Transaction reporting may discourage the sale of 16 securities listed and traded on Nasdaq. (‘‘ACT’’) Service reporting such products. In response to the OATS captures this order information requirements.11 NASD responded that it concerns raised by this commenter, and integrates it with quote and does not believe that the scope of the NASD proposed in Amendment No. 1 to transaction information to create a time- proposed definition of ‘‘OTC equity exclude DPPs from the definition of sequenced record of orders, quotes and security’’ should be limited as suggested ‘‘OTC equity security.’’ NASD stated, transactions. NASD believes this by this commenter and stated that, as however, that it would continue to information is critical to its conducting originally proposed, members should be monitor member activities relating to surveillance and investigations of required to record and report OATS DPPs and may determine, at a later date, member firms for violations of NASD information for all OTC equity that applying OATS requirements to rules and Federal securities laws. securities. However, to address the DPPs is appropriate. If that situation arises, NASD represented that it would To enhance the effectiveness of OATS situation where an OTC equity security submit a proposed rule change. as a regulatory tool, NASD proposes to does not have a symbol assigned to it at amend NASD Rules 6951, 6952, and the time an OATS order event occurs, 3. Additional Comments NASD proposed a clarifying change in 6955 to require members to record and One commenter stated that members Amendment No. 1 whereby, pursuant to report to OATS order information should not be required to identify the 6 NASD Rule 6955(b)(2), members would relating to OTC equity securities. type of security (e.g., Nasdaq, OTCBB, not be required to comply with their Currently, the OATS requirements do Pink Sheets) in OATS reports and OATS reporting obligations with respect not apply to OTC equity securities and suggested that NASD provide a list of all to an OTC equity security until a symbol as a result, NASD is unable to recreate, OATS reportable securities, so that has been assigned to that security.12 on an automated basis, an order and members do not have to rely on third NASD explained that members would transaction audit trail for these party vendors for this information.17 still have an obligation to immediately securities. NASD believes that NASD responded that it will not require record all other applicable OATS expanding OATS requirements to these at this time that members identify the information in accordance with the securities would enhance its ability to type of security as part of their OATS provisions of NASD Rule 6954, review and examine for member obligations. In addition, NASD stated it irrespective of whether the security has compliance with certain trading rules, would provide a list of OTC equity a symbol assigned to it at the time the including, but not limited to, NASD’s securities that are subject to the OATS order is originated or received.13 NASD rules governing best execution and requirements on the OATS Web site.18 interpositioning,7 limit order represented to the Commission that it This same commenter also suggested protection,8 and offers at stated prices.9 would detail these obligations under that OATS should be capable of In addition, NASD proposes two NASD Rules 6954 and 6955 in a Notice recognizing stocks that have had symbol to Members and the revised OATS technical changes that are necessary 14 changes and suggested that using the given the commencement of Nasdaq as Technical Specifications, both of CUSIP number instead of the security a national securities exchange. symbol may be appropriate.19 NASD 11 See SIA Letter, supra note 4, at 4. responded by stating that a change to III. Summary of Comments 12 In proposing this exception from the reporting obligations, NASD emphasized that members CUSIP number rather than security The Commission received comment should be diligent in their efforts to obtain a symbol would be costly and letters in response to the publication of symbol, as necessary, for securities they wish to burdensome and is unnecessary because 10 trade so that they can comply with their trade the notice in the Federal Register. The reporting obligations under NASD Rule 6620. NASD’s OATS system is able to track primary issues two of the commenters NASD Rule 6620(c)(1) requires that each trade symbol changes (e.g., where an ‘‘E’’ is raised concern the scope of a member’s report include the symbol of the OTC equity appended to the symbol of an OTCBB obligations to record and report OATS security; trade reports that do not contain this issuer that is delinquent in its SEC information are rejected by the system. In addition, information relating to OTC equity NASD noted that members have an obligation to filings). securities and the timing of the report trades within ninety seconds of execution or One commenter stated that it proposed rule change. on a next-day basis, as applicable under Rule understands OATS reporting is not 6620(a). required for OTC options, derivatives or 13 NASD stated that it does not believe that 6 NASD proposes to define ‘‘OTC equity security’’ members should face any technological difficulties would be expansion of the list of securities that are as any equity security that: (1) Is not listed on a in recording OATS information for an OTC equity OATS reportable. national securities exchange; or (2) is listed on one security that does not have a symbol assigned to it, 15 or more regional stock exchanges and does not but the extended implementation period should See SIA Letter, supra note 4, at 4–5. qualify for dissemination of transaction reports via allow sufficient time to address any such problems. 16 Id. the facilities of the Consolidated Tape. 17 14 NASD states that since OATS Phase III has See Ameritrade Letter, supra note 4, at 2. 7 NASD Rule 2320. been implemented, it does not expect any 18 This list can currently be found under the 8 NASD Rule 6541. significant changes to the OATS Technical Symbol Directory at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/ 9 NASD Rule 3320. Specifications as a result of this proposed rule trader/symboldirectory/symbol.stm. 10 See supra, note 4. change. NASD anticipates that the only such change 19 See Ameritrade Letter, supra note 4, at 2.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61114 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

swaps, and with respect to foreign B. Timing of Proposed Rule Change In response to this comment, NASD securities, trades effected by NASD One commenter stated that NASD noted that it already has order handling members in the U.S. would be should allow a minimum of six months and trading rules in effect that apply to reportable, while trades effected by a for implementation of the changes the OTC marketplace, including, but not foreign affiliate of a member would not necessary for OATS reporting of OTC limited to, Rule 2320 (Best Execution 20 be reportable. NASD confirmed that equity securities.24 Another commenter and Interpositioning) and Rule 6541 the commenter’s understanding relating stated that OATS for OTC equity (Limit Order Protection). NASD further to the proposed OATS reporting securities should not be implemented stated that OATS reporting is necessary requirements on this point is correct. until the industry can properly devote to enhance NASD’s ability to review and NASD stated that, in addition, with the personnel and technical resources examine for member compliance with these and other rules. respect to non-member foreign affiliates necessary to achieve compliance.25 This Finally, NASD responded to a of members, OATS obligations do not commenter also stated that OTC markets commenter that expressed general apply, provided that the order is never are manual by nature, and expanding opposition to OATS and asserted that received or held by the member, for OATS reporting to OTC equity example, where the order originates OATS is a mechanism for NASD to securities at this time could render generate income through fines.29 The with a foreign affiliate and is not routed obsolete all of the work that has been to the member. NASD clarified that, commenter further claimed that there put into production for OATS Phase III has been no evidence that OATS has with respect to orders received by 26 compliance. helped the investing public or assisted members for foreign securities that NASD responded that while it does otherwise meet the definition of an OTC in any way in improving the capital not agree that the proposed expansion of markets.30 In addition, the commenter equity security, members would have an OATS reporting to OTC equity noted the burdens that OATS imposes OATS obligation, irrespective of securities would have a negative impact on members, and in particular, small whether the order is ultimately effected on the work done relating to OATS firms.31 NASD responded that it is inside or outside the United States. If, Phase III, it does acknowledge the aware of the costs and technological for example, a member receives an order technological burdens that may be burdens associated with the proposed in a foreign security and routes that imposed on members as a result of this rule change, and in recognition order to a foreign exchange for handling proposal, as well as the fact that proposed an extended implementation and execution, the member would need members have a number of regulatory period in Amendment No. 1. to record and report to OATS the receipt initiatives requiring technological and of that order and the route to the foreign system changes. Accordingly, in IV. Discussion and Commission exchange. Amendment No. 1, NASD proposed an Findings Finally, this commenter also stated implementation date of six months The Commission has reviewed that an audit trail is not necessary for all following publication of revised OATS carefully the proposed rule change, the markets and that NASD should be Technical Specifications incorporating comment letters, and NASD’s response required to make the case that the the proposed rule change, which will be to the comments. The Commission finds accretive value of an order audit trail to published no later than sixty days that the proposed rule change, as the surveillance of the OTC market following Commission approval of the amended, is consistent with the 27 outweighs the imposition of additional proposed rule change. NASD believes requirements of the Act and the rules costs and burdens on member firms.21 that the extended implementation and regulations thereunder applicable to NASD responded that it does not agree period will provide members sufficient a national securities association,32 that it has to meet that standard and, time to make any adjustments necessary particularly Section 15A(b)(6) of the rather, that the standards it must satisfy to implement OATS reporting for OTC Act,33 which, among other things, in any proposed rule change are set equity securities, especially since, requires that the rules of a national forth in Sections 15A 22 and 19(b) of the according to NASD, the technical securities association be designed to Act.23 NASD believes it has made the specifications for OATS reporting of prevent fraudulent and manipulative requisite showing. NASD also OTC equity securities would be acts and practices, to promote just and responded that while it recognizes that substantially similar to the technical equitable principles of trade, to foster the proposed rule change may impose specifications that have been in place cooperation and coordination with additional costs and burdens on since July of 2006 for OATS Phase III. persons engaged in regulating member firms, OATS reporting of OTC In addition, one commenter suggested transactions in securities, to remove equity securities is important to NASD’s that NASD implement certain impediments to and perfect the surveillance systems and regulatory operational and/or procedural mechanism of a free and open market program. In recognition of the potential regulations relating to the OTC and a national market system and, in additional burden on members, marketplace, such as expansion of the general, to protect investors and the however, as discussed in greater detail trade-through protections and limit public interest. below, NASD proposed to extend the order display requirements, prior to As discussed above, NASD currently implementation period of the proposed implementation of OATS reporting requires member firms to record and rule change. requirements and that until such time, report order information for transactions best execution standards for NMS stocks in Nasdaq Stock Market equity and OTC stocks will remain unequal.28 securities. NASD’s OATS uses this 20 See SIA Letter, supra note 4, at 4. This commenter also suggested that NASD exclude from the requirements of Rule 6620 transactions 24 See Ameritrade Letter, supra note 4, at 2. 29 See Bertematti Letter, supra note 4, at 1. executed on a foreign exchange that is an ‘‘affiliate 25 See SIA Letter, supra note 4, at 2. 30 Id. member’’ of the Intermarket Surveillance Group. Id. 26 See SIA Letter, supra note 4, at 3. 31 Id. NASD has stated that Rule 6620 is not at issue in 27 The initial rule text as published in the notice 32 In approving this proposed rule change, the this rule filing. proposed an implementation date of 120 days from Commission has considered the proposed rule’s 21 See SIA Letter, supra note 4, at 4. publication of the OATS Reporting Technical impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 22 15 U.S.C. 78o–3. Specifications. formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 28 See Ameritrade Letter, supra note 4, at 3. 33 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61115

information for integration with trade with respect to the proposed rule 1, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of and quotation information to provide change that are filed with the the Act 35 and Section 19(b) of the Act.36 NASD with an accurate time-sequenced Commission, and all written VII. Conclusion record of orders and transactions to communications relating to the detect for possible violations of NASD proposed rule change between the It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to rules and other securities laws and Commission and any person, other than Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,37 that the regulations. NASD recognizes that the those that may be withheld from the proposed rule change (File No. SR– trading in OTC equity securities is often public in accordance with the NASD–2005–101), as amended, be and more manual than Nasdaq Stock Market provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be hereby is, approved, and that equity securities, and while this may available for inspection and copying in Amendment No. 1 is approved on an result in additional burdens on member the Commission’s Public Reference accelerated basis. firms to capture this data electronically, Room. Copies of the filing also will be For the Commission, by the Division of NASD believes that reporting available for inspection and copying at Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated information related to OTC equity 38 the principal office of NASD. All authority. securities is critical to its surveillance comments received will be posted Jill M. Peterson, program. The Commission believes that Assistant Secretary. it is consistent with the Act for NASD without change; the Commission does [FR Doc. E6–17167 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] to expand the OATS reporting not edit personal identifying requirements to include OTC equity information from submissions. You BILLING CODE 8011–01–P securities to assist it in detecting should submit only information that possible fraud or manipulation in the you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE trading of such securities in order to COMMISSION help protect investors. Number SR–NASD–2005–101 and In addition, the Commission believes should be submitted on or before [Release No. 34–54411A; File No. SR– that the technical changes proposed by November 7, 2006. NASD–2004–171] NASD, which NASD has noted are VI. Accelerated Approval of needed in light of Nasdaq’s operation as Self-Regulatory Organizations; Amendment No. 1 a national securities exchange, are not National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving only consistent with the Act, but also The Commission finds good cause for necessary to clarify NASD’s rules. Proposed Rule Change Relating to approving Amendment No. 1 to the Rule 2340 Concerning Customer V. Solicitation of Comments Concerning proposed rule change prior to the Account Statements Amendment No. 1 thirtieth day after publication for October 6, 2006. Interested persons are invited to comment in the Federal Register submit written data, views, and pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Correction Act.34 As discussed in greater detail arguments concerning Amendment No. FR Doc. E6–15186, beginning on page 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 above, in Amendment No. 1, NASD proposed revisions to clarify that 54105 in the issue of September 13, to the proposed rule change is 1 member firms do not need to comply 2006, contained an incorrect footnote. consistent with the Act. Comments may On page 54107, in the 1st column, be submitted by any of the following with the OATS reporting obligations with respect to an OTC equity security footnote 24 provided an incomplete methods: description of an explanation of an until a symbol has been assigned to that interpretive position in Securities Electronic Comments security. In addition, in response to a Exchange Act Release No. 31511. • Use the Commission’s Internet comment letter, it proposed to exclude The corrected citation to Release No. comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ DPPs from the definition of OTC equity 31511 in footnote 24 reads as follows: rules/sro.shtml); or security. Because two commenters ‘‘See Securities Exchange Act Release • Send an e-mail to rule- raised issues specific to the timing of [email protected]. Please include File No. 31511 (Nov. 24, 1992), 57 FR 56973 the proposed rule change, NASD also (Dec. 2, 1992) (amending the SEC’s net Number SR–NASD–2005–101 on the proposed an extended implementation subject line. capital rule and explaining the staff’s period in Amendment No. 1. Finally, interpretation that to avoid more Paper Comments NASD proposed two technical changes stringent capital requirements under the in Amendment No. 1 that are necessary • Send paper comments in triplicate rule, an introducing firm must ‘‘have in to reflect the commencement of Nasdaq to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, place a clearing agreement with a as a national securities exchange. Securities and Exchange Commission, registered broker-dealer that states, for 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Since the changes proposed in the purposes of SIPA and the 20549–1090. Amendment No. 1 address commenter Commission’s financial responsibility All submissions should refer to File concerns and make changes that the rules, customers are customers of the Number SR–NASD–2005–101. This file Commission believes will help clarify clearing, and not the introducing, firm. number should be included on the the proposed rule change and should Furthermore, the clearing firm must subject line if e-mail is used. To help the assist firms by providing greater issue account statements directly to Commission process and review your guidance, as well as time for testing customers. Each statement must contain comments more efficiently, please use systems to help ensure compliance with the name and telephone number of a only one method. The Commission will the rule, and it does not raise any new issues of regulatory concern, the 35 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). post all comments on the Commission’s 36 Commission finds good cause to 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 37 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the accelerate approval of Amendment No. 38 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). submission, all subsequent 1 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54411 amendments, all written statements 34 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). (Sept. 7, 2006), 71 FR 54105 (Sept. 13, 2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61116 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

responsible individual at the clearing Sec. 11–3. Appeal from Decisions of B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s firm whom a customer can contact with Hearing Officer, Hearing Panel or Statement on Burden on Competition inquiries regarding the customer’s Business Conduct Committee The Exchange does not believe that account.’’).’’ (a) No change. For the Commission, by the Division of the proposed rule change will impose Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated (b) No change. any burden on competition that is not 2 necessary or appropriate in furtherance authority. * * * * * of the purposes of the Act. Jill M. Peterson, II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Assistant Secretary. Statement of the Purpose of, and [FR Doc. E6–17180 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Statement on Comments on the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Proposed Rule Change Received From BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Change Members, Participants, or Others In its filing with the Commission, the No written comments were either SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Phlx included statements concerning solicited or received. COMMISSION the purpose of and basis for the III. Date of Effectiveness of the proposed rule change and discussed any [Release No. 34–54576; File No. SR–Phlx– Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 2006–57] comments it received on the proposed Commission Action rule change. The text of these statements Self-Regulatory Organizations; may be examined at the places specified Because the foregoing proposed rule Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared change does not: (i) Significantly affect Notice of Filing and Immediate summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, the protection of investors or the public Effectiveness of Proposed Rule and C below, of the most significant interest; (ii) impose any significant Change Relating to Appeals From a aspects of such statements. burden on competition; and (iii) become Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel operative for 30 days from the date on Decision A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s which it was filed, or such shorter time Statement of the Purpose of, and as the Commission may designate, it has October 5, 2006. Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule become effective pursuant to Section Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Change 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b– Securities Exchange Act of 1934 4(f)(6) thereunder.9 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 1. Purpose At any time within 60 days of the notice is hereby given that on October filing of the proposed rule change, the 3, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock The Exchange recently created the Commission may summarily abrogate Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) new staff position of a ‘‘Hearing such rule change if it appears to the filed with the Securities and Exchange Officer,’’ who, along with two other Commission that such action is Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the Hearing Panelists, will hear contested necessary or appropriate in the public proposed rule change as described in disciplinary matters that were interest, for the protection of investors, Items I and II below, which Items have previously heard by a panel appointed or otherwise in furtherance of the been prepared by the Phlx. The Phlx by the Chair of the Business Conduct purposes of the Act. filed the proposed rule change as a Committee (‘‘BCC’’).5 In connection A proposed rule change filed under ‘‘non-controversial’’ rule change with creating the Hearing Officer Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the position, the Exchange amended By- become operative prior to 30 days after Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,4 Law Article X, Section 10–11, which the date of filing.10 However, Rule 19b– which renders the proposal effective governs the BCC, and Exchange Rules 4(f)(6)(iii) 11 permits the Commission to upon filing with the Commission. The 960 and 970, the disciplinary rules. The designate a shorter time if such action Commission is publishing this notice to purpose of this proposal is to update is consistent with the protection of solicit comments on the proposed rule Exchange By-Law Article XI to reflect, investors and the public interest. The change from interested persons. based on the recent changes described Phlx provided the Commission with I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s above, that a decision from the Hearing written notice of its intent to file this Statement of the Terms of Substance of Officer or Hearing Panel can now be proposed rule change at least five the Proposed Rule Change appealed to the Exchange’s Board of business days prior to the date of filing Governors. The Phlx proposes to amend of the proposed rule change. In Exchange By-Law Article XI, Section 2. Statutory Basis addition, the Phlx has requested that the 11–3 to update the By-laws to make a Commission waive the 30-day operative minor clarifying change to reflect the The Exchange believes that its delay. The Commission believes that fact that appeals can now be heard from proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) waiving the 30-day operative delay is a Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel of the Act 6 in general, and furthers the consistent with the protection of decision. The proposed amendment to objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 7 investors and the public interest By-Law Article XI, Section 11–3 is set in particular, in that this proposal because the proposed rule change makes forth below. Italics indicate new text. should help to protect investors and the Phlx By-Law Article XI, Section 11–3 public interest by clarifying that appeals consistent with changes previously ARTICLE XI Appeals can now be heard from a Hearing Officer approved by the Commission.12 For this * * * * * or Hearing Panel decision. reason, the Commission designates the

2 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54011 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). (June 16, 2006), 71 FR 36157 (June 23, 2006) (SR– 9 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Phlx–2005–65). 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6)(iii). 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 Id. 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 12 See supra note 5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61117

proposal to be effective and operative For the Commission, by the Division of SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION upon filing with the Commission.13 Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. [Docket No. SSA–2006–0077] IV. Solicitation of Comments Jill M. Peterson, Program: Cooperative Agreements for Interested persons are invited to Assistant Secretary. Work Incentives Planning and submit written data, views and [FR Doc. E6–17168 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Assistance Projects; Program arguments concerning the foregoing, BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Announcement No. SSA–OESP–07–1 including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. AGENCY: Social Security Administration. Comments may be submitted by any of ACTION: Announcement of the the following methods: SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION availability of fiscal year 2006 Electronic Comments cooperative agreement funds and [Disaster Declaration # 10614] request for applications. • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Arizona Disaster Number AZ–00005 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance rules/sro.shtml); or (CFDA): This program is listed in the • Send an e-mail to rule- AGENCY: Small Business Administration. Catalog of federal Domestic Assistance [email protected]. Please include File under Program number 96.008, Social Number SR–Phlx–2006–57 on the ACTION: Amendment 1. Security Administration—Work subject line. Incentives Planning and Assistance SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Program. Paper Comments Presidential declaration of a major SUMMARY: The Social Security • disaster for Public Assistance Only for Send paper comments in triplicate Administration (SSA) announces its the State of Arizona (FEMA–1660–DR), to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, intention to competitively award dated 09/07/2006. Securities and Exchange Commission, cooperative agreements to establish 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding. community-based work incentives 20549–1090. planning and assistance projects in the All submissions should refer to File Incident Period: 07/25/2006 through 08/04/2006. following locations: Number SR–Phlx–2006–57. This file State of Alabama, the counties of Effective Date: 09/29/2006. number should be included on the Autauga, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Physical Loan Application Deadline Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, Commission process and review your Date: 11/06/2006. Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, comments more efficiently, please use ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan Dallas, Elmore, Escambia, Geneva, only one method. The Commission will Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, post all comments on the Commission’s applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Marengo, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Pike, Russell, Washington, and Wilcox; rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. State of Indiana, the counties of submission, all subsequent Clark, Crawford, Daviess, Dearborn, amendments, all written statements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Dubois, Floyd, Gibson, Greene, with respect to the proposed rule Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, Harrison, Hendricks, Jackson, Jefferson, change that are filed with the U.S. Small Business Administration, Jennings, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, Commission, and all written 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Monroe, Ohio, Orange, Parke, Perry, communications relating to the Washington, DC 20416. Pike, Posey, Ripley, Scott, Spencer, proposed rule change between the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice Sullivan, Switzerland, Vanderburgh, Commission and any person, other than Vermillion, Vigo, Warrick, Washington; those that may be withheld from the of the President’s major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit State of Kentucky, the counties of public in accordance with the Bath, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Bracken, provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be organizations in the State of Arizona, dated 09/07/2006, is hereby amended to Breathitt, Carter, Clark, Clay, Elliott, available for inspection and copying in Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, the Commission’s Public Reference include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster. Greenup, Harlan, Harrison, Jackson, Room. Copies of such filing also will be Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, available for inspection and copying at Primary Counties: Gila, Graham, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Madison, the principal office of the Phlx. All Greenlee, Navajo, The Tribal Areas of Magoffin, Martin, Mason, McCreary, comments received will be posted The Hopi Tribe Within Navajo County, Menifee, Montgomery, Morgan, without change; the Commission does The Navajo Nation Within Navajo Nicholas, Owsley, Pendleton, Perry, not edit personal identifying County, and The San Carlos Apache Pike, Powell, Robertson, Rockcastle, information from submissions. You Tribe Within Gila, Graham, and Pinal Rowan, Whitley, and Wolfe; should submit only information that Counties. State of Nevada, all counties; you wish to make available publicly. All All other information in the original State of New York, the counties of submissions should refer to File declaration remains unchanged. Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Number SR–Phlx–2006–57 and should Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and be submitted on or before November 7, (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 14 Number 59008) Westchester; 2006. State of Ohio, the counties of James E. Rivera, Ashtabula, Mahoning, Portage, Stark, 13 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Summit, and Trumbull; and operative delay, the Commission has considered the Assistance. proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, Pacific territories of Guam, the and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). [FR Doc. E6–17155 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Northern Mariana Islands, and 14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). BILLING CODE 8025–01–P American Samoa.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61118 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

The purpose of these projects is to The telephone numbers are: Jenny project cost. The non-Federal share may disseminate accurate information about Deboy, (410) 965–8658, or Barbara be cash or in-kind (property or services). work incentives programs and issues Jones, (410) 965–7764. The fax number Awards made under this announcement related to such programs to beneficiaries is (410) 966–1278. may be renewed annually through FY with disabilities (including transition- To obtain an application kit, see the 2009. Future funding will be contingent to-work aged youth). This will help instructions under Part IV, Section A. upon satisfactory progress in achieving enable them to make informed choices For information regarding the the objectives of the project, the about working, how available work application package where Internet availability of fiscal year funds and the incentives can facilitate their transition access is not available, contact: Phyllis continued relevance of the project into the workforce, and whether and Y. Smith, Team Leader, or Gary activity to the Social Security when to assign their Ticket to Work. Stammer, Grants Management Officer, Administration. The total period of The ultimate goal of the work incentives Social Security Administration, Office performance, if renewed annually, will planning and assistance projects is to of Acquisition and Grants, Grants be until September 29, 2009. assist SSA beneficiaries with disabilities Management Team, 7111 Security SSA will conduct pre-application succeed in their return to work efforts. Boulevard, 1st Floor-Rear Entrance, teleconference seminars to provide DATES: The closing date for receipt of Baltimore, Maryland 21244. The interested WIPA applicants with cooperative agreement applications telephone numbers are Phyllis Y. Smith, guidance and technical assistance in under this announcement is December (410) 965–9518, or Gary Stammer, (410) preparing their applications. 15, 2006. Prospective applicants are also 965–9501. The fax number is (410) 966– Information about when the seminars asked to submit, preferably by 9310. will be held will be on SSA’s Web site November 1, 2006, an e-mail, a fax, post SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Social at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/work/ card, or letter of intent that includes (1) Security Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. WIPARFA.html the program announcement number 108–203) reauthorized funding through Table of Contents (SSA–OESP–07–1) and title (Work FY 2009 for the WIPA program, which I. Funding Opportunity Description Incentives Planning and Assistance was initially authorized as the Benefits A. Background Program); (2) the name of the agency or Planning, Assistance and Outreach B. Work Incentives Planning and organization that is applying; and (3) the (BPAO) program by the Ticket to Work Assistance Service Plan (WIPA) name, mailing address, e-mail address, and Work Incentives Improvement Act C. Community Work Incentives telephone number, and fax number for of 1999 (Pub. L. 106–170), enacted on Coordinator Responsibilities and the organization’s contact person. This December 17, 1999. The WIPA Program Competencies notice of intent is not binding, and does D. Work Incentives Planning and is designed to provide work incentives Assistance Services Defined not enter into the review process of a planning, assistance, and outreach E. Additional Conditions for Award of a subsequent application. The purpose of services to SSA’s beneficiaries with Cooperative Agreement the notice of intent is to allow SSA staff disabilities nationwide, in all II. Award Information to estimate the number of independent geographic areas and U.S. territories. III. Eligibility Information reviewers needed and to avoid potential SSA initially made announcements of A. Eligible Applicants conflicts of interest in the review. The BPAO cooperative agreement funds and B. Policies Regarding Potential Conflict of notice of intent should be faxed to (410) Interest in WIPA Service Delivery requested applications for a 5-year C. Cost Sharing or Matching 966–1278; mailed to Social Security period in FY 2000 and FY 2001. All IV. Application and Submission Information Administration, Office of Employment previously funded BPAO cooperative A. Address to Request Application Support Programs, Office of agreement awards expired on September B. Content and Form of Application Employment Policy, 107 Altmeyer 29, 2006. In May 2006, SSA made an Submission Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, announcement of cooperative agreement C. Electronic Applications Baltimore, Maryland 21235 or e-mailed funds for the WIPA program, D. Mailed Applications to [email protected]. nationwide, for the period September E. Checklist for a Complete Application F. Guidelines for Application Submission FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 30, 2006 through September 29, 2009. G. Submission Dates and Times Internet is the primary means Awards under that announcement have H. Intergovernmental Review recommended for obtaining information been made. This supplementary I. Funding Restrictions on the program content of this announcement is for areas of the nation J. Other Submission Requirements announcement. If an applicant has a that remain uncovered subsequent to V. Application Review Information question about this announcement, that those awards. A. Criteria question should be referred to the This announcement is to request B. Review and Selection Process following Internet e-mail address: applications for awards, which will VI. Award Administration Information A. Award Notices [email protected]. When sending in begin in calendar year 2007, to provide B. Administrative and National Policy a question, applicants should include work incentives planning, assistance Requirements the program announcement number and outreach services to all SSA C. Reporting SSA–OESP–07–1 and the date of this beneficiaries with disabilities seeking D. MI Program Data to be Collected and announcement. In the rare instances employment in the geographic areas Reported when an organization may not have listed in ‘‘SUMMARY’’ above. Subject to VII. Agency Contacts access to the Internet, an applicant with the availability of funds, SSA VIII. Other Information a question about the program content anticipates minimum awards of I. Funding Opportunity Description may contact: Jenny Deboy, Project $100,000 per entity (Minimum awards Officer, or Barbara Jones, Team Leader, for territories remain at $50,000) and a A. Background Social Security Administration, Office maximum of $300,000 per entity will be Section 1149 of the Social Security of Employment Support Programs, available to fund specific WIPA projects Act, as added by section 121 of the Office of Employment Policy, 107 annually. Awardees are required to Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security contribute a non-Federal match of Improvement Act of 1999, requires the Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235. project costs of at least 5% of the total Commissioner of Social Security (the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61119

Commissioner) to establish a Currently, DOL One-Stop Career Centers employment) with which they have community-based work incentives have many invaluable employment- worked in the past; planning and assistance program for the related resources and supports that can • Their efforts to develop and purpose of disseminating accurate help ensure a disabled beneficiary’s maintain partnering and relationship information to beneficiaries with success in seeking and maintaining with other employment-related local disabilities on work incentives programs employment. organizations, including DOL One- and issues related to such programs to While SSA recognizes that not every Stops, to maximize a beneficiary’s assist them in their employment efforts. SSDI or SSI beneficiary with a disability return to work efforts; The Commissioner has established a will use work incentives planning and • Their ability to participate with the competitive program of cooperative assistance services, awardees must make PMRO in conducting and coordinating agreements to provide work incentives these services available to all eligible outreach activities. planning, assistance and outreach. This beneficiaries within a WIPA awardee’s Note: Additional information regarding SSA program is called the Work assigned geographic area. how WIPA projects will work with the PMRO Incentives Planning and Assistance may be found at www.socialsecurity.gov/ (WIPA) Program, formerly referred to as Note: All applications will be reviewed to determine completeness and conformity to work/WIPARFA.html the Benefits Planning, Assistance and the requirements of this announcement. Outreach (BPAO) Program. The WIPA In view of the fact that the PMRO has Complete and conforming applications will primary responsibility for outreach, program also provides information on then be forwarded to an independent panel the availability of protection and of reviewers for evaluation. The results of WIPA projects should designate no advocacy services to beneficiaries with this review and evaluation will assist the more than 10% of their project Commissioner in making award decisions. resources to other outreach efforts; disabilities, including beneficiaries • participating in the Ticket to Work and Although the results of this review and Provide a list of specific resources, Self-Sufficiency Program established evaluation are a primary factor considered in services and supports that will be under section 1148, the Supplemental making award decisions, the evaluated score involved in the project and their roles is not the only factor used. In selecting as they relate to work incentives and a Security Income (SSI) program eligible applicants to be funded, established under section 1619, and beneficiary’s return to work efforts; consideration may be given to issues such as • A detailed plan for monitoring other programs that are designed to experience, past performance, proposed beneficiary progress, case management encourage beneficiaries with disabilities costs, the need to achieve an equitable and follow-up; to seek, maintain and regain distribution of WIPA projects among • A standard process for collecting employment. geographic regions of the country, as well as, The WIPA Program is an important the need to achieve an equitable distribution beneficiary-related Management part of SSA’s employment strategy for of WIPA projects among disability and Information (MI) and a Quality beneficiaries with disabilities. One of minority populations. Assurance (QA) plan that will evaluate SSA’s goals in implementing the Ticket the work incentives planning and Program is to help achieve a substantial B. Work Incentives Planning and assistance services provided; Assistance (WIPA) Service Plan increase in the number of beneficiaries Note: Applicants should document that with disabilities who return to work and In order to be considered for an they agree to collect Social Security Numbers achieve greater self-sufficiency. award, WIPA applicants must provide a (SSNs) of beneficiaries and include them in In support of this goal, SSA is seeking detailed written plan for how they will the SSA approved data collection system so applications from any State or local deliver the full range of work incentives that SSA may further evaluate the work incentives services provided. government (excluding any State agency planning and assistance services; have administering the State Medicaid the resources, management, • Written procedures for addressing program), public or private organization, qualifications and experience necessary potential organizational conflict of or nonprofit or for-profit organization to successfully administer the project, as interest in regards to the delivery of (for-profit organizations may apply with well as provide a written Quality WIPA services and other programs or the understanding that no cooperative Assurance (QA) plan that demonstrates services offered by the organization; agreement funds may be paid as profit the efficacy of the service delivery plan. and, to any cooperative agreement awardee), Applicants should also provide • Written grievance procedures for as well as Native American tribal supporting documentation regarding beneficiaries and evidence of its organizations that the Commissioner how they will work with the compliance (which will be submitted to determines is qualified to provide work Department of Labor (DOL) One-Stop SSA quarterly.) incentives planning services. Applicants Career Centers; and a written assurance Each applicant should address the will emphasize the WIPA Program’s that they will work in collaboration proposed number of beneficiaries with efforts to provide Social Security with the Program Manager for disabilities it expects to serve. beneficiaries receiving Social Security Recruitment and Outreach (PMRO). Awardees are encouraged to hire and Disability Insurance (SSDI) and/or staff their offices with individuals with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Note: Additional information regarding disabilities who have used work based on disability and/or blindness how WIPA projects will work with the PMRO incentives to successfully go to work. with work incentives planning, may be found at www.socialsecurity.gov/ work/WIPARFA.html These individuals should conduct as assistance and outreach services to many of the day-to-day operational assist them in their return to work Applicants should address in their functions as possible. efforts. Applicants are also strongly written plan: Awardees must state how they will encouraged to partner with their local • Their understanding of work ensure equitable access and services for Department of Labor (DOL) One-Stop incentives planning and assistance all beneficiary disability groups. This Career Center which serves as a ‘‘port of services as they relate to a beneficiary’s requirement may be met by partnering entry’’ for jobs for beneficiaries, as well return to work efforts, including other with other community-based as with other local partners that provide Federal, State, and local benefits organizations. employment-related services to SSA programs (designed to assist In providing work incentives related beneficiaries with disabilities. beneficiaries with disabilities with education and planning, WIPA projects

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61120 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

must make concerted and aggressive state how they will target and serve Manager for Recruitment and Outreach efforts to address the needs of transition-aged youth. (PMRO) contractor, conduct outreach underserved individuals with Applicants for counties in the State of efforts to beneficiaries with disabilities disabilities from diverse ethnic and New York must indicate the ability to (and their families) who are potentially racial backgrounds (e.g., African work closely with the SSA Youth eligible to participate in Federal or State Americans, Native Americans, Native Transition Process Demonstration (YTD) work incentives programs. As part of Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, projects. In October 2003 a grant was work incentives planning and Alaskan Natives, Asian-Americans, and awarded to develop service delivery assistance, CWICs will also screen and Hispanics). In particular, applicants systems that demonstrate how refer beneficiaries with disabilities to should show how they will collaborate communities can integrate services and the appropriate Employment Networks with PMRO to conduct outreach that resources to achieve positive transition (ENs) based on the beneficiary’s will ensure interaction with diverse results for youth from secondary expressed needs and type of communities and be specific to their education to either post-secondary impairment. CWICs are also required to requested geographic area. Applicants education and/or employment. The YTD work in cooperation with SSA’s Area who serve tribal lands and sovereign projects work with youth ages 14–25 Work Incentives Coordinators (AWICs), nations must also provide who receive SSI or SSDI benefit Federal, State, local and private documentation of how they will ensure payments based on their own disability agencies and other nonprofit equitable access and services for Native- and/or blindness, or youth at risk of organizations that serve beneficiaries American and Alaskan-Native receiving such benefits. Additional with disabilities seeking employment. populations. Applicants must indicate if information regarding the YTD projects CWICs will also provide general formal agreements with tribal may be found at information on the adequacy of health governments or Section 121 VR http:\\www.socialsecurity.gov/ benefits coverage that may be offered by Programs, etc., are in place. disabilityresearch. an employer of a beneficiary with a The applicants must also describe Applicants must provide evidence of disability; the extent to which other how they will address any special collaborative relationships with relevant health benefits coverage may be cultural requirements of populations, agencies through references in regards available to that beneficiary in e.g., Native Americans, within the to work incentives experience, letters of coordination with Medicare and/or targeted geographic area, as well as non- intent, memoranda of understanding, Medicaid; and the availability of English speaking populations and SSI etc. Applicants should not request protection and advocacy services for beneficiaries as young as age 14. references, letters of intent or beneficiaries with disabilities and how Applicants must have established commitment from SSA field offices as to access such services. SSA will assure field office cooperation. strong working relationships with other 2. Competencies and Credentialing agencies that are already providing The WIPA awardees will collect data services designed to enhance the pertaining to work incentives planning, Applicants must ensure that CWICs employability, employment and career assistance, and outreach activities as have the skills required to competently advancement of beneficiaries with described in Part IV, Section C, provide work incentives planning and disabilities, particularly, DOL One-Stop Reporting; and cooperate with SSA in assistance services that will assist Career Centers which provide providing the information needed to beneficiaries in their employment employment support by assisting a evaluate the quality of the services being efforts. WIPA awardees will be required beneficiary with interview techniques, provided and for an assessment of the to provide documentation to SSA that resume writing, job coaching, and a success of the WIPA Program. CWIC personnel meet the requirements variety of other support services that Where applicable, applicants should below. SSA will use this documentation lead to employment. A full explanation indicate if they are participants of the to credential CWIC personnel before of these collaborative efforts should be Disability Program Navigator (DPN) they may begin providing beneficiary provided. initiative, a program established by the services. In addition to DOL One-Stop Career Social Security Administration (SSA) SSA prefers that CWICs have attained Centers, awardees are encouraged to and the Employment and Training a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, collaborate with other public and/or Administration (ETA) of the Department or possess relevant experience. CWICs private organizations (e.g., SSA Field of Labor (DOL). Participants in the DPN may possess a combination of education Offices, Centers for Medicare and initiative must fully explain how, with and experience if the experience Medicaid Services (CMS), Vocational WIPA personnel and DPN personnel provides the knowledge, skills and Rehabilitation (VR) Agencies, working collaboratively, they will abilities required to successfully Employment Networks (ENs), Minority provide seamless services to perform the duties of the position as Commission, Public Schools, beneficiaries seeking employment. shown below. Former beneficiaries may Department of Education, and Mental C. Community Work Incentives substitute up to two years of full-time Health organizations), through Coordinator Responsibilities and work for the education requirement if interagency agreements or other Competencies they can demonstrate that they used mechanisms, to integrate and strengthen SSA work incentives to successfully work incentives planning and assistance 1. Responsibilities gain employment. All CWICs must services with employment services The WIPA cooperative agreement demonstrate successful completion of available to beneficiaries with awardees shall select individuals who required SSA sponsored work disabilities. will act as Community Work Incentives incentives training or shall complete Because of the life transitions that Coordinators (CWICs). The CWICs will said training within 3 months of hire. youth with disabilities experience, it is provide work incentives planning and CWICs should bring the following important to target specific services to assistance directly to beneficiaries with knowledge, skills, and abilities to the this population. Each project must make disabilities to assist them in their position: WIPA services available to SSI employment efforts, and in • Basic math skills, with an emphasis beneficiaries as young as age 14 and collaboration with SSA’s Program on problem solving;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61121

• Deductive ability with analytical other Federal work incentives programs • Ensure confidentiality of all thinking and creative problem solving to awardees on an ongoing basis. information provided. skills; • Note: Due to the fact that CWICs will have 2. Work Incentives Assistance Services Competent interviewing and access to confidential beneficiary information partnering skills; they are subject to SSA conducted Work incentives assistance involves • Computer proficiency; background checks and fingerprinting in the delivery of accurate information and • An ability to link an individual accordance with SSA personnel suitability direct supports to assist a beneficiary in with disabilities with employment requirements. SSA will distribute the determining the most advantageous opportunities; necessary forms and consents for completion work incentives to use in starting or • Ability to interpret Federal, State, upon award. returning to work. Work incentives and local laws, regulations, and assistance also involves providing administrative codes on public benefits; D. Work Incentives Planning and information and referral in terms of • Communication skills (written and Assistance Services Defined Ticket to Work assignment to verbal); 1. Work Incentives Planning Services Employment Networks (ENs) and • Knowledge of terminology used to Work incentives planning services Vocational Rehabilitation (VR). Work describe certain disabilities and an requires an in-depth understanding of incentives assistance will generally awareness of cultural and political the beneficiary’s current situation and build on previous planning services issues pertaining to diverse populations how available work incentives can provided. Periodic updates of a and disabilities; and impact on a beneficiary’s employment beneficiary’s specific needs and • Basic computer skills. requirements, and reassessment for CWICs are required to be proficient in efforts. CWICs will establish written benefits analysis plans for beneficiaries additional services for monitoring and the following: managing work incentives to ensure a • Social Security Disability Insurance with disabilities outlining their employment options and developing beneficiary’s success in their (SSDI) and Supplemental Security employment efforts will also be Income (SSI) disability programs long-term supports that may be needed to ensure a beneficiary’s success in required. knowledge; To provide work incentives assistance • Knowledge of SSA and other regards to employment. CWICs will also, based upon a beneficiary’s needs, services, CWICs will: Federal, State and local work incentives • Emphasize the use of work programs; make referrals to Employment Networks • (ENs) or Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) incentives planning that will lead to Knowledge of all public benefits greater self-sufficiency and employment programs, basic operations and inter- when appropriate. CWICs will also provide periodic, follow-up planning for beneficiaries with disabilities; relationships among the programs, • Refer beneficiaries to Vocational specifically in terms of their impact services to ensure that the information, analysis, and guidance is updated as Rehabilitation (VR), Employment upon employment; Networks (ENs), DOL One-Stop Career • Translating technical information new conditions (with regard to the applicable programs or to the Centers, as well as other organizations for lay individuals; that emphasize or provide seamless • Accessing information in a variety beneficiary’s situation) arise. To provide work incentives planning employment-related supports and ticket of ways (including the ability to be able services, CWICs will: assignments. to recognize when additional • Obtain and evaluate comprehensive • Help beneficiaries with disabilities information is needed); information about a beneficiary with a resolve problems related to work and • How to access specific Employment disability on the following: education efforts; Network (EN) information; • • Interpersonal skills (e.g., recognize —Beneficiary’s background, Provide ongoing, comprehensive —Disabling Impairments/Conditions, and help people manage anger and work incentives monitoring and —Educational and vocational, conflict) management assistance to beneficiaries • —Employment and earnings, who are employed or seeking Knowledge of SSA’s field office —Resources, structure and how to work with various employment; and —Federal, State and local benefits • Provide long-term work incentives SSA work incentives specialists e.g., availability, Area Work Incentives Coordinators management on a scheduled, —Health insurance availability, continuous basis, allowing for the (AWICs), Plan to Achieve Self Support —Work expenses, (PASS) Specialists, Work Incentives —Work Incentives availability, and planning and provision of supports at Liaisons (WILs); —Service(s) and supports availability; regular checkpoints, as well as critical • Knowledge of ethical standards of • Assess the potential impacts of transition points in a beneficiary’s conduct (e.g., confidentiality, anger and employment and other changes on a receipt of benefits, improvement of conflict); beneficiary’s Federal, State and local medical condition, work attempts, • Counseling and evaluation-related training and employment; benefits eligibility and overall financial • skills (ability to listen, evaluate well-being; Provide ongoing direct assistance to alternatives, advise on potential course • Provide detailed information and a beneficiary in the development of a of action); conflict of interest); and assist the beneficiary in understanding comprehensive, long-term work plan for • Ability to manage beneficiary case and assessing the potential impacts of the effective use of Federal, State and files and information electronically. employment and/or other actions or local work incentives. Specific The applicant must clearly explain changes on his/her life situation, and components of the plan must address: how it will ensure all individuals hired provide specific guidance regarding the —Desired return to work and self- as CWICs will possess or acquire the effects of various work incentives; sufficiency outcomes, relevant knowledge, skills and abilities. • Develop a comprehensive —Related steps or activities necessary to SSA may contract with separate entities framework of options available to a achieve outcomes, to provide technical assistance and beneficiary and project results for each —Associated dates or time frames, training about SSA’s programs and work as part of the career development and —Building on initial work incentives incentives, Medicare and Medicaid, and employment process; and planning efforts including

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61122 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

information gathering, analysis and » Reassess the impact of employment available), a 60–90 minute scenario- advisement, and and other changes on benefits and work based work incentives overview (to be —Benefits/financial analysis (pre and incentives, and provided in accessible formats) by the post-employment); » Provide additional guidance on PMRO. work incentives options, issues and • Provide intensive assistance to 4. Additional Work Incentives Outreach management strategies. beneficiaries, their key stakeholders, • Services and their support teams in making Assist beneficiaries to update work Work incentives outreach activities informed choices and establishing incentives management plans are educational efforts to inform employment-related goals. Needed throughout their employment efforts; • Collaborate with SSA’s Program beneficiaries of available work assistance may include, but is not incentives, as well as the services and limited to, the following: Manager for Recruitment and Outreach (PMRO) to conduct outreach to supports available to enable them to —Explanations, descriptions, and beneficiaries with disabilities about the access and benefit from those work written plans on how SSDI and SSI use of work incentives to work. incentives in terms of working. In view work incentive programs may lead to of the fact that the PMRO has primary self-supporting employment by 3. Support to PMRO Work Incentives responsibility for outreach, WIPA’s developing a Plan for Achieving Self- Education/Ticket Marketing/ should designate no more than 10% of Support (PASS); the use of Recruitment their project resources for other local Impairment Related Work Expenses The WIPA awardees will be required outreach efforts; excluding those (IRWEs); the use of a Subsidy; Ability to provide local CWIC support to the resources allocated to the PMRO Work to claim unincurred Business PMRO in order to provide community- Incentives Educational Seminars. Expenses; Continued Payments Under based Work Incentives Educational WIPA’s will be provided such things as a Vocational Rehabilitation Program Seminars for beneficiaries with marketing materials, developed by the (also known as Section 301); as well disabilities to learn about available work PMRO. Each project will support the as the possibility of reinstatement of incentives. These local Work Incentives PMRO in doing outreach, participate benefits when necessary without Education/Ticket Marketing/ with them, and coordinate any outreach filing a new application; Recruitment meetings are intended to activities through them. Outreach —Explanations, descriptions, and provide accessible, scenario based activities should be targeted directly to written plans on how the SSI 1619(a) learning opportunities for beneficiaries SSDI and SSI beneficiaries with and 1619(b) provisions and with disabilities to understand the disabilities, their families, advocacy requirements may lead to self- availability and use of work incentives groups, service provider agencies, and supporting employment by allowing to assist them in their return to work employers that have regular contact for continued medical assistance efforts. In addition, at the end of these with them. Outreach activities should coverage; earned income exclusion; meetings, Vocational Rehabilitation be directed toward and sensitive to the student earned income exclusion; (VR), Employment Networks (ENs) and needs of individuals from diverse ethnic exclusion of property essential to self- other employers will also be invited to backgrounds, such as persons with support; as well as the possibility of participate to introduce their services so English as their second language, non- reinstatement of benefits when that beneficiaries who want to work will English speaking persons, individuals necessary without filing a new be informed about available residing in highly urban or rural areas, application; employment support services and and other traditionally underserved —Explanations, descriptions, and opportunities in the community. groups. written plans on how the SSDI trial The PMRO has primary responsibility To conduct ongoing local outreach, work period (TWP) and extended CWICs will: for outreach. In support of PMRO • period of eligibility (EPE) provisions activities, WIPA’s should designate a Prepare and disseminate may lead to self-supporting maximum of 10% of their staff time to information explaining the Ticket to employment by allowing payment of ticket marketing/recruiting efforts under Work Program and other Federal, State benefits for a specified period of time the direction of the PMRO. or local work incentives programs and their interrelationships; and dependent upon the amount of • earnings; Note: Additional information regarding Market the Ticket to Work Program how WIPA projects will work with the PMRO —Advocating for work supports on by working in cooperation with the may be found at http:// PMRO contractor as well as other behalf of a beneficiary with other www.socialsecurity.gov/work/WIPARFA.html agencies and programs, which Federal, State, and private agencies and requires in-person, telephone and/or The WIPA should make staff nonprofit organizations that serve written communication with the resources available at least one day per beneficiaries with disabilities, such as week to assist the PMRO to: DOL One-Stop Career Centers and other beneficiaries, other individuals and • other involved parties, generally, over Identify accessible local venues for agencies and organizations that focus on a period of several weeks to several holding meetings (preference should be vocational rehabilitation and work- months. given to DOL One-Stop Career Centers); related training and counseling. • Conduct regular (at least weekly) To assist SSA in assessing the scope • Provide ongoing follow-up work incentives education and Ticket to and usefulness of outreach and assistance to beneficiaries who have Work recruitment sessions in information provided under this previously received work incentives collaboration with the PMRO, SSA staff, program, each project is required to planning and/or other types of work the local Workforce Investment Board’s demonstrate a collaborative effort with incentives assistance services, and assist Disability Program Navigators, local other community-based organizations them and other involved to: Employment Networks (ENs), experienced in providing services to » Update their information, Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), people with disabilities, particularly » Contact an Employment Networks employers and other potential partners. DOL One-Stop Career Centers. (ENs) or Vocational Rehabilitation, • At the weekly sessions present, Applicants should provide proof that when necessary, with the assistance of local SSA staff (if the assigned Project Director possesses

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61123

work incentives management WIPA awardees must provide training 28710 and 28727). Applicants are urged experience and has knowledge of all and technical assistance to their CWICs to review the requirements in the SSA’s work incentives available to about applicable State and local applicable regulations. beneficiaries with disabilities. programs and the effects that these All awards made under this program In addition, projects will conduct programs have on the eligibility and are in the form of cooperative regular work incentives education and benefits of other programs. agreements. A cooperative agreement Ticket to Work outreach sessions in 2. Ensure that CWICs are provided anticipates substantial involvement collaboration with the PMRO, SSA staff, periodic refresher, update and new hire between SSA and the awardee during the local Workforce Investment Board’s training sessions, as needed, and that the performance of the project. Disability Program Navigators, they take part in the evaluation of Involvement shall include SSA Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), local training activities and the evaluation of collaboration or participation in the Employment Networks (ENs) and other ongoing training needs evaluation by management of the activity as potential partners. Projects will also SSA or its designated contractor. determined at the time of the award. For need to coordinate joint outreach 3. Ensure that CWICs have completed example, SSA will be involved in services with the SSA Area Work work incentives training within 3 decisions involving project design and Incentives Coordinator (AWIC) to months of award, develop a local scope, hiring of personnel, service include attendance at quarterly Training outreach strategy and begin to delivery priorities, deployment of and Technical Assistance meetings with implement outreach, in collaboration resources, release of public information the AWIC. with PMRO, within 3 months of award. materials, quality assurance, and 5. Costs 4. Obtain approval from SSA of coordination of activities with other management information system data offices. Federal cooperative agreement funds collection elements and procedures Actual funding availability during may be used for allowable costs with SSA to assure compatibility with this period is subject to annual incurred by WIPA awardees in the national data base collection appropriation by Congress. SSA conducting direct work incentives program (within 60 days after award); anticipates that the award under this planning and assistance services to announcement will be made in early Note: Applicants should document that SSA’s beneficiaries with disabilities. calendar year 2007. These costs could include they agree to collect Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of beneficiaries and include them in SSA will award cooperative administrative and overall project agreements to qualified entities based management costs, within the the SSA approved data collection system so that SSA may further evaluate the work on the number of beneficiaries with limitations discussed in Section II, incentives services provided. disabilities receiving SSDI and/or SSI Award Information.Federal cooperative benefits who reside in the geographic agreement funds are not intended to 5. Develop and submit quarterly area to be served. cover costs that are reimbursable under program progress reports that contain Subject to the availability of funds, an existing public or private program, management information to SSA’s SSA anticipates that a minimum of such as social services, rehabilitation Office of Acquisition and Grants (OAG) $100,000 per entity (Minimum awards services, or education. No SSDI or SSI and SSA’s Office of Employment for territories remains at $50,000) and a beneficiary can be charged for any Support Programs; maximum of $300,000 per entity will be service delivered under a WIPA project 6. Develop and submit bi-annual available to fund specific WIPA projects cooperative agreement, including the financial reports to SSA, OAG; annually. preparation of a PASS. Work incentives 7. Provide to SSA for approval and SSA may suspend or terminate any planning and assistance services are prior to implementation a detailed cooperative agreement in whole or in intended to be free and must be made description of any and all planned part at any time before the date of accessible to all SSA beneficiaries with changes to the project design; expiration, whenever it determines that disabilities in the project’s geographical 8. Cooperate with SSA in scheduling the awardee has failed to comply with area. and conducting site visits, and allow the terms and conditions of the SSA immediate access to WIPA cooperative agreement. SSA will E. Additional Conditions for Award of a facilities, personnel, and SSA Cooperative Agreement promptly notify the awardee in writing beneficiaries upon request; of the determination and the reasons for Upon award, the WIPA cooperative 9. Develop and maintain a suspension or termination, and the agreement awardees shall: collaborative working relationship with effective date of the suspension or 1. Employ CWICs and require them to the local servicing SSA field offices; termination. complete an approved initial four day 10. Implement an ongoing training session within 3 months of management and quality assurance III. Eligibility Information award. SSA, or its designated technical process set by SSA. A. Eligible Applicants assistance and training contractor, will provide technical assistance and II. Award Information A cooperative agreement may be training about SSA’s programs and work Legislative authority for this awarded to any State or local incentives (e.g., TWP, EPE, IRWE, cooperative agreement program is in government (excluding any State 1619(a) and (b), PASS) and Medicaid section 1149 of the Social Security Act administering the State Medicaid buy-in provisions/Balanced Budget Act, (the Act), as established by section 121 program), public or private organization, Medicare and Medicaid, and on other of Public Law 106–170 and subsequent or nonprofit or for-profit organization Federal work incentives programs to reauthorization in Section 407 of Public (for-profit organizations may apply with WIPA projects. Law 108–203. The regulatory the understanding that no cooperative CWICs will be trained on how to requirements that govern the agreement funds may be paid as profit screen and refer beneficiaries with administration of SSA awards are in the to any awardee), as well as Native disabilities to the appropriate ENs based Code of Federal Regulations, Title 20, American tribal organizations that the on the beneficiary’s expressed needs Parts 435 and 437 (as published in the Commissioner determines is qualified to and types of impairments. May 27, 2003 Federal Register at 68 FR provide work incentives planning,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61124 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

assistance and outreach services to all employment network-related services or not resolved, you may also contact the SSDI and SSI beneficiaries with protection and advocacy-related SSA Grants Management Team for disabilities, within the targeted services to beneficiaries with disabilities assistance: Gary Stammer, 410–965– geographic area. Partners may include; in their employment efforts. In 9501; Audrey Adams, 410–965–9469; but are not limited to, Centers for particular, they must demonstrate how Mary Biddle, 410–965–9503; Ann Independent Living established under issues will be resolved when a Dwayer, 410–965–9534; Phyllis Y. title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of complaint or issue is against a CWIC or Smith, 410–965–9518. 1973, protection and advocacy WIPA organization. Also, State If extenuating circumstances prevent organizations, Native American tribal Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies you from submitting an application entities, client assistance programs and other organizations that are, or will through www.grants.gov, please contact established in accordance with section apply to be a WIPA project, under SSA’s the SSA Grants Management Team for 112 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency possible prior approval to download, State Developmental Disabilities Program, must fully explain how they complete and submit an application by Councils established in accordance with will resolve potential conflict of interest mail. Please fax inquiries regarding the section 124 of the Developmental issues in the event it also receives a application process to the Grants Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights cooperative agreement to provide work Management Team at 410–966–9310 or Act, and State agencies administering incentives planning and assistance mail to: Social Security Administration, the State program funded under part A services. This is especially important in Office of Acquisition and Grants, Grants of title IV of the Act. The Commissioner the areas of providing beneficiaries Management Team, Attention: SSA– may also award a cooperative agreement complete information regarding other OESP–06–1, 1st Floor-Rear Entrance, to a State or local Workforce Investment organizations from which they may 7111 Security Blvd., Baltimore, Md. Board, a Department of Labor (DOL) choose to receive employment services. 21244. To ensure receipt of the proper One-Stop Career Center System Note: SSA will not accept for further application package, please include established under the Workforce consideration applications for independent program announcement number SSA– Improvement Act of 1998, or a State panel review that do not include documented OESP–07–1 and the date of this Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency. policies and procedures regarding the announcement. resolution of potential conflict of interest Note: SSA will not further consider B. Content and Form of Application applications for independent panel review issues as noted above. that do not meet the organizational eligibility Submission criteria as noted above. C. Cost Sharing or Matching Prospective applicants are asked to Note: For-profit organizations may apply Awardees of SSA cooperative submit, preferably by November 8, 2006 with the understanding that no cooperative agreements are required to contribute a an e-mail, a fax, postcard, or letter of agreement funds may be profit to an awardee non-Federal match of at least 5 percent intent that includes: of a cooperative agreement. Profit is toward the total cost of each project. (a) The program announcement considered as any amount in excess of the The total cost of the project is the sum number (SSA–OESP–07–1) and title, allowable costs of the cooperative agreement of the Federal share (up to 95 percent) Work Incentives Planning and awardee. A for-profit organization is a and the non-Federal share (at least 5 Assistance (WIPA) Program; cooperation or other legal entity that is percent). The non-Federal share may be (b) The name of the agency or organized or operated for the profit or benefit cash or in-kind (property or services) of its shareholders or other owners and must organization that is applying; and contributions. be distinguishable or legally separable from (c) The name, mailing address, e-mail that of an individual acting on his/her own Note: SSA will not accept for further address, telephone number, and fax behalf. Applications will not be further consideration applications for independent number for the organization’s contact considered for independent panel review that panel review that do not document their person. do not meet all eligibility criteria at the time agreement to cost sharing/matching as noted of submission of applications. above. The notice of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the Cooperative agreements may not be review process of a subsequent awarded to: IV. Application and Submission • Any individual; Information application. The purpose of the notice • of intent is to allow SSA staff to Social Security Administration A. Address To Request Application Field Offices; estimate the number of independent • Any State agency administering the It is required that an electronic reviewers needed and to avoid potential State Medicaid program under title XIX application be submitted through conflicts of interest in the review. The of the Act; www.grants.gov for Funding notice of intent should be faxed to (410) • Any organization described in Opportunity Number SSA–OESP–07–1 966–1278; mailed to Social Security section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue The www.grants.gov, ‘‘Get Registered’’ Administration, Office of Employment Code of 1968 that engages in lobbying Web page is available to help explain Support Programs, Office of Beneficiary (in accordance with section 18 of the the registration and application Outreach and Employment Support, 107 Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 submission process. In addition, new Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security U.S.C. 1611) Federal grant applicants may find the Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235– Grants.gov Registration Brochure on the 6401; or e-mailed to B. Policies Regarding Potential Conflict above noted Web site to be helpful. [email protected] or of Interest in WIPA Service Delivery If you experience problems with the [email protected]. All applicants applying for a steps related to registering to do C. Electronic Applications cooperative agreement must fully business with the Federal government document how they will ensure there or application submission, your first When submitting an application will be no conflict of interest between point of contact is the Grants.gov electronically www.grants.gov providing work incentives planning and support staff at [email protected], 1– automatically ensures a complete assistance services and delivering 800–518–4726. If your difficulties are application is submitted.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61125

D. Mailed Applications — A complete application, which Support Programs, Division of consists of the following items in this Employment Policy, 107 Altmeyer Applications that are not submitted order: Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, by December 15, 2006 are considered (1) Part I (Face page)—Application for Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401; or e- late applications. SSA will not waive or Federal Assistance; mailed to [email protected] or extend the deadline for any application (2) Table of Contents; [email protected]. unless the deadline is waived or (3) Brief Project Summary or Synopsis G. Submission Dates and Times extended for all applications. SSA will (not to exceed one page); notify each late applicant that its (4) Part II—Budget Information, All applications must be submitted by application will not be considered. Sections A through G; the closing date of December 15, 2006. Applicants that do not have access to (5) Budget Justification (in Section B When authorized by the SSA Grants the Internet should contact the Office of Budget Categories, explain how Management Team, applications may be Acquisitions and Grants Management amounts were computed), including mailed or hand-delivered to: Grants Team for further details on how to subcontract organization budgets; Management Team, Office of complete an application. (6) Part III—Application Narrative and Acquisition and Grants, OAG, Social All applications that meet the Appendices; Security Administration, Attention: deadline of December 15, 2006 will be Note: Project Narrative should include the Attention: SSA–OESP–07–1, 1st Floor- screened to determine completeness and required detailed service delivery plan. Rear Entrance, 7111 Security Blvd., conformity to the requirements of this Baltimore, Md. 21244. Hand-delivered announcement. Complete and (7) Part IV—Assurances; (8) Additional Assurances and applications are accepted between the conforming applications will then be hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday evaluated. Certifications—regarding Lobbying and regarding Drug-Free Workplace. through Friday. An application will be —Length: The program narrative portion considered as meeting the deadline if it of the application may not exceed 50 F. Guidelines for Application is either: Submission double-spaced pages (or 25 single- • Received from Grants.gov on or spaced pages) on one side of the paper All applications for this cooperative before the deadline date; or 1 ″ × ″ only, using standard (8 ⁄2 11 ) size agreement project must be submitted on • When a mailed application has paper, and 12-point font. Attachments the prescribed forms. The application been authorized by the Grants that support the program narrative shall be executed by an individual Management Team, received at the count towards the 50-page limit; authorized to act for the applicant above address on or before the deadline resumes and letters of support do not organization and to assume for the date; or count within the 50-page limit. applicant organization the obligations • imposed by the terms and conditions of When a mailed application has E. Checklist for a Complete Application the cooperative agreement award. been authorized by the Grants Management Team, mailed through the The checklist below is a guide to Submission through Grants.gov U.S. Postal Service or sent by ensure that the application package has generates signatures in all required commercial carrier on or before the been properly prepared. fields. It is important that only an authorized representative submit the deadline date and received in time to be — An original, signed and dated application. considered during the competitive application plus at least two copies (if In item 12 of the Face Sheet (SF 424), review and evaluation process. Packages submitting paper application as the applicant must clearly indicate the must be postmarked by December 15, opposed to an electronic application.) application submitted is in response to 2006. Applicants are cautioned to If submitting paper application, seven this announcement (SSA–OESP–07–1). request a legibly dated U.S. Postal additional copies are optional but will The applicant also is encouraged to Service postmark or to obtain a legibly expedite processing. select a short descriptive project title. dated receipt from a commercial carrier as evidence of timely mailing. Private- Note: When submitting an application Prospective applicants are asked to electronically www.grants.gov automatically submit, preferably by November 8, 2006, metered postmarks are not acceptable as ensures a complete application is submitted. an e-mail, fax, post card, or letter of proof of timely mailing. intent that includes (1) the program H. Intergovernmental Review — The project narrative portion of the announcement number (SSA–OESP–07– application, which includes the 1) and title (Work Incentives Planning The applicant organization is to check applicant’s detailed service delivery and Assistance (WIPA) Program); (2) the with your State’s Single Point of Contact plan, may not exceed 50 double- name of the agency or organization that (SPOC) to find out about and comply spaced pages (25 single-spaced pages) is applying; and (3) the name, mailing with your State’s process under on one side of the paper only, using address, e-mail address, telephone Executive Order 12372. SPOCs are listed standard (81/2’’ x 11’’) size paper, and number, and fax number for the in the Office of Management and 12-point font. Attachments that organization’s contact person. The Budget’s home page at: http:// support the program narrative count notice of intent is not required, is not www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/ towards the 50-page limit; resumes binding, and does not enter into the spoc.html and letters of support do not count in review process of a subsequent I. Funding Restrictions the 50-page limit. application. The purpose of the notice — Attachments/Appendices, when of intent is to allow SSA staff to Construction expenses: SSA programs included, should be used only to estimate the number of independent do not have construction authority but provide supporting documentation. reviewers needed and to avoid potential may support limited alteration and Please do not include books or conflicts of interest in the review. The renovation costs. Amounts included videotapes as they are not easily notice of intent should be faxed to (410) under this category must be fully reproduced and are therefore 966–1278; mailed to Social Security explained under Section F of the inaccessible to reviewers. Administration, Office of Employment application.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61126 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

J. Other Submission Requirements There are four categories of criteria this issue in their application and may used to score applications: Relevance/ receive all available points for this criteria. Application packages are provided at Evaluation panels will not use this sub- www.grants.gov. If extenuating adequacy of project design and scope; resources and management; quality criteria in the application evaluation for circumstances prevent you from those States or Regions where it is not submitting an application through assurance, and collaboration/ applicable. partnerships. The total points possible www.grants.gov please contact the SSA • Grants Management Team (at the Office for an application are 100. Following are If appropriate in the applicant’s of Acquisitions and Grants (OAG), the evaluation criteria that SSA will use State, a plan for providing work Social Security Administration, Grants in reviewing all applications (relative incentives planning, assistance and Management Team, Attention: SSA– weights are shown in parentheses): outreach to States involved in the Youth Transition Process Demonstration; OESP–07–1, 1st Floor-Rear Entrance, 1. Relevance/Adequacy of Project 7111 Security Blvd., Baltimore, Md. Design and Scope (50 Points) Note: Applicants in a State or Region that 21244.) for possible prior approval to do not have a YTD need not address this The adequacy of the project design download, complete and submit an issue in their application and may receive all and scope will be evaluated based on application package by mail. available points for this criteria. Evaluation All applicants for Federal grants and the following criteria in descending panels will not use these sub-criteria in the order of priority: cooperative agreements on or after application evaluation for those States or • The applicant’s description of the October 1, 2003 are required to provide Regions where it is not applicable. project operations, including the a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data project’s documented knowledge of 2. Resources and Management (20 Universal Number System (DUNS) work incentives as they relate to Points) number. The DUNS number is required employment and how the project will Resources and management will be whether an applicant is submitting a provide services to beneficiaries with paper application or using the evaluated based on the following: disabilities regarding employment (e.g., • The applicant’s documentation that government-wide electronic portal identify how project will notify (Grants.gov). Organizations should the Project Directors and CWICs have potential beneficiaries about the the necessary experience to successfully verify that they have a DUNS number or availability of work incentives planning take the steps needed to obtain one as implement the program requirements and assistance services, location(s) for described in this RFA; (Specifically, soon as possible. Organizations can providing services, ability to travel to receive a DUNS number at no cost by projects successfully involving return- the beneficiary, etc) and the quality of to-work initiatives for SSDI and SSI calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS the project design; number request line at 1–866–705–5711. • beneficiaries with disabilities.) Applicant’s evidence that their • The applicant’s description and V. Application Review Information project design and scope will adequacy of the proposed infrastructure successfully assist beneficiaries with A. Criteria and organization of the project, disabilities obtain, regain or maintain including the existence of the necessary Upon receipt, all applications will be gainful employment; administrative resources to effectively • The applicant’s clear and concise reviewed to determine completeness carry out the program requirements; and conformity to the requirements of statement of the project goals and • The applicant’s plan for providing this announcement. If an applicant is objectives; and process(es) for collecting personnel who meet the qualification determined to be ineligible, or the SSA required management information; criteria cited in this RFA under Section application is incomplete or specification of data sources; including I as evidenced by training and nonconforming to the requirements of how they will interact with the SSA experience which indicates that they this announcement, the application will approved national data base; have the skills required to competently • The applicant’s description of how be returned to the applicant and will no provide work incentives planning and the project will address provisions of longer be considered for award. assistance services; work incentives planning, assistance Applications that are complete and • The applicant’s plan for providing and outreach to populations with conform to the requirements of this staff members who are individuals with special cultural or language announcement will then be forwarded disabilities to conduct the day-to-day requirements specific to their to an independent panel of reviewers for operational functions; evaluation. geographic area; • The applicant’s evidence of • The applicant’s plan for providing sufficient resources, including B. Review and Selection Process work incentives planning, assistance personnel, time, funds, and facilities and outreach to transition-to-work aged The results of this review and that will be available to support evaluation will assist the Commissioner SSI youth; • The applicant’s identification of beneficiaries with disabilities obtain, of Social Security in making the award maintain or regain employment under decision. Although the results of this problems that may arise and how they will be resolved; e.g., how dropouts and this program. The applicant’s evidence review and evaluation are a primary of adequate facilities should include factor considered in making the inadequate numbers of beneficiary participants will be handled. accessibility to public transportation, decisions, the evaluated score is not the • elevators, and ramps. only factor used. In selecting eligible If appropriate in the applicant’s applicants to be funded, consideration State or Region, a plan for providing 3. Quality Assurance (20 Points) will be given to issues such as seamless employment services to The applicant’s quality assurance experience, past performance, proposed individuals seeking to enter the plan will be evaluated based on the costs, the need to achieve an equitable workforce through the SSA DOL/ETA following: distribution of WIPA projects among Disability Program Navigator (DPN) • The applicant’s plan for ensuring geographic regions of the country, as initiative and existing Employment ongoing training needs (refresher and well as, the need to achieve an equitable Networks (ENs). update training) of CWICs and other distribution of WIPA projects among Note: Applicants in a State or Region that personnel, as appropriate, to ensure that disability and minority populations. do not have a DPN or EN need not address personnel maintain knowledge, skills,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61127

and abilities as required to perform their VI. Award Administration Information submitted to SSA, OAG, within 30 days job duties; after the end of the quarter. Financial A. Award Notices • The applicant’s plan for using status reports shall be submitted bi- management information data and A cooperative agreement award will annually. The first report is due within caseload reviews to improve processes, be issued within the constraints of 30 days after the end of the first six such as beneficiary case-management available Federal funds and at the month period and a final report is due and follow-up services, and to ensure discretion of SSA. The official award within 90 days after the end of the that all work incentives information document is the ‘‘Notice of Cooperative budget period. given to beneficiaries is accurate and Agreement Award.’’ It will provide the SSA personnel (SSA Project Officer applicable. The applicant’s plan must amount of the award, the purpose of the and/or other staff) expect to visit include how it intends to track the award, the term of the agreement, the projects at least once in each year of the progress and outcomes of beneficiaries total project period for which support is cooperative agreement. The SSA Project based on services provided by the contemplated, the amount of financial Officer shall review site operations, CWIC. SSA is interested in identifying participation required, and any special collect management information, assess beneficiary outcomes under the WIPA terms and conditions of the cooperative the quality assurance plan and goal Program to determine the extent to agreement. The Notice of Cooperative achievement, and evaluate how projects which beneficiaries with disabilities Agreement Award signed by the Grants are finding ways to make work achieve their employment, financial, Officer is the authorizing document. incentives planning and assistance and health care goals. Therefore, SSA is These awards will be issued via e-mail. activities more effective in achieving requiring that cooperative agreement B. Administrative and National Policy SSA’s program goals. awardees collect beneficiary specific Requirements data regarding the employment status, Staff members shall attend an initial benefit status, and income of No administrative or national policy orientation meeting that will include an beneficiaries before and after providing requirements have been identified by orientation session by SSA and services under these cooperative SSA for the WIPA Program. subsequent scheduled conferences at SSA headquarters or alternate sites agreements; C. Reporting • The applicant’s evidence of existing chosen by SSA. Those meetings will case management and monitoring Entities must provide all collected provide the awardee of the cooperative systems and techniques, including a data and report the results to SSA’s agreement with the opportunity to management information system; Office of Acquisition and Grants, Grants exchange information with SSA and • The applicant’s detailed quality Management Team (OAG, GMT), as other awardees. assurance plan and how well it described below. The entities awarded a cooperative D. MI Program Data To Be Collected and complies with the requirements of this Reported RFA in terms of data collection, agreement under this notice shall reporting, and ensuring that only submit quarterly progress reports to Common data elements will be accurate information is provided to OAG, GMT. SSA expects that the project collected through a national on-line beneficiaries with disabilities and other will need a period of time to begin database. The awardees and SSA will interested parties, as appropriate. providing services and collecting use the management information (MI) management information. Therefore, the data to manage the project and to 4. Collaboration/Partnerships (10 first quarterly program report shall determine what additional resources or Points) include a description of the project, a other approaches may be needed to The applicant’s collaborative status of data collection operations, improve the process. The data will also activities and partnerships will be actions that were taken, actions be valuable to SSA in its analysis of and evaluated based on the following: planned, and a description of how the future planning for the SSDI and SSI • Evidence of the applicant’s working project is addressing the needs of programs. SSA is interested in relationship with the local DOL One- individuals with disabilities from identifying participant outcomes under Stop Career Center; diverse ethnic and racial communities, the WIPA Program to determine the • Applicant’s evidence of other both in work incentives planning and in extent to which participants achieve collaborative activities with relevant carrying out outreach activities. their employment, financial, and health agencies, e.g., Vocational Rehabilitation, Subsequent quarterly program reports care goals. Therefore, SSA is requiring Centers for Medicare and Medicaid shall provide: a status of the project, that cooperative agreement awardees Services (CMS), Dept. of Education, problems or proposed changes in the collect data regarding the employment Minority Commission, Workforce project (e.g., requests for technical status, benefit status, and income of Centers, Employment Networks, and assistance from contractor, interagency beneficiaries before and after providing Mental Health organizations, in agreement change); specific information services in order to help ensure that providing work incentives planning and (baseline data/program statistics) SSA beneficiaries with disabilities are assistance services; and the extent to required by SSA, including those listed gaining effective supports and follow-up which the applicant partnered in above; a description of how the project services needed to move towards gainful collaborative efforts with these is addressing the needs of individuals employment. organizations, including letters of intent with disabilities from diverse ethnic and Data to be collected will include or written assurances from cited racial communities, both in work information about: organizations; incentives planning and outreach • The applicant’s plan to work in activities; quality assurance measures, Beneficiaries’ demographic collaboration/cooperation with the goals achieved, collaboration activities, characteristics; PMRO. outcomes achieved by beneficiaries Beneficiaries’ Social Security Numbers (SSNs); Note: Additional information regarding served including success stories how WIPA projects will work with the PMRO involving employment, actions that Beneficiaries’ income support may be found at http:// were taken and have been planned. The characteristics (including earnings and www.socialsecurity.gov/work/WIPARFA.html quarterly program reports shall be SSA and non-SSA benefits);

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61128 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Beneficiaries’ non-income support 5. Other local outreach activities 4. Number of updated work incentives characteristics (including access to conducted by the project for further plans prepared; public and private health care); evaluation purposes; 5. Number of presentations given at Beneficiaries’ work goals and D. Benefits: (current and expected forums, conferences, meetings, etc.; strategies; changes if employment goals are 6. Number of work incentives Beneficiaries’ use of SSA’s work reached) education and Ticket to Work marketing incentives; 1. SSDI; sessions conducted in collaboration Isolated outreach activities for 2. SSI; with the PMRO; evaluation purposes; and 3. Concurrent (SSDI and SSI); 7. Number of follow-up contacts with Employment outcomes. 4. Medicare; beneficiaries; The projects will collect, analyze, and 5. Medicaid; summarize the specific data elements 6. Private Health Insurance; 8. Number of times exhibited at listed below: 7. Subsidized housing or other rental forums, conferences, meetings, etc.; A. Beneficiary information: subsidies; 9. Number of contacts with Area Work 1. Beneficiary/recipient name (Last, 8. Food Stamps; Incentives Coordinators (AWICs). First, Middle); 9. General Assistance; Additional information such as the 2. Date of birth; 10. Workers Compensation benefits; time spent per beneficiary/recipient, 3. Gender; 11. Unemployment Insurance beneficiary’s waiting time for a 4. Special language or other benefits; response, waiting time for an consideration; 12. Other Federal, State, or local appointment and for services, the reason 5. Mailing address; supports, including TANF (specify). for service request, the level of service 6. Telephone number; E. Incentives to be used: provided, and any anticipated or 7. Social Security Number (SSN); 1. Trial-work period (TWP); verified employment status change of 8. Representative payee (RP) name (if 2. Extended period of eligibility (EPE); the beneficiary will also be reported by applicable); 3. Impairment-related work expenses awardee. All data elements are to be 9. RP address; (IRWE); collected through an SSA approved 10. Current level of education; 4. Plan for achieving self-support national online database, in order to 11. Whether pursuing education (PASS); allow for analysis of project efficacy and currently and at what level (e.g., post 5. 1619(a); the comparability of the data across secondary, continuing adult education, 6. Continuing Medicaid (1619(b)); project sites. special education, vocational 7. Medicaid buy-in provisions/ The application requirements in Part education); Balanced Budget Act; IV are the minimum amount of required 12. Proposed educational goals; 8. Blind Work Expense; project information. Projects will be 13. Primary diagnosis; 9. Student Earned Income Exclusion; responsible for collecting management 14. Secondary diagnosis (if 10. Subsidy Development; information (MI), producing regular applicable); 11. Extended Medicare; 15. Employer health care coverage at 12. Property Essential to Self-Support; reports, and producing a final report outset (if working); 13. Earned Income Exclusion; which analyzes the successes and/or 16. Other health care coverage. 14. SGA limits (unsuccessful work failures of the methodology used to B. Employment Information and attempt, subsidy, unincurred business provide work incentives planning and Outcomes: (current and proposed expenses, etc.). assistance services to SSDI and SSI goals—when applicable.) F. Services to be used: beneficiaries. 1. Self-employed or employee; 1. Vocational Rehabilitation services; Note: Reporting guidelines are outlined in 2. Type of work; 2. Para-transit services; Section VI (Award Administration 3. Beginning date; 3. Protection and Advocacy services; Information) Part 2: Reporting; and, Part 3: 4. Hours per week; 4. Work-related training/counseling Management Information Program Data to be 5. Monthly gross earned income; program; Collected and Reported. 6. Monthly net earned income; 5. USDOL/ETA One-Stop Career 7. Work-related expenses; Center services; All projects must adhere to SSA’s C. Program Manager for Recruitment 6. Transitioning youth services (from Privacy and Confidentiality Regulations and Outreach (PMRO) Activities: school to post-secondary education or to (20 CFR part 401) for maintaining 1. Dates, times, location and work); records of individuals, as well as attendance information on work 7. Employment Network services; provide specific safeguards surrounding incentives education seminars and other 8. Services for beneficiaries with beneficiary information sharing, paper/ Ticket to Work Marketing sessions visual impairments (i.e., service computer records/data, and other issues conducted in collaboration with the animals); potentially arising from providing work PMRO; 9. Employer Referral and Assistance incentives planning and assistance 2. Beneficiaries’ income support Network (EARN); services to SSDI and SSI beneficiaries characteristics (including earnings and 10. Other Advocacy-related Services. with disabilities. Beneficiary data SSA and non-SSA benefits); G. Monthly Work Incentives Planning should be accessible only to project 3. Beneficiaries’ non-income support and Assistance (WIPA) activities personnel via locked file cabinets, characteristics (including access to performed: computer password protections, etc. public and private health care); 1. Number of SSDI/SSI beneficiaries VII. Agency Contacts 4. Beneficiaries’ identified work goals (over age 18) requesting assistance and strategies for attaining successful (initial and repeat requests); Send questions about this employment outcomes (For example, 2. Number of SSDI/SSI beneficiaries announcement to the following Internet will a beneficiary need to seek (ages 14 to 18) requesting assistance e-mail addresses: [email protected] additional training or education in order (initial and repeat requests); or [email protected]. When to attain an identified employment 3. Number of new work incentives sending in a question, reference outcome?); plans prepared; program announcement number SSA–

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61129

OESP–07–1 and the date of this Paperwork Reduction Act Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. As announcement. This notice contains reporting authorized by Ticket to Work and Work For information regarding the requirements. The information is Incentives Improvement Act, SSA application submission process, you collected by the Grants.gov Apply established a program of cooperative may also contact: Phyllis Y. Smith or facility. However, in rare circumstances, agreements (monetary awards) granted Gary Stammer, Grants Management the information may be collected using to community-based organizations. Team, Office of Acquisition and Grants, form SSA–96–BK, Federal Assistance These programs were formerly called Social Security Administration, 1st Application, which has the Office of the Benefit Planning and Assistance Floor—Rear Entrance, 7111 Security Management and Budget clearance programs (BPAO). The new name for Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244. The number 0960–0184. this program is the Work Incentive telephone numbers are: Phyllis Y. Planning and Assistance (WIPA) Smith, (410) 965–9518, or Gary Dated: October 10, 2006. Projects. The WIPA program is to Stammer, (410) 965–9501. The fax Martin H. Gerry, provide all of SSA’s beneficiaries with number is (410) 966–9310. Deputy Commissioner for Disability and disabilities access to work incentives Income Security Programs. planning and assistance services. VIII. Other Information [FR Doc. E6–17283 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Section 407 of the Social Security Process Evaluation BILLING CODE 4191–02–P Protection Act (Pub. L. 108–203) SSA plans to conduct a formal extended the authorization of this program through Fiscal Year 2009. independent process evaluation of the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WIPA Program, as well as individual SSA released a competitive Request projects, beginning in FY2007 to further [Docket No. SSA–2006–0077] for Applications in May 2006 but did assess the overall efficacy of the not receive sufficient qualifying program in terms of assisting Work Incentives Planning and proposals to provide full national beneficiaries with disabilities return to Assistance (WIPA) Program Pre- coverage. In October 2006 SSA released work. The purpose of a process Application Teleconference Seminars a competitive Request for Applications to announce funding availability for evaluation is for SSA and the awardees AGENCY: Social Security Administration new cooperative agreements awards for to assess how the WIPA Program (SSA). the Work Incentives Planning and functions and how the process (es) ACTION: Notice of Teleconferences. might be improved to provide more Assistance (WIPA) Program, for these specific areas: efficient and effective work incentives DATES: October 26, 2006 State of Alabama, the counties of services, as required under section 1149 Time: 1 p.m. (Eastern Time) duration Autauga, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, of the Act. The process evaluation will two hours. require both data collection and Call-in telephone number: (toll free) Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, qualitative observational evaluation 877–922–4780. Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, through site visits and/or project Pass code: WIPA. Dallas, Elmore, Escambia, Geneva, reporting. Leader: Debbie Morrison. Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Participant Experience October 27, 2006 Pike, Russell, Washington, and Wilcox; The goal of these cooperative Time: 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) duration State of Indiana, the counties of agreements is the provision of services two hours. Clark, Crawford, Davies, Dearborn, to enhance beneficiary awareness and Call-in telephone number: (toll free) Dubois, Floyd, Gibson, Grant, Greene, understanding of SSA work incentives 877–922–4780. Harrison, Hendricks, Jackson, Jefferson, and thereby enhance a beneficiaries’ Pass code: WIPA. Jennings, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, ability to make informed choices Leader: Debbie Morrison. Monroe, Ohio, Orange, Parke, Perry, regarding work. The goal is not to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pike, Posey, Ripley, Scott, Spencer, provide employment services, however Type of meeting: Informational pre- Sullivan, Switzerland, Vanderburgh, employment is ultimately the key for application teleconference seminars Vermillion, Vigo, Warrick, Washington, many beneficiaries with disabilities in open to all potential applicants for the and White; terms of gaining greater self-sufficiency. Work Incentives Planning and State of Kentucky, the counties of Projects shall submit periodic reports Assistance (WIPA) Program (formerly Bath, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Bracken, to SSA, OAG. Data and information that the Benefits Planning, Assistance and Breathitt, Carter, Clark, Clay, Elliott, are used in preparing the reports can be Outreach (BPAO) Program). Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, used, for example, to improve the Purpose: SSA will hold informational Greenup, Harlan, Harrison, Jackson, efficiency of the project’s operations, pre-application teleconference seminars Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, use of staff, and linkages between the to solicit interest and encourage Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Madison, project and the programs for which community-based organizations to Magoffin, Martin, Mason, McCreary, work incentives planning is needed to apply for cooperative agreement awards. Menifee, Montgomery, Morgan, better meet the needs of target All interested applicants are invited to Nicholas, Owsley, Pendleton, Perry, populations. In addition, the evaluation attend this call. Pike, Powell, Robertson, Rockcastle, results will be disseminated to other Section 1149(d) of the Social Security Rowan, Whitley, and Wolfe; projects to promote learning, program Act (as added by Section 121 of the State of Nevada, all counties; refinements, and facilitate partnership Ticket to Work and Work Incentives State of New York, the counties of and achievement of project objectives. Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Timely comprehensive MI data also 106–170) required SSA to establish Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and allows for cost accounting, which helps community based benefits planning and Westchester; improve the efficiency of service assistance in every State, the District of State of Ohio, the counties of approaches and may inform future Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Ashtabula, Mahoning, Portage, Stark, policy decisions. Northern Mariana Islands, American Summit, and Trumbull;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61130 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Pacific territories of Guam, the agencies are required to notify sue to the Equal Employment Northern Mariana Islands, and employees, former employees, and Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within American Samoa to be effective in applicants of their rights and remedies 180 calendar days of the alleged calendar year 2007. under Federal antidiscrimination and discriminatory action. If you are alleging The schedule (including date, time whistleblower protection laws discrimination based on marital status and call-in number of each pre- applicable to them. The Office of or political affiliation, you may file a application seminar as it becomes Personnel Management (OPM) has written complaint with the U.S. Office available) will also be posted at the published implementing regulations at 5 of Special Counsel (OSC) (see contact following Internet site: http:// CFR 724, which require notice and information below). In 1the alternative www.socialsecurity.gov/work. training, and include model language (or in some cases, in addition), you may Agenda: SSA will use the seminars to for agency notices. pursue a discrimination complaint by For these reasons, OSC is publishing provide guidance and technical filing a grievance through your agency’s assistance to interested parties as they this No FEAR Act Notice (also administrative or negotiated grievance prepare to submit their applications. published on the agency’s web site at procedures, if such procedures apply There will be a presentation of http://www.osc.gov ): and are available. information followed by an operator- On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted assisted question and answer period. the ‘‘Notification and Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Laws The agenda will be posted on the Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act Internet at http:// of 2002,’’ which is now known as the A Federal employee with authority to www.socialsecurity.gov/work one week No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act take, direct others to take, recommend before commencement of the seminars. is to ‘‘require that Federal agencies be or approve any personnel action must The agenda can also be requested accountable for violations of not use that authority to take or fail to electronically or by fax upon request. antidiscrimination and whistleblower take, or threaten to take or fail to take, Contact Information: Anyone protection laws.’’ Public Law 107–174, a personnel action against an employee requiring additional information should Summary. In support of this purpose, or applicant because of disclosure of contact SSA Project Officer, Debbie Congress found that ‘‘agencies cannot be information by that individual that is Morrison by calling (410) 965–9054, or run effectively if those agencies practice reasonably believed to evidence • Mail addressed to Social Security or tolerate discrimination.’’ Public Law violations of law, rule or regulation; Administration, 6401 Security Blvd., 107–174, Title I, General Provisions, gross mismanagement; gross waste of section 101(1). Room 107 Altmeyer Building, funds; an abuse of authority; or a Baltimore, MD 21235. The Act also requires this agency to • provide this notice to Federal substantial and specific danger to public Fax at (410) 966–1278. health or safety, unless disclosure of • E-mail to [email protected]. employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment such information is specifically Dated: October 10, 2006. to inform you of the rights and prohibited by law and such information Martin H. Gerry, protections available to you under is specifically required by Executive Deputy Commissioner for, Disability and Federal antidiscrimination and order to be kept secret in the interest of Income Security Program. whistleblower protection laws. national defense or the conduct of [FR Doc. 06–8730 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] foreign affairs. Retaliation against an BILLING CODE 4191–02–P Antidiscrimination Laws employee or applicant for making a A Federal agency cannot discriminate protected disclosure is prohibited by 5 against an employee or applicant with U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you believe that you OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL respect to the terms, conditions or have been the victim of whistleblower privileges of employment on the basis of retaliation, you may file a written No FEAR Act Notice race, color, religion, sex, national origin, complaint (Form OSC–11) with the U.S. age, disability, marital status or political AGENCY: Office of Special Counsel Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M affiliation. Discrimination on these ACTION: Notice. Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC bases is prohibited by one or more of the 20036–4505, or online through the OSC SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Special following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), Web site (at http://www.osc.gov). Counsel (OSC) is publishing its notice 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 under the Notification and Federal U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. Retaliation for Engaging in Protected Employee Antidiscrimination and 2000e–16. Activity Retaliation Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107– If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on A Federal agency cannot retaliate 174), as required by the Act and 5 CFR against an employee or applicant 724. the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability, you must because that individual exercises his or DATES: October 17, 2006. contact an Equal Employment her rights under any of the Federal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45 antidiscrimination or whistleblower Dorothy Timbs, Special Assistant, by calendar days of the alleged protection laws listed above. If you mail at 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 218, discriminatory action, or, in the case of believe that you are the victim of Washington, DC 20036; by telephone, at a personnel action, within 45 calendar retaliation for engaging in protected (202) 254–3643; or by fax, at (202) 653– days of the effective date of the action, activity, you must follow, as 5161. Additional information can be before you can file a formal complaint appropriate, the procedures described in found on OSC’s web site at http:// of discrimination with your agency. See, the Antidiscrimination Laws and www.osc.gov. e.g., 29 CFR 1614. If you believe that Whistleblower Protection Laws sections SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the you have been the victim of unlawful above (including, if applicable, ‘‘Notification and Federal Employee discrimination on the basis of age, you administrative or negotiated grievance Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act must either contact an EEO counselor as procedures) in order to pursue any legal of 2002’’ (known as the No FEAR Act), noted above or give notice of intent to remedy.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61131

Disciplinary Actions October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority listening session, FMCSA has included Under the existing laws, each agency No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as in this notice a number of questions that retains the right, where appropriate, to amended, and Delegation of Authority commenters are invited to address. discipline a Federal employee for No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], DATES: The Public Listening Session conduct that is inconsistent with I hereby determine that the objects to be will be held on November 16, 2006 from Federal antidiscrimination and included in the exhibition 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Written comments whistleblower protection laws, up to ‘‘Masterpieces of Russian Art’’, must be received by December 18, 2006. and including removal. If OSC has imported from abroad for temporary Location: The Public Listening initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. exhibition within the United States, are Session will be held at the Hyatt 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. of cultural significance. The objects are Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey 1214(f), agencies must seek approval imported pursuant to loan agreements Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. from the Special Counsel to discipline with the foreign owners or custodians. The telephone number is (202) 737– employees for, among other activities, I also determine that the exhibition or 1234. engaging in prohibited retaliation. display of the exhibit objects at The ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters Museum of Russian Art, Minneapolis, identified by DOT Docket Management existing laws or permits an agency to Minnesota, from on or about October 20, System (DMS) docket number FMCSA– take unfounded disciplinary action 2006 until on or about December 30, 2004–18898, using any of the following against a Federal employee or to violate 2006, and at possible additional venues methods: the procedural rights of a Federal yet to be determined, is in the national Web site: http://dmses.dot.gov. Follow employee who has been accused of interest. Public Notice of these the instructions for submitting discrimination. Determinations is ordered to be comments on the DOT electronic docket published in the Federal Register. site. Additional Information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Fax: 202–493–2251. For further information regarding the further information, including a list of Mail: Docket Management Facility, No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 part 724, as well as the appropriate Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, offices within your agency (e.g., EEO/ Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– civil rights office, human resources (telephone: 202/453–8050). The address 0001. office, or legal office). Additional is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301 Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the information regarding Federal 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 antidiscrimination, whistleblower DC 20547–0001. Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, protection and retaliation laws can be between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Dated: October 10, 2006. found at the EEOC Web site (http:// through Friday, except Federal holidays. www.eeoc.gov) and the OSC Web site C. Miller Crouch, Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to (http://www.osc.gov). Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department online instructions for submitting Existing Rights Unchanged of State. comments. [FR Doc. E6–17234 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Pursuant to section 205 of the No FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4710–05–P FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this Cathy McNair, Assistant Program notice creates, expands or reduces any Manager, CSA 2010, (202) 366–0790. rights otherwise available to any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Format of employee, former employee or applicant DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Listening Session: During the Public under the laws of the United States, Listening Session, FMCSA will describe including the provisions of law Federal Motor Carrier Safety its progress on CSA 2010 to date. specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). Administration FMCSA will accept comments on the Dated: October 11, 2006. [Docket No. FMCSA–2004–18898] CSA 2010 operational model and any Scott J. Bloch, additional information FMCSA should Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 Special Counsel. consider to promote the success of the Initiative [FR Doc. E6–17171 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] CSA 2010 initiative. BILLING CODE 7405–01–S AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety The listening session will run from 8 Administration, DOT. a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Participant registration ACTION: Notice of public listening will be from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The session DEPARTMENT OF STATE session. will include a morning plenary session (9 a.m.) and four facilitated breakout [Public Notice 5581] SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier sessions (10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.), Culturally Significant Objects Imported Safety Administration (FMCSA) is related to the CSA 2010 operational for Exhibition Determinations: holding a public listening session to model: (1) Measurement, (2) Safety ‘‘Masterpieces of Russian Art’’ obtain feedback on the Agency’s Fitness Determination, (3) Intervention Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 Selection, and (4) Safety Data and SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the initiative (CSA 2010), a comprehensive Validation. Attendees will be able to following determinations: Pursuant to review and analysis of FMCSA’s current participate in one of the breakout the authority vested in me by the Act of commercial motor carrier safety and sessions and will have an opportunity to October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. enforcement programs. FMCSA will use comment on the key questions listed 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March the upcoming listening session to herein by topic, as well as hear the 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and inform the public on the conceptual comments of other stakeholders Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. direction and progress of CSA 2010, and assigned to the topic. More details on 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et obtain feedback from its partners and this process are included in the on-line seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of stakeholders. To facilitate the upcoming pre-registration site.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61132 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Registration information and goal of CSA 2010 is the development Accordingly, the Agency withdrew the instructions: To attend the listening and deployment of a new operational ANPRM (70 FR 67405, November 7, session, attendees can register online at model, a new approach to using FMCSA 2005). http://www.csa2010.com. In addition to resources to identify drivers and Recently, FMCSA requested registration information, the registration operators that pose safety problems and comments from the public on planned Web site provides additional location to intervene to address those problems. improvements to the Agency’s Motor and agenda details. To register, click the FMCSA understands how important it is Carrier Safety Status Measurement Register button on the left side of the to the success of this initiative to obtain System (SAFESTAT) algorithm (71 FR homepage to display the online active and timely feedback from its 36170, May 3, 2006). The SAFESTAT registration form. The registration form partners and stakeholders. The Agency system analyzes current and historical requests information about the attendee held a series of public listening sessions safety performance and compliance and breakout session preference. Due to on CSA 2010 in September and October information to rank the relative safety size and space limitations, attendees of 2004. These sessions were designed fitness of commercial motor carriers. may not be assigned to their first to collect public input regarding ways SAFESTAT enables FMCSA to quantify breakout session preference; however, FMCSA could improve its process of and monitor trends in the safety status FMCSA will strive to accommodate monitoring and assessing the safety of individual motor carriers. FMCSA attendees’ first or second choice. Once performance of the commercial motor focuses compliance review and roadside the form is complete, submit the form to carrier industry. Participants were a inspection resources on carriers posing complete the registration process and a cross section of individuals including the greatest potential safety risk. registration confirmation will appear. If industry executives, truck and bus SAFESTAT involves analytically there are any questions, or if you prefer drivers, insurance and safety advocacy assessing a motor carrier in four Safety to register via telephone, please contact groups, State and local government Evaluation Areas (SEAs), including: (1) [email protected] or telephone (301) officials, and enforcement professionals. Accident, (2) Driver, (3) Vehicle, and (4) 495–8458. FMCSA was encouraged that the Safety Management. The Agency has Instructions for submitting written majority of participants supported the proposed improvements that would comments: Comments regarding CSA agency’s goal of improving the current simplify the Accident SEA, increase the 2010 can also be filed with the process through the CSA 2010 initiative. relevance of moving violations in the Department of Transportation’s Docket During the 2004 listening sessions, Driver SEA, include in the Vehicle SEA Management System (DMS). All the stakeholder community expressed vehicle out-of-service violations from submissions must include the Agency many different opinions regarding the inspections marked as driver-only, and name and docket number for this various entities, activities, and shorten the data exposure time period Notice. Note that all comments received environmental factors that contribute to considered by SAFESTAT from 30 will be posted without change to http:// safety. The sessions highlighted that months to 24 months. The proposed dms.dot.gov, including any personal safety indicators can be difficult to improvements are intended to make the information provided. Please see the identify and measure. Participants also algorithm more effective in identifying Privacy Statement heading for further commented on the effectiveness of motor carriers that pose a high crash information. current processes and offered creative risk. The proposed changes are also Docket: For access to the docket to ideas for FMCSA to consider when consistent with FMCSA’s CSA 2010 read background documents or crafting new policies and processes. For initiative. The ultimate goal of CSA comments received, go to http:// example, in almost every listening 2010 is development of an optimal dms.dot.gov at any time or the docket session, participants suggested using operational model that will allow (see ADDRESSES section above). If you incentives rather than penalties to FMCSA to focus its limited resources on want us to notify you that we received encourage safe behavior. Participants improving the safety performance of your comments, please include a self- expressed a strong interest in high-risk operators. The comment addressed, stamped envelope, postcard, comprehensive, consistent, relevant, period closed July 3, 2006. or print the acknowledgement page that and accurate data that are easily The results of FMCSA’s recent Large appears after submitting comments on- accessible to all. Some participants Truck Crash Causation Study also line. expressed a willingness to self-disclose provide important input for the Privacy Act: Anyone may search the data and to help keep safety data development of a new operational electronic form of all comments current. For further detail on the public model. This study was the first received into any of our dockets by the listening sessions, visit FMCSA’s Web nationwide examination focused on pre- name of the individual submitting the site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety- crash factors. Study findings indicate comment (or of the person signing the security/csalisteningsessions.htm and that drivers of large trucks and other comment, if submitted on behalf of an see the final report, ‘‘Comprehensive vehicles involved in truck crashes are association, business, labor union, etc.). Safety Analysis Listening Sessions.’’ ten times more likely to be the cause of You may review the Department of On July 20, 1998, the Agency issued the crash than other factors, such as Transportation’s complete Privacy Act an Advanced Notice of Proposed weather, road conditions, and vehicle Statement in the Federal Register Rulemaking (ANPRM), entitled ‘‘Safety performance. These results suggest that published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR Fitness Procedures’’ (63 FR 38788), efforts to assess safety performance and 19477; Apr. 11, 2000). This information seeking comments and supporting data to apply interventions to improve is also available at http://dms.dot.gov. on the issues that should be considered performance should focus on drivers. in developing a future safety fitness Among the changes under consideration Background rating system. Many of the participants in CSA 2010 are several that would In August 2004, FMCSA embarked on in the 2004 listening sessions suggested improve the data collected on drivers CSA 2010—a comprehensive review that FMCSA delay publishing a notice and would add interventions applicable and analysis of FMCSA’s current of proposed rulemaking until the to individual drivers. Additional commercial motor vehicle safety Agency makes its final decisions information on the Large Truck Crash compliance and enforcement programs regarding its long-term plan for Causation Study is available at http:// (69 FR 51748, August 20, 2004). The monitoring safety under CSA 2010. www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61133

Upcoming Listening Session: The functioning effectively to ensure carrier safety performance of a larger purpose of the upcoming listening acceptable compliance with the safety segment of the motor carrier industry, session is for FMCSA to update its fitness standard found at 49 CFR 385.5. while optimizing the use of Agency stakeholders and partners on the Currently, the safety ratings that result resources. CSA 2010 is designed to help progress that has been made since the from a CR are Satisfactory, Conditional, FMCSA affect a larger number of motor listening sessions in 2004. To facilitate or Unsatisfactory. FMCSA may take carriers and drivers using a broader the upcoming listening session, FMCSA enforcement actions against a motor array of compliance interventions. In has included in this notice a number of carrier as a result of the CR. conceptualizing a new operational questions designed to elicit input on Limitations of the Current Operational model, FMCSA began with a list of ideal possible features of the CSA 2010 Model attributes and components that it operational model. In responding to the believes should be part of any model for questions commenters are requested to FMCSA’s compliance and safety safety oversight: provide supporting rationale, and programs improve and promote safety Flexible—Adaptable to Changing supporting documentation wherever performance. However, despite Environment. Accommodate changes to possible. FMCSA plans to hold annual increases in the regulated population, as the transportation environment, such as CSA 2010 listening sessions to continue well as increased programmatic evolutions in technology and changing the process of updating partners and responsibilities, Agency resources programmatic responsibilities. stakeholders and receiving feedback. available for these efforts have remained Current Operational Model: To relatively constant over time. In its Efficient—Maximize Use of understand FMCSA’s goals for assessing present structure, FMCSA’s CR program Resources. Produce greater efficiencies and improving motor carrier safety, it is is resource-intensive and reaches only a by maximizing use of resources to important to understand the Agency’s small percentage of motor carriers. On- improve Agency productivity, as well as current process. FMCSA currently site CRs take one safety investigator an the safety performance of members of average of 3 to 4 days to complete, and collects several kinds of data on motor the motor carrier community. thereby determine a motor carrier’s carriers, including Federal and State safety fitness. At present staffing levels Effective—Improve Safety information on crashes and roadside FMCSA can perform CRs on only a Performance. Increase the quality of inspections, results of on-site small portion of the 700,000 active contact with the motor carrier compliance reviews, and enforcement interstate motor carriers. These factors community by identifying those actions. FMCSA uses the data to (1) have made it increasingly difficult to behaviors associated with poor safety, determine which motor carriers should make sustained improvements to motor and focusing compliance and safety be selected for on-site compliance carrier safety using existing programs efforts on those unsafe behaviors. reviews, and (2) determine the safety and information systems. In addition, fitness of motor carriers. To analyze the Innovative—Leverage Data and the Large Truck Crash Causation Study data it collects, the Agency uses Technology. Improve safety by clearly indicates that increased attention SAFESTAT. innovative use of data and technology to should be given to drivers. Although leverage its impact. Improve timeliness Each month, SAFESTAT generates a FMCSA determines, to a limited extent, list of high-priority motor carriers for and accuracy of data used for the compliance and safety of determining safety fitness, and pursuing which FMCSA plans compliance review commercial motor vehicle drivers and visits. In selecting motor carriers for enforcement actions against unsafe pursues enforcement against them if entities of the motor carrier community. compliance reviews, SAFESTAT works warranted, current FMCSA systems do with four SEAs referenced above: (1) A key factor to the success of this not evaluate the safety fitness of component is the information Accident, (2) Driver, (3) Vehicle, and (4) individual commercial motor vehicle Safety Management. For a full technology/business transformation drivers. project COMPASS. More information on description of the SAFESTAT For these reasons FMCSA is exploring methodology, visit FMCSA’s Web site COMPASS is available at http:// ways through CSA 2010 to improve its www.fmcsa.dot.gov. at: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov. current processes for monitoring and FMCSA issues a safety fitness assessing the safety performance of Equitable—Fair and Unbiased. Assess determination and a corresponding motor carriers and drivers. and evaluate motor carrier safety and safety rating as a result of an on-site enforce federal laws and safety compliance review (CR). The CR New Operational Model—CSA 2010 regulations to ensure consistent assesses whether a commercial motor The goal of CSA 2010 is to develop a treatment of similarly situated members carrier’s safety management controls are new approach to assessing the motor of the motor carrier community.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61134 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

One conceptual operational model for Measurement by the use of alcohol, drugs, or other CSA 2010 shown here would measure controlled substances. Data would A Measurement Component could include (1) hours-of-service violations safety performance and compliance, collect, categorize, analyze, and score discovered during a compliance review, determine safety fitness, recommend safety data on regulated entities. It could focused review, roadside inspection, or interventions, apply interventions, and automatically categorize data into track and evaluate safety improvements post-crash inspection, and (2) crash behavioral areas, examples of which are reports with driver fatigue as a for FMCSA regulated entities. The identified below as Behavioral Analysis model would continuously evaluate and contributing factor. and Safety Improvement Categories or 3. Driver Fitness—Operation of monitor regulated entities’ compliance BASICs. BASICs would represent commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by and safety performance. It would be behaviors that lead to or increase the drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV significantly different from the current consequences of crashes. Rather than due to lack of training, experience, or model in that the safety fitness rely on the results of a compliance medical qualification. Data would determination made under CSA 2010 review, FMCSA could use motor carrier include (1) inspection violations for would be independent of the or driver performance data in the failure to have a valid and appropriate compliance review. The safety fitness identified behavioral areas to determine commercial driver’s license, or medical determination would be based on safety fitness. The Measurement or training documentation, (2) crash performance data and would lead to a Component could be supported by the reports citing a lack of experience or broader array of compliance Safety Data Element, which would medical reason as a cause or interventions. include data from past interventions, contributory factor, and (3) violations crashes, motor vehicle/driver A conceptual model of this nature from a compliance review or focused inspections, and other data sources. The review for failure to maintain proper would be composed of four integrated goal of such a system would be to and independent components: (1) driver qualification files, or use of provide an objective, performance-based unqualified drivers. Measurement, (2) Safety Fitness measure for each motor carrier and Determination, (3) Intervention 4. Controlled Substances and driver. The measurement could be Alcohol—Operation of a CMV while Selection, and (4) Tracking, Evaluation regularly updated and made publicly impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, and Data Validation. These four available. Among the BASICs currently and misuse of prescription medications components are represented as under consideration to generate this or over-the-counter medications. Data diamonds in the Operational Model measure are: would include (1) roadside violations Concept diagram above. Components 1. Unsafe Driving—Dangerous or involving controlled substances or are the portions of the operational careless operation of commercial motor alcohol, (2) crash reports citing driver model in which a distinct action would vehicles. Data would include driver impairment or intoxication as a cause, occur. These components would be traffic violations and convictions for (3) positive drug or alcohol test results supported by three data elements that speeding, reckless driving, improper on drivers, and (4) lack of appropriate are represented by boxes in the diagram. lane change, inattention, and other testing or other deficiencies in motor They are (1) Safety Data, (2) Intervention unsafe driving behavior. carrier controlled substances and History, and (3) Entity Characteristics. 2. Fatigued Driving—Driving alcohol testing programs. Components and elements identified to commercial motor vehicles when 5. Vehicle Maintenance—CMV failure date which could be supportive of the fatigued. This would be distinguished due to improper or inadequate CSA 2010 initiative are described in from incidents where unconsciousness maintenance. Data would include (1) greater detail below. or an inability to react is brought about roadside violations for brakes, lights,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES EN17OC06.063 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61135

and other mechanical defects, (2) crash which sources should these data be prohibitions on operations contained in reports citing a mechanical failure as a obtained? Please describe. 49 U.S.C. 31144. contributing factor, or (3) violations 5. What methodology should be used Questions from a compliance review or focused to quantify the relationship between review associated with pre-trip crash causation and a given BASIC? If the CSA 2010 model were to inspections, maintenance records, and Please explain. include a Safety Fitness Determination repair records. 6. What other issues should the Component with some or all of the 6. Improper Loading/Cargo Agency be considering with respect to features described above: Securement—Shifting loads, spilled or the Measurement Component? 1. What other data or behavioral dropped cargo, and unsafe handling of 7. What do you see as the critical factors, beyond the BASICs referenced hazardous materials. Data would success factors for implementing a above, should be considered in the include (1) roadside inspection measurement system based on data from safety fitness determination process for violations pertaining to load the BASICs? What are key potential motor carriers or drivers? What data or securement, cargo retention, and obstacles to implementation? behavioral factors should not be hazardous material handling, and (2) considered and why? crash reports citing shifting loads, or Safety Fitness Determination 2. Should some BASICs be weighted spilled/dropped cargo as a cause or Under 49 U.S.C. 31144, FMCSA is more heavily than others? If so, which contributing factor. required to ‘‘maintain by regulation a ones and why? 7. Crash/Incident Experience— procedure for determining the safety 3. What is the appropriate timeframe Histories or patterns of high crash fitness of an owner or operator.’’ The that FMCSA should use in assessing involvement, including frequency and CSA 2010 conceptual model could safety fitness (e.g., the past 18 months, severity. Data would include law include a Safety Fitness Determination 24 months, 36 months)? Please explain. 4. How often (e.g., monthly, quarterly, enforcement crash reports and crashes Component to regularly determine the annually) should FMCSA assess safety reported by the carrier and discovered safety fitness of motor carriers and fitness and issue safety fitness during compliance reviews. drivers of commercial motor vehicles. determinations under the new The concept of quantifying This determination could be based on operational model? Please explain. compliance and safety by numerical performance-based data from the 5. Should safety fitness scores derived from data is not new to BASICs described above. This determinations be more stringent for FMCSA. While a Measurement component could also incorporate the certain industry groups such as Component would be similar in regulated entity’s history of responses to passenger carriers or carriers of approach to the agency’s current system, prior interventions. hazardous materials? Why or why not? SAFESTAT, there are key differences. In The Safety Fitness Determination 6. Should FMCSA adopt a two-tiered the Measurement Component, safety Component could be used to determine rating system (Continue to Operate or problems would be quantified by a whether a motor carrier, owner, or Unfit) instead of the current three-tiered greater number of behavioral areas operator can Continue to Operate or is rating system (Satisfactory, Conditional, associated with crash involvement and Unfit. On a regularly scheduled basis, and Unsatisfactory)? Why or why not? would use a broader range of available FMCSA could evaluate all safety 7. What other issues should the data. The goal is to identify poor performance and compliance-based Agency be considering with respect to performance early and take BASIC scores of each regulated entity. the Safety Fitness Determination interventions before small violations Safety fitness could be determined for Component? become larger safety problems. all carriers and drivers for which there is sufficient data and could be Intervention Selection and Entity Questions determined on a regular basis as new Characteristics If the CSA 2010 model were to data enter the operational model. A The CSA 2010 conceptual model include a Measurement Component compliance review would not be could include an Interventions with some or all of the features required prior to a safety fitness Component which would identify described above: determination. FMCSA anticipates a appropriate FMCSA interventions for 1. Are the BASICs, referenced above, change of this nature would result in a regulated entities with specific safety sufficient for measuring the safety significant increase in the number of problems, depending on the outcomes performance of commercial motor safety fitness determinations issued by of the Safety Fitness Determination and carriers and drivers? If not, what other the Agency. The safety fitness Measurement Components. An categories of data should be used? determinations and the methodology intervention, as used in this context, 2. Should the BASICs be weighted used would be made available to the refers to any action FMCSA would take and scored in determining an objective public, as they are today. to correct unsafe behavior and achieve measure of the safety performance of Currently, a safety fitness compliance. Aside from roadside each commercial motor vehicle driver determination results in a rating of inspections, the primary compliance and carrier, if so, how? Please explain. Satisfactory, Conditional, or intervention currently used is the 3. What is the appropriate historical Unsatisfactory. In the operational model compliance review. In the approach timeframe to use when measuring the under consideration, only two ratings under consideration, the Agency could safety performance of CMV drivers and would be used: Continue to Operate or have a broader array of interventions, carriers (how far to look back)? Should Unfit. However, carriers, drivers, or including: (1) Web-based education, (2) the timeframe for carriers be different owner-operators allowed to continue warning letters, (3) request for from the timeframe for drivers? Please operations could be subject to a submission of documents, (4) targeted explain. pending, intermediary intervention, as roadside inspections, (5) focused on-site 4. What data should be used in each discussed below. Those with the most reviews, (6) comprehensive on-site of the BASICs to provide an objective egregious safety problems could be reviews, and (7) enforcement actions. measure of the safety performance of deemed Unfit immediately and, in that An Interventions Component of this CMV drivers and carriers, and from case, would be subject to the nature would not necessarily rely on a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61136 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

compliance review to determine 7. How should responses to FMCSA 4. What unique identifiers should be appropriate interventions. Measurement interventions be factored into the safety used to tie drivers and carriers to their and Safety Fitness Determination fitness determinations? safety performance data? Components under consideration could Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation 5. Are there any major obstacles that allow a driver or carrier to continue and Data Validation must be overcome to achieving accurate operating, but with some intermediary and complete data for use in the new intervention pending. The Interventions Given the data-dependent nature of operational model? Please explain. Component would be designed as a tool the CSA 2010 model under 6. What other issues should the to support correction of unsafe behavior. consideration, data validation would be Agency be considering with respect to Once it has been determined that an essential. As FMCSA deploys its IT Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation intervention is necessary, an modernization project, COMPASS, as and Data Validation? intervention could be selected to the IT foundation for CSA 2010, robust 7. Radio frequency identification effectively and efficiently remediate the data validation systems and techniques device (RFID)-enabled license plates unsafe behavior. Interventions could be would be employed to ensure the could be used to identify commercial selected according to the BASIC scores accuracy and completeness of data. The motor vehicles at highway speeds. This from the Measurement and Safety information systems supporting the CSA could help focus inspection and traffic Fitness Determination components, and 2010 model eventually adopted would enforcement activities on unsafe or the Entity Characteristics and examine the quality of incoming data by unregistered entities. What barriers Interventions History Data Elements. checking for anomalies. As it does would there be to States’ issuing RFID A Characteristics Data Element could currently, FMCSA would also ensure enabled license plates? influence what type of intervention is that regulated entities would have a way selected. For example, a motor carrier to correct data. The Agency’s DataQs Other Considerations transporting passengers could be System already provides an electronic FMCSA is targeting full deployment selected for a stronger intervention than means for filing concerns about the of CSA 2010 by calendar year 2010, a general freight hauler, depending on Federal and State data that FMCSA subject to budgetary constraints. The the circumstances involved and releases to the public. Through this following timeline provides the major available information. system, data concerns are automatically milestone dates that are planned prior to Responses to prior interventions forwarded to the appropriate office for targeted deployment: resolution. The system also allows filers could be considered in the selection of Define operational model 2006 to 2010. future interventions through the to monitor the status of each filing. technical requirements. Interventions History Data Element. The Tracking, Evaluation and Data Prototype 1 development 2006 to 2007. Responses to prior interventions could Validation Component under and testing. also be considered by the Safety Fitness consideration could support the three Pilot test development ..... 2006 to 2007. Determination Component. other components identified here: Pilot testing ...... 2008. Measurement, Safety Fitness Evaluate pilot test results 2009. Questions Determination, and Intervention Develop/define data re- 2006 to 2009. If the CSA 2010 model were to Selection. The information systems sources. include an Interventions Component Develop data systems and 2006 to 2009. supporting CSA 2010 would track software. with some or all of the features regulated entities and would associate Develop/draft new 2007 to 2009. described above: them with the relevant data collected by rulemakings. 1. Would the larger set of compliance FMCSA. Data pertaining to regulated Develop/draft needed leg- 2007 to 2008. interventions under consideration here entities could include characteristics, islation. be more effective than the interventions BASIC scores, safety fitness Develop/draft new poli- 2007 to 2009. currently used by FMCSA? Please determinations, interventions, and cies. explain. responses to interventions. FMCSA is Training for pilot testing .. 2006 to 2007. 2. Are there other types of driver and working to replace existing paperwork Training for deployment .. 2008 to 2009. Outreach & public listen- Annually. carrier interventions not described tracking systems with automated data ing sessions. above that would improve motor carrier collection systems so that safety fitness Deploy ...... 2010. safety? Please describe. determinations are made with the most 1 Prototype refers to testing in a laboratory 3. Are there specific incentives that current data available. environment, whereas pilot refers to actual testing with State partners. FMCSA could offer to encourage and Questions promote improved safety performance? Questions Please describe. If the CSA 2010 model were to 4. Should FMCSA use different include a safety data component with 1. What approaches do you interventions and intervention some or all of the features described recommend FMCSA use to work closely thresholds for certain carriers and above: with its partners and stakeholders in drivers, such as those involved in the 1. What safety data are available that building the CSA 2010 operational transport of passengers or hazardous are not currently being used to measure model? Please explain. materials? Please explain. the safety performance of drivers and 2. Are there certain initiatives which 5. Would you support a system carriers? would support the CSA 2010 whereby FMCSA would declare CMV 2. Are there safety data not available operational model eventually adopted drivers Unfit, if warranted, and the that are needed for this approach to be that could be implemented now? Please States would suspend their driver’s equitable? If so, please describe and explain. license (commercial or other)? Please discuss any potential barriers to 3. Please provide any additional explain. collecting such data. comments or information you may have 6. What other issues should the 3. How could FMCSA better that would be relevant to the Agency be considering with respect to incorporate data quality assurance development of the CSA 2010 the Interventions Selection Component? processes into CSA 2010? operational model.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61137

Issued on: October 11, 2006. • Indications of possible longitudinal Railroad Administration (FRA) received John H. Hill, defects estimated to be greater than 2 a request for a waiver of compliance Administrator. inches will be verified immediately. with certain requirements of its safety • [FR Doc. 06–8723 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Indications of possible bolt hole standards. The individual petition is BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P cracks estimated to be greater than 1 described below, including the party inch in joint bars, and any indications seeking relief, the regulatory provisions of possible bolt hole cracks not within involved, the nature of the relief being DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION joint bars, will be verified immediately. requested, and the petitioner’s • Indications not requiring immediate arguments in favor of relief. Federal Railroad Administration verification will be verified within 48 hours. Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR) Petition for Waiver of Compliance Since FRA has not yet completed its Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA– investigation of BNSF’s petition, the 2000–7094 In accordance with part 211 of Title agency takes no position at this time on The Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR) 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations the merits of BNSF’s stated has petitioned for a continued waiver of (CFR), notice is hereby given that the justifications. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) All communications concerning these compliance for train employees from the has received a request for a waiver of proceedings should identify the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 21103(a), the compliance with certain requirements of appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Federal hours of service law (HSL). This its safety standards. The individual Petition Docket Number 2006–25894) provision requires the railroad to petition is described below, including and must be submitted to the Docket neither require nor allow train the party seeking relief, the regulatory Clerk, DOT Docket Management employees to begin or remain on duty provisions involved, the nature of the Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), in excess of 12 hours in a 24-hour relief being requested, and the 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC period without receiving the petitioner’s arguments in favor of relief. 20590. Communications received within appropriate 8 or 10-hour statutory off- duty period. However, the HSL contains BNSF Railway Company 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final an exemption (49 U.S.C. 21102(b)) Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA– action is taken. Comments received after permitting a railroad, that employs not 2006–25894 that date will be considered as far as more than 15 employees subject to the practicable. All written communications statute to seek an exemption from the Part 213 of Title 49 at § 213.113(a) concerning these proceedings are 12-hour limitation. PVRR states that it is states, in part ‘‘* * * when an owner of available for examination during regular not its intention to employ a train crew track learns, through inspection or business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the over 12 hours per day under normal otherwise, that a rail in track contains above facility. All documents in the circumstances, but this exemption, if any of the defects listed * * *, public docket are also available for continued, would help its operation if operation over the defective rail is not inspection and copying on the Internet unusual operating conditions are permitted until (1) The rail is replaced; at the docket facility’s Web site at encountered. Interested parties are invited to or (2) The remedial action prescribed http://dms.dot.gov. participate in these proceedings by * * * is initiated.’’ Based on the Anyone is able to search the submitting written views, data, or forgoing, when a rail flaw detector electronic form of all comments comments. FRA does not anticipate operator picks an ultrasonic indication received into any of our dockets by the scheduling a public hearing in for hand test verification, that indication name of the individual submitting the connection with these proceedings since must be considered a defect and comment (or signing the comment, if the facts do not appear to warrant a remedial action taken until hand test submitted on behalf of an association, hearing. If any interested party desires determines it is not a defect. BNSF business, labor union, etc.). You may an opportunity for oral comment, they Railway Company (BNSF) believes post- review DOT’s complete Privacy Act should notify FRA, in writing, before test processing of detected rail-flaw data Statement in the Federal Register the end of the comment period and has potential to increase rail test published on April 11, 2000, (Volume specify the basis for their request. productivity and therefore improve 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The All communications concerning these safety by increasing frequency of testing. statement may also be found at http:// proceedings should identify the BNSF is proposing a delayed- dms.dot.gov. appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver verification pilot program to Issued in Washington, DC, October 11, demonstrate feasability and benefits of Petition Docket Number 2000–7094) and 2006. must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, nonstop rail flaw test with delayed Grady C. Cothen, Jr., verification. BNSF proposes a delayed- DOT Docket Management Facility, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th verification pilot program to Standards and Program Development. demonstrate feasibility and benefits of Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. [FR Doc. E6–17165 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] nonstop testing with delayed Communications received within 45 verification on its Barstow, Aurora, and BILLING CODE 4910–06–P days of the date of this notice will be St. Croix subdivisions. The elements of considered by FRA before final action is BNSF’s program pilot program are: taken. Comments received after that DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION date will be considered as far as • If million gross tons of traffic since practicable. All written communications last rail test is greater than 10, all Federal Railroad Administration concerning these proceedings are indications of possible defects will be Petition for Waiver of Compliance available for examination during regular verified immediately. business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the • Indications of possible transverse In accordance with Part 211 of Title above facility. All documents in the defects estimated to be greater than 25 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), public docket are also available for percent will be verified immediately. notice is hereby given that the Federal inspection and copying on the Internet

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61138 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

at the docket facility’s Web site at and the moving of future control of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION http://dms.dot.gov. facility to the CSXT Operations Center, Anyone is able to search the located in Jacksonville, Florida. Surface Transportation Board electronic form of all comments The reason given for the proposed [STB Ex Parte No. 665] received into any of our dockets by the changes is that under the proposed name of the individual submitting the rationalization plan, the power-operated Rail Transportation of Grain comment (or signing the comment, if switches will not be required. Trains submitted on behalf of an association, approaching from the north will operate AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. business, labor union, etc.). You may at a slow speed through Stanley ACTION: Notice of public hearing. review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Interlocking. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Statement in the Federal Register Any interested party desiring to Board will hold a public hearing published on April 11, 2000 (Volume protest the granting of an application beginning at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The shall set forth specifically the grounds November 2, 2006, at its offices in Statement may also be found at http:// upon which the protest is made, and Washington, DC. The purpose of the dms.dot.gov. include a concise statement of the public hearing will be to examine issues Issued in Washington, DC on October 11, interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest related to the transportation of grain by 2006. rail. Persons wishing to speak at the Grady C. Cothen, Jr., shall be furnished to the applicant at the addresses listed above. hearing should notify the Board in Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety writing. Standards and Program Development. All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the DATES: The public hearing will take [FR Doc. E6–17164 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] docket number and must be submitted place on Thursday November 2, 2006. BILLING CODE 4910–06–P to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Any person wishing to speak at the Management Facility, Room PL–401 hearing should file with the Board a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., written notice of intent to participate, Washington, DC 20590–0001. and should identify the party, the Federal Railroad Administration Communications received within 45 proposed speaker, the time requested, days of the date of this notice will be and the topic(s) to be covered, as soon Notice of Application for Approval of considered by the FRA before final as possible but no later than October 23, Discontinuance orModification of a action is taken. Comments received after 2006. Each speaker should also file with Railroad Signal System or Relief from that date will be considered as far as the Board his/her written testimony by the Requirements of Title 49 Code of practicable. All written communications October 30, 2006. Written submissions Federal Regulations Part 236 concerning these proceedings are by interested persons who do not wish available for examination during regular to appear at the hearing will also be due Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the by October 30, 2006. Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 above facility. All documents in the ADDRESSES: All notices of intent to U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroads public docket are also available for participate and testimony may be have petitioned the Federal Railroad inspection and copying on the internet submitted either via the Board’s e-filing Administration (FRA) seeking approval at the docket facility’s Web site at http:// format or in the traditional paper for the discontinuance or modification dms.dot.gov. format. Any person using e-filing should of the signal system or relief from the FRA wishes to inform all potential comply with the Board’s requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as commenters that anyone is able to www.stb.dot.gov Web site, at the ‘‘E- detailed below. search the electronic form of all Filing’’ link. Any person submitting a Docket Number FRA–2006–25847 comments received into any of our filing in the traditional paper format dockets by the name of the individual Applicants: CSX Transportation, should send an original and 10 copies submitting the comment (or signing the Incorporated, Mr. C. M. King,Chief of the filing to: Surface Transportation comment, if submitted on behalf of an Engineer, Communications and Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 665, 1925 association, business, labor union, etc.). Signals,500 Water Street, SC J– K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– You may review DOT’s complete 350,Jacksonville, Florida 32202. Norfolk 0001. Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Southern Corporation, R.J. Rumsey, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Register published on April 11, 2000 Assistant Vice President, C&S,99 Spring Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1609. (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– Street, SW.Atlanta, Georgia 30303. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is CSX Transportation, Incorporated 78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. available through the Federal FRA expects to be able to determine (CSXT) and Norfolk Southern Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: these matters without an oral hearing. Corporation (NS), jointly seek approval (800) 877–8339.] However, if a specific request for an oral of the proposed modification of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On hearing is accompanied by a showing signal system, at Stanley Tower October 6, 2006, the United States that the party is unable to adequately Interlocking, milepost CTT–19.50, near Government Accountability Office present his or her position by written Toledo, Ohio, on CSXT’s Chicago (GAO) released a report that included statements, an application may be set Division, Toledo Terminal Subdivision. observations on rates, competition, and for public hearing. The proposed changes consist of the capacity issues in the American rail conversion of power-operated switches, Issued in Washington, DC on October 11, freight industry. GAO reported that the numbers 7 and 8 to hand operation, and 2006. changes that have occurred in the rail the discontinuance and removal of Grady C. Cothen, Jr., industry since the Staggers Rail Act of controlled signals, numbers 3, 5, 6, and Deputy Associate Administrator for 1980 are widely viewed as positive. The 11. The proposed changes are associated Safety,Standards and Program Development. financial health of the industry has with a major track and signal [FR Doc. E6–17166 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] improved substantially as railroads have rationalization plan at Stanley Tower, BILLING CODE 4910–06–P cut costs and boosted productivity. GAO

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61139

found that most rates have declined By the Board, Vernon A. Williams, a petition to revoke will not since 1985. However, one category of Secretary. automatically stay the transaction. rates examined by GAO—grain rates— Vernon A. Williams, An original and 10 copies of all diverged from the industry trends. Secretary. pleadings, referring to STB Finance According to the GAO report, the [FR Doc. E6–17151 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] Docket No. 34927, must be filed with amount of grain traffic with BILLING CODE 4915–00–P the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 comparatively high markups over K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– variable cost increased notably between 0001. In addition, a copy of each 1985 and 2004. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION pleading must be served on Sidney L. The Board will hold a public hearing, Strickland, Jr., Sidney Strickland and Surface Transportation Board as a forum for interested persons to Associates, PLLC, 3050 K Street, NW., provide views and information about Suite 101, Washington, DC 20007. [STB Finance Docket No. 34927] the market conditions that led to these Board decisions and notices are observations by GAO and about grain available on our Web site at http:// Coast Belle Rail Corp. d/b/a Santa www.stb.dot.gov. transportation markets in general. Maria Valley Railroad—Lease and Because U.S. grain producers compete Operation Exemption—Line of Coast Decided: October 6, 2006. in a broader North American, and Belle Rail, LLC By the Board, David M. Konschnik, global, marketplace, the Board also Director, Office of Proceedings. invites information regarding the Coast Belle Rail Corp. d/b/a Santa Vernon A. Williams, interplay between the American and Maria Valley Railroad (CBRC), a Secretary. Canadian wheat markets, how the noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of [FR Doc. E6–17144 Filed 10–13–06; 8:45 am] exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to Canadian regulatory system differs from BILLING CODE 4915–01–P the American system, and what impact operate approximately 8.74 miles of rail those differences might have on grain line owned by Coast Belle Rail, LLC. production in the United States. The line extends between milepost 3.26 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date of Hearing. The hearing will near Guadalupe, CA, and milepost 9.0 at begin at 10 a.m. on Thursday, November Santa Maria, CA, and includes the Surface Transportation Board Airbase branch between milepost 9A at 2, 2006, in the 7th floor hearing room [STB Finance Docket No. 34923] at the Board’s headquarters in Santa Maria and milepost 12A. In the Washington, DC, and will continue, notice, CBRC also seeks to lease by Coast Belle Rail, LLC—Acquisition with short breaks if necessary, until assignment and operate 4.26 miles of Exemption—Santa Maria Valley every person scheduled to speak has rail line between milepost 0.0 and Railroad Company been heard. milepost 3.26, including the branch between milepost 3A at Betteravia Coast Belle Rail, LLC (CBRL), a Notice of Intent To Participate. Any Junction southeast and milepost 4A in noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of person wishing to speak at the hearing Betteravia, CA, all located in Santa exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to should file with the Board a written Barbara County, CA. The lease of this acquire from the Santa Maria Valley notice of intent to participate, and line of railroad, owned by the Union Railroad Company (SMVRR) should identify the party, the proposed Pacific Railroad Company and presently approximately 8.74 miles of rail line speaker, the time requested, and topic(s) leased to Santa Maria Valley Railroad between milepost 3.26 near Guadalupe, to be covered, as soon as possible, but Company, is being assigned to CBRC. CA, and milepost 9.0 at Santa Maria, no later than October 23, 2006. CBRC will operate a total of 13.0 miles CA, including the Airbase branch Testimony. Each speaker should file of rail line. between milepost 9A at Santa Maria and with the Board his/her written CBRC certifies that its projected milepost 12A, all located in Santa testimony by October 30, 2006. Also, annual revenues as a result of the Barbara County, CA. any interested person who wishes to transaction will not exceed those that CBRL certifies that its projected submit a written statement without would qualify it as a Class III rail annual revenues as a result of the appearing at the November 2 hearing carrier. transaction will not exceed those that should file that statement by October 30, The transaction was scheduled to be would qualify it as a Class III rail 2006. consummated on or soon after carrier. Board Releases and Live Audio September 26, 2006, the effective date of The transaction was expected to be Available Via the Internet. Decisions the exemption (7 days after the consummated on or soon after and notices of the Board, including this exemption was filed). September 26, 2006, the effective date of notice, are available on the Board’s Web This transaction is related to a this exemption (7 days after the site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. This concurrently filed verified notice of exemption was filed). hearing will be available on the Board’s exemption in STB Finance Docket No. This transaction is related to a Web site by live audio streaming. To 34923, Coast Belle Rail, LLC— concurrently filed verified notice of access the hearing, click on the ‘‘Live Acquisition Exemption—Santa Maria exemption in STB Finance Docket No. Audio’’ link under ‘‘Information Center’’ Valley Railroad Company. In that 34927, Coast Belle Rail Corp. d/b/a at the left side of the home page proceeding, Coast Belle Rail, LLC seeks Santa Maria Valley Railroad—Lease beginning at 10 a.m. on November 2, to acquire the 8.74 miles of rail line in and Operation Exemption—Line of 2006. Santa Barbara County, CA, that CBRC Coast Belle Rail, LLC. In that seeks to operate. proceeding, Coast Belle Rail Corp. d/b/ This action will not significantly If the verified notice contains false or a Santa Maria Valley Railroad (CBRC) affect either the quality of the human misleading information, the exemption seeks to (1) operate the 8.74-mile line of environment or the conservation of is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the railroad being acquired by CBRL, and energy resources. exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) (2) lease and operate an adjoining 4.26 Dated: October 11, 2006. may be filed at any time. The filing of miles of rail line owned by Union

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61140 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Pacific Railroad Company. The 4.26- Description: U.S. Corporations that Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution mile line of railroad is presently leased have elected to be an interest charge Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. to Santa Maria Valley Railroad domestic international sales corporation OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, Company and will be assigned to CBRC. (IC–DISC) file Form 1120 IC–DISC to (202) 395–7316, Office of Management CBRC will operate a total of 13.0 miles report their income and deductions. The and Budget, Room 10235, New of rail line, all located in Santa Barbara IC–DISC is not taxed, but IC–DISC Executive Office Building, Washington, County, CA. shareholders are taxed on their share of DC 20503. If the verified notice contains false or IC–DISC income. IRS uses Form 1120– Robert Dahl, misleading information, the exemption IC–DISC to check the IC–DISC’s Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the computation of income. Schedule K exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) (Form 1120–IC–DISC) is used to report [FR Doc. E6–17163 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] may be filed at any time. The filing of income to shareholders; Schedule P BILLING CODE 4830–01–P a petition to revoke will not (Form 1120–IC–DISC) is used by the IC– automatically stay the transaction. An DISC to report its dealing with related DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY original and 10 copies of all pleadings, suppliers, etc. referring to STB Finance Docket No. Respondents: Businesses and for- Office of the Assistant Secretary for 34923, must be filed with the Surface profit institutions. International Affairs; Survey of U.S. Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, Estimated Total Burden Hours: Ownership of Foreign Securities as of NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 229,676 hours. December 31, 2006 addition, a copy of each pleading must OMB Number: 1545–2018. be served on Sidney L. Strickland, Jr., Type of Review: Extension. AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Sidney Strickland and Associates, Title: Revenue Procedure 2006–XX, Department of the Treasury. PLLC, 3050 K Street, NW., Suite 101, Revocation of Election filed under I.R.C. ACTION: Notice of reporting Washington, DC 20007. 83(b). requirements. Board decisions and notices are Description: This revenue procedure sets forth the procedures to be followed SUMMARY: By this notice, the available on our Web site at http:// Department of the Treasury is informing www.stb.dot.gov. by individuals who wish to request permission to revoke the election they the public that it is conducting a Decided: October 6, 2006. made under section 83(b). mandatory survey of ownership of By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Respondents: Individuals or foreign securities by U.S. residents as of Director, Office of Proceedings. Households. December 31, 2006. This notice Vernon A. Williams, Estimated Total Burden Hours: 400 constitutes legal notification to all Secretary. hours. United States persons (defined below) [FR Doc. E6–17141 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] OMB Number: 1545–2015. who meet the reporting requirements set BILLING CODE 4915–01–P Type of Review: Extension. forth in this notice that they must Title: Tax Exempt Hospitals respond to this survey. United States Compliance Check Questionnaire. persons who meet the reporting DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Description: A form to solicit requirements but who do not receive a information pertaining to the operations set of the survey forms and instructions Submission for OMB Review; of tax exempt hospitals. Respondents should contact the Federal Reserve Bank Comment Request will include hospitals claiming of New York, acting as fiscal agent for exemption from Federal income tax the Department of the Treasury, at (212) October 11, 2006. under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 720–6300 to obtain a copy. Additional The Department of the Treasury has Revenue Code. copies of the reporting form SHC (end- submitted the following public Respondents: Not-for-profit Dec. 2006) and instructions may be information collection requirement(s) to institutions. printed from the Internet at: http:// OMB for review and clearance under the Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,540 www.treas.gov/tic/forms-sh.html. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, hours. Definition: A U.S. person is any Public Law 104–13. Copies of the OMB Number: 1545–0115. individual, branch, partnership, submission(s) may be obtained by Type of Review: Extension. associated group, association, estate, calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Title: Miscellaneous Income. trust, corporation, or other organization Officer listed. Comments regarding this Form: 1099–MISC. (whether or not organized under the information collection should be Description: Form 1099–MISC is used laws of any State), and any government addressed to the OMB reviewer listed by payers to report payments of $600 or (including a foreign government, the and to the Treasury Department more of rents, prizes and awards, United States Government, a State, Clearance Officer, Department of the medical and health care payments, non- provincial, or local government, and any Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 employee compensation, and crop agency, corporation, financial Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., insurance proceeds, $10 or more of institution, or other entity or Washington, DC 20220. royalties, any amount of fishing boat instrumentality thereof, including a DATES: Written comments should be proceeds, certain substitute payments, government-sponsored agency), who received on or before November 16, golden parachute payments, and an resides in the United States or is subject 2006 to be assured of consideration. indication of direct sales of $5,000 or to the jurisdiction of the United States. more. Who Must Report: The following U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Respondents: Business or other for persons must report on this survey: OMB Number: 1545–0938. profit institutions. • U.S. persons who manage, as Type of Review: Extension. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,513 custodians, the safekeeping of foreign Title: Interest Charge Domestic hours. securities for U.S. persons. These U.S. International Sales Corporation Return. Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland, persons, who include the affiliates in Forms: 1120 IC–DISC. (202) 622–3428, Internal Revenue the United States of foreign entities,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61141

must report on this survey if the total person is not required to respond to, a Managing Director, Examinations and market value of the foreign securities collection of information unless it Supervision—Operations, Office of whose safekeeping they manage on displays a valid control number Thrift Supervision (OTS), or her behalf of U.S. persons—aggregated over assigned by OMB. The estimated designee, acting pursuant to delegated all accounts and for all branches and average annual burden associated with authority, approved the application of affiliates of their firm—is $100 million this collection of information is 16 Citizens Community MHC and Citizens or more as of the close of business on hours per respondent for exempt Community Federal, Eau Claire, December 31, 2006. reporters, 40 hours per respondent Wisconsin, to convert to the stock form • U.S. persons who own foreign reporting U.S resident custodian of organization. Copies of the securities. These U.S. persons, who information on Schedule 3, 120 hours application are available for inspection include the affiliates in the United per U.S resident investor providing States of foreign entities, must report on by appointment (phone number: 202– detailed information on Schedule 2, and 906–5922 or e-mail. this survey if the total market value of 360 hours per U.S. resident custodian [email protected]) at the these foreign securities—aggregated over reporting detailed information on Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, all accounts and for all branches and Schedule 2. Comments concerning the affiliates of their firm—is $100 million accuracy of this burden estimate and NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the or more as of the close of business on suggestions for reducing this burden OTS Midwest Regional Office, 225 East December 31, 2006. should be directed to the Department of John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 500, What to Report: This report will the Treasury, Attention Administrator, Irving, TX 75062–2326. collect information on U.S. resident International Portfolio Investment Data Dated: October 11, 2006. holdings of foreign securities, i.e. Reporting Systems, Room 5422 MT, equities, long-term debt securities, and By the Office of Thrift Supervision. Washington, DC 20220, and to OMB, Sandra E. Evans, short-term debt securities (including Attention Desk Officer for the selected money market instruments). Department of the Treasury, Office of Legal Information Assistant. How to Report: Copies of the survey Information and Regulatory Affairs, [FR Doc. 06–8710 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] forms and instructions, which contain Washington, DC 20503. BILLING CODE 6720–01–M complete information on reporting procedures, may be obtained at the Web Dated: October 11, 2006. site address given above in the Dwight Wolkow, SUMMARY, or by contacting the survey Administrator, International Portfolio DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New Investment Data Reporting Systems. AFFAIRS York at (212) 720–6300, e-mail: [FR Doc. E6–17159 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] [email protected]. The mailing BILLING CODE 4810–37–P Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research address is: Federal Reserve Bank of New and Development and Clinical Science York, Statistics Function, 4th Floor, 33 Research and Development Services Liberty Street, New York, NY 10045– DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice 0001. of Meetings When to Report: Data must be Office of Thrift Supervision submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank The Department of Veterans Affairs of New York, acting as fiscal agent for [AC–05: OTS Nos. 17873, H4059, H4060, and H4317] the Department of the Treasury, by gives notice under the Public Law 92– March 2, 2007. 463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) Citizens Community Federal, Citizens that the subcommittees of the Joint Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This Community MHC, Citizens Community data collection has been approved by Biomedical Laboratory Research and Bancorp, and Citizens Community Development and Clinical Science the Office of Management and Budget Bancorp, Inc., Eau Claire, WI; Approval Research and Development Services (OMB) in accordance with the of Conversion Application Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned Scientific Merit Review Board will meet control number 1505–0146. An agency Notice is hereby given that on from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. as indicated may not conduct or sponsor, and a September 11, 2006, the Assistant below:

Subcommittee for Date(s) Location

Nephrology ...... November 6, 2006 ...... Beacon Hotel. Surgery ...... November 13, 2006 ...... Embassy Suites Hotel. Endocrinology-A ...... November 13–14, 2006 ...... Churchill Hotel. Cellular & Molecular Medicine ...... November 15, 2006 ...... *VA Central Office. Hematology ...... November 16, 2006 ...... *VA Central Office. Immunology-A ...... November 16, 2006 ...... Holiday Inn Central. Endocrinology-B ...... November 17, 2006 ...... Hotel Helix. Neurobiology-D ...... November 17, 2006 ...... One Washington Circle. Cardiovascular Studies-A ...... November 20, 2006 ...... Embassy Suites Hotel. Mental Hlth & Behav Sciences-A ...... November 27, 2006 ...... DoubleTree Hotel. Infectious Diseases-B ...... November 29, 2006 ...... DoubleTree Hotel. Cardiovascular Studies-B ...... November 30, 2006 ...... *VA Central Office. Gastroenterology ...... November 30, 2006 ...... Hotel Rouge. Infectious Diseases-A ...... December 1, 2006 ...... *VA Central Office. Neurobiology-A ...... December 4, 2006 ...... One Washington Circle. Oncology-A ...... December 4–5, 2006 ...... Churchill Hotel. Respiration ...... December 6, 2006 ...... Beacon Hotel. Immunology-B ...... December 7, 2006 ...... Churchill Hotel. Epidemiology ...... December 8, 2006 ...... *VA Central Office.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES 61142 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices

Subcommittee for Date(s) Location

Neurobiology-E ...... December 11, 2006 ...... *VA Central Office. Oncology-B ...... December 11–12, 2006 ...... St. Gregory Hotel. Mental Hlth & Behav Sciences-B ...... December 13, 2006 ...... DoubleTree Hotel. Neurobiology-C ...... December 14–15, 2006 ...... DoubleTree Hotel. * Teleconference.

The addresses of the hotels and VA Proposals submitted for review by the disclosure of which could significantly Central Office are: Board involve a wide range of medical frustrate implementation of proposed Beacon Hotel & Corporate Quarters, specialties within the general areas of agency action regarding such research 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., biomedical, behavioral and clinic projects. Washington, DC; DoubleTree Hotel, science research. As provided by subsection 10(d) of 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., The subcommittee meetings will be Public Law 92–463, as amended, closing Washington, DC; Embassy Suites Hotel, open to the public for approximately portions of these subcommittee 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, one hour at the start of each meeting to meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C., DC; Holiday Inn Central, 1501 Rhode discuss the general status of the Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; program. The remaining portion of each 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). Those who plan to Hotel Helix, 1430 Rhode Island Avenue, subcommittee meeting will be closed to attend or would like to obtain a copy of NW., Washington, DC; Hotel Rouge, the public for the review, discussion, minutes of the subcommittee meetings 1315–16th Street, NW., Washington, DC; and evaluation of initial and renewal and rosters of the members of the One Washington Circle Hotel, One projects. subcommittees should contact LeRoy G. Washington Circle, NW., Washington, The closed portion of each meeting Frey, PhD., Chief, Program Review DC; St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, involves discussion, examination, (121F), Department of Veterans Affairs, NW., Washington, DC; The Churchill reference to staff and consultant 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Hotel, 1914 Connecticut Avenue, NW., critiques of research protocols. During Washington, DC 20420 at (202) 254– Washington, DC; VA Central Office, this portion of each subcommittee 0288. 1722 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC. meeting, discussion and Dated: October 11, 2006. The purpose of the Merit Review recommendations will deal with By Direction of the Secretary. Board is to provide advice on the qualifications of personnel conducting scientific quality, budget, safety and the studies, the disclosure of which E. Philip Riggin, mission relevance of investigator- would constitute a clearly unwarranted Committee Management Officer. initiated research proposals submitted invasion of personal privacy, as well as [FR Doc. 06–8729 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] for VA merit review consideration. research information, the premature BILLING CODE 8320–01–M

VerDate Aug<31>2005 04:06 Oct 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM 17OCN1 bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 50 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61144 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The EPA Docket Center suffered B. Need for Revision of the Current AGENCY damage due to flooding during the last Primary PM10 Standards week of June 2006. The Docket Center 1. Overview of the Proposal 40 CFR Part 50 is continuing to operate. However, 2. Comments on the Need for Revision C. Indicator for Thoracic Coarse Particles during the cleanup, there will be [EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0017; FRL–8225–3] 1. Introduction temporary changes to Docket Center 2. Comments on Indicator for Thoracic telephone numbers, addresses, and RIN 2060–AI44 Coarse Particles hours of operation for people who wish 3. Decision Not to Revise PM10 Indicator National Ambient Air Quality to visit the Public Reading Room to a. Unqualified PM10–2.5 Indicator Standards for Particulate Matter view documents. Consult EPA’s Federal b. PM10 Indicator Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, c. Unqualified PM10 Indicator, with AGENCY: Environmental Protection 2006) or the EPA Web site at Adjustment to the PM2.5 Component Agency (EPA). 4. Conclusions Regarding Indicator for www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for Thoracic Coarse Particles ACTION: Final rule. current information on docket status, D. Conclusions Regarding Averaging Time, locations and telephone numbers. Form, and Level of the Current PM10 SUMMARY: Based on its review of the air FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Standards quality criteria and national ambient air 1. Averaging Time Beth M. Hassett-Sipple, Mail Code quality standards (NAAQS) for 2. Level and Form of the 24-Hour PM10 particulate matter (PM), EPA is making C504–06, Health and Environmental Standard Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality revisions to the primary and secondary E. Final Decisions on Primary PM10 NAAQS for PM to provide increased Planning and Standards, U.S. Standards protection of public health and welfare, Environmental Protection Agency, IV. Rationale for Final Decisions on Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Secondary PM Standards respectively. With regard to primary A. Visibility Impairment standards for fine particles (generally 27711, telephone: (919) 541–4605, e- mail: [email protected]. 1. Visibility Impairment Related to referring to particles less than or equal Ambient PM to 2.5 micrometers (µm) in diameter, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2. Need for Revision of the Current PM2.5), EPA is revising the level of the Table of Contents Secondary PM2.5 Standards to Protect 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 Visibility micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) and The following topics are discussed in 3. Indicator of PM for Secondary Standard today’s preamble: to Address Visibility Impairment retaining the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15µg/m3. With regard to I. Background 4. Averaging Time of a Secondary PM2.5 A. Summary of Revisions to the PM Standard for Visibility Protection primary standards for particles generally µ NAAQS 5. Final Decisions on Secondary PM2.5 less than or equal to 10 m in diameter B. Legislative Requirements Standards for Visibility Protection (PM10), EPA is retaining the 24-hour C. Overview of Air Quality Criteria and B. Other PM-Related Welfare Effects PM10 and revoking the annual PM10 Standards Review for PM 1. Evidence of Non-Visibility Welfare standard. With regard to secondary PM D. Related Control Programs to Implement Effects Related to PM standards, EPA is making them identical PM Standards 2. Need for Revision of the Current in all respects to the primary PM E. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the Secondary PM Standards to Address standards, as revised. PM NAAQS Other PM-Related Welfare Effects F. Organization and Approach to Final PM C. Final Decisions on Secondary PM DATES: This final rule is effective on NAAQS Decisions Standards December 18, 2006. II. Rationale for Final Decisions on Primary V. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a PM2.5 Standards A. Amendments to Appendix N— docket for this action under Docket ID A. Introduction Interpretation of the National Ambient No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0017. All 1. Overview Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 documents in the docket are listed on 2. Overview of Health Effects Evidence 1. General 3. Overview of Quantitative Risk 2. PM2.5 Monitoring and Data Reporting the www.regulations.gov Web site. Assessment Considerations Although listed in the index, some B. Need for Revision of the Current 3. PM2.5 Computations and Data Handling information is not publicly available, Primary PM2.5 Standards Conventions e.g. confidential business information or 1. Introduction 4. Conforming Revisions other information whose disclosure is 2. Comments on the Need for Revision B. Proposed Appendix P—Interpretation of restricted by statute. Certain other 3. Conclusions Regarding the Need for the National Ambient Air Quality material, such as copyrighted material, Revision Standards for PM10–2.5 is not placed on the Internet and will be C. Indicator for Fine Particles C. Amendments to Appendix K— publicly available only in hard copy D. Averaging Time of Primary PM2.5 Interpretation of the National Ambient Standards Air Quality Standards for PM10 form. Publicly available docket E. Form of Primary PM Standards VI. Reference Methods for the Determination materials are available either 2.5 1. 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard of Particulate Matter as PM10–2.5 and electronically through 2. Annual PM2.5 Standard PM2.5 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at F. Level of Primary PM2.5 Standards A. Appendix O to Part 50—Reference the Air and Radiation Docket and 1. 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard Method for the Determination of Coarse Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 2. Annual PM2.5 Standard Particulate Matter as PM10–2.5 in the Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., G. Final Decisions on Primary PM2.5 Atmosphere NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Standards B. Amendments to Appendix L—Reference Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 III. Rationale for Final Decisions on Primary Method for the Determination of Fine PM10 Standards Particulate Matter (as PM2.5) in the p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding A. Introduction Atmosphere legal holidays. The Docket telephone 1. Overview VII. Issues Related to Implementation of PM10 number is 202–566–1741. The 2. Overview of Health Effects Evidence Standards telephone number for the Public 3. Overview of Quantitative Risk A. Summary of Comments Received on Reading Room is 202–566–1744. Assessment Transition

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61145

B. Impact of Decision on PM10 With regard to primary standards for standard, as defined in section Designations particles generally less than or equal to 109(b)(2), must ‘‘specify a level of air C. Impact of Decision on State 10µm in diameter (PM10), EPA is quality the attainment and maintenance Implementation Plans (SIPs) and Control retaining the 24-hour PM standard to Obligations 10 of which, in the judgment of the D. Consideration of Fugitive Emissions for protect against the health effects Administrator, based on such criteria, is New Source Review (NSR) Purposes associated with short-term exposure to requisite to protect the public welfare E. Handling of PM10 Exceedances Due to coarse particles (including hospital from any known or anticipated adverse Exceptional Events admissions for cardiopulmonary effects associated with the presence of VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews diseases, increased respiratory [the] pollutant in the ambient air.’’ 2 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory symptoms and possibly premature The requirement that primary Planning and Review mortality). Given that the available standards include an adequate margin of B. Paperwork Reduction Act evidence does not suggest an association C. Regulatory Flexibility Act safety was intended to address D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act between long-term exposure to coarse uncertainties associated with E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism particles at current ambient levels and inconclusive scientific and technical F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation health effects, EPA is revoking the information available at the time of and Coordination with Indian Tribal annual PM10 standard. standard setting. It was also intended to Governments With regard to secondary PM provide a reasonable degree of G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of standards, EPA is revising the current protection against hazards that research Children from Environmental Health & 24-hour PM2.5 secondary standard by has not yet identified. Lead Industries Safety Risks making it identical to the revised 24- H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1154 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, hour PM2.5 primary standard, retaining (D.C. Cir 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. Distribution or Use the annual PM2.5 and 24-hour PM10 1042 (1980); American Petroleum I. National Technology Transfer secondary standards, and revoking the Institute v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176, 1186 Advancement Act annual PM10 secondary standard. This (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions suite of secondary PM standards is 1034 (1982). Both kinds of uncertainties to Address Environmental Justice in intended to provide protection against are components of the risk associated Minority Populations and Low-Income PM-related public welfare effects, Populations with pollution at levels below those at K. Congressional Review Act including visibility impairment, effects which human health effects can be said References on vegetation and ecosystems, and to occur with reasonable scientific materials damage and soiling. certainty. Thus, in selecting primary I. Background B. Legislative Requirements standards that include an adequate A. Summary of Revisions to the PM margin of safety, the Administrator is NAAQS Two sections of the Clean Air Act seeking not only to prevent pollution (CAA) govern the establishment and levels that have been demonstrated to be Based on its review of the air quality revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 criteria and national ambient air quality harmful but also to prevent lower U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator pollutant levels that may pose an standards (NAAQS) for particulate to identify and list ‘‘air pollutants’’ that matter (PM), EPA is making revisions to unacceptable risk of harm, even if the ‘‘in his judgment, may reasonably be risk is not precisely identified as to the primary and secondary NAAQS for anticipated to endanger public health PM to provide increased protection of nature or degree. The CAA does not and welfare’’ and whose ‘‘presence require the Administrator to establish a public health and welfare, respectively. * * * in the ambient air results from With regard to primary standards for primary NAAQS at a zero-risk level or numerous or diverse mobile or at a background concentration level (see fine particles (generally referring to stationary sources’’ and to issue air particles less than or equal to 2.5 Lead Industries Association v. EPA, µ quality criteria for those that are listed. supra, 647 F.2d at 1156 n. 51), but micrometers ( m) in diameter, PM2.5), Air quality criteria are intended to EPA is revising the level of the 24-hour rather at a level that reduces risk ‘‘accurately reflect the latest scientific sufficiently so as to protect public PM2.5 standard to 35 micrograms per knowledge useful in indicating the kind µ 3 health with an adequate margin of cubic meter g/m ), providing increased and extent of identifiable effects on protection against health effects safety. public health or welfare which may be In addressing the requirement for an associated with short-term exposure expected from the presence of [a] (including premature mortality and adequate margin of safety, EPA pollutant in ambient air * * * .’’ considers such factors as the nature and increased hospital admissions and Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs severity of the health effects involved, emergency room visits), and retaining the Administrator to propose and the size of the sensitive population(s) at the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at promulgate ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘secondary’’ µ 3 risk, and the kind and degree of the 15 g/m , continuing protection against NAAQS for pollutants listed under uncertainties that must be addressed. health effects associated with long-term section 108. Section 109(b)(1) defines a The selection of any particular approach exposure (including premature primary standard as one ‘‘the attainment to providing an adequate margin of mortality and development of chronic and maintenance of which in the safety is a policy choice left specifically respiratory disease). The EPA is revising judgment of the Administrator, based on to the Administrator’s judgment. Lead the form of the annual PM2.5 standard such criteria and allowing an adequate with regard to the criteria for spatial margin of safety, are requisite to protect rather than to a single person in such a group’’ [S. averaging, such that averaging across 1 the public health.’’ A secondary Rep. No. 91–1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970)]. monitoring sites is allowed if the annual 2 Welfare effects as defined in section 302(h) [42 mean concentration at each monitoring 1 The legislative history of section 109 indicates U.S.C. 7602(h)] include, but are not limited to, site is within 10 percent of the spatially that a primary standard is to be set at ‘‘the ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man- averaged annual mean, and the daily maximum permissible ambient air level * * * made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, which will protect the health of any [sensitive] visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration values for each monitoring site pair group of the population,’’ and that for this purpose of property, and hazards to transportation, as well yield a correlation coefficient of at least ‘‘reference should be made to a representative as effects on economic values and on personal 0.9 for each calendar quarter. sample of persons comprising the sensitive group comfort and well-being.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61146 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Industries Association v. EPA, supra, which are considered as separate reference method for the measurement 647 F.2d at 1161–62. subclasses of PM pollution based in part of PM2.5 in the ambient air and adopted In setting standards that are on long-established information on rules for determining attainment of the ‘‘requisite’’ to protect public health and differences in sources, properties, and new standards. To continue to address welfare, as provided in section 109(b), atmospheric behavior between fine and thoracic coarse particles, EPA retained EPA’s task is to establish standards that coarse particles (EPA, 2005, section 2.2). the annual PM10 standard, while are neither more nor less stringent than Fine particles are produced chiefly by revising the form, but not the level, of necessary for these purposes. In combustion processes and by the 24-hour PM10 standard to be based establishing primary and secondary atmospheric reactions of various on the 99th percentile of 24-hour PM10 standards, EPA may not consider the gaseous pollutants, whereas thoracic concentrations at each monitor in an costs of implementing the standards. coarse particles are generally emitted area. The EPA revised the secondary See generally Whitman v. American directly as particles as a result of standards by making them identical in Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, mechanical processes that crush or all respects to the primary standards. 465–472, 475–76 (2001). grind larger particles or the Following promulgation of the revised Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires resuspension of dusts. Sources of fine PM NAAQS, petitions for review were that ‘‘not later than December 31, 1980, particles include, for example, motor filed by a large number of parties, and at 5-year intervals thereafter, the vehicles, power generation, combustion addressing a broad range of issues. In Administrator shall complete a sources at industrial facilities, and May 1999, a three-judge panel of the thorough review of the criteria residential fuel burning. Sources of U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of published under section 108 and the thoracic coarse particles include, for Columbia Circuit issued an initial national ambient air quality standards example, traffic-related emissions such decision that upheld EPA’s decision to * * * and shall make such revisions in as tire and brake lining materials, direct establish fine particle standards, such criteria and standards and emissions from industrial operations, holding that ‘‘the growing empirical promulgate such new standards as may construction and demolition activities, evidence demonstrating a relationship be appropriate in accordance with [the and agricultural and mining operations. between fine particle pollution and provisions in section 109(b) on primary Fine particles can remain suspended in adverse health effects amply justifies and secondary standards].’’ This the atmosphere for days to weeks and establishment of new fine particle includes the authority to modify or can be transported thousands of standards.’’ American Trucking revoke a standard or standards, as kilometers, whereas thoracic coarse Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, appropriate under these provisions. particles generally deposit rapidly on 1055–56 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘ATA I’’) Section 109(d)(2) requires that an the ground or other surfaces and are not rehearing granted in part and denied in independent scientific review readily transported across urban or part, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘ATA committee ‘‘shall complete a review of broader areas. II’’), affirmed in part and reversed in the criteria * * * and the national part, Whitman v. American Trucking primary and secondary ambient air The last review of PM air quality Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). The quality standards * * * and shall criteria and standards was completed in Panel also found ‘‘ample support’’ for recommend to the Administrator any July 1997 with notice of a final decision EPA’s decision to regulate coarse new * * * standards and revisions of to revise the existing standards (62 FR particle pollution, but vacated the 1997 38652, July 18, 1997). In that decision, existing criteria and standards as may be PM10 standards, concluding that EPA’s EPA revised the PM NAAQS in several appropriate * * *.’’ This independent justification for the use of PM10 as an review function is performed by the respects. While EPA determined that the indicator for coarse particles was Clean Air Scientific Advisory PM NAAQS should continue to focus on arbitrary. 175 F.3d at 1054–55. Pursuant µ Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s Science particles less than or equal to 10 m in to the court’s decision, EPA removed diameter (PM10), EPA also determined Advisory Board. the vacated 1997 PM10 standards from that the fine and coarse fractions of the regulations (CFR) (69 FR 45592, July C. Overview of Air Quality Criteria and PM10 should be considered separately. 30, 2004) and deleted the regulatory Standards Review for PM The EPA added new standards, using provision (at 40 CFR 50.6(d)) that Particulate matter is the generic term PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles controlled the transition from the pre- for a broad class of chemically and (with PM2.5 referring to particles with a existing 1987 PM10 standards to the physically diverse substances that exist nominal aerodynamic diameter less 1997 PM standards (65 FR 80776, µ 10 as discrete particles (liquid droplets or than or equal to 2.5 m), and using PM10 December 22, 2000). The pre-existing solids) over a wide range of sizes. as the indicator for purposes of 1987 PM10 standards remained in place. Particles originate from a variety of regulating the coarse fraction of PM10 Id. at 80777. anthropogenic stationary and mobile (referred to as thoracic coarse particles More generally, the panel held (over sources as well as from natural sources. or coarse-fraction particles; generally one judge’s dissent) that EPA’s approach Particles may be emitted directly or including particles with a nominal to establishing the level of the standards formed in the atmosphere by aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 in 1997, both for PM and for ozone transformations of gaseous emissions µm and less than or equal to 10 µm, or NAAQS promulgated on the same day, such as sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen PM10–2.5). The EPA established two new effected ‘‘an unconstitutional delegation oxides (NOX), and volatile organic PM2.5 standards: An annual standard of of legislative authority.’’ Id. at 1034–40. compounds (VOC). The chemical and 15 µg/m3, based on the 3-year average of Although the panel stated that ‘‘the physical properties of PM vary greatly annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 factors EPA uses in determining the with time, region, meteorology, and concentrations from single or multiple degree of public health concern source category, thus complicating the community-oriented monitors; and a 24- associated with different levels of ozone assessment of health and welfare effects. hour standard of 65 µg/m3, based on the and PM are reasonable,’’ it remanded More specifically, the PM that is the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the rule to EPA, stating that when EPA subject of the air quality criteria and 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each considers these factors for potential standards reviews includes both fine population-oriented monitor within an non-threshold pollutants ‘‘what EPA particles and thoracic coarse particles, area. Also, EPA established a new lacks is any determinate criterion for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61147

drawing lines’’ to determine where the review draft Criteria Document was 2004a). The second draft Staff Paper, standards should be set. Consistent with reviewed by CASAC and the public at based on the final Criteria Document, EPA’s long-standing interpretation and a meeting held in December 1999. Based was released at the end of January 2005, D.C. Circuit precedent, the panel also on CASAC and public comment, NCEA and was reviewed by CASAC and the reaffirmed prior rulings holding that in revised the draft Criteria Document and public at a meeting held in April 2005. setting NAAQS EPA is ‘‘not permitted to released a second draft in March 2001 The CASAC’s advice and consider the cost of implementing those for review by CASAC and the public at recommendations to the Administrator, standards.’’ Id. at 1040–41. a meeting held in July 2001. A based on its review of the second draft Both sides filed cross appeals on these preliminary draft of a staff paper, Staff Paper, were further discussed issues to the United States Supreme Review of the National Ambient Air during a public teleconference held in Court, and the Court granted certiorari. Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: May 2005 and are provided in a June 6, In February 2001, the Supreme Court Assessment of Scientific and Technical 2005 letter to the Administrator issued a unanimous decision upholding Information (henceforth, the ‘‘Staff (Henderson, 2005a). The final Staff EPA’s position on both the Paper’’) prepared by EPA’s Office of Air Paper takes into account the advice and constitutional and cost issues. Whitman Quality Planning and Standards recommendations of CASAC and public v. American Trucking Associations, 531 (OAQPS) was released in June 2001 for comments received on the earlier drafts U.S. 457, 464, 475–76 (2001). On the public comment and for consultation of this document. The Administrator constitutional issue, the Court held that with CASAC at the same public subsequently received additional advice the statutory requirement that NAAQS meeting. Taking into account CASAC and recommendations from the CASAC, be ‘‘requisite’’ to protect public health and public comments, a third draft specifically on potential standards for with an adequate margin of safety Criteria Document was released in May thoracic coarse particles, in a sufficiently guided EPA’s discretion, 2002 for review at a meeting held in July teleconference on August 11, 2005, and affirming EPA’s approach of setting 2002. in a letter to the Administrator dated standards that are neither more nor less Shortly after the release of the third September 15, 2005 (Henderson, 2005b). stringent than necessary. The Supreme draft Criteria Document, the Health The final Staff Paper was reissued in Court remanded the case to the Court of Effects Institute (HEI) 3 announced that December 2005 to add CASAC’s final Appeals for resolution of any remaining researchers at Johns Hopkins University letter as an attachment (EPA, 2005). issues that had not been addressed in had discovered problems with The schedule for completion of this that court’s earlier rulings. Id. at 475–76. applications of statistical software used review is governed by a consent decree In March 2002, the Court of Appeals in a number of important resolving a lawsuit filed in March 2003 rejected all remaining challenges to the epidemiological studies that had been by a group of plaintiffs representing standards, holding under the traditional discussed in that draft Criteria national environmental organizations. standard of judicial review that EPA’s Document. In response to this The lawsuit alleged that EPA had failed PM2.5 standards were reasonably significant issue, EPA took steps in to perform its mandatory duty, under supported by the administrative record consultation with CASAC and the section 109(d)(1), of completing the and were not ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ broader scientific community to current review within the period American Trucking Associations v. encourage researchers to reanalyze provided by statute. American Lung EPA, 283 F. 3d 355, 369–72 (D.C. Cir. affected studies and to submit them Association v. Whitman (No. 2002) (‘‘ATA III’’). expeditiously for peer review by a 1:03CV00778, D.D.C. 2003). An initial In October 1997, EPA published its special expert panel convened at EPA’s consent decree was entered by the court plans for the current periodic review of request by HEI. The results of this in July 2003 after an opportunity for the PM criteria and NAAQS (62 FR reanalysis and peer-review process were public comment. The consent decree, as 55201, October 23, 1997), including the subsequently incorporated into a fourth modified by the court, provides that 1997 PM standards and the 1987 PM 2.5 10 draft Criteria Document, which was EPA will sign for publication notices of standards. The approach in this review released in June 2003 and reviewed by proposed and final rulemaking continues to address fine and thoracic CASAC and the public at a meeting held concerning its review of the PM NAAQS coarse particles separately. This no later than December 20, 2005 and in August 2003. approach has been reinforced by new The first draft Staff Paper, based on September 27, 2006, respectively. information that has advanced our On December 20, 2005, EPA issued its the fourth draft Criteria Document, was understanding of differences in human proposed decision to revise the NAAQS released at the end of August 2003, and exposure relationships and dosimetric for PM (71 FR 2620, January 17, 2006) was reviewed by CASAC and the public patterns characteristic of these two (henceforth ‘‘proposal’’). In the at a meeting held in November 2003. subclasses of PM pollution, as well as proposal, EPA identified proposed During that meeting, EPA also consulted the apparent independence of health revisions to the standards, based on the with CASAC on a new framework for effects that have been associated with air quality criteria for PM, and to related the final chapter (integrative synthesis) them in epidemiologic studies (EPA, data handling conventions and federal of the Criteria Document and on 2004a, section 3.2.3). See also ATA I, reference methods for monitoring PM. 175 F. 3d at 1053–54, 1055–56 (EPA ongoing revisions to other Criteria The proposal solicited public comments justified in establishing separate Document chapters to address previous on alternative primary and secondary standards for fine and thoracic coarse CASAC comments. The EPA held standards and related matters. particles). additional consultations with CASAC at The EPA held several public hearings As part of the process of preparing an public meetings held in February, July, across the country to provide direct updated Air Quality Criteria Document and September 2004, leading to opportunities for public comment on for Particulate Matter (henceforth, the publication of the final Criteria the proposed revisions to the PM ‘‘Criteria Document’’), EPA’s National Document in October 2004 (EPA, NAAQS. On March 8, 2006, EPA held Center for Environmental Assessment three concurrent 12-hour public 3 The HEI is a non-profit, independent research (NCEA) hosted a peer review workshop institute jointly and equally funded by EPA and hearings in Philadelphia, PA; Chicago, in April 1999 on drafts of key Criteria multiple industries that conducts research on the IL; and San Francisco, CA. At these Document chapters. The first external health effects of air pollution. public hearings, EPA heard testimony

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61148 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

from 280 individuals representing particles are associated with health described above, the provisional themselves or specific interested effects; some of the ‘‘new’’ assessment did not and could not organizations. epidemiologic studies report effects in provide that kind of in-depth critical More than 120,000 comments were areas with lower concentrations of PM2.5 review. received from members of the public or PM10–2.5 than those in earlier reports; This decision is consistent with EPA’s and various interested groups on the ‘‘new’’ toxicology and epidemiologic practice in prior NAAQS reviews. Since proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS studies link various health effects with the 1970 amendments, the EPA has by the close of the public comment a range of fine particle sources and taken the view that NAAQS decisions period on April 17, 2006. CASAC components; and ‘‘new’’ toxicology are to be based on scientific studies and provided additional advice to EPA in a studies report effects of thoracic coarse related information that have been letter to the Administrator requesting particles but do not provide evidence to assessed as a part of the pertinent air reconsideration of CASAC’s support distinguishing effects from quality criteria. See e.g., 36 FR 8186 recommendations for both the primary exposure to urban and rural particles. (April 30, 1971) (EPA based original and secondary PM2.5 standards as well Further, the provisional assessment NAAQS for six pollutants on scientific as standards for thoracic coarse particles found that the results reported in the studies discussed in air quality criteria (Henderson, 2006). Major issues raised studies do not dramatically diverge from documents and limited consideration of in the public comments are discussed previous findings, and, taken in context comments to those concerning validity throughout the preamble of this final with the findings of the Criteria of scientific basis); 38 FR 25678, 25679– action. A comprehensive summary of all Document, the new information and 25680 (September 14, 1973) (EPA significant comments, along with EPA’s findings do not materially change any of revised air quality criteria for sulfur responses (henceforth ‘‘Response to the broad scientific conclusions oxides to provide basis for reevaluation Comments’’), can be found in the docket regarding the health effects of PM of secondary NAAQS). This for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA– exposure made in the Criteria longstanding interpretation was HQ–OAR–2001–0017). Document. strengthened by new legislative In the proposal, EPA recognized that The EPA believes it was important to requirements enacted in 1977, which there were a number of new scientific conduct a provisional assessment in this added section 109(d)(2) of the Act studies on the health effects of PM that case, so that the Administrator would be concerning CASAC review of air quality had been published recently and aware of the science that developed too criteria. EPA has consistently followed therefore were not included in the recently for inclusion in the Criteria this approach. 52 FR 24634, 24637 (July Criteria Document.4 The EPA Document. However it is also important 1, 1987) (after review by CASAC, EPA committed to conduct a review and to note that EPA’s review of that science issued a post-proposal addendum to the assessment of any significant ‘‘new’’ to date has been limited to screening, PM Criteria Document, to address studies, including studies submitted surveying, and preparing a provisional certain new scientific studies not during the public comment period. The assessment of these studies. Having included in the 1982 Criteria purpose of this review was to ensure performed this limited provisional Document); 61 FR 25566, 25568 (May that the Administrator was fully aware assessment, EPA must decide whether 22, 1996) (after review by CASAC, EPA of the ‘‘new’’ science before making a to consider the newer studies in this issued a post-proposal supplement to final decision on whether to revise the review and take such steps as may be the 1982 Criteria Document to address current PM NAAQS. The EPA screened necessary to include them in the basis certain new health studies not included and surveyed the recent literature, for the final decision, or to reserve such in the 1982 Criteria Document or 1986 including studies submitted during the action for the next review of the PM Addendum). The EPA recently public comment period, and conducted NAAQS. reaffirmed this approach in its decision a provisional assessment (EPA, 2006a) As in prior NAAQS reviews, EPA is not to revise the ozone NAAQS in 1993, that places the results of those studies basing its decision in this review on as well as in its final decision on the PM of potentially greatest policy relevance studies and related information NAAQS in the 1997 review. 58 FR in the context of the findings of the included in the Criteria Document and 13008, 13013–13014 (March 9, 1993) Criteria Document. Staff Paper, which have undergone (ozone review); 62 FR 38652, 38662 The provisional assessment found CASAC and public review. The studies (July 18, 1997) (The EPA conducted a that the ‘‘new’’ studies expand the assessed in the Criteria Document, and provisional assessment but based the scientific information and provide the integration of the scientific evidence final PM decision on studies and related important insights on the relationship presented in that document, have information included in the air quality between PM exposure and health effects undergone extensive critical review by criteria that had been reviewed by of PM. The provisional assessment also EPA, CASAC, and the public during the CASAC). found that ‘‘new’’ studies generally development of the Criteria Document. As discussed in EPA’s 1993 decision strengthen the evidence that acute and The rigor of that review makes these not to revise the NAAQS for ozone, new chronic exposure to fine particles and studies, and their integrative studies may sometimes be of such acute exposure to thoracic coarse assessment, the most reliable source of significance that it is appropriate to scientific information on which to base delay a decision on revision of NAAQS 4 For ease of reference, these studies will be decisions on the NAAQS, decisions that and to supplement the pertinent air referred to as ‘‘new’’ studies or ‘‘new’’ science, all parties recognize as of great import. quality criteria so the new studies can using quotation marks around the word new. NAAQS decisions can have profound be taken into account (58 FR at 13013– Referring to studies that were published too impacts on public health and welfare, 13014, March 9, 1993). In the present recently to have been included in the 2004 Criteria Document as ‘‘new’’ studies is intended to clearly and NAAQS decisions should be based case, the provisional assessment of differentiate such studies from those that have been on studies that have been rigorously recent studies concludes that, taken in published since the last review and are included in assessed in an integrative manner not context, the new information and the 2004 Criteria Document (these studies are only by EPA but also by the statutorily findings do not materially change any of sometimes referred to as new (without quotation marks) or more recent studies, to indicate that they mandated independent advisory the broad scientific conclusions were not included in the 1996 Criteria Document committee, as well as the public review regarding the health effects of PM and thus are newly available in this review). that accompanies this process. As exposure made in the Criteria

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61149

Document. For this reason, reopening substantial progress in reducing ambient levels. The Clean Air Interstate Rule the air quality criteria review would not concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5. For (CAIR) and the NOX SIP Call will be warranted even if there were time to example, PM10 concentrations have further reduce SO2 and NOX emissions do so under the court order governing decreased 31 percent nationally since from electric generating units and the schedule for this rulemaking. 1988. Regionally, PM10 concentrations industrial boilers across the eastern half Accordingly, EPA is basing the final decreased most in areas with of the U.S.; regulations to implement the decisions in this review on the studies historically higher concentrations—the 1997 ambient air quality standards for and related information included in the Northwest (39 percent decline), the PM2.5 will require direct PM2.5 and PM air quality criteria that have Southwest (33 percent decline), and PM2.5 precursor controls in undergone CASAC and public review. southern California (35 percent decline). nonattainment areas; and new national The EPA will consider the newly Direct emissions of PM10 have decreased mobile source regulations affecting published studies for purposes of approximately 25 percent nationally heavy-duty diesel engines, highway decision making in the next periodic since 1988. vehicles, and other mobile sources will review of the PM NAAQS, which will Programs aimed at reducing direct reduce emissions of NOX, direct PM2.5, provide the opportunity to fully assess emissions of particles have played an SO2, and VOCs. The EPA estimates that them through a more rigorous review important role in reducing PM10 these regulations for stationary and process involving EPA, CASAC, and the concentrations, particularly in western mobile sources will cut SO2 emissions public. areas. Some examples of PM10 controls by 6 million tons annually in 2015 from In order to facilitate a comprehensive include paving unpaved roads and 2001 levels. Emissions of NOX will be and timely review of the newly using best management practices for cut by 9 million tons annually in 2015 available science, the Administrator has agricultural sources of resuspended soil. from 2001 levels. Emissions of VOCs directed EPA staff to begin the next Of the 87 areas that were designated will drop by 3 million tons, and direct 5 review of the PM NAAQS immediately. nonattainment for PM10 in the early PM2.5 emissions will be cut by 200,000 1990s, 64 now meet those standards. In D. Related Control Programs To tons in 2015, compared to 2001 levels. cities that have not attained the PM In 2005, 39 nonattainment areas were Implement PM Standards 10 standards, the number of days above the designated as not attaining the PM2.5 States are primarily responsible for standards is down significantly. standards established in 1997. SIPs for ensuring attainment and maintenance of Nationally, PM2.5 concentrations have these areas are due in April 2008. ambient air quality standards once EPA declined by 10 percent from 1999 to Nonattainment areas are required to has established them. Under section 110 2003. Generally, PM2.5 concentrations attain the standards as ‘‘expeditiously as of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7410) and related have also declined the most in regions practicable’’ based on implementation provisions, States are to submit, for EPA with the highest concentrations—the of federal measures already in place and approval, State implementation plans Southeast (20 percent decline), southern the adoption of other reasonable control (SIPs) that provide for the attainment California (16 percent decline), and the strategies for sources located in the and maintenance of such standards Industrial Midwest (9 percent decline). nonattainment area and state. The through control programs directed to With the exception of the Northeast, the presumptive timeframe for attainment is sources of the pollutants involved. The remaining regions posted modest within five years of designation, States, in conjunction with EPA, also declines in PM2.5 concentrations from although EPA may approve extended administer the prevention of significant 1999 to 2003. Direct emissions of PM2.5 attainment dates of an additional one to deterioration (PSD) program under have decreased by 5 percent nationally five years for areas with more serious sections 160–169 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. over the past 5 years. problems. 7470–7479) for these pollutants. In National programs that affect regional Modeling done by EPA indicates that addition, the Act provides for emissions have also contributed to by 2010, 18 of the 39 currently nationwide reductions in emissions of lower sulfate concentrations and, designated nonattainment areas are these and other air pollutants through consequently, to lower PM2.5 projected to come into attainment with related programs, such as the Federal concentrations, particularly in the those standards just based on regulatory Mobile Source Control Program under Industrial Midwest and Southeast. programs already in place, including Title II of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521– National ozone-reduction programs CAIR, the Clean Diesel Rules, and other 7574), which involves controls for designed to reduce emissions of volatile Federal measures. Between 2010 and automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, organic compounds (VOCs) and 2015, further reductions in PM nonroad and off-highway engines and nitrogen oxides (NOX) have also helped concentrations in the eastern U.S. are aircraft emissions; the new source reduce carbon and nitrates, both of projected due to existing federal performance standards under section which are components of PM2.5. programs alone, on the order of 0.5 to 111 (42 U.S.C. 7411); and the national Additionally, EPA’s Acid Rain Program 1.5 µg/m3. All areas in the eastern U.S. emission standards for hazardous air has substantially reduced sulfur dioxide will have lower PM2.5 concentrations in pollutants under section 112 (42 U.S.C. (SO2) emissions from power plants since 2015 relative to present-day conditions. 7412). 1995 in the eastern United States, In most cases, the predicted As described in a recent EPA report, contributing to lower PM improvement in PM2.5 ranges from 10 The Particle Pollution Report: Current concentrations. Nationally, SO2 percent to 20 percent. Understanding of Air Quality and emissions have declined 9 percent, NOX emissions have declined 9 percent, and E. Summary of Proposed Revisions to Emissions through 2003 (EPA, 2004b), the PM NAAQS State and Federal programs have made VOC emissions have declined by 12 percent from 1999 to 2003. In eastern For reasons discussed in the proposal, 5 The EPA has recently conducted a review of the States affected by the Acid Rain the Administrator proposed to revise the process by which the Agency performs periodic Program, sulfates decreased 7 percent current primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS reviews to identify ways in which the over the same period. and PM10 standards. With regard to the process could be strengthened and streamlined (EPA, 2006b). The EPA intends to incorporate Over the next 10 to 20 years, national primary PM2.5 standards, the recommendations from the NAAQS process review and regional regulations will make Administrator proposed to revise the into the next PM NAAQS review. major reductions in ambient PM2.5 level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61150 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

µg/m3, and to revise the form of the regulations (see 71 FR 2710, 2736–2728 are addressed below in sections V and annual PM2.5 standard by changing the and 71 FR 2706–2707 (proposing to VI, respectively. constraints on the optional use of spatial incorporate these requirements as part Today’s final decisions separately averaging to include the criterion that of the standard)). These proposed addressing fine and thoracic coarse the minimum correlation coefficient requirements included a five-part test particles are based on a thorough review between monitor pairs to be averaged be for determining whether a potential in the Criteria Document of scientific 0.9 or greater, determined on a seasonal monitoring site is suitable for information on known and potential basis, and the criterion that differences comparison to the standard, all five human health and welfare effects between monitor values not exceed 10 parts of which had to be met. In associated with exposure to these percent. Related revisions for PM2.5 data summary, the suitability test included subclasses of PM at levels typically handling conventions and for the the following general provisions: a found in the ambient air. These final reference method for monitoring PM as monitoring site must be within an decisions also take into account: (1) PM2.5 were also proposed. urbanized area that has a population of Staff assessments in the Staff Paper of at least 100,000 persons; the site must the most policy-relevant information in With regard to the primary PM10 standards, the Administrator proposed be within a block group with a the Criteria Document as well as a to revise the current standards to population density greater than 500 quantitative risk assessment based on provide more targeted protection from people per square mile; the site must be that information; (2) CASAC advice and thoracic coarse particles that are of a ‘‘population-oriented’’ site; the site recommendations, as reflected in its letters to the Administrator, its concern to public health. In part, the may not be adjacent to a large emissions discussions of drafts of the Criteria Administrator proposed to establish a source or otherwise within the micro- Document and Staff Paper at public new indicator for thoracic coarse scale environment affected by a large meetings, and separate written particles in terms of PM , the source; and, if the first four provisions 10–2.5 comments prepared by individual definition of which included are met, a site-specific assessment must members of the CASAC PM Review qualifications that identified both the show that the ambient mix of PM10–2.5 Panel 6 (henceforth, ‘‘CASAC Panel’’); mix of such particles that were sampled at the site would be dominated (3) public comments received during the provisionally determined to be of by resuspended dust from high-density traffic on paved roads and PM generated development of these documents, either concern to public health, and were thus by industrial sources and construction in connection with CASAC meetings or included in the indicator, and those for sources, and would not be dominated by separately; and (4) extensive public which currently available information rural windblown dust and soils and PM comments received on the proposed was provisionally determined to be generated by agricultural and mining rulemaking. insufficient as a basis from which to sources. Related new PM data infer a public health concern, and were 10–2.5 II. Rationale for Final Decisions on handling conventions and a new thus excluded. More specifically, the Primary PM2.5 Standards reference method for monitoring PM as proposed PM indicator was 10–2.5 PM were also proposed. The A. Introduction qualified so as to include any ambient 10–2.5 Administrator also proposed to revoke mix of PM10–2.5 that is dominated by 1. Overview and not replace the annual PM10 resuspended dust from high-density standard. This section presents the traffic on paved roads and PM generated With regard to the secondary PM2.5 Administrator’s final decisions by industrial sources and construction and PM10 standards, the Administrator regarding the need to revise the current sources, and to exclude any ambient proposed to revise the current standards primary PM2.5 NAAQS, and, more mix of PM10–2.5 that is dominated by by making them identical in all respects specifically, regarding revisions to the rural windblown dust and soils and PM to the proposed primary PM2.5 and level of the 24-hour standard and to the generated by agricultural and mining PM10–2.5 standards to address PM-related form of the annual standard. As sources. The Administrator also welfare effects including visibility discussed more fully below, the proposed that agricultural sources, impairment, effects on vegetation and rationale for the final decision on mining sources, and other similar ecosystems, materials damage and appropriate revisions to the primary sources of crustal material shall not be soiling, and effects on climate change. PM2.5 NAAQS includes consideration subject to control in meeting the of: (1) Evidence of health effects related proposed standard. The Administrator F. Organization and Approach to Final to short- and long-term exposures to fine proposed to replace the current primary PM NAAQS Decisions particles; (2) insights gained from a 24-hour PM10 standard with a 24-hour This action presents the quantitative risk assessment; and (3) standard defined in terms of this new Administrator’s final decisions on the specific conclusions regarding the need PM10–2.5 indicator. The proposed new review of the current primary and for revisions to the current standards standard would be met at an ambient air secondary PM2.5 and PM10 standards. and the elements of PM2.5 standards quality monitoring site when the 3-year Primary standards for fine particles and (i.e., indicator, averaging time, form, average of the annual 98th percentile for thoracic coarse particles are and level) that, taken together, are 24-hour average PM10–2.5 concentration addressed below in sections II and III, requisite to protect public health with is less than or equal to 70 µg/m3, which respectively. Consistent with the an adequate margin of safety. would generally maintain the degree of decisions made by EPA in the last In developing this rationale, EPA has public health protection afforded by the review and with the conclusions in the drawn upon an integrative synthesis of current PM10 standards from short-term Criteria Document and Staff Paper, fine the entire body of evidence on exposure to thoracic coarse particles of and thoracic coarse particles continue to associations between exposure to concern. Requirements for monitoring be considered as separate subclasses of sites that would be appropriate for PM pollution. Secondary standards for 6 The CASAC PM Review Panel is comprised of determining compliance with this fine and thoracic coarse particles are the seven members of the chartered CASAC, supplemented by fifteen subject-matter experts proposed PM10–2.5 standard were addressed below in section IV. Related appointed by the Administrator to provide included as part of proposed revisions data handling conventions and federal additional scientific expertise relevant to this to EPA’s ambient air monitoring reference methods for monitoring PM review of the PM NAAQS.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61151

ambient fine particles and a broad range standards, namely the indicator (section (6) Efforts to evaluate the effects of of health endpoints (EPA, 2004a, II.C); averaging time (section II.D); form fine particles from different sources Chapter 9), focusing on those health (section II.E); and level (section II.F). A (e.g., motor vehicles, coal combustion, endpoints for which the Criteria summary of the final decisions on vegetative burning, crustal 8), using Document concluded that the revisions to the primary PM2.5 standards factor analysis or source apportionment associations are likely to be causal. This is presented in section II.G. methods with fine particle speciation body of evidence includes hundreds of data. studies conducted in many countries 2. Overview of Heath Effects Evidence (7) New ‘‘intervention studies’’ around the world, using various This section briefly outlines the providing evidence for improvements in indicators of fine particles. In its information presented in Section II.A of respiratory or cardiovascular health assessment of the evidence judged to be the proposal on the health effects with reductions in ambient most relevant to decisions on elements associated with exposure to fine concentrations of particles and gaseous of the primary PM2.5 standards, EPA has particles. As was true in the last review, co-pollutants. placed greater weight on U.S. and evidence from epidemiologic studies In addition, the body of evidence on Canadian studies using PM2.5 plays a key role in the Criteria PM-related effects has greatly expanded measurements, since studies conducted Document’s evaluation of the scientific since the last review with findings from in other countries may well reflect evidence. Some highlights of the new studies of potential mechanisms or different demographic and air pollution epidemiologic evidence available since pathways by which particles may result characteristics. the last review include: in the effects identified in the As with virtually any policy-relevant (1) New multi-city studies that use epidemiologic studies. These studies scientific research, there is uncertainty uniform methodologies to investigate include important new dosimetry, in the characterization of health effects the effects of various indicators of PM toxicologic and controlled human attributable to exposure to ambient fine on health with data from multiple exposure studies, as highlighted below. particles, most generally with regard to locations with varying climate and air (8) Animal and controlled human whether observed associations are likely pollution mixes, contributing to exposure studies using concentrated causal in nature and, if so, whether increased understanding of the role of ambient particles (CAPs), new there are exposure levels below which various potential confounders, indicators of response (e.g., C-reactive such associations are no longer likely. including gaseous co-pollutants, on protein and cytokine levels, heart rate As discussed below, an unprecedented observed associations with fine variability), and animal models amount of new research has been particles. These studies provide more simulating sensitive human conducted since the last review, with precise estimates of the magnitude of an subpopulations. The results of these important new information coming from effect of exposure to PM, including fine studies are relevant to evaluation of epidemiologic, toxicologic, controlled particles, than most smaller-scale plausibility of the epidemiologic human exposure, and dosimetric individual city studies. evidence and provide insights into studies. Moreover, the newly available (2) More studies of various health potential mechanisms for PM-related effects. research studies evaluated in the endpoints evaluating associations (9) Dosimetry studies using new Criteria Document have undergone between effects and exposures to fine intensive scrutiny through multiple modeling methods that provide particles and thoracic coarse particles increased understanding of the layers of peer review, with extended (discussed below in section III), as well opportunities for review and comment dosimetry of different particle size as ultrafine particles or specific classes and in members of potentially by CASAC and the public. While components (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, important uncertainties remain, the sensitive subpopulations, such as metals, organic compounds, and people with chronic respiratory disease. review of the health effects information elemental carbon) of fine particles. has been extensive and deliberate. In the Section II.A of the proposal provides (3) Numerous studies of a detailed summary of key information judgment of the Administrator, this cardiovascular endpoints, with intensive evaluation of the scientific contained in the Criteria Document particular emphasis on assessment of (EPA, 2004a, Chapters 6–9), and in the evidence provides an adequate basis for cardiovascular risk factors or regulatory decision making at this time. Staff Paper (EPA, 2005, Chapter 3), on physiological changes. the known and potential effects This review also provides important (4) Studies relating population input to EPA’s research plan for associated with exposure to fine exposure to fine particles and other improving our future understanding of particles including information on pollutants measured at centrally located the relationships between exposures to specific constituents and information on monitors to estimates of exposure to ambient fine particles and health effects. the effects of fine particles in The health effects information and ambient pollutants at the individual combination with other pollutants that quantitative risk assessment were level. Such studies have led to a better are routinely present in the ambient air summarized in sections II.A and II.B of understanding of the relationship the proposal (71 FR 2626–2641) and are between ambient fine particle levels and control for potential confounders (EPA, 2004a, personal exposures to fine particles of section 8.1.3.2; EPA, 2005, section 3.6.4). A only briefly outlined below in sections ‘‘threshold’’ is a concentration below which it is II.A.2 and II.A.3. Subsequent sections of ambient origin. (5) New statistical approaches to expected that effects are not observed (EPA, 2004a, this preamble provide a more complete section 8.4.7; EPA, 2005, section 3.6.6). ‘‘Gaseous discussion of the Administrator’s addressing issues related to potential co-pollutants’’ generally refer to other commonly- rationale, in light of key issues raised in confounding by gaseous co-pollutants, occurring air pollutants, specifically O3, CO, SO2 possible thresholds for effects, and and NO2. ‘‘Measurement error’’ refers to uncertainty public comments, for concluding that it in the air quality measurements, while ‘‘exposure is appropriate to revise the current measurement error and exposure misclassification’’ includes uncertainty in the use of misclassification.7 primary PM2.5 standards (section II.B), ambient pollutant measurements in characterizing as well as a more complete discussion population exposures to PM (EPA, 2004a, section 7 ‘‘Confounding’’ occurs when a health effect that 8.4.5; EPA, 2005, section 3.6.2) of the Administrator’s rationale for is caused by one risk factor is attributed to another 8 ‘‘Crustal’’ is used here to describe particles of retaining or revising the specific variable that is correlated with the causal risk geologic origin, which can be found in both fine- elements of the primary PM2.5 factor; epidemiologic analyses attempt to adjust or and coarse-fraction PM.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61152 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

(71 FR 2626–2637). The information and respiratory), morbidity (hospital the Staff Paper and risk assessment, the highlighted there summarizes: admissions for cardiovascular and CASAC Panel commented that for the (1) Multiple biologic mechanisms that respiratory causes), and respiratory purpose of estimating public health may be responsible for morbidity/ symptoms (not requiring impacts, it ‘‘favored the primary use of mortality effects associated with hospitalization) associated with recent an assumed threshold of 10 µg/m3 ’’ and exposure to ambient fine particles, short-term (daily) ambient PM2.5 levels that ‘‘a major research need is for more including potential mechanisms or and risks of total, cardiopulmonary, and work to determine the existence and pathways related to direct effects on the lung cancer mortality associated with level of any thresholds that may exist or respiratory system, systemic effects that long-term exposure to PM2.5 in a number the shape of nonlinear concentration- are secondary to effects in the of example urban areas.10 response curves at low levels of respiratory system including The EPA recognized that there were exposure that may exist’’ (Henderson, cardiovascular effects, or direct many sources of uncertainty and 2005a). Other uncertainties were cardiovascular effects. variability inherent in the inputs to this addressed in various sensitivity (2) The nature of the effects that have assessment and that there was a high analyses (e.g., the use of single-versus been reported to be associated with fine degree of uncertainty in the resulting multi-pollutant models, use of single- particle exposures including premature PM2.5 risk estimates. Such uncertainties versus multi-city models, use of a mortality, aggravation of respiratory and generally relate to a lack of clear distributed lag model) and had a more cardiovascular disease (as indicated by understanding of a number of important moderate and often variable impact on increased hospital admissions and factors, including, for example, the the risk estimates in some or all of the emergency department visits), changes shape of concentration-response cities. in lung function and increased functions, particularly when, as here, Key observations and insights from respiratory symptoms, as well as new effect thresholds can neither be the PM2.5 risk assessment, together with evidence for more subtle indicators of discerned nor determined not to exist; important caveats and limitations, were cardiovascular health. issues related to selection of appropriate discussed in section II.B of the proposal. (3) An integrated evaluation of the statistical models for the analysis of the In general, estimated risk reductions health effects evidence, with emphasis epidemiologic data; the role of associated with going from just meeting on key issues raised in interpreting potentially confounding and modifying the current suite of PM2.5 standards to epidemiological studies, along with factors in the concentration-response just meeting alternative suites of annual supporting evidence from experimental relationships; issues related to and 24-hour standards for all the (e.g., dosimetric and toxicologic) simulating how PM2.5 air quality various assumed cutpoints show studies. distributions will likely change in any patterns of increasing estimated risk (4) Sensitive or vulnerable given area upon attaining a particular reductions as either the annual or 24- subpopulations that appear to be at standard, since strategies to reduce hour standard, or both, were reduced greater risk to such effects, including emissions are not yet defined; and over the range considered in this individuals with pre-existing heart and whether there would be differential assessment, and the estimated lung diseases, older adults, and reductions in the many components percentage reductions in risk were children. within PM2.5 and, if so, whether this (5) Conclusions, based on the strongly influenced by the assumed would result in differential reductions cutpoint level (see EPA, 2005, Figures magnitude of these subpopulations and in risk. While some of these risks identified in health studies, that 5–1, 5–2, 5A–1, and 5A–2). In uncertainties were addressed comparing the risk estimates for the exposure to ambient fine particles can quantitatively in the form of estimated have substantial public health impacts. only two specific locations that were confidence ranges around central risk included in both the prior and current 3. Overview of Quantitative Risk estimates, other uncertainties and the assessments, the magnitude of the Assessment variability in key inputs were not estimates associated with just meeting reflected in these confidence ranges, but the current annual standard, in terms of In addition to a comprehensive rather were addressed through separate evaluation of the health effects evidence percentage of total incidence, were very sensitivity analyses or characterized similar for mortality associated with available in this review, EPA conducted qualitatively. long-term exposures. Current risk a quantitative health risk assessment for The concentration-response estimates for just meeting the current selected health effects to provide relationships used in the assessment additional information and insights that were based on findings from human suite of PM2.5 standards were similar in can help inform decision making on the epidemiological studies that relied on one of the locations (Philadelphia) and NAAQS, while recognizing the fixed-site, population-oriented, ambient somewhat lower in the other location limitations of such an assessment.9 As monitors as a surrogate for actual (Los Angeles) for mortality associated with short-term exposures. discussed in section II.B of the proposal, ambient PM2.5 exposures. The risk the approach used to develop assessment included a series of base B. Need for Revision of the Current quantitative risk estimates associated case estimates that, for example, Primary PM2.5 Standards with exposures to PM2.5 was built upon included various cutpoints intended as the more limited risk assessment surrogates for alternative assumed 1. Introduction conducted during the last review (61 FR population thresholds. In its review of The initial issue to be addressed in 65650). The expanded and updated the current review of the primary PM2.5 assessment conducted in this review 10 The risk assessment was discussed in the Staff standards is whether, in view of the included estimates of risks of mortality Paper (EPA, 2005, chapter 4) and presented more advances in scientific knowledge (total non-accidental, cardiovascular, fully in a technical support document, Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban reflected in the Criteria Document and Areas (Abt Associates, 2005). The assessment scope Staff Paper, the existing standards 9 The EPA continues to support the development and methodology were developed with should be revised. As discussed in and application of risk assessment methods with considerable input from the CASAC Panel and the section II.A of the proposal (71 FR the goal of improving the characterization of risks public, with CASAC concluding that the general and the communication of uncertainties in such assessment methodology and framework were 2625–2637), the Staff Paper concluded, risk estimates. appropriate (Hopke, 2002). based on the information and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61153

conclusions presented in the Criteria uncertainties since the last review, In considering the available Document, that while important virtually no commenters argued for any epidemiologic evidence in this review uncertainties and research questions relaxation of the current PM2.5 to address the question of whether more remain, much progress has been made standards. Based on these protective standards should be since the last review in reducing some considerations, EPA finds that overall considered, the Staff Paper took a key uncertainties related to our the available evidence has increased the broader approach than was used in the understanding of the scientific scientific basis supporting the health last review. This approach reflects the evidence. The newly available impacts of exposure to PM2.5, and not more extensive and stronger body of information generally reinforces and lessened it, providing clear support for evidence now available on health effects provides increased confidence in the fine particle standards that are at least related to both short- and long-term likely causal nature of the associations as protective as the current PM2.5 exposure to PM2.5, and places relatively between short- and long-term exposure standards. greater emphasis on evidence from long- to PM2.5 and mortality and morbidity Having reached this initial term exposure studies than was done in effects observed in the last review, and conclusion, EPA addresses the question the last review. As discussed below in provides additional information to whether the available evidence supports section II.F, this broader approach was inform judgments as to the extent to consideration of standards that are more used at the time of proposal to consider which such associations likely remain at protective than the current PM2.5 the much expanded body of evidence lower exposure levels within the range standards. In considering this question, from short-term exposure studies as the of ambient air quality. EPA first notes that the current principal basis for setting the 24-hour The examination of short- and long- standards were set as a suite that standard to protect against health effects term exposures to specific components, together would most effectively and associated with short-term exposures to properties, and sources of fine particles efficiently protect the public against PM2.5, and to consider the stronger and and mixtures of fine particles with health effects related to both short- and more robust body of evidence from long- gaseous co-pollutants that are linked long-term exposures to fine particles (62 term exposure PM2.5 studies as the with health effects, and the biological FR at 38669). In so doing, the Agency principal basis for setting the annual mechanisms underlying the observed set the annual standard to be the standard to protect against health effects linkages, remain important research ‘‘generally controlling’’ standard for associated with long-term exposures to needs. Other important research needs lowering both short- and long-term PM2.5. include better characterizing the shape PM2.5 concentrations. In conjunction In first considering whether areas in of concentration-response functions, with such an annual standard, the which short-term exposure studies have including identification of potential current 24-hour standard was set to been conducted would likely meet the threshold levels, and methodological provide only supplemental protection current PM2.5 standards, the focus is issues such as those associated with against days with high peak PM2.5 principally on comparing the long-term selecting appropriate statistical models concentrations, localized ‘‘hotspots,’’ or average PM2.5 concentration in a study in time-series studies to address time- risks arising from seasonal emissions area with the level of the current varying factors (such as weather) and that might not be well controlled by a ‘‘generally controlling’’ annual PM2.5 other factors (such as other pollution national annual standard. As discussed standard. In considering the available variables), and better characterizing below in section II.F, in considering epidemiologic evidence related to short- population exposures. what evidence to use as the basis for the term exposures, the Staff Paper focused Nonetheless, important progress has 1997 annual standard, EPA placed on specific epidemiologic studies that been made in advancing our greater emphasis on the short-term show statistically significant understanding of potential mechanisms exposure studies, which were judged to associations between PM2.5 and health by which ambient PM2.5, alone and in be the strongest evidence at that time. effects for which the Criteria Document combination with other pollutants, is The long-term exposure studies judged associations with PM2.5 to be causally linked with cardiovascular, available at that time provided only likely causal (EPA, 2005, section respiratory, and lung cancer supporting evidence for the annual 5.3.1.1). Many more U.S. and Canadian associations observed in epidemiologic standard, which was set primarily based studies are now available that provide studies. Due to reanalyses and on short-term exposure studies. evidence of associations between short- extensions of key long-term exposure In addressing the question whether term exposure to PM2.5 and serious studies, there is now greater confidence the evidence now available in this health effects in areas with air quality at in the causal nature of associations with review supports consideration of and above the level of the current long-term exposures to fine particles 3 standards that are more protective than annual PM2.5 standard (15 µg/m ). than in the last review. There is also an the current PM2.5 standards, the Staff Moreover, a few newly available short- increased understanding of the Paper considered whether (1) term exposure mortality studies provide populations that are the most statistically significant health effects evidence of statistically significant susceptible to PM2.5-related effects. In associations with short-term exposures associations with PM2.5 in areas with air addition, health effect associations to fine particles occur in areas that quality levels below the levels of the reported in epidemiologic studies have would likely meet the current PM2.5 current PM2.5 standards. In considering been found to be generally robust to standards, or (2) associations with long- these studies, the Staff Paper focused on confounding by co-pollutants, term exposures to fine particles extend those that include adequate gravimetric especially for the more numerous short- down to lower air quality levels than PM2.5 mass measurements, and noted term exposure studies. Further, while had previously been observed.11 where the associations are generally groups of commenters had differing robust to alternative model specification views on the extent to which, if at all, 11 In addressing this question, the Criteria and to the inclusion of potentially newly available evidence increases Document had recognized that although there are confounding co-pollutants. Three confidence in associations between likely biologic threshold levels in individuals for specific health responses, the available PM2.5 and mortality and morbidity epidemiologic evidence neither supports nor refutes of concentrations in the studies, for either long-term effects, and on the extent of progress the existence of thresholds at the population level or short-term PM2.5 exposures (EPA, 2004a, section that has been made in reducing for the effects of PM2.5 on mortality across the range 9.2.2.5).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61154 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

studies, conducted in Phoenix (Mar et Beyond the epidemiologic studies afforded by the current PM2.5 standards. al., 2003), Santa Clara County, CA using PM2.5 as an indicator of fine The Staff Paper noted that a more (Fairley, 2003) and eight Canadian cities particles, a large body of newly protective suite of PM2.5 standards (Burnett and Goldberg, 2003), report available evidence from studies that would reflect the generally stronger and statistically significant associations used PM10 in areas where fine particles broader body of evidence of associations between short-term PM2.5 exposure and would likely dominate this with mortality and morbidity now total or cardiovascular mortality in areas measurement, as well as other available in this review, both in short- in which long-term average PM2.5 indicators or components of fine term exposue studies at levels below the concentrations ranged between 13 and particles (e.g., sulfates, combustion- current standards and in long-term 14 µg/m3 and 98th percentile 24-hour related components), provides exposure studies that extend to lower concentrations ranged between 32 and additional support for the conclusions levels of air quality than in earlier 59 µg/m3.12 reached in the last review as to the studies, as well as increased In also considering the new likely causal role of ambient PM, and understanding of possible underlying epidemiologic evidence available from the likely importance of fine particles in mechanisms. U.S. and Canadian studies of long-term contributing to observed health effects. In addition to this evidence-based exposure to fine particles, the Criteria Such studies notably include new evaluation, the Staff Paper also Document noted that new studies have multi-city studies, intervention studies considered the extent to which health built upon studies available in the last (that relate reductions in ambient PM to risks estimated to occur upon review and concluded that these studies observed improvements in respiratory attainment of the current PM2.5 have confirmed and strengthened the or cardiovascular health), and source- standards may be judged to be evidence of associations for both oriented studies (e.g., suggesting important from a public health mortality and respiratory morbidity associations with combustion- and perspective, taking into account key (EPA, 2004a, section 9.2.3). For vehicle-related sources of fine particles). uncertainties associated with the mortality, the Criteria Document placed The Criteria Document also noted that quantitative health risk estimates, noted greatest weight on the reanalyses and new epidemiologic studies of asthma- above in section II.A.3. In so doing, the extensions of the Six Cities and ACS related increased physician visits and Staff Paper first noted that the risk studies, finding that these studies symptoms, as well as new studies of assessment addressed several key provide strong evidence for associations cardiac-related risk factors, suggest uncertainties through various base case with fine particles (EPA, 2004a, p. 9– likely much larger public health impacts analyses, as well as through sensitivity 34), notwithstanding the lack of due to ambient fine particles than just analyses, as noted above in section consistent results in other long-term those indexed by the mortality and II.A.3 and discussed in section II.B of exposure studies. For morbidity, the morbidity effects considered in the last the proposal (71 FR 2637–2641). In Criteria Document found that new review (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–94). considering the health risks estimated to studies of a cohort of children in In reviewing this information, the occur upon attainment of the current Southern California have built upon Staff Paper recognized that important PM2.5 standards, the Staff Paper focused earlier limited evidence to provide fairly limitations and uncertainties associated in particular on a series of base case risk strong evidence that long-term exposure with this expanded body of evidence for estimates, while recognizing that the to fine particles is associated with PM2.5 and other indicators or confidence ranges in the selected base development of chronic respiratory components of fine particles need to be case estimates do not reflect all the disease and reduced lung function carefully considered in determining the identified uncertainties. These risks growth (EPA, 2004a, pp. 9–33 to 9–34). weight to be placed on the body of were estimated using not only the linear In addition to strengthening the studies available in this review. For or log-linear concentration-response evidence of association, the new example, the Criteria Document noted functions reported in the studies,13 but extended ACS mortality study (Pope et that although PM-effects associations also using alternative modified linear al., 2002) observed statistically continue to be observed across most functions as surrogates for assumed significant associations with new studies, the newer findings do not non-linear functions that would reflect cardiorespiratory mortality (including fully resolve the extent to which the the possibility that thresholds may exist lung cancer mortality) across a range of associations are properly attributed to in the reported associations within the PM acting alone or in combination with long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations range of air quality observed in the that was lower than was reported in the other gaseous co-pollutants or to the studies. Regardless of the relative original ACS study available in the last gaseous co-pollutants themselves. The weight placed on the risk estimates review. Criteria Document concluded, however, associated with the concentration- that overall the newly available response functions reported in the epidemiologic evidence, especially for 12 As noted in the Staff Paper, these studies were studies or with the modified functions the more numerous short-term exposure reanalyzed to address questions about the favored by CASAC (discussed above in application of the statistical software used in the studies, substantiates that associations section II.A.3), the risk assessment original analyses, and the study results from for various PM indicators with mortality indicated the possibility that thousands Phoenix and Santa Clara County were little changed and morbidity are robust to confounding in alternative models (Mar et al., 2003; Fairley, of premature deaths per year would 2003), although Burnett and Goldberg (2003) by co-pollutants (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–37). While the limitations and occur in urban areas across the U.S. reported that their results were sensitive to using upon attainment of the current PM different temporal smoothing methods. Two of uncertainties in the available evidence 2.5 these studies also reported significant associations suggest caution in interpreting the with gaseous pollutants (Mar et al., 2003; Fairley, 13 As noted in section II.B of the proposal, the 2003), and one of these studies included multi- epidemiologic studies at the lower reported linear or log-linear concentration-response pollutant model results in reanalyses, reporting that levels of air quality observed in the functions were applied down to 7.5 µg/m3 in associations with PM2.5 remained significant with studies, the Staff Paper concluded that estimating risk associated with long-term exposure gaseous pollutants (Fairley, 2003). The 98th the evidence now available provides (i.e., the lowest measured level in the extended ACS percentile 24-hour concentrations were study), and down to the estimated policy-relevant approximately 59 µg/m3 in Fairley et al. (2003), 39 strong support for considering fine background level in estimating risk associated with µg/m3 in Burnett and Goldberg (2003), and 32 µg/ particle standards that would provide short-term exposure (i.e., 3.5 µg/m3 for eastern m3 in Mar et al. (2003). increased protection beyond that urban areas and 2.5 µg/m3 for western urban areas).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61155

standards.14 Beyond the estimated issue. In so doing, the Administrator primary standards are addressed in this incidences of premature mortality, the placed primary consideration on the section. Comments on specific short- Staff Paper also recognized that evidence obtained from the studies, and and long-term exposure studies that similarly substantial numbers of provisionally found the evidence of relate to consideration of the incidences of hospital admissions, serious health effects reported in short- appropriate levels of the 24-hour and emergency room visits, aggravation of term exposure studies conducted in annual PM2.5 standards are addressed asthma and other respiratory symptoms, areas that would attain the current below in sections II.F.1 and II.F.2, and increased cardiac-related risk are standards to be compelling, especially respectively. General comments based also likely in many urban areas, based in light of the extent to which such on implementation-related factors that on risk assessment results (EPA, 2005, studies are part of an overall pattern of are not a permissible basis for Chapter 4) and on the discussion related positive and frequently statistically considering the need to revise the to this ‘‘pyramid of effects’’ in the significant associations across a broad current standards are addressed in the Criteria Document (EPA, 2004a, section range of studies that collectively Response to Comments document. 9.2.5). Based on these considerations, represent a strong and robust body of Many public comments received on the Staff Paper concluded that the evidence. As discussed in the Criteria the proposal asserted that the current estimates of risks likely to remain upon Document and Staff Paper, the PM2.5 standards are insufficient to attainment of the current PM2.5 Administrator recognized that much protect public health with an adequate standards are indicative of risks that can progress has been made since the last margin of safety and revisions to the reasonably be judged to be important review in addressing some of the key standards are appropriate. Among those from a public health perspective (EPA, uncertainties that were important calling for revisions to the current 2005, section 5.3.1.). considerations in establishing the standards are medical groups, including In considering available evidence, risk current suite of PM2.5 standards. For the American Medical Association, the estimates, and related limitations and example, progress made since the last American Thoracic Society, the uncertainties, the Staff Paper concluded review provides increased confidence in American Academy of Pediatrics, and that the available information clearly the long-term exposure studies as a the American College of Cardiology, as calls into question the adequacy of the basis for considering whether any well as medical doctors and academic current suite of PM2.5 standards and revision of the annual standard is researchers. For example, the American provides strong support for revising the appropriate and increased confidence in Medical Association stated that PM air current suite of PM2.5 standards to the short-term exposure studies as a pollution is ‘‘a national public health provide increased public health basis for considering whether any problem’’ and supported more stringent protection. Also, taking into account revision of the 24-hour standard is standards based on studies that provide appropriate.16 In considering the risk these considerations, the CASAC evidence of associations between PM2.5 advised the Administrator that a assessment presented in the Staff Paper, and serious health effects in areas with the Administrator noted that the majority of CASAC Panel members were PM2.5 concentrations that are below the in agreement that the primary 24-hour assessment contained a sensitivity 1997 standards. Other medical analysis but not a formal uncertainty and annual PM2.5 standards ‘‘should be associations offered the following views modified to provide increased public analysis, making it difficult to use the in support of more protective standards: risk assessment to form a judgment of health protection’’ (Henderson, 2005a). As professional organizations that represent The CASAC further advised that the probability of various risk estimates. Instead, the Administrator viewed the physicians treating patients with diseases changes to either the annual standard or either caused by or exacerbated by air the 24-hour standard, or both, could be risk assessment in light of his evaluation pollution, we are keenly aware of the impact recommended, and expressed reasons of the underlying studies. Seen in this air quality has on the individual health of our that formed the basis for the consensus light, the risk assessment informs the patients. As such we are committed to among the Panel members for placing determination of the public health supporting a standard for PM that is more emphasis on lowering the 24-hour significance of risks to the extent that protective of the health of vulnerable the evidence is judged to support an populations including children, seniors and standard (Henderson, 2005a).15 effect at a particular level of air quality. patients with respiratory and cardiac At the time of proposal, in Based on these considerations, the conditions * * *. In short, a significant body considering whether the suite of PM 2.5 Administrator provisionally concluded of research has described potential standards should be revised to provide that the current PM standards, taken mechanisms for and the range of health requisite public health protection, the 2.5 effects caused by PM air pollution. The together, are not requisite to protect Administrator carefully considered the undersigned physician organizations find the public health with an adequate margin rationale and recommendations body of scientific evidence to be rigorous, of safety and that revision is needed to contained in the Staff Paper, the advice comprehensive and compelling enough to provide increased public health and recommendations from CASAC, justify a significant tightening of the existing protection. NAAQS PM standards. [American Thoracic and public comments to date on this Society et al.] 2. Comments on the Need for Revision 14 In a letter signed from environmental The Staff Paper recognized how highly General comments based on relevant dependent any specific risk estimates are on the health researchers and physicians, factors that either support or oppose any assumed shape of the underlying concentration- similar conclusions were drawn: response functions, noting nonetheless that change to the current suite of PM2.5 mortality risks are not completely eliminated when More than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have current PM2.5 standards are met in a number of 16 The EPA notes that this increased confidence been published since 1996 * * *. These example urban areas even using the highest in the long- and short-term associations generally studies, as discussed and interpreted in the assumed cutpoint levels considered in the risk reflects less uncertainty as to the likely causal 2004 EPA Criteria Document, validate earlier assessment (EPA, 2005, p. 5–15). nature of such associations, but does not address 15 epidemiologic studies linking both acute and Of the individual Panel members who directly the question of the extent to which such chronic fine particle pollution with serious submitted written comments expressing views on associations remain toward the lower end of the morbidity and mortality. The newer research appropriate levels of the PM2.5 standards, only one range of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. This did not support changes to either the 24-hour or question is central to the Agency’s evaluation of the has also expanded the list of health effects annual standard to provide additional public health relevant evidence to determine appropriate associated with PM, and has identified health protection (Henderson, 2005a). standards levels, as discussed below in section II.F. effects at lower exposure levels than

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61156 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

previously reported. In fact, the science is were of high quality, the original results the level of protection that is now sufficiently strong that it is appropriate could be fully replicated, and the results appropriate and supported by the to conclude that PM2.5 is causally associated were robust to alternative model available scientific information. with numerous adverse health effects in specifications. Some also mentioned the humans, at exposure levels far below the Some of these commenters also current standards. [Schwartz et al., 2005] ACS extended study (Pope et al., 2002) identified ‘‘new’’ studies that were not and the Southern California children’s included in the Criteria Document as Similar conclusions were also reached cohort study (Gauderman et al., 2002) as providing further support for the need in comments by many national, state, providing evidence of mortality and to revise the PM standards. As and local public health organizations, 2.5 morbidity effects associated with long- discussed above in section I.C, EPA including, for example, the American term exposures to PM2.5 at lower levels notes that, as in past NAAQS reviews, Lung Association, the American Heart than had previously been studied. A the Agency is basing the final decisions Association, the American Cancer number of short-term exposure studies in this review on the studies and related Society, the American Public Health were also cited by some of these information included in the PM air Association, and the National commenters as providing evidence of quality criteria that have undergone Association of Local Boards of Health, mortality and morbidity effects at levels CASAC and public review, and will as well as in letters to the Administrator well below the level of the current 24- consider the newly published studies from EPA’s advisory panel on children’s hour PM2.5 standard. In addition, many for purposes of decision making in the environmental health (Children’s Health of these commenters generally Protection Advisory Committee, 2005, next PM NAAQS review. Nonetheless, concluded that progress had been made in provisionally evaluating commenters’ 2006). All of these medical and public in reducing many of the uncertainties health commenters stated that the arguments (see Response to Comments identified in the last review and in document), EPA notes that its current PM2.5 standards need to be better understanding mechanisms by revised, and that even more protective provisional assessment of ‘‘new’’ which PM2.5 may be causing the science found that such studies did not standards than those proposed by EPA observed health effects. are needed to protect the health of materially change the conclusions in the Some of these commenters also noted Criteria Document. sensitive population groups. Many the results of EPA’s risk assessment, Another group of commenters individual commenters also expressed concluding that it showed that the risks representing industry associations and such views. estimated to remain when the current businesses opposed revising the current State and local air pollution control standards are met are large and PM standards. These views are most authorities who commented on the important from a public health 2.5 extensively presented in comments from PM2.5 standards supported revision of perspective and warrant increased the Utility Air Regulatory Group the suite of current PM2.5 standards, as protection. Some of these commenters (UARG), representing a group of electric did the National Tribal Air Association. expressed the view that PM -related 2.5 generating companies and organizations The State and Territorial Air Pollution risks are likely larger than those and several national trade associations, Program Administrators and the estimated in EPA’s risk assessment, in Association of Local Air Pollution part because EPA based its risk and from Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO) assessment on the ACS extended study and Pittman (Pillsbury et al.) on behalf of 19 industry and business associations urged that EPA revise the PM2.5 which had greater exposure standards in accordance with the measurement error than other studies, (including, for example, the Alliance of recommendations of CASAC. Each of leading to an underestimate of the Automobile Manufacturers, the the individual State environmental/ relative risk, and because EPA American Iron and Steel Institute, the public health agencies that commented incorporated an assumed ‘‘cutpoint’’ in National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and on the PM2.5 standards supported its assessment that is not supported by revisions to the current standards, with studies that find no evidence of a the U.S. Chamber of Commerce). most supporting standards consistent threshold. These and other commenters in this with CASAC’s recommendations. The In general, all of these commenters group generally mentioned many of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air agreed on the importance of results from same studies that were cited by the Use Management (NESCAUM) argued the large body of scientific studies commenters who supported revising the for even more stringent revisions to the reviewed in the Criteria Document and standards, as well as other studies, but standards. on the need to revise the suite of PM2.5 highlighted different aspects of these The commenters noted above standards as articulated in EPA’s studies in reaching substantially primarily based their views on the body proposal, while generally differing with different conclusions about their of evidence assessed in the Criteria EPA’s proposed judgments about the strength and the extent to which Document, finding it to be stronger and extent to which the standards should be progress has been made in reducing more compelling than in the last review. revised based on this evidence. The EPA uncertainties in the evidence since the These commenters generally placed generally agrees with these commenters’ last review. These commenters generally much weight on CASAC’s interpretation conclusion regarding the need to revise expressed the view that the current of the body of available evidence and the current suite of PM2.5 standards. The standards provide the requisite degree the results of EPA’s risk assessment, scientific evidence noted by these of public health protection. They then both of which formed the basis for commenters was generally the same as considered whether the evidence that CASAC’s recommendation to revise the that assessed in the Criteria Document has become available since the last PM2.5 standards to provide increased and the Staff Paper, and EPA agrees that review has established a more certain public health protection was based. this evidence provides a basis for risk or a risk of effects that are Some of these commenters concluding that the current PM2.5 significantly different in character to specifically mentioned the independent standards, taken together, are not those that provided a basis for the reanalysis of the original ACS and Six adequately protective of public health. current standards, or whether the Cities long-term exposure studies For reasons discussed below in section evidence demonstrates that the risk to conducted by HEI (Krewski et al., 2000) II.F, however, EPA disagrees with public health upon attainment of the that concluded that the original data aspects of these commenters’ views on current standards would be greater than

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61157

was understood when EPA established with increased risk of lung cancer. That With regard to the issue of the current standards in 1997. increased risk appears to be in about the mechanisms, these commenters noted In supporting their view that the same range as that seen for a nonsmoker that although EPA recognizes that new present suite of primary PM2.5 standards residing with a smoker, with any evidence is now available on potential continues to provide the requisite consequent life-shortening due to lung mechanisms and plausible biological public health protection and should not cancer’’ (EPA 2004a, p. 9–94). pathways, the evidence still does not be revised, UARG and others generally In addition, as noted earlier, the resolve all questions about how PM2.5 at stated: (1) That the effects of concern Criteria Document identified increased ambient levels could produce the effects have not changed significantly since nonhospital medical visits (physician in question in this review. They further 1997; (2) that the uncertainties in the visits) and aggravation of asthma assert that even if more recent underlying health science are as great or associated with short-term exposure to information has advanced our greater than in 1997; (3) that the PM2.5 as being newly identified effects understanding of such mechanisms, it estimated risk upon attainment of the since the last review, and concluded would not justify revision of the current PM2.5 standards has decreased that findings of such effects ‘‘suggest standard. The EPA notes that in the last since 1997; and (4) that ‘‘new’’ studies likely much larger health impacts and review, the Agency considered the lack not included in the Criteria Document costs to society due to ambient PM than of demonstrated biologic mechanisms continue to increase uncertainty about just those indexed either by just hospital for the varying effects observed in possible health risks associated with admissions/visits and/or mortality.’’ Id. epidemiologic studies to be an exposure to PM2.5. These comments are Further, the Criteria Document (EPA, important caution in its integrated discussed in turn below. 2004a, p. 9–79) noted that there may be assessment of the health evidence, upon (1) In asserting that effects of concern PM-related health effects in infants and which the standards were based. Since have not changed significantly since children, although only very limited the last review, there has been a great 1997, some of these commenters stated evidence of such effects exists. deal of research directed toward that more subtle physiological changes (2) In asserting that the uncertainties advancing our understanding of biologic in the cardiovascular system are the in the underlying health science are as mechanisms. While this research has only type of new PM-related effect great or greater than in 1997, not resolved all questions, and further identified in this review. They stated commenters in this group variously research is warranted, it has provided that such subtle effects are far less discussed a number of issues including: important insights as discussed in serious than the cardiovascular effects The lack of demonstrated mechanisms section II.A.1 of the proposal (71 FR such as aggravation of cardiovascular by which PM2.5 may be causing 2626–2627). As noted there, the findings disease that had been considered in the mortality and morbidity effects; from this new research indicate that last review. The EPA disagrees with the uncertainty in the shape of the different health responses are linked assertion that subtle changes in the concentration-response functions; the with different particle characteristics cardiovascular system are the only type potential for co-pollutant confounding; and that both individual components of new PM-related effect identified in uncertainty in the role of individual and complex particle mixtures appear to this review. Further, EPA believes that constituents of fine particles; and the be responsible for many biologic evidence of physiological changes in the sensitivity of epidemiological results to responses relevant to fine particle cardiovascular system is important in statistical model specification. Each of exposures. The Criteria Document (EPA, that it increases confidence in these issues is addressed below. In 2004a, p. 7–206) concluded: ‘‘Thus, inferences about the causal nature of the summary, these commenters concluded there appear to be multiple biologic associations between fine particles and that the substantial uncertainties mechanisms that may be responsible for cardiovascular-related mortality and present in the last review have not been observed morbidity/mortality due to hospital admissions. resolved, that a previously unrecognized exposure to ambient PM. It also appears As discussed in the Criteria Document sensitivity to model specification has that many biological responses are (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–75), epidemiologic been newly identified, and/or that the produced by PM whether it is composed studies published since the last review uncertainty about the possible health of a single component or a complex have expanded upon and extended the risks associated with PM2.5 exposure has mixture.’’ Further, EPA believes that evidence examining possible links not diminished. As discussed below, progress made in gaining insights into between long-term exposures to fine although EPA agrees that important potential mechanisms lends support to particles and increased risk of lung uncertainties remain, and that future the biologic plausibility of results cancer incidence and mortality, which research directed toward addressing observed in epidemiologic studies (71 was considered to be insufficient to these uncertainties is warranted, EPA FR 2636). The mechanistic evidence support such a linkage in the last believes that overall uncertainty about now available, taken together with review. In this review, however, the possible health risks associated with newly available epidemiologic epidemiologic evidence now available both short- and long-term PM2.5 evidence, increases the Agency’s ‘‘support(s) an association between exposure has diminished since the last confidence that observed associations long-term exposure to fine particles and review. As noted above, the greater are causal in nature, such that the risks lung cancer mortality; and the new confidence in short-term exposure of health effects attributed to short- and toxicological studies provide credible studies supports the Administrator’s long-term exposure to PM , acting evidence for the biological plausibility 2.5 increased reliance on those studies as alone and/or in combination with of these associations’’ (EPA, 2004a, p. 9– the basis for the 24-hour standard, and gaseous co-pollutants, are now more 76). More specifically, the Criteria greater confidence in long-term Document highlighted ‘‘the newer exposure studies supports the reflects less uncertainty as to the likely causal results of the extension of the ACS Administrator’s increased reliance on nature of such associations, but does not address study analyses (that include more years those studies as the basis for the annual directly the question of the extent to which such of participant follow-up and address 17 associations remain toward the lower end of the PM2.5. range of ambient PM2.5 concentrations. This previous criticisms of the earlier ACS question is central to the Agency’s evaluation of the analyses), which indicate that long-term 17 As noted above, this increased confidence in relevant evidence to determine appropriate ambient PM exposures are associated the long- and short-term associations generally standards levels, as discussed below in section II.F.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

certain than was understood in the last evidence of associations between PM that day-to-day variations in monitored review. and mortality and morbidity endpoints ambient gases were not associated with With regard to uncertainty in (UARG, p. 18). These commenters day-to-day changes in personal concentration-response functions, these asserted that EPA has inappropriately exposures to those gases, but they were commenters concluded that ‘‘because concluded that PM-related mortality associated with day-to-day changes in the actual shape of this function and morbidity associations are generally personal exposure to PM2.5. One remains unknown, this uncertainty has robust to confounding, which is one of reasonable interpretation of this study is not been reduced since 1997’’ (UARG, p. the criteria considered in drawing that for cities like Baltimore, changes in 17). The EPA notes that, in contrast to inferences about the extent to which model results when ambient gases are the last review when few studies had observed statistical associations are included in multi-pollutant models may quantitatively assessed the form of the likely causal in nature. The commenters stem from such gases being surrogates concentration-response function or the focused on an examination of the extent for exposures to particles and not potential for a threshold, several new to which statistically significant PM2.5 confounders at all. studies available in this review have associations based on one-pollutant The broader examination of this issue used different methods to examine this models in a number of time-series in the Criteria Document included a question, and most have been unable to studies, and in an analysis of focus on evaluating the stability of the detect threshold levels in time-series associations with long-term exposures size of the effect estimates in time-series mortality studies. The Criteria in the ACS cohort studies, often did not studies using single- and multi- Document (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–44) remain statistically significant in two- pollutant models, as illustrated in recognized that in multi-city and most pollutant models. Figures 8–16 through 8–19 (EPA, 2004a, single-city time-series studies, statistical In general, EPA does not believe that pp. 8–248 to 8–251). This examination tests comparing linear and various the examination of this issue put found that for most time-series studies, nonlinear or threshold models have not forward by these commenters reflects there was little change in effect shown statistically significant the complexities inherent in assessing estimates based on single- and multi- distinctions between them; where the issue of co-pollutant confounding. pollutant models, although recognizing potential threshold levels have been As discussed in the proposal (71 FR that in some cases, the PM effect suggested in single-city studies, they are 2634) and more fully in the Criteria estimates were markedly reduced in size at fairly low levels (Id. at p. 9–45). Document (EPA, 2004a, section 8.4.3; and lost statistical significance in Further, the shape of concentration- chapter 9, section 9.2.2.2.2), although models that included one or more response functions for long-term multi-pollutant models may be useful gaseous pollutants. The Criteria exposure to PM2.5 was evaluated using tools for assessing whether gaseous co- Document also noted that PM and the data from the ACS cohort, with the HEI pollutants may be potential gaseous co-pollutants were often highly reanalysis finding near-linear increasing confounders, such models cannot correlated, and it is generally the case trends through the range of particle determine whether in fact they are. that high correlations existed between levels observed in this study, and the Interpretation of the results of multi- pollutants where PM effect estimates extended ACS study reporting that the pollutant models is complicated by were reduced in size with the inclusion various mortality associations were not correlations that often exist among air of gaseous co-pollutants. With regard to significantly different from linear (71 FR pollutants, by the fact that some the analysis of multiple pollutants from 2635).18 However, EPA agrees that pollutants play a role in the atmospheric the ACS cohort, it is important to note uncertainties remain in our reactions that form other pollutants that the effects estimates for fine understanding of the shape of such as secondary fine particles, and by particles actually increased in two concentration-response functions, and, the inherent statistical power of the pollutant models that incorporated CO, consistent with the conclusion in the studies in question. While single-city NO2, and ozone, and were reduced only Criteria Document, has concluded that multi-pollutant models have received a for models that incorporated SO2. The the available evidence does not either great deal of attention during this Criteria Document recognized, however, support or refute the existence of review, the Criteria Document also that SO2 is a precursor for fine particle population thresholds for effects noted several other approaches to sulfates, which complicates the associated with short- or long-term examining the question, including a interpretation of multi-pollutant model exposures to PM across the range of more careful examination of personal results, and that mortality may be concentrations in the studies. Even exposures to PM and co-pollutants, the associated with not only PM2.5 but also while recognizing that uncertainties use of factor or principal component with other components of the mix of remain, EPA believes that our analyses, and the use of intervention ambient pollutants in this long-term understanding of this issue for both studies (EPA, 2004a, pp. 8–245 to 8– exposure study. short- and long-term exposure studies 246). The Criteria Document also Far from being dismissive, EPA has has been advanced since the last review. recognized that it is important to examined this issue in detail based on With regard to co-pollutant consider the issue of potential co- the much more extensive body of confounding, these commenters asserted pollutant confounding in the context of relevant evidence available in this that EPA has been ‘‘dismissive’’ of this the more recent evidence available review. This Criteria Document issue in assessing the epidemiologic about the biological plausibility of concluded that ‘‘the most consistent associations between the various findings from amidst the diversity of 18 In assessing such uncertainties in this review pollutants and health outcomes, model multi-pollutant evaluation results for relative to the last review, EPA notes that in the last specification, and exposure error (EPA, different sites is [sic] that the PM signal review the level of uncertainty associated with long-term exposure studies was such that they were 2004a, p. 8–254). most often comes through most clearly.’’ not relied on as the primary basis for the annual An example of other approaches to (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–254.) While standard. In the last review, relative risk estimates examining potential co-pollutant acknowledging that these analyses have from long-term exposure studies were deemed confounding is the study of personal not fully disentangled the relative role ‘‘highly uncertain’’ (62 FR 38668) and health effects from long-term exposure were characterized as exposure to fine particles and co- of co-pollutants, EPA believes that this ‘‘potentially independent’’ (Id.) from those pollutant gases done in Baltimore examination provides greater associated with short-term exposure. (Sarnat et al., 2001). This study found confidence than in the last review that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61159

observed effects can be attributed to (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–31, Table 9–3). In series studies, and that no single short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5, addition, several recent epidemiologic statistical modeling approach is likely to alone and in combination with other studies included in the Criteria be most appropriate in all cases (EPA pollutants, while recognizing that Document have used PM2.5 speciation 2004a, p. 8–238). potential confounding by co-pollutants data to evaluate associations between While recognizing the need for further remains a very challenging issue to mortality and fine particles from research on this issue, EPA believes that address, even with well-designed different sources, and some toxicologic the body of time-series epidemiologic studies. studies have provided evidence for studies considered in this review 19 With regard to questions about the effects associated with various fine provides an appropriate basis for role of individual constituents within particle components or size- informing the Agency’s decisions on the mix of fine particles, these differentiated subsets of fine particles. whether to revise the 24-hour PM2.5 commenters pointed out that EPA The available information continues standard, consistent with the conclusion recognized this issue as an important to suggest that many different chemical of the HEI review panel (‘‘* * * the uncertainty in the last review and did so components of fine particles and a revised findings will continue to help again in this review. These commenters variety of different types of source inform regulatory decisions regarding then expressed the view that such categories are all associated with, and PM.’’ HEI, 2003; EPA, 2004a, p. 8–237). continued uncertainty provides no probably contribute to, effects More specifically, as discussed in the grounds for reconsidering the Agency’s associated with PM2.5. Consequently, proposal (71 FR 2633–2634), the recent 1997 conclusion that the current PM2.5 there continues to be no basis to time-series epidemiologic studies standards provide the requisite conclude that any individual fine evaluated in the Criteria Document have protection. As a general matter, EPA particle component cannot be associated included some degree of control for agrees that although new research with adverse health effects (EPA, 2005, variations in weather and seasonal directed toward this question has been p. 5–17). This information is relevant to variables. However, as summarized in conducted since the last review, the Agency’s decision to retain PM2.5 as the HEI review panel commentary, important questions remain and the the indicator for fine particles (as selecting a level of control to adjust for issue remains an important element in discussed below in section II.C). The time-varying factors, such as the Agency’s ongoing research program. EPA also believes that it is relevant to temperature, in time-series The EPA does not agree, however, that the Agency’s conclusion as to whether epidemiologic studies involves a trade- continued uncertainty with regard to the revision of the suite of PM2.5 standards off. For example, if the model does not relative toxicity of components within is appropriate. Furthermore, while there sufficiently adjust for the relationship the mix of fine particles, in and of itself, remains uncertainty about the role and between the health outcome and provides grounds for not revising the relative toxicity of various components temperature, some effects of suite of PM2.5 standards. Rather, the full of fine PM, the current evidence temperature could be falsely ascribed to body of health effects evidence that has continues to support the view that fine the pollution variable. Conversely, if an become available since the last review particles should be addressed as a group overly aggressive approach is used to provides a basis for concluding that for purposes of public health protection, control for temperature, the result additional public health protection is and the remaining uncertainty does not would possibly underestimate the warranted to protect against health call for delaying any increase in public pollution-related effect and compromise effects that have been associated with health protection that other evidence the ability to detect a small but true exposure to fine particles measured as indicates may be warranted. pollution effect (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–236; PM2.5 mass. With regard to the sensitivity of HEI, 2003, p. 266). The selection of At the time of the last review, the epidemiologic associations to the use of approaches to address such variables Agency determined that it was different statistical models and different depends in part on prior knowledge and appropriate to control fine particles as a approaches to model specification used judgments made by the investigators, for group, as opposed to singling out any by researchers, these commenters example, about weather patterns in the particular component or class of fine identified this issue of model sensitivity study area and expected relationships particles. This distinction was based as an area in which uncertainty in between weather and other time-varying largely on epidemiologic evidence of interpreting epidemiologic evidence has factors and health outcomes considered health effects using various indicators of increased since the last review. in the study. fine particles in a large number of areas Comments from UARG, Pillsbury et al., The HEI commentary also reached that had significant contributions of the Annapolis Center and others several other relevant conclusions about differing components or sources of fine pointed to examples where individual the reanalysis of time-series studies: particles, together with some limited study results are sensitive to the use of upon reanalysis, the PM effect persisted experimental studies that provided alternative models, and to reviews that in the majority of studies; in some of the some evidence suggestive of health recommend further exploration of this large number of studies in which the effects associated with high issue in future research, as a basis for PM effect persisted, the estimates of PM concentrations of numerous fine particle asserting that current modeling effects were substantially reduced; in components. In this review, as approaches are too uncertain to use the the few studies in which further discussed in section II.D of the proposal available epidemiologic studies as a sensitivity analyses were performed, (71 FR 2643–2645) and below in section basis for revising the current PM2.5 some showed marked sensitivity of the II.C, while most epidemiologic studies standards. The EPA agrees that recent PM effect estimate to the degree of continue to be indexed by PM2.5, some work on model sensitivity has raised smoothing and/or the specification of epidemiologic studies also have new concerns and the Agency has given continued to implicate various much attention to this issue. In so 19 As discussed in section II.A.2.a of the proposal components within the mix of fine doing, EPA recognizes, as does the HEI (71 FR 2629–2630, 2633), this body of studies particles that have been more commonly and other researchers, that there is no includes those that did not use generalized additive models or were reanalyzed to address problems studied (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, carbon, clear consensus at this time as to what with applications of statistical software used in a organic compounds, and metals) as constitutes appropriate control of number of important studies, as noted above in being associated with adverse effects weather and temporal trends in time- section I.C.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61160 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

weather; and, in most studies, reported associations between short- need to revise the then-current PM10 parametric smoothing approaches used and long-term PM2.5 exposures and standards. The EPA used the 1997 risk to obtain correct standard errors of the mortality and morbidity effects, alone assessment estimates to confirm the PM effect estimates produced slightly and in combination with other conclusions drawn primarily from the larger standard errors than with the use pollutants, and generally supports epidemiological studies that ambient of generalized additive models. stronger inferences as to the causal PM2.5 levels allowed under the then However, the impact of these larger nature of the associations. The EPA also current PM10 standards presented a standard errors on the level of statistical believes that this increased confidence, serious public health problem. EPA did significance of the PM effect was minor when taken in context of the entire body not use it as a basis for selecting the (EPA, 2004a, pp. 8–237 to 8–238). While of available health effects evidence and level of the 1997 PM standards. See 62 recognizing the need for further in light of the evidence from short-term FR at 38656, 65; ATA III, 283 F. 3d at exploration of alternative modeling exposure studies of associations 373–74 (noting that EPA did not base approaches for time-series analyses, the observed in areas meeting the current the level of the standards on the Criteria Document found that the suite of PM2.5 standards, adds support to numerical results of the risk studies included in this part of the its conclusion that the current suite of assessment). In so doing, the reanalysis, in general, continued to PM2.5 standards needs to be revised to Administrator concurred with CASAC’s demonstrate associations between PM provide increased public health judgment that the quantitative risk and mortality and morbidity beyond protection. This increased confidence estimates at the time were too uncertain those attributable to weather variables also adds support to the Administrator’s for EPA to rely on in deciding the alone (EPA, 2004a, pp. 8–340, 8–341). decision to place greater reliance on the appropriate levels for the PM2.5 NAAQS. For long-term exposure to fine long-term exposure studies as the basis Therefore, the final decision on the level particles, the reanalysis and extended for the annual PM2.5 standard and to of the NAAQS was not based on the analyses of data from prospective cohort place greater reliance on the short-term absolute or relative risk reductions studies have shown that reported exposure studies as the basis for the 24- estimated in the quantitative risk associations between mortality and hour PM2.5 standard. assessment. Instead, the decision was long-term exposure to fine particles are (3) In asserting that the estimated risk based on a direct assessment of the robust to alternative modeling strategies upon attainment of the current PM2.5 available epidemiological studies and (Krewski et al., 2000). As stated in the standards has decreased since 1997 the concentration levels observed in reanalysis report, ‘‘The risk estimates (UARG, p. 23), these commenters urban areas examined in the studies reported by the Original Investigators compared results of EPA’s risk where statistically significant effects were remarkably robust to alternative assessment done in the last review with had been observed. Since EPA did not specifications of the underlying risk those from the Agency’s risk assessment rely on the 1997 quantitative risk models, thereby strengthening done as part of this review, and they estimates in setting the level of the 1997 confidence in the original findings’ concluded that risks upon attainment of standards, the 1997 estimates associated (Krewski et al., 2000, p. 232). In the the current PM2.5 standards ‘‘are almost with those levels do not represent a extended analysis, Krewski et al. (2000) surely far below those that were decision on a requisite level of did identify model sensitivities related predicted in 1997’’ (UARG, p. 25). These quantified risk from PM exposure, and to education level and spatial patterns commenters used this conclusion as the therefore do not support the argument in the data (e.g., correlations in air basis for a claim that there is no reason that a lower estimated risk is more than pollutant concentrations between cities to revise the current PM2.5 standards. In is necessary to provide the requisite within a region of the country). particular, UARG and other commenters level of protection. As a result, the However, these model sensitivities do claimed that based on this purported suggested quantitative comparison not invalidate the findings of reduction in risk estimates EPA cannot between the 1997 estimates and the statistically significant associations reconcile a decision to provide a greater current estimates of risks at the levels of between long-term exposure to PM2.5 level of health protection now than that the current standards is not an and mortality. For example, while the afforded by the current standards with appropriate basis for determining association was stronger for the subset the ‘‘not lower or higher than is whether the current suite of PM2.5 of the ACS cohort with the least necessary’’ standard articulated by the standards needs to be revised. education, there was an association with Supreme Court in Whitman. Second, EPA relies on the current risk cardiorespiratory mortality in the entire The EPA believes that this claim is estimates associated with meeting the population.20 fundamentally flawed for three reasons, current standards in a qualitative In considering these issues related to as discussed in turn below: (i) It manner, as in 1997, to inform the uncertainties in the underlying health mischaracterizes the use of the conclusions drawn primarily from the science, on balance, EPA believes that quantitative risk assessment in the 1997 epidemiological studies on whether the available evidence interpreted in rulemaking; (ii) it is factually incorrect ambient PM2.5 levels allowed under the light of these remaining uncertainties in comparing the quantitative risks current suite of PM2.5 standards present does provide increased confidence estimated in 1997 with those estimated a serious public health problem relative to the last review in the in the current rulemaking; and (iii) it warranting revision of the suite of PM2.5 fails to take into account that with standards. The 1997 estimate of these 20 More specifically, in multivariate models, the similar risks, increased certainty in the risks, or any comparison of the 1997 risk association found between mortality and long-term risks presented by PM2.5 implies greater estimates to the current estimates, are PM2.5 exposure was little changed with addition of concern than in the last review. irrelevant for that purpose, as the 1997 education level to the model (Krewski et al., 2000, p. 184). This indicates that education level was not First, this claim mischaracterizes estimates reflect an outdated analysis a confounder in the relationship between fine EPA’s use of the risk assessment in 1997 that has been updated in this review to particles and mortality, but the relationship in part by not recognizing that the reflect the current science. between fine particles and mortality is larger in the illustrative risk assessment conducted Further, even if the 1997 and current population subsets with lower education in this study and not statistically significant in the for portions of two cities (Philadelphia risk assessments were legitimately population subset with the highest education (EPA, and Los Angeles) in the last review was comparable for decision-making 2004, p. 8–100). only used qualitatively to assess the purposes, it would still be factually

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61161

incorrect to conclude that EPA accepted to revise the PM2.5 standards at this evidence of serious health effects significantly greater risk in 1997 than is time. In any case, there is not a associated with both short- and long- now estimated to be associated with the significant difference in the risk term exposures to PM2.5. Further, the 1997 standards based on the most recent estimates from 1997 to now. Finally, Administrator believes that the risk assessment. It is important to note EPA believes that confidence in the increased confidence in the evidence of that a very large proportion of the causal relationships between short- and health effects associated with long-term quantitative risks estimated in 1997 and long-term exposures to fine particles exposure to PM2.5 supports relying on today comes from long-term exposure and various health effects has increased long-term exposure studies as the basis mortality. The primary estimates from markedly since 1997. Therefore, similar for setting the annual standard in this the current risk assessment (which or even somewhat lower quantitative review. This is in contrast to 1997 when assume a potential threshold of 10 µg/ risk estimates today would not be a EPA relied primarily on evidence from m3, as recommended by CASAC) result basis to conclude that no revision to the the then-available short-term exposure in residual risks in terms of percent of suite of PM2.5 standards is ‘‘requisite’’ to studies as the primary basis for setting total incidence that are about the same protect public health with an adequate the annual standard. As discussed in the in the current review as they were in the margin of safety. Criteria Document and Staff Paper, the last review for both Philadelphia and (4) Some of these commenters also Administrator believes that much Los Angeles. identified ‘‘new’’ studies that were not progress has been made since the last Third, it is important to take into included in the Criteria Document as review in reducing some of the major account EPA’s increased level of showing ‘‘continued erosion of the uncertainties that were important confidence in the associations between hypothesis that there is a causal considerations in establishing the short- and long-term PM2.5 exposures connection between fine PM mass and current suite of PM2.5 standards. and mortality and morbidity effects. In health effects’’ and further supporting Extensive critical review of this body comparing the scientific understanding ‘‘the conclusion that more stringent of evidence, the quantitative risk of the risk presented by exposure to PM2.5 standards are not justified’’ assessment, and related uncertainties PM2.5 between the last and current (Pillsbury et al., p. 14). As discussed during the criteria and standards review reviews, one must examine not only the above in section I.C, EPA notes that, as process, including review by CASAC quantitative estimate of risk from those in past NAAQS reviews, the Agency is and the public of the basis for EPA’s exposures (e.g. the numbers of basing the final decisions in this review proposed decision to revise the suite of premature deaths or increased hospital on the studies and related information primary PM2.5 standards, has identified admissions at various levels), but also included in the PM air quality criteria a number of issues about which the degree of confidence that the that have undergone CASAC and public different reviewers disagree and for Agency has that the observed health review, and will consider newly which additional research is warranted. effects are causally linked to PM2.5 published studies for purposes of Nonetheless, on balance, the exposure at those levels. As decision making in the next PM NAAQS Administrator believes that the documented in the Criteria Document review. Nonetheless, in provisionally remaining uncertainties in the available and the recommendations and evaluating commenters’ arguments (see evidence do not diminish confidence in conclusions of CASAC, EPA recognizes Response to Comments document), EPA the associations between serious significant advances in our notes that its provisional assessment of mortality and morbidity effects and understanding of the health effects of ‘‘new’’ science found that such studies exposure to fine particles, in particular PM2.5, based on reanalyses, extended did not materially change the as reported in peer-reviewed short-term analyses and new epidemiology studies, conclusions in the Criteria Document. exposure studies at levels allowed by new human and animal studies the current standards. In this regard, the 3. Conclusions Regarding the Need for documenting effects of concentrated Administrator agrees with CASAC and Revision ambient particles, new laboratory the majority of public commenters that studies identifying and investigating Having carefully considered the revision of the current suite of PM2.5 biological mechanisms of PM toxicity, public comments, as discussed above, standards to provide increased public and new studies addressing the utility the Administrator believes the health protection is both appropriate of using ambient monitors to assess fundamental scientific conclusions on and necessary. Based on these population exposures to particles of the effects of PM2.5 reached in the considerations, the Administrator outdoor origin. As a result of these Criteria Document and Staff Paper, concludes that the current suite of advances, EPA is now more certain that discussed above in section II.B.1, primary PM2.5 standards, taken together, fine particles, alone or in combination remain valid. In considering whether is not sufficient and thus not requisite with other pollutants, present a the suite of primary PM2.5 standards to protect public health with an significant risk to public health at levels should be revised, the Administrator adequate margin of safety, and that at or above the range of levels that the places primary consideration on the revision is needed to provide increased Agency had considered for these evidence obtained from the public health protection. standards in 1997. From this more epidemiologic studies, and finds the It is important to note that this comprehensive perspective, since the evidence of serious health effects conclusion, and the reasoning on which risks presented by PM2.5 are more reported in short-term exposure studies it is based, do not address the question certain and the overall current conducted in areas that would meet the of what specific revisions are quantitative risk estimates are about the current suite of PM2.5 standards to be appropriate. That requires looking same as in 1997, PM2.5-related risks are compelling, especially in light of the specifically at the current indicator, now of greater concern than in the last extent to which such studies are part of averaging time, form, and level of the review. an overall pattern of positive and 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards, In sum, quantitative risk estimates frequently statistically significant and evaluating the evidence relevant to were not a basis for EPA’s decision in associations across a broad range of determining whether any of those setting a level for the PM2.5 standards in studies. The Administrator believes that elements should be revised. The 1997, and they do not set any quantified this literature collectively represents a analyses discussed above concerning ‘‘benchmark’’ for the Agency’s decision strong and generally robust body of the need to revise the current standards

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61162 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

go no further than determining whether locations it would miss a portion of the Finally, a small study in three New the evidence, taken as a whole, fine PM, especially under high humidity Jersey cities reported significant indicates that greater public health conditions, which would result in associations between mortality and fine protection is needed than that provided falsely low fine PM measurements on particles from industrial, oil burning, by the current suite of PM2.5 standards. days with some of the highest fine PM motor vehicle and sulfate aerosol concentrations. The selection of a 2.5 sources, though the results were C. Indicator for Fine Particles µm size cut reflected the regulatory somewhat inconsistent between cities In 1997, EPA established PM2.5 as the importance that was placed on defining (Tsai et al., 2000).22 No significant indicator for fine particles. In reaching an indicator for fine particle standards increase in mortality was reported with this decision, the Agency first that would more completely capture a source factor representing crustal considered whether the indicator fine particles under all conditions likely material in fine particles (EPA, 2004a, p. should be based on the mass of a size- to be encountered across the U.S., 8–85). Recognizing that these three differentiated sample of fine particles or especially when fine particle studies represent a very preliminary on one or more components within the concentrations are likely to be high, effort to distinguish effects of fine mix of fine particles. Second, in while recognizing that some small particles from different sources, and that establishing a size-based indicator, a coarse particles would also be captured the results are not always consistent size cut needed to be selected that by PM2.5 monitoring. Thus, EPA’s across the cities, the Criteria Document would appropriately distinguish fine selection of 2.5 µm as the size cut for found that these studies indicate that particles from particles in the coarse the fine particle indicator was based on exposure to fine particles from mode. considerations of consistency with the combustion sources, but not crustal In addressing the first question in the epidemiologic studies, the regulatory material, is associated with mortality last review, EPA determined that it was importance of more completely (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–77). Animal appropriate to control fine particles as a capturing fine particles under all toxicologic and controlled human group, as opposed to singling out any conditions, and the potential for limited exposure studies have continued to link particular component or class of fine intrusion of coarse particles in some a variety of PM components or particle particles. Community health studies had areas; it also took into account the types (e.g., sulfates, notably primary found significant associations between general availability of monitoring metal sulfate emissions from residual oil various indicators of fine particles technology (62 FR 38668). burning, metals, organic constituents, (including PM2.5 or PM10 in areas In this current review, the same bioaerosols, diesel particles) with health dominated by fine particles) and health considerations continue to apply for effects, though often at high effects in a large number of areas that selection of an appropriate indicator for concentrations (EPA, 2004a, section had significant mass contributions of fine particles. As an initial matter, the 7.10.2). In addition, some recent studies differing components or sources of fine available epidemiologic studies linking have suggested that the ultrafine subset particles, including sulfates, wood mortality and morbidity effects with of fine particles (generally including smoke, nitrates, secondary organic short- and long-term exposures to fine particles with a nominal aerodynamic compounds and acid sulfate aerosols. In particles continue to be largely indexed diameter less than 0.1 µm) may also be addition, a number of animal by PM2.5. Some epidemiologic studies associated with adverse effects (EPA, toxicologic and controlled human also have continued to implicate various 2004a, pp. 8–67 to 8–68). exposure studies had reported health components within the mix of fine The Criteria Document recognized effects associations with high particles that have been more commonly that, for a given health response, some concentrations of numerous fine particle studied (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, carbon, fine particle components are likely to be components (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, and metals) as more closely linked with that response transition metals, organic compounds), being associated with adverse effects than others. The presumption that although such associations were not (EPA, 2004a p. 9–31, Table 9–3). In different PM constituents may have consistently observed. It also was not addition, several recent studies have differing biological responses is possible to rule out any component used PM2.5 speciation data to evaluate toxicologically plausible and an within the mix of fine particles as not the association between mortality and important source of uncertainty in contributing to the fine particle effects particles from different sources interpreting such epidemiologic found in epidemiologic studies. For (Schwartz, 2003; Mar et al., 2003; Tsai evidence. For specific effects there may these reasons, EPA concluded that total et al., 2000; EPA, 2004a, section 8.2.2.5). be stronger correlation with individual mass of fine particles was the most Schwartz (2003) reported statistically PM components than with aggregate appropriate indicator for fine particle significant associations for mortality particle mass. In addition, particles or standards rather than an indicator based with factors representing fine particles particle-bound water can act as carriers on PM composition (62 FR 38667). from traffic and residual oil combustion to deliver other toxic agents into the Having selected a size-based indicator that were little changed in reanalysis to respiratory tract, suggesting that for fine particles, the Agency then based address statistical modeling issues, and its selection of a specific size cut on a also an association between mortality cardiovascular mortality, but that the sulfate number of considerations. In focusing ‘‘factor,’’ which was so associated, contained and coal combustion-related particles elevated levels of lead and bromine. The authors on a size cut within the size range of 1 that was reduced in size and lost µ state that the health association with the sulfate (S) to 3 m (i.e., the intermodal range statistical significance in reanalysis. In factor ‘‘may be reflective of the contribution of Pb between fine and coarse mode Phoenix, significant associations were [lead] and Br [bromine] to the S factor.’’ Mar et al. particles), the Agency noted that the (2003) did not provide information about single- reported between mortality and fine pollutant analysis of sulfate or about contribution available epidemiologic studies of fine particles from traffic emissions, of Pb and Br to the S factor. particles were based largely on PM2.5; vegetative burning, and regional sulfate 22 More specifically, statistically significant only very limited use of PM1 monitors sources that remained unchanged in associations were reported with factors representing had been made. While it was recognized reanalysis models (Mar et al., 2003).21 fine particles from oil burning, industrial and that using PM as an indicator of fine sulfate aerosol sources in Newark and with particles 1 from oil burning and motor vehicle sources in particles would exclude the tail of the 21 Mar et al. (2000) noted that sulfate alone in a Camden, and no statistically significant associations coarse mode in some locations, in other single-pollutant model was not associated with were reported in Elizabeth.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61163

exposure to particles may elicit effects size cuts took into account that there is Information from such studies could that are linked with a mixture of generally very little mass in this also help inform the development of components more than with any intermodal range, although in some strategies that emphasize control of individual PM component (EPA, 2004a, circumstances (e.g., windy, dusty areas) specific types of emission sources so as section 9.2.3.1.3). the coarse mode can extend down to to address particles of greatest concern Thus, epidemiologic and toxicologic and below 1 µm, whereas in other to public health. While recognizing that studies have provided evidence for circumstances (e.g., high humidity the studies evaluated in the Criteria effects associated with various fine conditions, usually associated with very Document provided some limited particle components or size- high fine particle concentrations) the evidence of such associations that is differentiated subsets of fine particles. fine mode can extend up to and above helping to focus research activities, the The Criteria Document concluded: 2.5 µm. The same considerations that Administrator solicited broad public ‘‘These studies suggest that many led to the selection of 2.5 µm size cut comment on issues related to studies of different chemical components of fine in the last review—that the fine particle components and types of particles and a variety of different types epidemiologic evidence was largely source categories and their usefulness as of source categories are all associated based on PM2.5 and that it was more a basis for consideration of alternative with, and probably contribute to, important from a regulatory perspective indicator(s) for fine particle standards. mortality, either independently or in to capture fine particles more In general, comment was solicited on combinations’’ (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–31). completely under all conditions likely relevant new published research, Conversely, the Criteria Document to be encountered across the U.S. recommendations for studies that would provided no basis to conclude that any (especially when fine particle be appropriate for inclusion in future individual fine particle component concentrations are likely to be high) research activities, and approaches to cannot be associated with adverse than to avoid some coarse-mode assessing the available and future health effects (EPA, 2005, p. 5–17). In intrusion into the fine fraction in some research results to determine whether short, there is not sufficient evidence areas—led to the same recommendation alternative indicators for fine particles that would lead toward the selection of in the Staff Paper (EPA, 2005, p. 5–18), are warranted to provide effective one or more PM components as being which was endorsed by CASAC in its protection of public health from effects primarily responsible for effects recommendations for PM2.5 standards associated with long- and short-term associated with fine particles, nor is (Henderson, 2005a, p. 6). In addition, exposure to ambient fine particles (71 there sufficient evidence to suggest that the Staff Paper recognized that particles FR at 2645). More specifically, the any component should be eliminated can act as carriers of water, oxidative proposal solicited comment on a from the indicator for fine particles. The compounds, and other components into number of related issues, including the Staff Paper continued to recognize the the respiratory system, which adds to extent to which reducing particular importance of an indicator that not only the importance of ensuring that larger types of PM (differentiated by either size captures all of the most harmful accumulation-mode particles are or chemistry) might alter the size and components of fine particles (i.e., an included in the fine particle size cut toxicity of remaining particles; the effective indicator), but also emphasizes (EPA, 2005, p. 5–18). extent to which fine particles in urban control of those constituents or Consistent with the Staff Paper and and rural areas can be differentiated by fractions, including sulfates, transition CASAC recommendations, the size or chemistry; the extent to which metals, and organics that have been Administrator proposed to retain PM2.5 the latest scientific information can be associated with health effects in as the indicator for fine particles. used to improve our understanding of epidemiologic and/or toxicologic Further, the Administrator provisionally the relationship of monitored pollution studies, and is thus most likely to result concluded that currently available levels to human exposure; and on in the largest risk reduction (i.e., an studies do not provide a sufficient basis studies using concentrated ambient efficient indicator). Taking into account for supplementing mass-based fine particles (CAPs) and their use in the above considerations, the Staff Paper particle standards with standards for examining the toxicity of specific concluded that it remains appropriate to any specific fine particle component or mixtures of pollutants or of particular control fine particles as a group; i.e., subset of fine particles, or for source categories. that total mass of fine particles is the eliminating any individual component The EPA received comparatively few most appropriate indicator for fine or subset of components from fine public comments on issues related to particle standards (EPA, 2005, p. 5–17). particle mass standards. Addressing the the indicator for fine particles.23 Public With regard to an appropriate size cut current uncertainties in the evidence of comments from all major public and for a size-based indicator of total fine effects associated with various fine private sector groups received on the particle mass, the Criteria Document particle components and types of source proposal were overwhelmingly in favor concluded that advances in our categories is an important element in of EPA’s proposal to retain PM2.5 as the understanding of the characteristics of EPA’s ongoing PM research program. indicator for fine particles. Commenters fine particles continue to support the In so doing, the Administrator also who supported retaining PM2.5 as an use of particle size as an appropriate noted that some commenters had indicator argued that current scientific basis for distinguishing between these expressed views about the importance evidence does not identify specific subclasses, and that a nominal size cut of evaluating health effect associations components or sources of concern and of 2.5 µm remains appropriate (EPA, with various fine particle components therefore, that a mass-based indicator 2004a, p. 9–22). This conclusion and types of source categories as a basis remains the appropriate indicator for followed from a recognition that within for focusing ongoing and future research fine particles (Engine Manufacturers the intermodal range of 1 to 3 µm there to reduce uncertainties in this area and Association; American Lung is no unambiguous definition of an for considering whether alternative Association et al.). Some commenters appropriate size cut for the separation of indicator(s) are now or may be emphasized the need to conduct the overlapping fine and coarse particle appropriate for standards intended to additional research to more fully modes. Within this range, the Staff protect against the array of health effects µ Paper considered size cuts of both 1 m that have been associated with fine 23 No public comments were submitted regarding and 2.5 µm. Consideration of these two particles as indexed by PM2.5. the use of a different size for fine particles.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 07:08 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61164 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

understand the effect of specific PM basis for establishing a seasonal for the PM2.5 primary standards. A components and/or sources on public averaging time. group of public health and health. For example, the Electric Power In considering whether the environmental organizations agreed that Research Institute highlighted specific information available in this review ‘‘the EPA has selected the appropriate new research studies that had been supported consideration of different averaging times for the fine particle completed since the close of the Criteria averaging times for PM2.5 standards, the standards’’ (American Lung Association Document addressing issues related to Staff Paper concluded that the available et al.). fine particle components and source information is generally consistent with Having considered the public apportionment, and noted its ongoing and supportive of the conclusions comments on this issue, the research on component-related health reached in the last review to set PM2.5 Administrator concurs with the effects that includes coordinated standards with both annual and 24-hour recommendations presented in the Staff epidemiology, toxicology, and exposure averaging times. In considering the new Paper and recommendations made by assessment studies. The Administrator information, the Staff Paper made the CASAC (Henderson, 2005a) and recognizes the work of the Electric following observations (EPA, 2005, concludes, as proposed, that it is Power Research Institute and agrees that section 5.3.3): appropriate to retain the current annual additional research is important to (1) There is a growing body of studies and 24-hour averaging times for the improve future understanding of the that provide additional evidence of primary PM2.5 standards to protect role of specific fine particle components effects associated with exposure periods against health effects associated with and/or sources of fine particles. The shorter than 24-hours (e.g., one to short-term and long-term exposure Administrator also recognizes the several hours) (EPA, 2004a, section periods. ongoing efforts of HEI to conduct 3.5.5.1). While the Staff Paper additional multidisciplinary research concluded that this information remains E. Form of Primary PM2.5 Standards too limited to serve as a basis for targeted at expanding the available data 1. 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard on the health effects associated with establishing a shorter-than-24-hour fine In 1997 EPA established the form of specific PM components (HEI, 2005). particle primary standard at this time, it Having considered the public also noted that this information gives the 24-hour PM2.5 standard as the 98th comments on this issue, the added weight to the importance of a percentile of the annual 24-hour Administrator concurs with the Staff standard with a 24-hour averaging time. concentrations at each population- oriented monitor within an area, Paper and CASAC recommendations (2) Some recent PM10 studies have and concludes that it is appropriate to used a distributed lag over several days averaged over three years (62 FR 38671– 74). EPA found that, as compared to an retain PM2.5 as the indicator for fine to weeks preceding the health event, particles. although this modeling approach has exceedance-based form used in earlier not been extended to studies of fine PM standards, a concentration-based D. Averaging Time of Primary PM2.5 particles (EPA, 2004a, section 3.5.5). form is more reflective of the health risk Standards While such studies continue to suggest posed by elevated PM2.5 concentrations In the last review, EPA established consideration of a multiple day because it gives proportionally greater two PM2.5 standards, based on annual averaging time, the Staff Paper noted weight to days when concentrations are and 24-hour averaging times, that limiting 24-hour concentrations of well above the level of the standard than respectively (62 FR 38668–70). This fine particles will also protect against to days when the concentrations are just decision was based in part on evidence effects found to be associated with PM above the standard. Further, a of health effects related to both short- averaged over many days in health concentration-based form better term (from less than 1 day to up to studies. Consistent with the conclusion compensates for missing data and less- several days) and long-term (from a year reached in the last review, the Staff than-every-day monitoring; and, when to several years) measures of PM. The Paper concluded that a multiple-day averaged over 3 years, it has greater EPA noted that the large majority of averaging time would add complexity stability and, thus, facilitates the community epidemiologic studies without providing more effective development of more stable reported associations based on 24-hour protection than a 24-hour average. implementation programs. After averaging times or on multiple-day (3) While some newer studies have considering a range of concentration averages. Further, EPA noted that a 24- investigated seasonal effects (EPA, percentiles from the 95th to the 99th, hour standard could also effectively 2004a, section 3.5.5.3), the Staff Paper EPA selected the 98th percentile as an protect against episodes lasting several concluded that currently available appropriate balance between adequately days, as well as providing some degree evidence of such effects is still too limiting the occurrence of peak of protection from potential effects limited to serve as a basis for concentrations and providing increased associated with shorter duration considering seasonal standards. stability and robustness. Further, by exposures. The EPA also recognized that Based on the above considerations, basing the form of the standard on an annual standard would provide the Staff Paper and CASAC (Henderson, concentrations measured at population- effective protection against both annual 2005a, p. 6) recommended retaining the oriented monitoring sites (as specified and multi-year, cumulative exposures current annual and 24-hour averaging in 40 CFR part 58), EPA intended to that had been associated with an array times for PM2.5 primary standards. The provide protection for people residing of health effects, and that a much longer Administrator concurred with the staff in or near localized areas of elevated averaging time would complicate and and CASAC recommendations and concentrations. unnecessarily delay control strategies proposed that averaging times for PM2.5 In this review, the Staff Paper and attainment decisions. The EPA standards should continue to include concluded that it is appropriate to retain considered the possibility of seasonal annual and 24-hour averages to protect a concentration-based form that is effects, although the very limited against health effects associated with defined in terms of a specific percentile available evidence of such effects and short-term (hours to days) and long-term of the distribution of 24-hour PM2.5 the seasonal variability of sources of (seasons to years) exposure periods. concentrations at each population- fine particle emissions across the The EPA received very limited public oriented monitor within an area, country did not provide an adequate comment on the issue of averaging time averaged over 3 years. This staff

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61165

recommendation was based on the same percentile form could allow too many day frequency sample data-set reasons that were the basis for EPA’s days where concentrations exceeded the compared to a daily sample data-set by selection of this type of form in the last level of the standard, and thus fail to approximately 1 µg/m 3’’ (NESCAUM, p. review. As to the specific percentile adequately protect public health. The 3), and recommended revisions to the value to be considered, the Staff Paper EPA received comparatively few public methodology such that ‘‘the calculation took into consideration (1) the relative comments from State and local air becomes insensitive to data capture rate risk reduction afforded by alternative pollution control authorities and tribal or sampling frequency’’ (NESCAUM, forms at the same standard level, (2) the organizations on the form of the 24-hour Attachment A, p.7). Another state relative year-to-year stability of the air PM2.5 standard. Of the limited number commenter suggested the issue could be quality statistic to be used as the basis of state air pollution control authorities addressed by ‘‘the addition of language for the form of a standard, and (3) the that commented on the form of the 24- that requires areas that are near the implications from a public health hour PM2.5 standard, all supported daily NAAQS to continue to use every communication perspective of the retaining the 98th percentile form. Of day FRM/FEM sampling’’ (Delaware extent to which either form allows the limited number of local air pollution Department of Natural Resources, p. 4). different numbers of days in a year to control authorities and tribal The EPA agrees with these commenters be above the level of the standard in organizations that commented on the that the potential bias in calculating the areas that attain the standard. Based on form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, design value of the 24-hour PM2.5 these considerations, the Staff Paper some supported retaining the 98th standard is a concern. To reduce this recommended either retaining the 98th percentile form while others supported bias, EPA had proposed to increase the percentile form or revising it to be based the 99th percentile form. Beyond their sampling frequency for monitoring sites on the 99th percentile form, and noted support for retaining the current 24- that were within 10 percent of the that primary consideration should be hour PM2.5 standard, which has a 98th standard to 1 in 3 day sampling (Part 58 given to the combination of form and percentile form, commenters section 12(d)(1)). The EPA is persuaded level, as compared to looking at the representing industry associations and by these comments that it is appropriate form in isolation (EPA, 2005, p. 5–44). businesses provided no specific to adjust the proposed sampling In considering the information comments regarding the form of the 24- frequency requirements in order to provided in the Staff Paper, most hour PM2.5 standard. further reduce this bias. Accordingly, CASAC Panel members favored The EPA notes that the viewpoints EPA is modifying the final monitoring continued use of the 98th percentile for represented in this review are similar to requirements such that areas that are a concentration-based form because it is comments submitted in the last review within 5 percent of the standard will be more robust than the 99th percentile, and through various NAAQS reviews. required to increase the frequency of such that it would provide more The EPA recognizes that the selection of sampling to every day (Part 58 section stability to prevent areas from moving in the appropriate form includes 12(d)(1).25 and out of attainment from year to year maintaining adequate protection against (Henderson 2005a). In recommending peak 24-hour values while also 2. Annual PM2.5 Standard retention of the 98th percentile form, providing a stable target for risk In 1997 EPA established the form of the CASAC Panel recognized that it is management programs, which serves to the annual PM2.5 standard as an annual the link between the form and level of provide for the most effective public arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years, a standard that determines the degree of health protection in the long run.24 from single or multiple community- public health protection the standard Nothing in the commenters’ views has oriented monitors. This form of the affords. provided a reason to change the annual standard was intended to In considering the available Administrator’s previous conclusion represent a relatively stable measure of information and the Staff Paper and regarding the appropriate balance air quality and to characterize area-wide CASAC recommendations, the represented in the proposed form of the PM2.5 concentrations in conjunction Administrator proposed to retain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, the with a 24-hour standard designed to form for the 24-hour standard. In so Administrator concurs with CASAC provide adequate protection against doing, the Administrator focused on the recommendations and concludes that it localized peak or seasonal PM2.5 levels. relative stability of the 98th and 99th is appropriate to retain the 98th The current annual PM2.5 standard level percentile forms as a basis for selecting percentile form for the 24-hour PM2.5 is to be compared to measurements the 98th percentile form, while standard. made at the community-oriented recognizing that the degree of public In reaching this conclusion, EPA also monitoring site recording the highest health protection likely to be afforded recognizes that several states that level, or, if specific constraints are met, by a standard is a result of the otherwise supported EPA’s proposal to measurements from multiple combination of the form and the level of retain the 98th percentile form of the 24- community-oriented monitoring sites the standard. hour PM2.5 standard raised concerns may be averaged (Part 50 Appendix N None of the public commenters raised regarding a technical problem section 1.0(c) and 2.1(a) and (b) and Part objections to continuing the use of a associated with a potential bias in the 58 Appendix D section 2.8.1.6.1; 62 FR concentration-based form for the 24- method used to calculate the 98th 38672). Community-oriented monitoring hour standard. Many of the individuals percentile concentration for this form. sites were specified to be consistent and groups who supported a more NESCAUM, in particular, noted that with the intent that a spatially averaged stringent 24-hour PM2.5 standard noted ‘‘the existing and proposed annual standard protect persons living above in Section II.B, however, methodology yields a lower (i.e., less in smaller communities, as well as those recommended a more restrictive stringent) value on average for a 1 in 3 in larger population centers. The concentration-based percentile form, constraints on allowing the use of 24 specifically a 99th percentile form. The See ATA III, 283 F. 3d at 374–375 which spatially averaged measurements were limited number of these commenters concludes it is legitimate for EPA to consider promotion of overall effectiveness of NAAQS who provided a specific rationale for implementation programs, including their overall 25 See final rulemaking notice regarding revisions this recommendation generally stability, in setting a standard that is requisite to to ambient air monitoring requirements, elsewhere expressed their concern that the 98th protect the public health. in today’s Federal Register.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61166 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

intended to limit averaging across estimated risks associated with long- potentially resulting in disproportionate poorly correlated or widely disparate air term exposures that remain upon just impacts on these potentially vulnerable quality values.26 This approach was meeting the current annual standard are subpopulations. judged to be consistent with the short- greater when spatial averaging is used In considering whether more stringent term epidemiologic studies on which than when the highest monitor is used constraints on the use of spatial the annual PM2.5 standard was primarily (i.e., the estimated reductions in risk averaging may be appropriate, the Staff based, in which air quality data were associated with just attaining the Paper presented results of an analysis of generally averaged across multiple current or alternative annual standards recent air quality data which assessed monitors in an area or were taken from are less when spatial averaging is used), correlations and differences between a single monitor that was selected to as the use of the highest monitor leads monitor pairs in metropolitan areas represent community-wide exposures, to greater modeled reductions in across the country (Schmidt et al., 28 not localized ‘‘hot spots’’ (62 FR 38672). ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 2005). For all pairs of PM2.5 monitors, These criteria and constraints were In considering the potential for the median correlation coefficient based intended to ensure that spatial averaging disproportionate impacts on potentially on annual air quality data is would not result in inequities in the vulnerable subpopulations, EPA approximately 0.9, which is level of protection afforded by the PM2.5 assessed whether any such groups are substantially higher than the current standards (Id.). more likely than the general population criterion (in Appendix D of Part 58, In this review, there now exists a to live in census tracts in which the section 2.8.1.6.1) of a minimum much larger set of PM2.5 air quality data monitors recording the highest air correlation of at least 0.6, which was than was available in the last review. quality values in an area are located. met by nearly all monitor pairs. The Consideration in the Staff Paper of the Data used in this analysis included current criterion that differences in spatial variability across urban areas demographic parameters measured at mean air quality values between that is revealed by this new data base the census tract level, including individual monitors and the has raised questions as to whether an education level, income level, and corresponding multi-site spatial average annual standard that allows for spatial percent minority population. Data from not exceed 20 percent on an annual averaging, within currently specified or the census tract in each area in which basis also was met for most monitor alternative constraints, would provide the highest air quality value was pairs, while the actual annual median appropriate public health protection. monitored were compared to the area- and mean differences for all monitor Analyses in the Staff Paper to assess wide average value (consistent with the pairs were 5 percent and 8 percent, these questions, as discussed below, constraints on spatial averaging respectively. This analysis also showed took into account both aggregate provided by the current standard) in that in some areas with highly seasonal population risk across an entire urban each area (Schmidt et al., 2005). air quality patterns (e.g., due to seasonal area and the potential for Recognizing the limitations of such wood smoke emissions), substantially disproportionate impacts on potentially cross-sectional analyses, the Staff Paper lower seasonal correlations and larger vulnerable subpopulations within an observed that the results suggest that the seasonal differences can occur relative area. highest concentrations in an area tend to to those observed on an annual basis. The effect of allowing the use of be measured at monitors located in This analysis provided some spatial averaging on aggregate areas where the surrounding population perspective on the constraints on spatial population risk was considered in is more likely to have lower education averaging that were adopted in the last sensitivity analyses included in the and income levels, and higher review before data were widely health risk assessment (EPA, 2005, percentages of minority populations available on spatial distributions of section 4.4.3.2). In particular, this (EPA, 2005, p. 5–41).29 Noting the PM2.5 air quality levels. included analyses of several urban areas intended purposes of the form of the In considering the results of the that compared estimated mortality risks annual standard, as discussed above, the analyses discussed above, the Staff based on calculating compliance with Staff Paper concluded that the existing Paper concluded that it is appropriate to alternative standards (1) using air constraints on spatial averaging may not consider either eliminating the quality values from the highest be adequate to avoid substantially provision that allows for spatial community-oriented monitor in an area greater exposures in some areas, averaging from the form of an annual and (2) using air quality values averaged PM2.5 standard or narrowing the across all such monitors within the reduction in ambient PM2.5 is needed to just meet constraints on spatial averaging to be the standards. based on more restrictive criteria. More constraints on spatial averaging allowed 28 27 For example, based on analyses conducted in specifically, based on the analyses by the current standard. As expected, three example urban areas, estimated mortality incidence associated with long-term exposure based discussed above, the Staff Paper 26 The current constraints include the criteria that on the use of spatial averaging is about 10 to more recommended consideration of revised the correlation coefficient between monitor pairs to than 40 percent higher than estimated incidence criteria such that the correlation be averaged be at least 0.6, and that differences in based on the use of the highest monitor (EPA, 2005, coefficient between monitor pairs to be mean air quality values between monitors to be p.5–41). averaged be at least 0.9, determined on averaged not exceed 20 percent and that areas in 29 As summarized in section II.A.4 of the which monitoring results may be averaged should proposal, the Criteria Document notes that some a seasonal basis, and annual mean principally be affected by the same major emission epidemiologic study results, most notably the differences between individual monitors source of PM2.5 (Part 58 App. D section 2.8.1.6.1). associations between total mortality and long-term and corresponding spatial averages not 27 As discussed in the Staff Paper (EPA, 2005; PM2.5 exposure in the ACS cohort, have shown exceed 10 percent (EPA, 2005, p. 5– section 4.2.2), the monitored air quality values were larger effect estimates in the cohort subgroup with 30 used to determine the design value for the annual lower education levels (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–103). The 42). standard in each area, as applied to a ‘‘composite’’ Criteria Document also notes that lower education monitor to reflect area-wide exposures. Changing level can be a marker for lower socioeconomic 30 In CASAC’s review of the Second Draft Staff the basis of the annual standard design value from status that may be related to increased vulnerability Paper, most of the members of the CASAC Review the concentration at the highest monitor to the to the effects of fine particle exposures, for example, Panel found the fine particle sections to be average concentration across all monitors changes as a result of greater exposure from proximity to ‘‘generally well-written and scientifically well- the amount of reduction in PM2.5 levels that is sources such as roadways and industry, as well as reasoned’’ but, beyond their recommendation that needed to just meet the current or alternative other factors such as poorer health status and access the primary PM2.5 standards should be annual standards. With averaging, less overall to health care (EPA, 2004a, section 9.2.4.5). strengthened, CASAC provided no specific

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61167

In considering the Staff Paper for the annual PM2.5 standard in the concentration at each site shall be recommendations based on the results range recommended by CASAC but also within 10 percent of the spatially of the analyses discussed above, and supported retaining the option for averaged annual mean, and (2) the daily focusing on a desire to be consistent spatial averaging for the form of the values for each monitoring site pair with the epidemiologic studies on standard arguing that ‘‘rarely is one shall yield a correlation coefficient of at which the PM2.5 health effects are based monitor representative of an entire least 0.9 for each calendar quarter. and concern over the evidence of nonattainment area’’ especially in the F. Level of Primary PM2.5 Standards potential disproportionate impact on western U.S. (Utah Department of potentially vulnerable subpopulations, Environmental Quality, 2006, p. 2). In the last review, having concluded that it was appropriate to establish both the Administrator proposed to revise the The Administrator emphasizes that 24-hour and annual PM standards, form of the annual PM2.5 standard the intent of the current spatial 2.5 EPA selected a level for each standard consistent with the Staff Paper averaging criteria, as defined in 1997 that was appropriate for the function to recommendation to change two of the based on a limited set of PM air 2.5 be served by each (62 FR 38674, 38676– criteria for use of spatial averaging such quality data, was to ensure that spatial 77). As noted above, EPA concluded at that the correlation coefficient between averaging would not result in inequities that time that the suite of PM monitor pairs must be at least 0.9, in the level of protection provided by 2.5 standards could most effectively and determined on a seasonal basis, with the PM standards against health 2.5 efficiently protect public health by differences between monitor values not effects associated with short- and long- to exceed 10 percent (71 FR 2647). The treating the annual standard as the term exposures to PM2.5. Based on the generally controlling standard for Administrator also solicited comment analyses described above (Schmidt et on the other Staff Paper-recommended lowering both short- and long-term al., 2005), which are based on the much 31 alternative of revising the form of the PM2.5 concentrations. In conjunction larger set of air quality data that has with such an annual standard, the 24- annual PM2.5 standard to one based on become available since the last review, the highest community-oriented hour standard was intended to provide EPA now believes that tighter protection against days with high peak monitor in an area, with no allowance constraints on spatial averaging are PM2.5 concentrations, localized for spatial averaging (Id. at 2647–48). necessary to address concerns over Relatively few public comments were ‘‘hotspots,’’ and risks arising from potential disproportionate impacts on received on the form of the annual PM seasonal emissions that would not be 2.5 the populations that EPA has identified standard. Of the commenters noted well controlled by an annual standard.32 above in Section II.B who supported a as being potentially vulnerable to PM2.5- In selecting the level for the annual related health effects. The EPA believes more stringent annual PM2.5 standard, standard in the last review, EPA used an those who commented on the form of that current information and analyses evidence-based approach that indicate that application of the current the annual PM2.5 standard argued that considered the evidence from both the EPA analyses described above form has the clear potential to result in short- and long-term exposure studies. demonstrated that the current form of disproportionate impacts on potentially The risk assessment conducted in the the standard results in uneven public vulnerable subpopulations in some last review, while providing qualitative health protection leading to areas. The EPA recognizes that the insights about the distribution of risks, disproportionate impacts on potentially proposed constraints have the potential was considered by EPA to be too limited vulnerable subpopulations, and thus a to increase the stringency of the annual to serve as a quantitative basis for change in the form of the standard is PM2.5 standard in some areas in which decisions on the standard levels. In needed. However, these commenters a State might choose to use spatial accordance with Staff Paper and CASAC argued that the proposed modifications averaging. The EPA believes that in views on the relative strengths of the to the spatial averaging criteria were not such cases this increased stringency is short- and long-term exposure studies, stringent enough and, in order to reduce warranted so as to address possible EPA placed greater emphasis on the the possibility of pollution hotspots and disproportionate impacts on potentially short-term exposure studies. In so disproportionate impacts, especially in vulnerable populations and more doing, EPA first determined a level for areas meeting the annual PM2.5 generally to avoid inequities across all the annual standard based on the short- standard, spatial averaging should be population groups. The EPA disagrees term exposure studies, and then eliminated (American Lung Association with those commenters who support considered whether the long-term et al., 2006, pp. 44–47; Schwartz, 2005, eliminating spatial averaging altogether. exposure studies suggested the need for p. 2). Of the commenters noted above in The EPA believes that the proposed a lower level. While recognizing that Section II.B who supported retaining the narrowing of the spatial averaging health effects could occur over the full current annual PM2.5 standard, those criteria will adequately address the range of concentrations observed in the who commented specifically on the concerns about disproportionate impact studies, EPA concluded that the form of the standard supported retaining raised by some commenters, as analyzed the current spatial averaging criteria. in the Staff Paper, by substantially 31 In so doing, EPA noted that an annual standard These views are most extensively reducing the amount of spatial variation would focus control programs on annual average in long-term ambient levels that will be PM2.5 concentrations, which would generally presented in comments from UARG who control the overall distribution of 24-hour exposure argued that changes to the spatial allowed to be averaged together in levels, as well as long-term exposure levels, and averaging criteria, effectively increasing determining compliance with the would also result in fewer and lower 24-hour peak the stringency of the standard, are not standard. Therefore, the Administrator concentrations. Alternatively, a 24-hour standard concludes that the current form of the that focused controls on peak concentrations could needed as the current standards provide also result in lower annual average concentrations. the requisite degree of public health standard should be retained with the Thus, EPA recognized that either standard could protection (UARG, 2006. pp. 33–36). In proposed modifications. The form of the provide some degree of protection from both short- addition, one state air pollution control annual PM2.5 standard is retained as an and long-term exposures, with the other standard annual arithmetic mean, averaged over serving to address situations where the daily peaks agency supported a more stringent level and annual averages are not consistently correlated 3 years; however, the following two (62 FR 38669). comments regarding the form of the annual aspects of the spatial averaging criteria 32 See also ATA III, 283 F.3d at 373 (endorsing standard (Henderson, 2005a, pp. 1–2). are narrowed: (1) The annual mean this reasoning).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61168 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

strongest evidence for short-term PM2.5 standard, with such standard aimed at PM2.5 studies as the principal basis for effects occurs for air quality protecting against health effects selecting the proposed level of the 24- distributions with long-term associated with long-term exposures to hour standard. In considering these concentrations near the long-term (e.g., PM2.5. studies as a basis for the level of a 24- annual) average in those studies With respect to the quantitative risk hour standard, and having provisionally reporting statistically significant health assessment, the Administrator selected a 98th percentile form for the effects. Thus, in the last review, EPA recognized at proposal that it rests on a standard, the Administrator agreed with selected a level for the annual standard more extensive body of data and is more the focus in the Staff Paper of looking that was somewhat below the lowest comprehensive in scope than the at the 98th percentile values in these long-term average PM2.5 concentration assessment conducted in the last studies. In so doing, the Administrator in a short-term exposure study that review, but was mindful that significant recognized that these studies provide no reported statistically significant health uncertainties continue to underlie the evidence of clear effect thresholds or effects. Further consideration of the resulting risk estimates. Such lowest-observed-effects levels. Thus, in average PM2.5 concentrations across the uncertainties generally relate to a lack of focusing on 98th percentile values in cities in the key long-term exposure clear understanding of a number of these studies, the Administrator was studies available at that time did not important factors, including, for seeking to establish a standard level that provide a basis for establishing a lower example, the shape of concentration- will require improvements in air quality annual standard level. response functions, particularly when, generally in areas in which the In this review, the approach used in as here, effect thresholds can neither be distribution of daily short-term the Staff Paper as a basis for staff discerned nor determined not to exist; exposure to PM2.5 can reasonably be recommendations on standard levels issues related to selection of appropriate expected to be associated with serious built upon and broadened the general statistical models for the analysis of the health effects. Although future air approach used by EPA in the last epidemiologic data; the role of quality improvement strategies in any review. This broader approach reflected potentially confounding and modifying particular area are not yet defined, most the more extensive and stronger body of factors in the concentration-response such strategies are likely to move a evidence now available on health effects relationships; issues related to broad distribution of PM2.5 air quality related to both short- and long-term simulating how PM2.5 air quality values in an area lower, resulting in exposure to PM2.5, together with the distributions will likely change in any reductions in risk associated with availability of much more extensive given area upon attaining a particular exposures to PM2.5 levels across a wide PM2.5 air quality data. This newly standard, since strategies to reduce range of concentrations. available information was used to emissions are not yet defined; and Based on the information in the Staff conduct a more comprehensive risk whether there would be differential Paper and in a supporting staff 33 assessment for PM2.5. As a consequence, reductions in the many components memorandum, the Administrator the broader approach used in the Staff within PM2.5 and, if so, whether this observed an overall pattern of Paper discussed ways to take into would result in differential reductions statistically significant associations account both evidence-based and in risk. In the case of fine particles, the reported in studies of short-term quantitative risk-based considerations Administrator recognized that for exposure to PM2.5 across a wide range of and placed relatively greater emphasis purposes of developing quantitative risk 24-hour average 98th percentile values. on evidence from long-term exposure estimates such uncertainties are likely More specifically, the Administrator studies than was done in the last to amplified by the complexity in the observed a strong predominance of review. composition of the mix of fine particles studies with 98th percentile values Given the extensive body of new generally present in the ambient air. down to about 39 µg/m3 (in Burnett and evidence based specifically on PM2.5 Further, in the Administrator’s view, Goldberg, 2003) reporting statistically that is now available, and the resulting this risk assessment, which is based on significant associations with mortality, broader approach presented in the Staff studies that do not resolve the issue of hospital admissions, and respiratory Paper, the Administrator considered it a threshold, has important limitations as symptoms. For example, within this appropriate to use a somewhat different a basis for standard setting, since if no range of air quality, statistically evidence-based approach from that used threshold is assumed the assessment significant associations were reported in the last review to propose appropriate necessarily predicts that ever lower for mortality in the combined Six Cities standard levels. In the Administrator’s standards result in ever lower risks. study (and three of four individual cities view, the very large numbers of PM2.5 This has the effect of masking the within that study 34) (Klemm and health effect studies that now make up increasing uncertainty in the risk Mason, 2003), the Canadian 8-City the available body of evidence provide estimates that exists as lower levels are Study (Burnett and Goldberg, 2003), and the most reliable basis for determining considered, even when a range of in studies in Santa Clara County, CA the level of the standards. More assumed thresholds is included. As a specifically, EPA’s proposal relied on an result, at the time of proposal the 33 As discussed in the Staff Paper (EPA, 2005, p. evidence-based approach that Administrator viewed the risk 5–30) and supporting staff memo (Ross and considered the much expanded body of assessment as providing supporting Langstaff, 2005), staff focused on U.S. and Canadian short-term exposure PM2.5 studies that had been evidence from short-term exposure evidence for the conclusion that there is reanalyzed as appropriate to address statistical PM2.5 studies as the principal basis for a need to revise the current suite of modeling issues and considered the extent to which the reported associations are robust to co-pollutant selecting the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards, but he judged that it standard, with such standard aimed at confounding and alternative modeling approaches did not provide an appropriate basis to and are based on relatively reliable air quality data. protecting against health effects determine what specific quantitative Additional air quality data used in this analysis associated with short-term exposures to revisions are appropriate. were documented in another staff memo (Ross and PM2.5. Likewise, the stronger and more Langstaff, 2006) that was placed in the docket robust body of evidence from the long- 1. 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard during the public comment period. 34 Of the four cities in this study that were within term exposure PM2.5 studies was Based on the approach discussed this range of air quality, statistically significant considered as the principal basis for above, the Administrator relied upon results were reported for Boston, St. Louis, and selecting the level of the annual evidence from the short-term exposure Knoxville, but not for Steubenville.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61169

(Fairley, 2003) and Philadelphia 2001) do not provide a basis for remain causal in nature. Thus, the (Lipfert, 2000); for hospital admissions reaching conclusions about associations Administrator was hesitant to use such and emergency department visits in at such levels. Thus, in the risk estimates as a basis for proposing a Seattle (Sheppard et al., 2003), Toronto Administrator’s view, this body of specific standard level, particularly one (Burnett et al., 1997; Thurston et al., evidence provided confidence that below 35 µg/m3, and instead preferred 1994), Detroit (Ito, 2003, for heart statistically significant associations are to base the decision on level directly on failure 35 and pneumonia, but not for occurring down close to this range, and the evidence in the studies themselves other causes), and Montreal (Delfino et it provided a clear basis for (71 FR 2649). al., 1998,36 for some but not all age provisionally concluding that this range Taking the above considerations into groups and years); and for respiratory represents a range of reasonable values account, the Administrator proposed to symptoms in panel studies in a for a 24-hour standard level. The set the level of the primary 24-hour 3 41 combined Six Cities study (Schwartz et Administrator further noted that PM2.5 standard at 35 µg/m . In the al., 1994, as reanalyzed in Schwartz and focusing on the range of 35 to 30 µg/m3 Administrator’s judgment at that time, Neas, 2000) and in two Pennsylvania is consistent with the interpretation of based on the currently available cities (Uniontown in Neas et al., 1995; the evidence held by most CASAC Panel evidence, a standard set at this level State College in Neas et al., 1996).37 members as reflected in their would protect public health with an Studies in this air quality range that recommendation to select a 24-hour adequate margin of safety from serious reported positive but not statistically PM2.5 standard level within this range health effects, including premature significant associations include (Henderson, 2005a, p. 7). The mortality and hospital admissions for mortality studies in Detroit (Ito, 2003), Administrator recognized, however, the cardiorespiratory causes that are likely Pittsburgh (Chock et al., 2000), separate point that most CASAC Panel causally associated with short-term Steubenville (Klemm and Mason, 2003), members favored the range of 35 to 30 exposure to PM2.5. This judgment 3 and Montreal (Goldberg and Burnett, µg/m for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in appropriately considered the 2003), and a study of lung function in concert with an annual standard set in requirement for a standard that is Philadelphia 38 (Neas et al., 1999). the range of 14 to 13 µg/m3 (Id.), as neither more nor less stringent than Within the range of 24-hour average discussed in section II.F.2 below. necessary for this purpose and 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations of At proposal, in considering what level recognized that the CAA does not about 35 to 30 µg/m3, the Administrator would be appropriate for a 24-hour require that primary standards be set at no longer observed this strong standard, the Administrator was a zero-risk level, but rather at a level predominance of statistically significant mindful that this choice requires that reduces risk sufficiently so as to results. Rather, within this range, one judgment based on an interpretation of protect public health with an adequate study reports statistically significant the evidence that neither overstates nor margin of safety. results (Mar et al., 2003), other studies understates the strength and limitations At the time of proposal, the report mixed results in which some of the evidence, or the appropriate Administrator recognized that sharply associations reported in the study are inferences to be drawn from the divergent views on the appropriate level statistically significant and others are evidence. In the absence of evidence of of this standard had been presented to not (Delfino et al., 1997; Peters et al., any clear effects thresholds, EPA may EPA as part of the NAAQS review 2000),39 and other studies report select a specific standard level from process, and solicited comment on a associations that are not statistically within a range of reasonable values. In wide range of standard levels and significant (Ostro, 2003; 40 two making this judgment, the alternative approaches to characterizing individual cities within Klemm and Administrator noted that the general and addressing scientific uncertainties. Mason, 2003). Further, the uncertainties related to the shape of the One such alternative view focused very Administrator concluded that the very concentration-response functions and to strongly on the uncertainties inherent in limited number of studies in which the the selection of appropriate statistical the epidemiologic and toxicologic 98th percentile values are below this models affect the likelihood that studies and the quantitative risk range (Stieb et al., 2000; Peters et al., observed associations are causal down assessment as the basis for concluding to the lowest concentrations in the that no change to the current 24-hour 3 35 The proposal incorrectly listed this as an studies. Further, and more specifically, PM2.5 standard of 65 µg/m was association with ischemic heart disease. the variation in results found in the warranted. In sharp contrast, others 36 The proposal incorrectly included Delfino et short-term exposure studies in which viewed the epidemiologic evidence and al., 1997 here as well as correctly including it in the 98th percentile values were below other health studies as strong and the next lower air quality range. 35 µg/m3 indicated an increase in 37 Of the studies within this group that evaluated robust, and generally placed much multi-pollutant associations, as discussed above in uncertainty as to whether likely causal weight on the results of the quantitative section II.A.3, the results reported in Fairley (2003), associations extend down below this risk assessment as a basis for concluding Sheppard (2003), and Ito (2003) were generally level (71 FR 2649). that a much stronger policy response is robust to inclusion of gaseous co-pollutants. In considering the extent to which the warranted, generally consistent with a 38 The proposal incorrectly identified this as a quantitative risk assessment should µ 3 statistically significant association. standard level at or below 25 g/m . As inform EPA’s selection of a 24-hour 39 For example, Delfino et al. (1997) report discussed below, the same sharply statistically significant associations between PM2.5 PM2.5 standard, the Administrator divergent views were generally repeated and respiratory emergency department visits for recognized that risk estimates based on in comments on the proposal by the two elderly people (>64 years old), but not children (<2 simulating the attainment of standards distinct groups of commenters years old), in one part of the study period (summer set at lower levels within this range will 1993) but not the other (summer 1992). Peters et al. identified in section II.B.2 above. (2000) report new findings of associations between inevitably suggest some additional In considering comments received on fine particles and cardiac arrhythmia, but the reductions in risk at each lower the proposal, the Administrator first Criteria Document observes that the strongest standard level considered. However, notes that CASAC provided additional associations were reported for a small subset of the these quantitative risk estimates largely study population that had experienced 10 or more recommendations concerning the defibrillator discharges (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–164). depend upon assumptions made about 40 The proposal incorrectly identified this as a the lowest level at which reported 41 As noted above, the proposed form of the 24- statistically significant association. associations will likely persist and hour standard was the same as the current standard.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61170 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

proposed PM standards in a letter to the relied on an examination of this values below 35 µg/m3 were Administrator (Henderson, 2006, p. 2), rationale included in an attachment to characterized as having no overall noting that members of the CASAC PM UARG’s comments as the basis for significant association. After fully Panel were generally pleased that the concluding that the available studies do considering this examination of patterns proposed 24-hour PM2.5 primary not support EPA’s view of the overall of study results, the Administrator standard was within the range that had pattern of statistically significant believes that the observations of previously been recommended by most associations in studies of short-term patterns of study results presented members. Further, the Panel recognized exposure to PM2.5 across a wide range of earlier in this section remain valid.42 that the proposed choice of the high end 98th percentile PM2.5 values. This The other group of commenters, of the recommended range was a policy examination of such studies concluded including many medical groups, judgment. A number of commenters, that there is no consistent pattern of numerous physicians and academic including many States and Tribes, who associations at levels up to (and above) researchers, many public health µ 3 supported the proposed level generally the 65 g/m 98th percentile level of the organizations, some States, and a large placed great weight on the current standard. This examination was number of individual commenters, recommendation of CASAC. based on an individual consultant’s viewed the epidemiologic evidence and Many more commenters expressed ranking of a set of short-term exposure other health studies as strong and robust disagreement with the proposed level. studies by what is characterized as the and expressed the belief that a much As noted above, these commenters ‘‘overall significance’’ of each study’s stronger policy response is warranted, generally fell into two distinct groups results. A number of studies were generally consistent with a standard that expressed sharply divergent views included in this examination that EPA level at or below 25 µg/m3. Some of on their interpretations of the science did not include in looking at the pattern these commenters generally expressed (in some cases taking into consideration of associations. the view that the level of the standard ‘‘new’’ science not included in the In considering the approach used in should be set below the lowest level Criteria Document), on the appropriate this examination, EPA concludes that policy response based on the science, the categorical rankings were observed in any of the studies that and on how the quantitative risk inappropriately defined in a very report any statistically significant assessment should factor into a decision restrictive way that overly emphasized association. Some also expressed the on the standard level. certain studies based on selection view that important uncertainties In interpreting the available scientific criteria that favored multi-pollutant inherently present in the evidence information, including consideration of models and alternative model warrant a highly precautionary policy ‘‘new’’ science, and advocating a policy specifications, which had the effect of response, particularly in view of the response based on the science, one dismissing statistically significant serious nature of the health effects at group of commenters focused strongly results in some studies. This conclusion issue, and should be addressed by on the uncertainties they saw in the reflects EPA’s consideration of these selecting a standard level that scientific evidence as a basis for issues as presented above in section incorporates a large margin of safety. concluding that no change to the current II.B.2. As noted there, EPA believes in More specifically, American Lung level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was the importance of a comprehensive Association et al. and other commenters warranted. This group included evaluation that considers and weighs a noted three studies included in the virtually all commenters representing variety of evidence, including biological Criteria Document with 98th percentile industry associations and businesses. In plausibility of associations between the values below 35 µg/m3, including a commenting on the proposed level, various pollutants and health outcomes, mortality study in Phoenix (Mar et al., these commenters most generally relied and focuses on the stability of the size 2000; reanalyzed in Mar et al., 2003) on the same arguments presented above of the effect estimates in time-series with a 98th percentile value of 32 µg/ in section II.B.2 as to why they believed studies using both single- and multi- m3, a study of emergency department it was inappropriate for EPA to make pollutant models, rather than just visits in Montreal (Delfino et al., 1997) any revisions to the suite of primary looking at statistical significance in a with a 98th percentile value of 31 µg/ PM2.5 standards. That is, they asserted large number of alternative models and m3, and a study of increase in that the health effects of concern using it simplistically to delineate myocardial infarction in Boston (Peters associated with short-term exposure to between real and suspect associations. et al., 2001) with a 98th percentile value PM2.5 have not changed significantly In addition, the examination included of 28 µg/m3. Further, these commenters since 1997; that the uncertainties in the several studies that, for a variety of expressed the view that EPA’s proposed underlying time-series epidemiologic reasons, EPA does not believe are approach to selecting a level of the 24- studies are as great or greater than in appropriate for such an analysis. The hour PM2.5 standard is fundamentally 1997; that the estimated risk upon inclusion of such studies, many of flawed because it ‘‘relies unreasonably attainment of the current PM2.5 which had low statistical power, served on point estimates of statistical standards is lower now than it was to dilute the pattern of associations seen significance at various concentrations, when the PM2.5 standards were set in in studies considered by EPA as rather than on trends, and because it 1997; and that ‘‘new’’ science not providing a more appropriate basis for completely fails to consider issues of included in the Criteria Document this type of examination. statistical power’’ (American Lung continues to increase uncertainty about Further, even if this examination were Association et al., p. 57). In addition, possible health risks associated with to be accepted at face value, it still these commenters found EPA’s exposure to PM2.5. These general would support a distinction between the justification for the proposed level to be comments are addressed above in patterns of associations above and ‘‘simply irrational’’ in that it section II.B.2. below the proposed level, in that over ‘‘essentially fabricates uncertainty’’ as a In more specific comments, UARG half of the cited studies with 98th basis for avoiding setting a standard that and other commenters in this group percentile values above 35 µg/m3 were called into question EPA’s rationale for characterized as being of overall or 42 The EPA’s consideration of this examination is µ 3 the proposed level of 35 g/m . In so mixed significance, and more than half discussed more fully in the Response to Comments doing, these commenters primarily of the cited studies with 98th percentile document.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61171

the evidence ‘‘clearly indicates is 1176, 1187 (DC Cir. 1981) (same). In so commenters generally assert that the necessary’’ (Id.). doing, the Administrator does not agree risks are likely lower than EPA’s In considering these comments, the that this evidence presented by primary estimates, in part because EPA Administrator first notes that he American Lung Association et al. did not base its primary estimates on an µ 3 generally agrees with CASAC’s view warrants a level below 35 g/m . assessment that included all statistical that selecting a level within the range of These commenters also identified model results presented in the studies. 30 to 35 µg/m3 is a public health policy several ‘‘new’’ studies in support of Having considered comments based on judgment and that the science does not their arguments for a lower level. As the quantitative risk assessment from dictate the selection of any specific level noted above, as in past NAAQS reviews, both groups of commenters, the within this range. The Administrator EPA is basing the final decisions in this Administrator finds no basis to change also believes that this policy judgment review on the studies and related the position on the risk assessment that should take into consideration the information included in the PM air was taken at the time of proposal. That important uncertainties that remain in quality criteria that have undergone is, as discussed above, while the issues that are central to interpreting CASAC and public review, and will Administrator recognizes that the risk these types of time-series epidemiologic consider the newly published studies assessment rests on a more extensive studies. While the Administrator for purposes of decision making in the body of data and is more comprehensive believes that progress has been made next PM NAAQS review. Nonetheless, in scope than the assessment conducted since the last review in addressing key in provisionally evaluating commenters’ in the last review, he is mindful that uncertainties, as discussed above in arguments (see Response to Comments significant uncertainties continue to document), EPA notes that its section II.B.2, EPA and the scientific underlie the resulting quantitative risk provisional assessment of ‘‘new’’ community, including CASAC and the estimates. Further, in the science found that such studies did not National Research Council (NRC), Administrator’s view, as noted above in materially change the conclusions in the recognize that important uncertainties this section, this risk assessment, which Criteria Document. remain that warrant further research is based on studies that do not resolve With regard to the other studies, EPA the issue of a threshold, has important (e.g., see NRC, 2004). Thus, the notes that neither the Vancouver nor the Administrator does not agree that the limitations as a basis for standard Atlanta studies found statistically setting in this review, since if no Agency is ‘‘fabricating’’ uncertainties significant associations with PM , and that do not exist. More specifically, in 2.5 threshold is assumed the assessment that the Atlanta and California studies necessarily predicts that ever lower considering the studies cited in these were conducted in areas with 98th comments as a basis for a standard level standards result in ever lower risks. percentile PM2.5 values well above the below 35 µg/m3, the Administrator This has the effect of masking the proposed level. Thus, EPA concludes increasing uncertainty that exists as continues to believe that it is necessary that, taken at face value, these studies lower levels are considered, even when to consider not only the results of these would provide no basis for the a range of assumed thresholds are studies and the inherent uncertainties in commenters’ claim that they would considered. As a result, the such studies, but also the pattern of require a lower standard level than one Administrator judges that the results from other studies with similar based on the science included in the quantitative risk assessment does not air quality values. In so doing, EPA Criteria Document. notes that the statistically significant With regard to considering how the provide an appropriate basis for results in Peters et al. (2001) were quantitative risk assessment should selecting the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 uniquely associated with 1 to 2 hour lag factor into a decision on the standard standard. times, but not with 24-hour average level, EPA notes that both groups of After carefully taking the above PM2.5 concentrations, such that it would commenters generally consider the risk comments and considerations into provide a very tenuous basis for the assessment in their comments on the account, the Administrator has decided level of a 24-hour average national standard level, but they reach to set the level of the primary 24-hour µ 3 standard. While the studies in Phoenix diametrically opposed conclusions as to PM2.5 standard at 35 g/m . In the and Montreal do provide some evidence what standard level is supported by the Administrator’s judgment, based on the of statistically significant associations assessment. The general views of both currently available evidence, a standard within the range of 30 to 35 µg/m3, groups on the implications of the risk set at this level will protect public several other studies within this range assessment are presented above in health with an adequate margin of safety of air quality that generally have section II.B.2, with one group arguing from serious health effects including somewhat greater statistical power and that it supports a decision not to revise premature mortality and hospital narrower confidence ranges do not either of the current PM2.5 standards, admissions for cardiorespiratory causes provide such evidence. In making the and the other group arguing that it that are likely causally associated with public health policy judgment inherent supports a decision to revise both PM2.5 short-term exposure to PM2.5. A in selecting a standard level, the standards. More specifically, some of standard set at a higher level would not Administrator believes that it is the medical/environmental health likely result in improvements in air necessary to weigh the evidence and commenters consider the magnitude of quality in areas across the country in related uncertainties against the risk estimated to remain upon meeting which short-term exposure to PM2.5 can requirement that the standard is to be the proposed 24-hour standard as a reasonably be expected to be associated neither more nor less stringent than strong reason to select a lower level. with serious health effects. A standard necessary to protect public health with These commenters generally assert that set at a lower level would only result in an adequate margin of safety. See NRDC the risks are likely even higher than significant further public health v. EPA, 902 F. 2d 962, 971 (D.C. Cir. EPA’s primary estimates, in part protection if, in fact, there is a 1990) (in considering level of a NAAQS, because EPA incorporated a surrogate continuum of health risks down to the EPA is required to take into account all threshold of 10 µg/m3 even though there lower end of the ranges of air quality of the relevant studies in the record and is no clear evidence of a threshold in the observed in the key epidemiologic rationally determine what weight to give relevant time-series studies. On the studies and if the reported associations each study); API v. Costle, 665 F. 2d other hand, the industry/business are, in fact, causally related to PM2.5 at

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61172 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

those lower levels. Based on the pattern review, for example, in the extent to approximately 14.5 and 15 µg/m3, of results observed in the available which they have made progress in respectively. As discussed in section evidence, the Administrator is not understanding the importance of issues II.A. of the proposal (71 FR at 2632), in prepared to make those assumptions. related to co-pollutant confounding and the 24 Cities study, statistically Taking into account the uncertainties the specification of statistical models. significant associations were reported that remain in interpreting the available Consistent with the information between long-term fine particle epidemiologic studies, the likelihood of available in the last review, these two exposures and lung function measures obtaining benefits to public health key long-term exposure mortality at a single point in time, whereas decreases at lower levels while the studies reported long-term mean PM2.5 positive but generally not statistically likelihood of requiring reductions in concentrations across all the cities significant associations were reported ambient concentrations that go beyond included in the studies of 18 and 21 µg/ with prevalence of several respiratory those that are needed to reduce risks to m3, respectively. The Administrator also conditions. As interpreted in the last public health increases. On balance, the particularly recognized the importance review, the results from the 24-Cities Administrator does not believe that a of the extended ACS mortality study, study are uncertain as to the extent to lower standard is necessary to provide published since the last review, which which the association extends below a the requisite degree of public health provides new evidence of mortality long-term mean PM2.5 concentration of protection. This judgment by the related to lung cancer and further approximately 15 µg/m3. The more Administrator appropriately considers substantiates the statistically significant recent Southern California children’s the requirement for a standard that is associations with cardiorespiratory- cohort study provides evidence of neither more nor less stringent than related mortality observed in the important respiratory morbidity effects necessary for this purpose and original studies.43 The Administrator in children, including evidence for a recognizes that the CAA does not noted that the statistically significant new measure of morbidity, decreased require that primary standards be set at associations reported in the extended growth in lung function. Reports from a zero-risk level, but rather at a level ACS study, in a large number of cities this study suggest that long-term PM2.5 that reduces risk sufficiently so as to across the U.S., provide evidence of exposure is associated with decreases in protect public health with an adequate effects at a lower long-term mean PM2.5 lung function growth, as measured over µ 3 margin of safety. concentration (17.7 g/m ) than had a four-year follow-up period, although been observed in the original study, 2. Annual PM2.5 Standard statistically significant associations are although the relative risk estimates are not consistently reported. The Based on the approach discussed somewhat smaller in magnitude than Administrator recognized that these are above at the beginning of section II.F, at those reported in the original study. The important new findings, indicating that the time of proposal the Administrator assessment in the Criteria Document of long-term PM exposure may be relied upon evidence from the long-term 2.5 these mortality studies, taking into associated with respiratory morbidity in exposure PM studies as the principal 2.5 account study design, the strength of the children. However, the Administrator basis for selecting the proposed level of study (in terms of statistical significance also observed that this is the only study the annual standard. In considering and precision of result), and the reporting decreased lung function these studies as a basis for the level of robustness of results, concluded that it growth, conducted in just one area of an annual standard, the Administrator would be appropriate to give the the country, such that further study of agreed with the evidence-based focus in greatest weight to the reanalyses of the this health endpoint in other areas of the Staff Paper of looking at the long- Six Cities and ACS studies, and in term mean PM concentrations across the country would be needed to increase 2.5 particular to the results of the extended confidence in the reported associations. the cities included in such long-term ACS study (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–33) in studies. In so doing, the Administrator Thus, the Administrator provisionally weighing the evidence of mortality concluded that this study provides an recognized that these studies, like the effects associated with long-term short-term exposure studies, provide no uncertain basis for establishing the level exposure to PM2.5. Consistent with that of a national standard (Id. at 2651). evidence of clear effect thresholds or assessment, the Administrator placed lowest-observed-effects levels. Thus, in greatest weight on these studies as a The Administrator generally agreed focusing on the cross-city long-term basis for selecting the proposed level of that, as discussed in the Staff Paper (EPA, 2005, p. 5–22), it was appropriate mean concentrations in these studies, the annual PM2.5 standard. the Administrator was seeking to In addition to these mortality studies, to consider a level for an annual PM2.5 establish a standard level that will the Administrator also recognized the standard that is below the averages of require improvements in air quality in availability of relevant morbidity the long-term PM2.5 concentrations areas in which long-term exposure to studies providing evidence of across the cities in the key long-term PM2.5 can reasonably be expected to be respiratory morbidity, including exposure mortality studies, recognizing associated with serious health effects. decreased lung function growth, in that the evidence of an association in Based on the characterization and children with long-term exposure to any such study is strongest at and assessment of the long-term PM2.5 PM2.5. Studies conducted in the U.S. around the long-term average where the exposure studies presented in the and Canada include the 24-Cities study data in the study are most concentrated. Criteria Document and Staff Paper, in considered in the last review and more The Administrator was mindful that the proposal the Administrator recent studies of cohorts of children in considering what standard is requisite recognized the importance of the southern California, in which the long- to protect public health with an validation efforts and reanalyses that term mean PM2.5 concentrations in all adequate margin of safety requires have been done since the last review of the cities included in the studies are public health policy judgments that the original Six Cities and ACS neither overstate nor understate the mortality studies. These new 43 In the extended ACS study, significant lung strength and limitations of the evidence assessments provide evidence of cancer associations were found for those with high or the appropriate inferences to be generally robust associations and school education or less, but not for those with drawn from the evidence. The better than a high school education. When data are provide a basis for greater confidence in combined for all education levels, a significant Administrator provisionally concluded the reported associations than in the last association is found. that these key mortality studies, together

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61173

with the morbidity studies, provide a changes to either the annual or 24-hour Administrator agreed conceptually with basis for considering a standard level no PM2.5 standard, or both, could be the CASAC Panel that any particular 24- higher than 15 µg/m3. This level is recommended. The Panel then gave hour standard may not result in somewhat below the long-term mean three reasons for placing more emphasis reductions in the level of long-term concentrations in the key mortality on lowering the 24-hour standard than exposures to PM2.5 in all areas with studies and consistent with the the annual standard: (1) The vast relatively higher than typical annual interpretation of the evidence from the majority of studies indicating effects of PM2.5 concentrations and lower than morbidity studies discussed above. short-term PM2.5 exposure were carried typical ratios of peak-to-mean values (71 Further, in the Administrator’s out in settings in which PM2.5 FR 2652). Further, the Administrator provisional view, these studies did not concentrations were largely below the agreed that this general advice provide an appropriate basis for current 24-hour standard level of 65 µg/ supported relying on the annual selecting a level lower than the current m3; (2) the amount of evidence on short- standard, and not the 24-hour standard, standard of 15 µg/m3. term exposure effects, at least as to achieve the appropriate level of In considering the extent to which the reflected by the number of reported protection from long-term exposures to quantitative risk assessment can help to studies, is greater than for long-term PM2.5. However, the Administrator did inform these judgments with regard to exposure effects; and (3) toxicologic not believe that this advice necessarily the annual PM2.5 standard, the findings are largely related to the effects translated into a reason for setting the Administrator again recognized that risk of short-term, rather than long-term, annual PM2.5 standard at a level below estimates based on simulating the exposures. In not endorsing the option the current level of 15 µg/m3. As attainment of standards set at lower presented in the Staff Paper of retaining discussed above, the Administrator levels, as expected, continue to suggest the level of the current annual standard believed that the principal basis for some additional reductions in risk at the in conjunction with lowering the 24- selecting the appropriate level of an lower standard levels considered in the hour standard, the CASAC Panel annual standard should be the evidence assessment, and that these estimates observed that some cities have relatively provided by the long-term studies, in largely depend upon assumptions made high annual PM2.5 concentrations conjunction with judgments concerning about the lowest level at which reported without much day-to-day variation and whether and over what range of associations will likely persist and that such cities would only rarely concentrations the reported associations remain causal in nature. Thus, the exceed a 24-hour standard, even if it are likely causal, without reliance on Administrator was again hesitant to use were set at a level below the current the risk assessment, and that this such risk estimates as a basis for standard. In such a city, attaining a 24- evidence reasonably supported retaining proposing a lower annual standard level hour standard would likely have the current level of the annual standard µ 3 than 15 g/m , the level that is based minimal if any effect on the long-term (Id.). directly on the evidence in the studies Reflecting the great importance that mean PM2.5 concentration and themselves, as discussed above. consequently would be less likely to EPA places on the advice of CASAC, the Taking the above considerations into reduce health effects associated with Administrator solicited broad public account, the Administrator proposed to long-term exposures. These observations comment on the range of 15 down to 13 retain the level of the primary annual µ 3 indicate the desirability of lowering the g/m the low end of the range PM standard at 15 µg/m3. In the 2.5 level of the annual PM standard as recommended by CASAC for the level of Administrator’s judgment at that time, 2.5 well as that of the 24-hour standard, so the annual PM2.5 standard, and on the based on the currently available reasoning that formed the basis for that as to ensure that revisions to the evidence, a standard set at this level recommendation. The Administrator standards achieve appropriate would be requisite to protect public recognized that a decision to select a reductions in long-term exposures. health with an adequate margin of safety standard in this range below 15 µg/m3 Based on these considerations and from serious health effects, including would place greater weight on the taking into account the results of the premature mortality and respiratory strength of the associations reported in risk assessment, most CASAC Panel morbidity that are likely causally the key epidemiologic mortality and members favored setting an annual associated with long-term exposure to morbidity long-term exposure studies standard in the range of 14 to 13 µg/m3, PM2.5. This judgment by the down to the lower part of the range of along with lowering the 24-hour Administrator appropriately considered PM2.5 concentrations observed across all the requirement for a standard that is standard (Henderson, 2005a, p. 7). the cities included in these studies. neither more nor less stringent than In considering these views, the Such a standard could also reflect necessary for this purpose and Administrator noted that the greater reliance on the results of the recognized that the CAA does not appropriateness of setting an annual quantitative risk assessment that require that primary standards be set at standard that would lower annual PM2.5 suggested increased reductions in risk a zero-risk level, but rather at a level concentrations in cities across the associated with meeting an annual that reduces risk sufficiently so as to country depends upon a policy standard at such lower levels (Id.). protect public health with an adequate judgment as to what annual level is At the time of proposal, the margin of safety. required to protect public health with Administrator also recognized that At the time of proposal, the an adequate margin of safety from long- sharply divergent views on the Administrator recognized that the term exposures to PM2.5 in light of the appropriate level of this standard had CASAC Panel did not endorse retaining available evidence. In considering the been presented to EPA as part of the the annual standard at the current level evidence of effects associated with long- NAAQS review process, and solicited 3 of 15 µg/m (Henderson, 2005a, p. 7). In term PM2.5 exposure as a basis for comments on a wider range of levels, weighing the recommendation of the selecting an adequately health down to 12 µg/m3 on alternative views CASAC Panel, the Administrator protective annual standard, as discussed of the appropriate interpretation of the carefully considered CASAC’s stated above, the Administrator provisionally epidemiologic evidence and related rationale. In discussing its concluded that the evidence did not uncertainties, and on relevant research recommendation (Henderson, 2005a), provide a basis for requiring annual that would improve our understanding the CASAC Panel first noted that levels below 15 µg/m3. Thus, the of key issues and analytic approaches to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61174 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

better inform policy judgments in the considering this information provide protection against both short- future. As was the case with the 24-hour qualitatively, as discussed above in term exposures and long-term PM2.5 standard, the same sharply section II.B, the Administrator believes exposures, but notes that such a public divergent views were again expressed that the estimates of risks likely to health policy choice was made by the two distinct groups of remain upon attainment of the current primarily because the short-term commenters identified above in section suite of PM2.5 standards are indicative of exposure studies were judged to be the II.B.2, as discussed below. risks that can reasonably be judged to be strongest evidence available at that time In considering comments received on important from a public health and the evidence from long-term the proposal, the Administrator first perspective, and thus support revision exposure studies was judged to be too notes that CASAC requested that EPA of the current suite of standards. In limited to serve as other than a reconsider its proposed decision on the addressing what revisions to the current secondary consideration in setting the level of the annual PM2.5 standard and suite of PM2.5 standards are appropriate, level of the annual standard. See 62 FR set the level within the range that the Administrator has determined that 38675 n. 41 and 38676. In this review, CASAC had previously recommended, the evidence of health effects associated however, the bodies of evidence for both µ 3 13 to 14 g/m (Henderson, 2006, p. with short-term exposure to PM2.5 is short- and long-term exposures have 1).44 In so doing, CASAC reiterated and such that it is appropriate to lower the been substantially extended and elaborated on the scientific basis for its level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard (as strengthened, such that each PM2.5 earlier recommendation (Henderson, discussed in section II.F.1 above). standard can appropriately be evaluated 2006, pp. 3–4), which included However, as discussed more fully above, based on the most directly relevant body consideration of the Agency’s risk the Administrator also believes that this of scientific studies, and can be focused assessment (as ‘‘the primary means of risk assessment has important on providing protection from the health determining the effects on risk of limitations as a basis for setting a risks evaluated in that body of scientific changes in the 24-hour and annual standard level in this review, in part studies. The Administrator continues to PM2.5 standards in concert’’) as well as because the available studies do not believe, consistent with the evidence- the observations that ‘‘a lower daily resolve questions related to potential based approach presented in the Staff PM2.5 concentration limit alone cannot effect thresholds and because of other Paper, that using evidence of effects be relied on to provide protection important uncertainties noted above in associated with periods of exposure that against the adverse effects of higher section II.A.3. As a result, the are most closely matched to the annual average concentrations,’’ that Administrator judges that the averaging time of each standard is the ‘‘there is evidence that effects of long- quantitative risk assessment does not most appropriate public health policy term PM2.5 concentrations occur at or provide an appropriate basis for approach to evaluating the scientific below the level of the current standard,’’ selecting the level of either the 24-hour evidence in selecting the level of each and that ‘‘short-term effects of PM2.5 or the annual PM2.5 standard. Thus, the standard, with each standard designed persist in cities with annual PM2.5 Administrator more heavily weighs the to provide protection from the health concentrations below the current implications of the uncertainties risks associated with exposures standard’’ down to approximately 13 µg/ 3 associated with the Agency’s reflecting that averaging time. Thus, the m (e.g., Burnett and Goldberg, 2003; quantitative risk assessment than Administrator believes that the 24-hour Mar et al., 2003; and Lipsett et al., CASAC apparently does, and disagrees standard should be set so as to provide 1997). The CASAC concluded: with CASAC that the risk assessment an appropriate degree of protection from In summary, the epidemiologic evidence, supported by emerging mechanistic results appropriately serve as a primary health effects associated with short-term understanding, indicates adverse effects of basis for a decision on the level of the exposures to PM2.5, and the annual PM2.5 at current annual average levels below annual PM2.5 standard. standard should be set so as to provide 15 µg/m3. The PM Panel realized the The CASAC also considered the an appropriate degree of protection from uncertainties involved in setting an evidence from specific short-term health effects associated with long-term appropriate, health-protective level for the exposure studies as part of the basis for exposures to PM2.5. In determining the annual standard, but noted that the level of each standard, the uncertainties would increase rapidly below its recommendation for a lower annual the level of 13 µg/m3. That is the basis for standard level, pointing to studies Administrator believes it is appropriate the PM Panel recommendation of a level at indicating that effects from short-term to rely on the short-term studies for µ 3 13–14 g/m (Henderson, 2006, p. 4). exposure of PM2.5 persist in cities with purposes of determining the level of the 24-hour standard, and the long-term In response to CASAC’s request for annual PM2.5 concentrations below the studies for purposes of determining the reconsideration, the Administrator has current standard. While the level of the annual standard.45 carefully considered its stated views Administrator does not disagree with and the scientific basis for the range it CASAC’s factual statements regarding Therefore, the Administrator does not recommended. As an initial matter, the the findings of the studies of short-term believe that evidence from short-term Administrator notes that CASAC’s exposure effects, he believes that, based exposure studies is an appropriate basis recommendation to lower the level of on the evidence available in this review, for selecting any different level of the the annual standard was based in large it is more appropriate to consider the annual standard in this review than that measure on the results of the Agency’s short-term exposure studies as a basis selected based on the long-term risk assessment, which examined for the level of the 24-hour standard and exposure evidence. The EPA has instead changes in both the 24-hour and annual to consider the long-term exposure studies as a basis for the level of the 45 This is consistent with the approach taken in standard levels in concert. In the Staff Paper, sections 5.3.4.1 and 5.3.5.1, for annual standard. The Administrator evaluating the evidence-based considerations 44 Two PM Panel members did not agree with the recognizes that the Agency used related to setting the standards. The CASAC’s letter views of the majority, expressing the view that there available short-term exposure studies as of June 6, 2005 states that the Second Draft of the was an adequate scientific basis to choose an the primary basis for setting the level of Staff Paper was ‘‘Scientifically well-reasoned,’’ with annual PM2.5 standard level within the range of 12 the exception of a section not relevant to the fine to 15 µg/m3 and that the choice of a specific level a ‘‘generally controlling’’ annual PM (Henderson, 2005a, pp. 1–2). The CASAC’s within that range was a policy decision (Henderson, standard in the last review, with the general view thus includes this evidence-based 2006, p. 6). purpose that the annual standard would approach presented in the Staff Paper.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61175

evaluated these short-term exposure They strongly disagreed with the studies, which EPA did not rely on, that studies in the context of determining the Agency’s proposed decision and argued provided either mixed or no evidence of appropriate level for the 24-hour that EPA should lower the level of the PM2.5-mortality associations, and in standard. annual PM2.5 standard. While some of light of their view that the studies that Finally, CASAC also expressed the these commenters felt that the level EPA relied on report implausibly large view that there is evidence that effects should be set within the range effect estimates. of long-term PM2.5 concentrations occur recommended by CASAC, most such In considering these commenters’ at or below the level of the current commenters advocated a level of 12 µg/ sharply divergent assessments of the key standard. While the Administrator m3. These commenters largely based mortality studies, the Administrator agrees that any such evidence would be their views on the same general continues to believe that these studies directly relevant to his decision on the considerations put forward by CASAC provide strong evidence of an level of the annual PM2.5 standard, as a basis for its recommendation to association between long-term exposure CASAC did not provide any specific lower the level of the annual PM2.5 to PM2.5 and mortality. However, the information as to what studies it felt standard. To the extent that these Administrator believes that the provided such evidence nor the commenters, like CASAC, relied upon remaining uncertainties weigh against considerations that played a role in its the Agency’s risk assessment or the reaching the conclusion that the level of interpretation of the studies, including evidence from short-term exposure the annual PM2.5 standard should be its assessment of the uncertainties studies as a basis for their views, their lowered on the basis of these studies. In inherent in any such studies.46 As comments are addressed above. reaching this conclusion, the discussed below, the Administrator has Comments that address how specific Administrator notes that even though considered the available studies of long- long-term PM2.5 exposure studies should the long-term average PM2.5 term exposure to PM2.5, together with be considered as a basis for the level of concentration across the cities in the µ 3 the uncertainties inherent in that body the annual PM2.5 standard are addressed extended ACS study (17.7 g/m ) is of evidence, to reach his final decision below. lower than in the original study (21 µg/ on the level of the annual standard. A few commenters offered detailed m3), the level of the current standard is However, since CASAC did not provide comments on the key long-term still appreciably below the long-term any more specific statements as to its exposure PM2.5 mortality studies average of the extended ACS study and assessment of such mortality or discussed in the proposal, including the that of the Six Cities study (18 µg/m3). morbidity studies, the Administrator original analyses and reanalyses of the In commenting on alternative cannot determine in what ways his ACS and Six Cities cohorts and the approaches to interpreting the study judgments about that evidence may extended ACS cohort study. In general, results as a basis for setting a standard differ from CASAC’s views.47 Lacking some medical/public health/researcher/ level, American Lung Association et al. such specific statements to support State commenters expressed the view expressed the view that the level of the CASAC’s view that there is evidence that EPA has downplayed the results of standard should more appropriately be that effects of long-term PM2.5 these studies to the extent that they based on the concentration that is one concentrations occur at or below the provide evidence of effects below the standard deviation below the cross-city level of the current standard, the level of the current standard. For long-term average in each relevant long- Administrator cannot discern a clear example, American Lung Association et term exposure study. In considering line of scientific reasoning that would al. and Schwartz (2006) asserted that the such an approach, the Administrator preclude the current level of 15 µg/m3 ACS cohort study and the HEI notes that while that approach would by from being a reasonable policy choice reanalysis provide direct evidence of definition lead to a more precautionary based on the most relevant available premature mortality associated with standard, there is no basis for evidence on the health effects of long- annual exposures below 15 µg/m3 based concluding that it is a more term exposures to PM2.5. on plots of the concentration-response scientifically defensible approach or As noted above, EPA received other function between long-term exposure to that it is more appropriate in this case comments on the proposal from two PM2.5 and risk of dying across 50 U.S. where a number of key uncertainties in distinct groups of commenters. One metropolitan areas that show no the evidence remain to be addressed in group that included virtually all substantial deviation from linear, non- future research, and where the basic commenters representing industry threshold relationships down through decision is a judgment by the associations and businesses agreed with levels well below 15 µg/m3. These Administrator as to what level is neither the Agency’s proposed decision not to commenters did not, however, discuss more nor less stringent than is necessary revise the level of the annual PM2.5 the uncertainties inherent in this type of to protect public health with an standard. The other group of epidemiologic study or the implications adequate margin of safety. The commenters included many medical of these uncertainties on their Administrator continues to believe that groups, numerous physicians and interpretation of the results. it is reasonable to base the decision on academic researchers, many public In contrast, some industry/business the standard level on long-term average health organizations, many States, and a commenters (e.g., Pillsbury et al.; PM2.5 concentrations in the key long- large number of individual commenters. Annapolis Center; UARG) emphasized term exposure studies, because the that uncertainties remain in interpreting evidence of an association in any such 46 The EPA does not believe that CASAC based these studies with regard to issues such study is strongest at and around the this statement on the evidence it cites concerning as potential confounding by co- long-term average where the data in the effects associated with the long-term means of the pollutants, especially SO , modeling to short-term studies. These studies address effects 2 study are most concentrated (71 FR from short-term exposures, and do not address address spatial correlations in the data, 2651). effects from long-term exposures. and effect modification by education Both groups of commenters also 47 The CASAC did express the view that although level or socioeconomic status. In identified several ‘‘new’’ mortality the ‘‘new’’ scientific literature that was not addition, some industry/business studies not included in the Criteria included in the Criteria Document appears to support its findings, that literature was not needed commenters raised additional questions Document in support of their various to support its recommendation of a lower annual about the appropriate interpretation of views. As noted above in Section I.C, as standard level (Henderson, 2006, p. 6). these key studies in light of other in past NAAQS reviews, EPA is basing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61176 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the final decisions in this review on the those of other traffic-related pollutants, strength of the study (in terms of studies and related information and thus provide an uncertain basis for statistical significance and precision of included in the PM air quality criteria establishing the level of a PM2.5 result), and the consistency and that have undergone CASAC and public standard. Further, two of the studies robustness of results’’ (71 FR 2651), and review, and will consider the newly cited by this commenter are ‘‘new’’ also the comprehensive reanalyses of published studies for purposes of studies not included in the Criteria these studies, which involved decision making in the next PM NAAQS Document. As discussed above in replication, validation, and sensitivity review. Nonetheless, in provisionally section I.C, EPA is basing the final analyses. These reanalyses replicated evaluating commenters’ arguments (see decisions in this review on the studies the original results and confirmed the Response to Comments document), EPA and related information included in the associations noted in the original notes that its provisional assessment of PM air quality criteria that have studies (EPA 2005, p. 3–17). The ‘‘new’’ science found that such studies undergone CASAC and public review, Administrator has taken into account all did not materially change the and will consider the newly published the relevant studies but in evaluating conclusions in the Criteria Document. studies for purposes of decision making the strengths and weaknesses of the Some commenters who supported a in the next PM NAAQS review. various studies has determined that the lower annual standard level also The CARB and some other greatest weight should be placed on asserted that EPA failed to adequately commenters who supported a lower these key studies, as compared to other consider long-term exposure PM2.5 annual standard level discussed the studies, in determining the level of the morbidity studies, especially studies of rationale used by the CARB in deciding annual standard. As discussed above, effects in children. For example, the to set the State’s annual PM2.5 standard the level of the current annual standard Children’s Health Protection Advisory at a level of 12 µg/m3. Some of these is appropriate as it is appreciably below Committee and other commenters noted commenters also pointed to the World the long-term average of these key that studies by Razienne et al. (1996) Health Organization’s annual PM2.5 studies. This standard is also basically and Gauderman et al. (2002, 2004) guideline value of 10 µg/m3 in support at the same level as the long-term showed effects on children’s lung of their view that the scientific evidence average in the two morbidity studies, function at long-term cross-city average supports an annual PM2.5 standard in the 24 Cities study and the Southern µ 3 PM2.5 concentrations of 14.5 g/m and the U.S. at a level no higher than 12 µg/ California children’s cohort study. µ 3 15 g/m , respectively. The proposal m3. In considering these comments, the These morbidity studies provide an notice included a careful discussion of Administrator notes that his decision is uncertain basis for setting the level of the 24-Cities study (Razienne et al., constrained by the provision of the CAA the national standard, and, therefore, in 1996) and the earlier Southern that requires that the NAAQS be the judgment of the Administrator do California children’s health study requisite to protect public health with not warrant setting a lower level for the (Gauderman et al., 2000, 2002), studies an adequate margin of safety. This annual standard than the level which were included in the Criteria requires that his judgment is to be based warranted based on the key mortality 48 Document, and explained the basis for on an interpretation of the evidence that studies.52 the Administrator’s provisional neither overstates nor understates the After carefully taking the above conclusion that these studies provide an strength and limitations of the evidence, comments and considerations into uncertain basis for establishing the level or the appropriate inferences to be account, the Administrator has decided of a national standard (71 FR 2651). drawn from the evidence. This is not the to retain the level of the primary annual These commenters offered no 3 same legal framework that governs the PM2.5 standard at 15 µg/m . In the information that would change the standards set by the State of California Administrator’s judgment, based on the Administrator’s judgment with regard to currently available evidence, a standard 49 or the guidelines established by a these studies. In addition, the working group of scientists within the set at this level would be requisite to Children’s Health Advisory Committee World Health Organization.51 Thus, the protect public health with an adequate also cited several studies of ‘‘traffic- Administrator does not agree that the margin of safety from serious health related’’ pollution (van Vliet et al., 1997; California standard or the WHO effects including premature mortality Brunekreef et al., 1997; Kim et al., guideline provide an appropriate basis and respiratory morbidity that are likely 2004 50) as showing associations for setting the level of the annual PM causally associated with long-term between fine particles and adverse 2.5 NAAQS in the U.S. exposure to PM2.5. A standard set at a respiratory outcomes, including asthma The Administrator further stresses, as lower level would only result in in children who live near major explained at proposal, that he is placing significant further public health roadways, with mean annual average the greatest weight in determining the protection if, in fact, there is a fine particle concentrations near and µ 3 level of the annual standard on the long- continuum of health risks in areas with below 15 g/m . term means of the levels associated with long-term average PM concentrations In considering these comments, EPA 2.5 mortality effects in the two key long- that are well below the cross-city long- first notes that studies of traffic-related term studies in the record, the ACS and term average concentrations observed in pollution generally do not disentangle potential effects of fine particles from Six Cities studies (71 FR at 2651). The ACS and Six Cities studies are the two 52 The EPA is not required to base the level of the key long-term studies in this review, standard on either the highest or lowest level from 48 The Gaudermann et al. (2004) study cited by any one study. Rather, the Administrator must these commenters is a ‘‘new’’ study, and EPA’s taking into account both ‘‘study design, ‘‘make an informed judgment based on available provisional consideration of this study is discussed evidence.’’ American Petroleum Inst v. Costle, 665 in the Response to Comments document. 51 For example, the California statute does not F. 2d at 1187; NRDC v. EPA, 902 F. 2d at 971. Such 49 The Administrator notes that CASAC’s letter of refer to setting a standard that is ‘‘requisite’’ to an informed judgment can result in higher levels March 21, 2006 did not note any objection to his protect, as that term is used in the CAA, and than shown in some of the studies in the record. views on these morbidity studies as discussed in California, unlike EPA, may take economic impacts See, e.g. NRDC v. EPA, 902 F. 2d at 971 (upholding the proposal, or provide any reason to reconsider into consideration in setting air quality standards. 1987 PM10 annual standard selected from ‘‘near the such views (Henderson, 2006). In addition, as with the WHO guidelines, the middle of the ‘range of interest’’’); API v. Costle, 50 Kim et al. (2004) is a ‘‘new’’ study and EPA’s standards appear to be more in the nature of goals 665 F. 2d at 1187 (upholding 1979 hourly standard provisional consideration of this study is discussed as compared to binding requirements that must be for ozone selected at level higher than a number of in the Response to Comments document. met. studies in the record).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61177

the key epidemiologic studies and if the Appendix N, as discussed below in demographic and air pollution reported associations are, in fact, section V, and minor revisions to the characteristics. causally related to PM2.5 at those lower reference method for monitoring PM as While there is little question that levels. Based on the available evidence, PM2.5 are specified in Appendix L, as particles in the thoracic coarse particle the Administrator is not prepared to discussed below in section VI. size range can present a risk of adverse make these assumptions. As was the In a related rule on ambient air effects to the most sensitive regions of case in considering the 24-hour PM2.5 monitoring regulations (40 CFR Parts 53 the respiratory tract at sufficient standard, taking into account the and 58) published elsewhere in today’s exposure levels, the characterization of uncertainties that remain in interpreting Federal Register, EPA is revising the health effects attributable to various the available long-term exposure requirements for reference and levels of exposure to ambient thoracic epidemiologic studies, the likelihood of equivalent method determinations for coarse particles is subject to obtaining benefits to public health fine particle monitors, monitoring uncertainties that are markedly greater decreases with a standard set below the network descriptions and periodic than is the case for fine particles. As current level, while the likelihood of assessments, quality assurance, and data summarized below, however, there is a requiring reductions in ambient certification. growing body of evidence available concentrations that go beyond those that Issues related to the implementation since the last review of the PM NAAQS, are needed to reduce risks to public of revised PM2.5 standards are discussed with important new information coming health increases. On balance, the below in section VII. The EPA plans to from epidemiologic, toxicologic, and Administrator does not believe that a propose related revisions to the Air dosimetric studies. Moreover, the newly lower standard is needed to protect Quality Index for PM2.5 at a later date. available research studies have public health with an adequate margin III. Rationale for Final Decisions on undergone intensive scrutiny through of safety. This judgment by the multiple layers of peer review and Primary PM10 Standards Administrator appropriately considers extended opportunities for public the requirement for a standard that is A. Introduction review and comment. While important neither more nor less stringent than 1. Overview uncertainties remain, the review of the necessary for this purpose and health effects information has been recognizes that the CAA does not This section presents the extensive and deliberate. In the require that primary standards be set at Administrator’s final decisions on the judgment of the Administrator, this a zero-risk level, but rather at a level review of the primary NAAQS for PM10. intensive evaluation of the scientific that reduces risk sufficiently so as to The rationale for the final decisions on evidence provides an adequate basis for protect public health with an adequate the primary PM10 NAAQS includes making final regulatory decisions at this margin of safety. consideration of: (1) Evidence of health time. effects related to short- and long-term In addition, this review has already G. Final Decisions on Primary PM2.5 exposures to thoracic coarse particles; provided important input to EPA’s Standards (2) insights gained from a quantitative research and monitoring plans for For the reasons discussed above, and risk assessment prepared by EPA; and improving our future understanding of taking into account the information and (3) specific conclusions regarding the the relationships between exposures to assessments presented in the Criteria need for revisions to the current ambient thoracic coarse particles and Document and Staff Paper, the advice standards and the elements of standards health effects. As discussed in the and recommendations of CASAC, for thoracic coarse particles (i.e., proposal, the epidemiological evidence including its request to reconsider parts indicator, averaging time, form, and available in this review is almost of the proposal, and public comments level) that, taken together, would be entirely based on measurements of received on the proposal, the requisite to protect public health with undifferentiated PM10–2.5 mass, without Administrator is revising the current an adequate margin of safety. regard to the composition of thoracic primary PM2.5 standards. The suite of In developing this rationale, EPA has coarse particles. Yet both fundamental standards as revised will provide taken into account the information toxicological considerations and the increased protection from the health available from a growing, but still limited data available on this issue risks associated with exposure to PM2.5, limited, body of evidence on health strongly suggest that the health effects and in the judgment of the effects associated with thoracic coarse could vary significantly depending Administrator will be requisite to particles from studies that use PM10–2.5 upon the composition of the ambient protect public health with an adequate as a measure of thoracic coarse particles. coarse particle mix. The goal of the margin of safety. The EPA has drawn upon an integrative Agency’s research and monitoring Specifically, the Administrator is synthesis of the body of evidence on programs going forward is to provide making the following revisions: associations between exposure to scientific advances that will enable (1) The level of the primary 24-hour ambient thoracic coarse particles and a future PM NAAQS reviews to make 3 PM2.5 standard is revised to 35 µg/m . range of health endpoints (EPA, 2004a, more informed decisions that will (2) The form of the primary annual Chapter 9), focusing on those health provide more effective and efficient PM2.5 standard is revised with regard to endpoints for which the Criteria protection against the effects of those the criteria for spatial averaging, such Document concludes that the coarse particles and related source that averaging across monitoring sites is associations are suggestive of possible emissions that prove to be of concern to allowed if the annual mean causal relationships. In its policy public health. concentration at each monitoring site is assessment of the evidence judged to be The health effects information and within 10 percent of the spatially most relevant to making decisions on human risk assessment were averaged annual mean, and the daily elements of the standards, EPA has summarized in sections III.A and III.B of values for each monitoring site pair placed greater weight on U.S. and the proposal and are only briefly yield a correlation coefficient of at least Canadian epidemiologic studies using outlined in subsections III.A.2 and 3 0.9 for each calendar quarter. Data thoracic coarse particle measurements, below. Subsequent sections provide a handling conventions for the revised since studies conducted in other more complete discussion of the standards are specified in revisions to countries may well reflect different Administrator’s rationale, in light of key

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61178 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

issues raised in public comments, for concentrations, thoracic coarse particles risks identified in health studies his decision to retain the current 24- would tend to dominate particle conducted in urban and industrial areas, hour primary PM10 standard and to deposition to the tracheobronchial that exposure to ambient thoracic coarse revoke the current annual PM10 region for mouth breathers (EPA, 2004a, particles can have an important public standard. Specifically, these sections p. 6–16). Deposition of particles to the health impact. present a more complete discussion of tracheobronchial region is of particular The summary of the health effects the Administrator’s rationale regarding concern with respect to aggravation of evidence related to ambient coarse the need to maintain protection against asthma. particles in the proposal will not be the health effects of coarse particles In the last review, little new repeated here. The EPA emphasizes that (section III.B) as well as the rationale for toxicologic evidence was available on the final decisions on these standards the decisions regarding specific potential effects of thoracic coarse take into account the more elements of the primary PM10 standards particles and there were few comprehensive and detailed discussions including indicator (section III.C); and epidemiologic studies that had included of the scientific information on these averaging time, level and form (section direct measurements of thoracic coarse issues contained in the Criteria III.D). particles. Evidence of associations Document and Staff Paper, which were between health outcomes and PM that 2. Overview of Health Effects Evidence 10 reviewed by the CASAC and the public. were conducted in areas where PM10 For reasons summarized in section I.C The first PM NAAQS (36 FR 8186) was predominantly composed of above, EPA is not relying on studies used an indicator based solely on a thoracic coarse particles was an published after completion of the preexisting monitor for total suspended important part of EPA’s basis for Criteria Document as a basis for particles (TSP) that was not designed to reaching conclusions about the requisite reaching final decisions on these focus on particles of greatest risk to level of protection from coarse particles standards. health. In preparing for the initial provided by the final standards. The review of those standards, EPA placed new studies available in this review 3. Overview of Quantitative Risk a major emphasis on developing a new include epidemiologic studies that have Assessment indicator that considered the significant reported associations with health effects The general overview and discussion amount of evidence on particle size, using direct measurements of PM10–2.5, of key components of the risk composition, and relative risk of effects as well as new dosimetric and assessment used to develop risk from penetration and deposition to the toxicologic studies. estimates for PM2.5 presented in section major regions of the respiratory tract Section III.A of the proposal further II.A above is also applicable to the (Miller et al., 1979). The development outlines key information contained in assessment done for PM10–2.5 in this and assessment of these lines of the Criteria Document (Chapters 6–9) review. However, the scope of the risk evidence in the PM Criteria Document and the Staff Paper (Chapter 3) on assessment for PM10–2.5 is much more and PM Staff Paper published between known or potential effects associated limited than that for PM2.5, reflecting the 1979 and 1986 culminated in revised with exposure to thoracic coarse much more limited body of standards for PM that used PM10 as the particles and their major constituents. epidemiologic evidence and air quality indicator (52 FR 24634). The major The information highlighted there information available for PM10–2.5. As conclusion from that review, which includes: discussed in chapter 4 of the Staff remained unchanged in the 1997 (1) New information available on Paper, the PM10–2.5 risk assessment review, was that ambient particles potential mechanisms for health effects µ includes risk estimates for just three smaller than or equal to 10 m in associated with exposure to thoracic urban areas for two categories of health aerodynamic diameter are capable of coarse particles or their constituents. endpoints related to short-term penetrating to the deeper ‘‘thoracic’’ 53 (2) The nature of the effects that have exposure to PM : hospital been associated with short-term 10–2.5 regions of the respiratory tract and admissions for cardiovascular and exposures to ambient thoracic coarse present the greatest concern to health respiratory causes, and respiratory particles, particularly in urban and (61 FR 65648). While considerable symptoms. industrial settings, including advances have been made, the available Estimates of hospital admissions aggravation of respiratory and evidence in this review continues to attributable to short-term exposure to support the basic conclusions reached cardiovascular disease (as indicated by PM have been developed for Detroit in the 1987 and 1997 reviews regarding increased hospital admissions), 10–2.5 (cardiovascular and respiratory penetration and deposition of fine and increased respiratory symptoms in admissions) and Seattle (respiratory thoracic coarse particles. As discussed children, and premature mortality. admissions), and estimates of in the Criteria Document, both fine and (3) An integrative assessment of the respiratory symptoms have been thoracic coarse particles penetrate to evidence on health effects related to developed for St. Louis.54 While one of and deposit in the alveolar and thoracic coarse particles, with an the goals of the PM risk assessment tracheobronchial regions. For a range of emphasis on the key issues raised in 10–2.5 was to provide estimates of the risk typical ambient size distributions, the assessing the available community- reductions associated with just meeting total deposition of thoracic coarse based epidemiologic studies, including alternative PM standards, the particles to the alveolar region can be alternative interpretations of the 10–2.5 nature and magnitude of the comparable to or even larger than that evidence, both for individual studies uncertainties and concerns associated for fine particles. For areas with and the evidence as a whole. with this portion of the risk assessment appreciable coarse particle (4) Subpopulations that appear to be sensitive to effects from exposure to weigh against use of these risk estimates as a basis for recommending specific 53 The ‘‘thoracic’’ regions of the respiratory tract thoracic coarse particles, specifically are located in the chest (thorax) and are comprised including individuals with preexisting standard levels (EPA, 2005, p. 5–69). of the tracheo-bronchial region with connecting lung diseases such as asthma, and airways and the alveolar, or gas-exchange region of 54 Quantitative risk estimates associated with the lung. For ease of communication, ‘‘thoracic’’ children and older adults. recent air quality levels for these three cities are particles penetrating to these regions are often (5) Conclusions, based on the presented in Figures 4–11 and 4–12 of the Staff called ‘‘inhalable’’ particles. magnitude of these subpopulations and Paper.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61179

These uncertainties and concerns are should be revised. The Staff Paper that the only information available upon summarized in section III.B of the addressed this question by first which to base such standards was proposal and discussed more fully in considering the conclusions reached in indexed in terms of PM10. the Staff Paper (Chapter 4) and the the last review, the subsequent litigation In subsequent litigation regarding the technical support document (Abt of that decision, and the nature of the 1997 PM NAAQS revisions, however, Associates, 2005). new information available in this the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) held in part that EPA had not provided B. Need for Revision of the Current review. In 1997, in conjunction with a reasonable explanation justifying use Primary PM10 Standards establishing new PM2.5 standards, EPA of PM10 as an indicator for thoracic As presented in the proposal, taking concluded that continued protection coarse particles. ATA I, 175 F.3d at into account both the nature of recent against potential effects associated with 1054–55. Although the court found scientific evidence and legal thoracic coarse particles in the size ‘‘ample support’’ (id. at 1054) for EPA’s considerations, this review of the range of 2.5 to 10 µm was warranted decision to regulate thoracic coarse primary PM10 standards has focused on based on particle dosimetry, toxicologic particles, it vacated the 1997 revised whether to revise the indicator for information, and limited epidemiologic PM10 standards. The result of thoracic coarse particles, and on the evidence from studies that measured subsequent EPA actions, discussed appropriate level, form and averaging PM10 in areas where coarse particles above in section I.C, is that the 1987 time for any revised indicator. The basis were likely to dominate the distribution PM10 standards remain in place (65 FR for reaching a final decision on the (62 FR 38677). This information 80776, 80777, Dec. 22, 2000) and the indicator, as well as other facets of the indicated that thoracic coarse particles present review is consequently of those standards, is presented below in can deposit in those regions of the lung 1987 standards. sections III.C and III.D. This section of most concern (i.e., the In this review, the Staff Paper focused provides an overview of the tracheobronchial and alveolar regions, on the recent information available in considerations that led to the which together make up the thoracic the Criteria Document from a growing, Administrator’s provisional conclusion, region),56 and that they can be expected but still limited, body of evidence on at the time of proposal, that it would be to aggravate effects in individuals with health effects associated with thoracic appropriate to revise the PM10 standards asthma and contribute to increased coarse particles from studies that use 55 by adopting a new indicator (PM10–2.5). upper respiratory illness (62 FR 38666– PM10–2.5 as the measure of thoracic The section then presents a summary of 8). coarse particles. In addition, there is public comments concerning whether Further, EPA decided that the new now much more information available the available evidence supports to characterize air quality in terms of function of PM10 standard(s) would be retention, revision, or revocation of to provide such protection against PM10–2.5 than was available in the last standards to protect against exposure to effects associated with particles in the review. In considering this information, thoracic coarse particles. For the reasons narrower size range between 2.5 to 10 the Staff Paper found that the major discussed below, the Administrator has µm. Although some consideration had considerations that formed the basis for concluded, consistent with CASAC and been given to a more narrowly defined EPA’s 1997 decision to retain PM10 as Staff Paper recommendations and indicator that did not include fine the indicator for thoracic coarse conclusions drawn at the time of particles, rather than a more narrowly particles (e.g., PM10–2.5), EPA decided proposal, that continued protection that it was more appropriate to continue defined indicator that does not include against health effects associated with fine particles, no longer apply. More to use PM10 as the indicator for short-term exposure to thoracic coarse standards to control thoracic coarse specifically, staff concluded that the particles is requisite. However, EPA particles. This decision was based in continued use of PM10 as an indicator notes that, having considered the issues part on the recognition that the only for standards intended to protect against raised in extensive public comment on studies of clear quantitative relevance to health effects associated with thoracic the proposal, the Administrator’s final health effects most likely associated coarse particles was no longer necessary decision differs from that in the since the information available in the with thoracic coarse particles used PM10 proposal regarding whether it is in areas where the coarse fraction was Criteria Document could support the use of a more directly relevant indicator, appropriate to revise the indicator in the dominant fraction of PM , namely 10 PM . Further, staff concluded that order to retain protection from coarse two studies conducted in areas that 10–2.5 continuing to rely principally on health particles. This section, and the substantially exceeded the 24-hour PM 10 effects evidence indexed by PM to subsequent section on indicator, outline standard (62 FR 38679). The decision 10 determine the appropriate averaging the rationale presented at the time of the also reflected the fact that there were time, form, and level of a standard was proposal, and then describe how the only very limited ambient air quality no longer necessary or appropriate since Administrator has reached a different data then available specifically on a number of more directly relevant conclusion in his final decision. thoracic coarse particles (i.e. PM ), 10–2.5 studies, indexed by PM , were in contrast to the extensive monitoring 10–2.5 1. Overview of the Proposal available. Thus, the Staff Paper The initial issue addressed in the network already in place for PM10. In concluded that it was appropriate to essence, EPA concluded at that time current review of the primary PM10 revise the current PM10 standards in standards was whether, in view of the that it was appropriate to continue to part by revising the indicator for advances in scientific knowledge control thoracic coarse particles, but thoracic coarse particles, and by basing reflected in the Criteria Document and any such revised standard principally 56 EPA further concluded at that time that the Staff Paper, the current standards risks of adverse health effects associated with on the currently available evidence and deposition of particles in the thoracic region are air quality information indexed by 55 The Administrator also proposed qualifications ‘‘markedly greater than for deposition in the PM10–2.5, but also considering evidence to the indicator, and corresponding revisions to the extrathoracic (head) region,’’ and that risks from from studies using PM10 in locations level and form of the 24-hour standard to provide extrathoracic deposition are ‘‘sufficiently low that protection that is generally equivalent to that particles which deposit only in that region can where PM10–2.5 was the predominant afforded by the PM10 standard, and to revoke the safely be excluded from the standard indicator’’ (62 fraction (EPA, 2005, section 5.4.1). As annual PM10 standard. FR 38666). noted in the introduction to this section,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61180 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

having considered public comments on distribution of coarse particles are likely reported in short-term exposure studies this issue, EPA has reached different to be more heterogeneous than for fine conducted in areas with relatively high conclusions regarding the particles (EPA, 2005, chapter 2). In PM10–2.5 concentrations, including appropriateness of revising the current particular, as discussed below in section Phoenix (Mar et al., 2003), Coachella indicator in this final decision; this is III.C, coarse particles in urban areas can Valley, CA (Ostro et al., 2003),59 and in described in more detail below in contain all of the components found in the initial analysis of data from section III.C. more rural areas, but can also be Steubenville (as part of the Six Cities Recognizing that dosimetric evidence contaminated by a number of additional study, Schwartz et al., 1996; reanalysis, formed the basis for the initial materials, from motor-vehicle-related Schwartz, 2003). In a separate reanalysis establishment of the PM10 indicator in emissions to metals and transition of the Six Cities study, the PM10–2.5 1987 and supported the decision in elements associated with industrial mortality association was not 1997 to retain the PM10 indicator, the operations. The Staff Paper concluded statistically significant for Steubenville Staff Paper also considered whether that the weight of the dosimetric, (Klemm and Mason, 2003). In areas with currently available dosimetric evidence limited toxicologic, and atmospheric lower PM10–2.5 concentrations, including continues to support the basic science evidence, taken together, lends the remaining five cities in the Six conclusions reached in those reviews of support to the plausibility of the Cities study, no statistically significant the standards. In particular, PM10–2.5-related effects reported in the associations were reported with consideration was given to available urban epidemiologic studies discussed mortality, though most were positive. information about patterns of below, and provides support for The Staff Paper also considered penetration and deposition of thoracic retaining some standard for thoracic relevant epidemiologic studies indexed coarse particles in the sensitive thoracic coarse particles so as to continue by PM10 that were conducted in areas region of the lung and to whether an programs to protect public health from where the coarse fraction of PM10 is aerodynamic size of 10 µm remains a such effects (EPA, 2005, p. 5–49).58 typically much greater than the fine reasonable separation point for particles The available epidemiologic evidence, fraction. Such studies include findings that penetrate and potentially deposit in discussed in section III.A of the of associations between short-term the thoracic regions. The Staff Paper proposal, includes studies of exposure to PM10 and hospitalization for concluded that while considerable associations between short-term cardiovascular diseases in Tucson, AZ advances have been made in exposure to thoracic coarse particles, (Schwartz, 1997), hospitalization for understanding particle dosimetry, the indexed by PM10–2.5, and health COPD in Reno/Sparks, NV (Chen et al., available evidence continues to support endpoints. More specifically, several 2000), and medical visits for asthma or those basic conclusions from past U.S. and Canadian studies now provide respiratory diseases in Anchorage, AK reviews. More specifically, both fine evidence of associations between short- (Gordian et al., 1996; Choudhury et al., term exposure to PM10–2.5 and various 1997). In addition, a number of particles, indexed by PM2.5, and thoracic morbidity endpoints. Three such studies epidemiologic studies have reported coarse particles, indexed by PM10–2.5, penetrate to and deposit in the thoracic conducted in Toronto (Burnett et al., significant associations with mortality, regions. Further, for a range of typical 1997), Seattle (Sheppard, 2003), and respiratory hospital admissions and ambient size distributions, the total Detroit (Ito, 2003) report statistically respiratory symptoms in the Utah Valley deposition of thoracic coarse particles to significant associations between short- area (e.g., Pope, 1989 and 1991; Pope et the alveolar region can be comparable to term PM10–2.5 exposure and respiratory- al., 1992). This group of studies or even larger than that of fine particles and cardiac-related hospital admissions, provides additional supportive evidence (EPA, 2004a, p. 6–16). and a fourth study (Schwartz and Neas, for associations between short-term Beyond the dosimetric evidence, as 2000), conducted in six U.S. cities exposure to thoracic coarse particles noted in past reviews (EPA, 1982, (Boston, St. Louis, Knoxville, Topeka, and health effects, particularly 1996b), toxicologic studies show that Portage, and Steubenville), reports morbidity effects, generally in areas not the deposition of a variety of particle statistically significant associations meeting the PM10 standards (EPA, 2005, 60 types in the tracheobronchial region, across these six areas with respiratory p. 5–50). including resuspended urban dust and symptoms in children. These studies In contrast to the findings from the short-term exposure studies discussed coarse-fraction organic materials, has were mostly done in areas in which above, available epidemiologic studies the potential to affect lung function and PM2.5, rather than PM10–2.5, is the larger do not provide evidence that long-term aggravate respiratory symptoms, fraction of ambient PM10, and they are community-level exposure to thoracic especially in asthmatics. Of particular not representative of areas with coarse particles is associated with note are limited toxicologic studies that relatively high levels of thoracic coarse mortality or morbidity (EPA, 2005, p. 3– found urban road dust can produce particles (EPA, 2005, p. 5–49). In evaluating the epidemiologic 25). More specifically, no association is cellular and immunological effects (e.g., evidence from health studies on Kleinman et al., 1995; Steerenberg et al., associations between short-term 59 The Coachella Valley study, like the Seattle 2003).57 In addition, some very limited exposure to PM10–2.5 and mortality, the study noted above, is subject to additional in vitro toxicologic studies show some measurement uncertainties because it used Criteria Document concluded that such regression techniques to impute PM evidence that coarse particles may elicit evidence was ‘‘limited and clearly not 10–2.5 pro-inflammatory effects (EPA, 2004a, concentrations; this approach fills in missing as strong’’ as that for associations with PM10–2.5 data based on relationships developed section 7.4.4). Further, the Staff Paper PM2.5 or PM10 but nonetheless was using data from days when data are available for assessment of the physicochemical suggestive of associations with mortality both PM10 and PM2.5. properties and occurrence of ambient 60 Based on recent air quality data, as well as the (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–28, 9–32). Statistically summary information provided for PM coarse particles suggests that both the significant mortality associations were chemical makeup and the spatial concentrations used in the studies, the existing PM10 standards are not met in any of these study 58 Eventually, as a result of the data that will be cities except Tucson, AZ. Based on 2002–2004 air 57 The Criteria Document notes that toxicologic gathered under EPA’s new research and monitoring quality data, the 98th percentile PM2.5 studies, in general, use exposure concentrations plan , the Agency may be able to further refine its concentrations in three of these areas range from 15 that are generally much higher than ambient regulation of coarse particles to better target those to 25 µg/m3, while in Utah Valley the concentrations (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–51). coarse particles of greatest concern to health. concentrations range from 37 to 54 µg/m3.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61181

found between long-term exposure to The Staff Paper recognized the Paper and CASAC, and the public thoracic coarse particles and mortality substantial uncertainties associated with comments received through the time of in the reanalyses and extended analysis the limited available epidemiologic proposal. The Administrator of the ACS cohort (EPA, 2005, p. 8–306– evidence and the inherent difficulties in provisionally concluded that the health 07). Further, little evidence is available interpreting the evidence for purposes evidence, including dosimetric, on potential respiratory and of setting appropriate standards for toxicologic and epidemiologic study cardiovascular morbidity effects of long- thoracic coarse particles. Nonetheless, findings, supported retaining a standard term exposure to thoracic coarse in considering the available evidence, to provide continued protection against particles (EPA, 2005, p. 3–23–24). the public health implications of effects associated with short-term The Staff Paper concluded that the estimated risks associated with current exposure to thoracic coarse particles. available body of health evidence, levels of air quality, and the related Further, the Administrator expressed including dosimetric, toxicologic and limitations and uncertainties, the Staff the belief that the new evidence on epidemiologic study findings, supports Paper concluded that this information health effects from studies that use retaining a NAAQS that would continue supports (1) revising the current PM10 PM10–2.5 as a measure of thoracic coarse to provide protection against the effects standards in part by revising the particles, together with the much more associated with short-term exposure to indicator for thoracic coarse particles, extensive data now available to thoracic coarse particles. However, the and (2) consideration of a standard that characterize air quality in terms of substantial uncertainties associated with will continue to provide public health PM10–2.5, provided an appropriate basis this limited body of epidemiologic protection from short-term exposure to for revising the current PM10 standards evidence on health effects related to thoracic coarse particles of concern that in part by revising the indicator to focus exposure to PM10–2.5 suggest a high have been associated with morbidity more narrowly on particles between 2.5 degree of caution in interpreting this effects and possibly mortality at current and 10 µm. The Administrator also evidence, especially at the lower levels levels in some urban areas (EPA, 2005, noted that the need for a standard for of ambient particle concentrations in the p. 5–52). thoracic coarse particles had already morbidity studies discussed above In CASAC’s review of these Staff been upheld based upon evidence of (EPA, 2005, p. 5–50). Paper recommendations, there was health effects considerably more limited Beyond this evidence-based unanimous agreement among CASAC than now available. ATA I, 175 F.3d at evaluation, the Staff Paper also Panel members that ‘‘there was a need 1054. Based on these considerations, the considered the extent to which PM10–2.5- for a specific primary standard to Administrator provisionally concluded related health risks estimated to occur at address particles in the size range of 2.5 that the current suite of PM10 standards current levels of ambient air quality may to 10 microns’’ (Henderson, 2005b, p. 4). should be revised, and that the revised be judged to be important from a public In making this recommendation, standard(s) should be set at a level that health perspective, taking into account CASAC indicated its agreement with the would ensure an equivalent level of key uncertainties associated with the summary of the scientific data regarding protection to the current suite of estimated risks. Consistent with the the potential adverse health effects from standards (71 FR 2665). approach used to address this issue for exposures to thoracic coarse particles in 2. Comments on the Need for Revision PM2.5-related health risks, discussed section 5.4 of the Staff Paper upon above in section II.A.3, the Staff Paper which the EPA staff recommendations The vast majority of public comments considered the results of a series of were based. on coarse particles raised issues related base-case analyses that reflect in part Unlike the case in the current PM2.5 to the proposed revisions to the the uncertainty associated with the form review, neither EPA staff nor CASAC indicator for thoracic coarse standards, of the concentration-response functions concluded that it was necessary to particularly the proposal to adopt a new drawn from the studies used in the revise the PM10 standards to provide PM10–2.5 indicator that was qualified to assessment. In this assessment additional health protection against focus on particles associated with summarized above in section III.A.3, coarse particles beyond that afforded by particular types of emissions sources which is much more limited than the the current standards. Rather, as noted and to impose stringent monitor site- risk assessment conducted for PM2.5, above, staff and CASAC found that the suitability criteria for NAAQS- health risks were estimated for three most recent scientific information comparable monitors. These comments urban areas (Detroit, Seattle, and St. suggested it was possible to move to a are addressed below in section III.C. Louis) by using the reported linear or more direct measurement of thoracic Comments more specific to the 24-hour log-linear concentration-response coarse particles via a PM10–2.5 indicator, and annual standards (i.e., on averaging functions as well as modified functions and this was the major basis for time, form, and level) are addressed that incorporate alternative assumed recommending revisions to the current below in section III.D. This section cutpoints as surrogates for potential 24-hour PM10 standard. In considering addresses those comments that, directly population thresholds. In considering what level of protection was or indirectly, addressed the need to the risk estimates from this limited appropriate, staff and CASAC continue the kind of protection against assessment, and recognizing the very recommended consideration of a range coarse particles that is provided by the substantial uncertainties inherent in of levels for alternative 24-hour coarse current PM10 standards. basing an assessment on such limited particle standards, from levels which A substantial majority of commenters information, the Staff Paper concluded would be more stringent than the supported the Administrator’s that the results for the two areas in the current 24-hour PM10 standard to a level provisional conclusion that it is assessment that did not meet the current that would provide protection that was necessary to maintain a standard to PM10 standards are indicative of risks roughly equivalent to that provided by continue protection against the health that can reasonably be judged to be the current 24-hour PM10 standard. effects associated with short-term important from a public health In considering whether the primary exposure to thoracic coarse particles. perspective, in contrast to the PM10 standards should be revised at the Those advocating a coarse particle appreciably lower risks estimated for time of proposal, the Administrator standard included public health the area that did meet the current considered the rationale and organizations such as the American standards (EPA, 2005, p. 5–52). recommendations provided by the Staff Lung Association, the American Heart

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61182 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Association, and the American Cancer exposures, these commenters advocated In sharp contrast, a number of Society; environmental groups such as maintaining a 24-hour standard for commenters, including virtually all of Environmental Defense, Earthjustice thoracic coarse particles, at a minimum. those representing industry associations and Natural Resources Defense Council; Several of them also recommended an and businesses, recommended revising the Children’s Health Protection annual standard for thoracic coarse the PM10 standards by revoking both the Advisory Committee, which provides particles to protect against possible 24-hour and annual standards. These the EPA Administrator with advice on long-term effects, despite a significantly groups argued that the current body of children’s health issues; all state and more limited body of evidence (for scientific evidence is insufficient to local air pollution control agencies specific comments on averaging time, justify either retaining the current PM10 commenting on the proposed coarse see section III.D.1 below). standards or setting a revised standard particle standard; and Tribal groups Many of these commenters, while for thoracic coarse particles at this time. such as the National Tribal Caucus, the recognizing that the epidemiologic These commenters included the National Tribal Environmental Council, evidence available to support specific National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and numerous individual Tribes. coarse particle standards is weaker than the National Mining Association, the These commenters agreed with EPA that for fine particles, believed that the American Farm Bureau Federation, the that the currently available scientific weight of evidence required revisions Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, evidence clearly supports the need to that provided a greater degree of the Engine Manufacturers Association, provide continued protection from protection, on a national basis, than that the National Association of Home health effects associated with coarse afforded by the current PM10 standards Builders, and the Coarse Particle particle exposure. Citing the Criteria (for specific comments on level, see Coalition, which includes the National Document and the Staff Paper, those section III.D.2 below). Some Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the commenters providing a more detailed commenters favoring a coarse particle Industrial Minerals Association, the rationale stressed the availability of standard supported their arguments by American Forest and Paper Association, epidemiologic, toxicologic and reference to emerging science from new the Portland Cement Association and dosimetric studies showing associations toxicologic and epidemiologic studies the National Cotton Council. These between thoracic coarse particles and that were not included in the Criteria commenters stressed the uncertainties, multiple morbidity and mortality Document. In general, however, these particularly those associated with endpoints. Many of these commenters ‘‘new’’ studies were used in support of interpreting the limited number of also cited CASAC’s recommendation in commenters’ concerns about the epidemiologic studies focusing on favor of continued protection. Moreover, proposal to qualify the indicator coarse particle health effects, and stated some of these commenters pointed to (discussed in section III.C.2 below), and that EPA had failed to demonstrate that particular studies, such as Ito (2003), not to support their comments on the a coarse particle standard is necessary to Mar et al. (2003) and Ostro et al. (2003), need for coarse particle standards. protect public health. These commenters recommended deferring the which they concluded show that coarse The EPA generally agrees with these decision on the appropriateness of particles are associated with hospital commenters regarding the need to admissions or mortality and that coarse setting a coarse particle standard provide continued protection from pending additional monitoring and particles may even have stronger effects short-term exposure to coarse particles than fine particles in some instances. scientific research on health effects that may be harmful. The scientific associated with exposure to coarse Several also cited two recent evidence cited by these commenters was independent reviews (Brunekreef and particles. generally the same as that discussed in These commenters criticized the key Forsberg, 2005; WHO, 2005) which the Criteria Document and the Staff considered many of the same scientific epidemiologic studies cited by EPA, Paper and the commenters’ referring especially to the alternative studies on the health effects of coarse recommendations for retaining a coarse particles that were included in the interpretations of the evidence particle standard are broadly consistent presented in the proposal and citing a Criteria Document as support for with staff and CASAC recommendations separate standards for coarse particles, review and critique of key studies on this issue. To the limited extent that prepared by an academic consultant. in addition to standards for fine some commenters cited ‘‘new’’ scientific particles. They also argued that all coarse particle studies in support of their arguments in epidemiologic studies are flawed to the In general, this body of commenters favor of retaining a coarse particle opposed revisions that they believed extent that they rely on air quality data standard, EPA notes that it is basing the from central monitors in exposure would reduce the level of protection final decisions in this review on the provided by the current PM standards. assessments. Based on these arguments, 10 studies and related information the commenters asserted that EPA’s risk For example, the comments of the included in the PM air quality criteria American Lung Association and five assessment cannot be used to that have undergone CASAC and public demonstrate that ambient coarse environmental groups stated (American review. Although EPA is not basing its Lung Association et al., p. 81): particles present a significant risk to final decisions in this review on such public health, and therefore EPA cannot We strongly support the need for a coarse PM information, the Agency will consider maintain the existing PM10 NAAQS or standard * * *. However, the coarse particle the newly published studies for establish a revised NAAQS to address standard proposed by EPA is an egregious purposes of decision making in the next step backwards in protection of human coarse particles. Each of these issues is health and welfare compared to the status PM NAAQS review, as discussed above further summarized and discussed quo * * *. If EPA feels it lacks adequate data in section I.C. Nonetheless, in below. to undertake the change in the coarse PM provisionally evaluating commenters’ In discussing their disagreement with indicator to a PM10–2.5 standard, without arguments concerning the need for EPA’s interpretation of four key reducing current protections * * * then the revision to or elimination of the current epidemiologic studies (Ito, 2003; Agency must retain the existing PM10 standards, the Agency notes that its Burnett et al., 1997; Mar et al., 2003; NAAQS. preliminary analysis suggests such Ostro et al., 2003), these commenters Citing the more abundant evidence studies would not materially change the placed significant weight on the from studies focusing on short-term conclusions in the Criteria Document. alternative interpretations of these

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61183

studies that EPA provided in the public health policy reasons. The essentially the same air quality data set proposal to encourage additional public Criteria Document and Staff Paper to examine coarse and fine particles in comment (71 FR 2671–72). In particular, explain the rationale for reliance on Phoenix (Mar et al., 2000, 2003; Clyde, they criticized EPA’s reliance on the single pollutant models in these studies, 2000; Smith et al., 2000). All three single pollutant models in these and while recognizing the significant studies found significant associations other studies as biased because the uncertainties in the limited number of between mortality and PM10–2.5, but only models omit PM2.5 and gaseous co- studies available (EPA, 2004, section one found a significant association for pollutants. The commenters argued that 8.4.3; EPA, 2005, p. 3–46). These PM2.5 (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–57 to 66). Ito when PM2.5 or gaseous co-pollutants documents illustrate the results of a (2003) found a significant association in were added to the underlying models, number of studies that examined co- Detroit between hospital admissions for the effects associated with PM10–2.5 lost pollutants (Figures 8–16 through 8–18 ischemic heart disease and exposure to statistical significance. These of the Criteria Document), where it can coarse particles, but not fine particles. commenters also stated that EPA failed be seen that, in most cases, the While all of these studies have to consider and give appropriate weight inclusion of gaseous co-pollutants does limitations, it is difficult to ignore the to a significant number of studies which little to change the effects estimate for fact that, despite the differential relied on larger and more powerful data PM2.5, although in some cases it does. measurement error associated with sets, were of longer duration, and Recognizing the additional uncertainties coarse particles, a number of these assessed PM10–2.5 using multi-pollutant in measuring coarse particles (as studies find statistically significant models, but did not find any statistically discussed below), these documents associations for coarse particles, but not significant associations, including further note the importance of the for fine particles. For these reasons, EPA Schwartz et al. (1996), Thurston et al. relative consistency in the size of effects believes that it would be inappropriate, (1994), Sheppard (2003), Fairley (2003), estimates for coarse particles as well as based on the limited data currently and Lipfert et al. (2000). They further the pattern of generally positive available, to presume that all of the summarized and attached a ‘‘detailed associations, and the need for effects associated with coarse particles review of the cited studies’’ prepared by considering the results of recent in single pollutant models are actually an academic consultant, which they statistically significant associations the result of confounding by fine stated reveals numerous deficiencies found in PM10 studies where it is particles. that undermine the use of these studies reasonable to expect that the coarse It is also important to note that in the to support the proposed coarse particle fraction dominated the distribution. It NAAQS reviews that concluded in 1987 standard or any alternative standard. would be unwise to presume, in the face and 1997, EPA found that the scientific Based on all of the above, one of this evidence, that the single evidence then available supported the commenter claimed that a ‘‘fair and pollutant result for coarse particles is need to continue regulation of thoracic sound’’ assessment of evidence would generally the result of omitted gases in coarse particles through appropriate not conclude coarse particles have the model. NAAQS. This evidence included effects at ambient concentrations EPA also believes that it is mechanistic considerations developed (National Mining Association, p. 14). inappropriate to presume that coarse from particle dosimetry and toxicology, The rationale for these commenters’ particle or PM10 associations in single as well as an integrated assessment of conclusions, however, do not consider or multi-pollutant models can be wholly particle composition and both important aspects of the rationale for explained by fine particles. In studies community and occupational retaining coarse particle protection and where PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 have similar epidemiologic studies. By 1997, EPA are inconsistent with CASAC and other effect estimates, it is difficult to judged the evidence to be strong enough recent reviews of the scientific determine whether one or both to propose separate standards for fine evidence. As summarized in section contribute to the result (e.g. EPA 2004a, and coarse particles. While the D.C. III.A of the proposal, the scientific p 8–61). The comparison of PM2.5 and Circuit found problems with the evidence contained in the Criteria PM10–2.5 is further complicated by the indicator for thoracic coarse particles Document and Staff Paper, both of differential measurement error between promulgated in 1997, the court upheld which have been reviewed and found the two pollutants, which is generally EPA’s determination that a standard was acceptable for use in regulatory decision greater for coarse particles (as discussed needed (ATA I, 175 F.3d at 1054). In making by CASAC, supports the need below). When both pollutants have EPA’s judgment, the more recent studies for some standard to provide continued similar effect estimates, it is difficult to included in the 2004 Criteria Document, protection from coarse particles.61 The determine whether one or both even with their recognized limitations, alternative interpretation of the contribute to the result (e.g. EPA, 2004a, serve to add to, not reduce, the concern evidence espoused by these commenters p. 8–61). Some studies conducted in present in previous reviews over essentially argues that it is more urban areas, however, have found ambient exposures to coarse particles, reasonable to presume that the positive significant associations for coarse particularly in urban areas. The business and industry results from one-pollutant PM10–2.5 particles, but not fine particles. The statistical models is the result of bias Criteria Document summarizes a case commenters also suggested that the associated with omitting co-pollutants, cross-over study (Lin et al., 2002) epidemiologic studies were flawed by the reliance on data from central especially PM2.5, for which the evidence conducted in Toronto, that found a monitors to estimate community-level is much stronger. EPA does not accept significant association of PM10–2.5 with this argument for both technical and asthma hospital admissions in children exposures to coarse fraction particles. According to these commenters, this ages 6–12 that was robust to the would result in an overestimation of 61 The Response to Comments document contains inclusion of gaseous co-pollutants, but more detailed responses to the specific issues these did not report significant associations commenters raise regarding the interpretation of the 62 each case serve as its own control. The Criteria epidemiologic evidence, which is important in for PM2.5. Three different studies used Document notes limitations in available terms of the use of these studies for supporting a measurement information and adjustment for coarse standard (this section of the preamble) as 62 Unlike more commonly used time series season that may have influenced the relative results well as their use in deciding upon an appropriate studies, the design used in this study has the for fine and coarse particles (EPA, 2004a, pp. 185– level of protection (section III.D.2 of this preamble). advantage of controlling for confounding by having 186).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61184 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

exposure due to the significant spatial area can be fairly well correlated, even not have the authority to engage in variability associated with coarse when substantial differences exist in the ‘‘crystal ball speculation’’ in the absence particle distributions. Such absolute concentrations between the of support in the record considered as overestimation, in the commenters’ sites (EPA, 2005, p. 3–41). The signal a whole. (See e.g., Coarse Particle view, would invalidate any statistical that drives statistical associations Coalition, p. 8–9, citing Lead Industries associations found between ambient between ambient concentrations and Assoc v. EPA, 647 F. 2d 1130, 1146–7 data, as measured by the central health effects in time-series studies is (DC Cir. 1980), NRDC v. EPA, 902 F.2d monitors, and adverse health effects. the day-to-day changes in concentration, 962, 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1990) and Ethyl The National Mining Association (p. not the absolute daily values. To the Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 13 (D.C. Cir. 16–17), for example, noted: extent possible, EPA examined both the 1976).) These commenters stated that The spatial variability of coarse PM renders day-to-day correlations and annual the NAAQS must address only even the few, limited, uncertain averages in PM10–2.5 taken from multiple ‘‘significant risk’’, not any risk, and that epidemiological studies that have been cited monitors in key study locations, such as EPA has failed to demonstrate that by EPA invalid, as well as imprecise * * *. Detroit, Phoenix and Coachella Valley coarse particles pose a significant Given that the purported associations (Ross and Langstaff, 2005).64 enough risk to human health to warrant between PM coarse and health effects is In reacting to this issue in opposing a coarse particle standard. small to begin with, 71 FR at 2659, the logical comments, the California Air Resources The EPA disagrees on technical, conclusion should be that the lack of a Board similarly stated: policy, and legal grounds. For reasons demonstrable connection between the monitored ambient data and the level of The current scientific consensus suggests that specified in the proposal and exposure of the subject population is a fatal measurement of coarse particles will summarized above, EPA believes that flaw that precludes reliance on the studies typically involve greater errors than that of the available scientific evidence is more for any connection between PM coarse and fine particles. However we reject the * * * than adequate to support a decision to health effects. implication that therefore these studies are continue regulation of coarse particles not reliable. In fact, the larger measurement These commenters also provided under the NAAQS. Although the data error, which is likely to be random, would are weaker than for fine particles and supporting information regarding make it more difficult to find an association correlations among monitors and an air with mortality. It is well accepted in the subject to greater measurement error, in quality modeling analysis purporting to epidemiological literature that such several of the studies where show that significant quantities of measurement error will tend to obscure a comparisons are possible, the coarse particles cannot travel more than relationship between an exposure and a normalized relative risk estimates for 1 kilometer from sources.63 given health outcome, assuming that such a coarse particles from the new urban/ The Criteria Document and Staff relationship exists. Therefore, the industrial-area studies that were Paper contain detailed analyses of the measurement error argument cannot be used included in the Criteria Document often to nullify an effect that has been observed. If fall into a similar range as those for fine spatial variability of coarse particle anything, it is likely that the real effects are concentrations, as well as other issues likely to be larger than those that were particles (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–64; EPA, that generally result in greater exposure estimated. (CARB, p. 11) 2005, pp. 3–13 and 3–20). Furthermore, measurement error for coarse particles as summarized above, EPA did produce The EPA agrees with CARB’s analysis a risk assessment for thoracic coarse as compared to fine particles (EPA, of the issue. Therefore, for the purposes 2004a, p. 3–52–53, Appendix 3A; EPA, particles, which was reviewed by of determining whether public health CASAC and included in the Staff Paper 2005, pp. 2–36–40, 2–70–73). While protection is warranted in light of the EPA agrees that coarse particle (EPA, 2005, Chapter 4). While the available evidence, EPA believes that it limited number of cities and the measurements from central monitors is has interpreted the evidence from these subject to potentially large measurement significant uncertainties noted in the epidemiologic studies correctly, and risk assessment and the proposal limit error when used to reflect population that despite the uncertainties, the exposures in epidemiologic studies, the their quantitative usefulness, EPA staff evidence of statistically significant Agency disagrees with the commenters’ concluded that the risk assessment relationships between exposure to assessment of the direction of the results for the two urban areas in the coarse particles and adverse health resulting bias and with their conclusion assessment that did not meet the current effects is sufficiently strong to support that any statistically significant PM10 standards are indicative of risks continued regulation of coarse particles. associations between centrally that can reasonably be judged to be Some commenters opposed to important from a public health monitored air quality concentrations maintaining a coarse particle standard and adverse health effects measured in perspective. criticized EPA’s risk assessment. These Furthermore, there is no requirement these studies are invalid as a result. This commenters stated that current short- issue received substantial attention in that EPA develop a ‘‘scientifically sound term epidemiologic data are insufficient the Criteria Document (EPA, 2004a, quantitative risk assessment’’ before to serve as the basis for a scientifically section 8.4.5). The Criteria Document adopting or revising a NAAQS (ATA III, sound quantitative risk assessment, concluded that such measurement 283 F.3d at 374), or that the Agency without which, they claim, EPA lacks errors are more likely to underestimate must demonstrate significant risk before sufficient evidence to establish a 65 the strength and the significance of any promulgating a NAAQS. EPA’s standard based on those data. According association between coarse particles and reliance on evidence from peer- to these commenters, while EPA may any adverse health effects observed in exercise its judgment about future risks 65 the study (EPA, 2004a, pp. 5–126, 8– See e.g., American Petroleum Inst. v. Costle, and set standards that are preventive in 665 F. 2d at 1186–87: ‘‘In setting margins of safety 341). While the spatial variation of the Administrator need not regulate only the known coarse particle data is larger than for nature, as long as an adequate scientific rationale is presented, the Agency does dangers to health, but may ‘‘err’’ on the side of fine particles, the Staff Paper notes that, overprotection by setting a fully adequate margin of on a day-to-day basis, coarse particle safety. Of course the Administrator’s conclusions 64 In Phoenix, for example, two key sites were must be supported by the record, and he may not data from monitor sites within an urban highly correlated with similar means. In Detroit/ engage in sheer guesswork. Where the Windsor, correlations were moderate to good, but Administrator bases his conclusion as to an 63 This issue is discussed in more detail in the absolute values were significantly higher in Detroit adequate margin of safety on a reasoned analysis Response to Comments document. (Ross and Langstaff, 2005). and evidence of risk, the court will not reverse.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61185

reviewed scientific studies in this C. Indicator for Thoracic Coarse that found in non-urban and, more review, as well as its reliance on Particles specifically, rural areas, and (2) the nature of the evidence concerning CASAC’s unanimous recommendation 1. Introduction that there is a need for a standard for health effects associated with thoracic thoracic coarse particles, cannot be As outlined above, at the time of coarse particles generally found in considered ‘‘crystal ball speculation.’’ proposal the Administrator judged it urban versus rural areas.66 Based on appropriate, based on an evaluation of such information, and on specific initial After careful consideration of all of the available scientific evidence, to advice from CASAC (Henderson, these comments, EPA continues to propose a new indicator of thoracic 2005a), the Staff Paper considered a believe that the health evidence, coarse particles defined to include those more narrowly defined indicator for including dosimetric, toxicologic and particles between 2.5 and 10 µm in thoracic coarse particles that would epidemiologic study findings, supports diameter, or PM10–2.5, and qualified to focus on the mix of such particles that retaining a standard to protect against focus on the mix of thoracic coarse is characteristic of the mix generally effects associated with short-term particles generally present in urban found in urban areas where thoracic exposure to thoracic coarse particles. As environments. In making this coarse particles are strongly influenced noted above and summarized in section determination, the Administrator relied by traffic-related or industrial sources. III.A of the proposal, there is a growing heavily on key findings and In so doing, the Staff Paper focused on body of evidence suggesting causal observations from the Criteria Document comparing the potential health effects associations between short-term and Staff Paper, and on associated with thoracic coarse particles exposure to thoracic coarse particles recommendations from CASAC. The in urban and rural settings, as discussed and morbidity effects, such as Staff Paper made the following general below. respiratory symptoms and hospital observations about the PM10–2.5 The Staff Paper also noted that admissions for respiratory diseases, and indicator: atmospheric science and monitoring (1) The most obvious choice for a information indicates that exposures to possibly mortality. As summarized in thoracic coarse particle standard is the thoracic coarse particles tend to be the proposal (71 FR 2659), the available size-differentiated, mass-based indicator higher in urban areas than in nearby body of evidence also suggests there is used in the epidemiologic studies that rural locations. Further, the mix of a lack of such effects associated with provide the most direct evidence of thoracic coarse particles typically found long-term exposure to thoracic coarse such health effects, PM10–2.5. in urban areas contains a number of particles. Considering the magnitude of (2) The upper size cut of a PM10–2.5 contaminants that are not commonly the risks identified in health studies, indicator is consistent with dosimetric present to the same degree in the mix of and the size of potentially susceptible evidence that continues to reinforce the natural crustal particles that is typical of subpopulations such as people with finding from past reviews that an rural areas. The elevation of PM10–2.5 preexisting respiratory diseases, aerodynamic size of 10 µm is a levels in urban locations as compared to including asthma, and children and reasonable separation point for particles those at nearby rural sites suggests that older adults, EPA concludes that short- that penetrate to and potentially deposit sources located within urban areas are term exposure to thoracic coarse in the thoracic regions of the respiratory generally the cause of elevated urban particles can have an important public tract. concentrations; conversely, PM10–2.5 health impact. The health evidence (3) The lower size cut of such an concentrations in such urban areas are regarding effects of thoracic coarse indicator is consistent with the choice not largely composed of particles blown µ particles is limited in some respects and of 2.5 m as a reasonable separation in from more distant regions (EPA, still subject to significant uncertainty. point between fine and coarse fraction 2005, sections 2.4.5 and 5.4.2.1). The Administrator has concluded that it particles. Important sources of thoracic coarse (4) Further, the limited available is a priority to establish a robust particles in urban areas include dense information is not sufficient to define an traffic that suspends significant research program that will enable future indicator for thoracic coarse particles quantities of dust from paved roads, as PM NAAQS reviews to make more solely in terms of metrics other than well as industrial and combustion informed decisions that will provide size-differentiated mass, such as specific sources and construction activities that more targeted protection against the chemical components. contribute to ambient coarse particles effects only of those coarse particles and (5) The available epidemiologic both directly and through deposition to related source emissions that prove to evidence for effects of PM10–2.5 exposure soils and roads (EPA, 2005, Table 2–2). be of concern to public health. The is quite limited and is inherently Administrator also notes that the need characterized by large uncertainties, 66 In general, EPA believes it is appropriate to for a standard for thoracic coarse reflective in part of the more draw a distinction between two general types of particles has already been upheld based heterogeneous nature of the spatial ambient mixes of coarse particles: ‘‘urban’’ and ‘‘non-urban’’. The first term characterizes the mix upon evidence of health effects distribution and chemical composition in more heavily populated urban areas, where considerably more limited than now of thoracic coarse particles and the more sources such as motor vehicles and industry available (ATA I, 175 F.3d at 1054). limited and generally uncertain contribute heavily to ambient coarse particle measurement methods that have concentrations and composition. The term ‘‘non- In the judgment of the Administrator, urban,’’ on the other hand, encompasses mixes in historically been used to characterize it is appropriate at this time to retain a a variety of other locations outside of urbanized their ambient concentrations. areas, including mixes in rural areas which are standard to address the known and In evaluating relevant information likely to be dominated by natural crustal materials potential public health risks associated from atmospheric sciences, toxicology, (and where urban types of sources are largely absent with exposure to coarse particles. The or, in the case of motor vehicles, are not present to and epidemiology related to thoracic the same degree). It should be noted that some types Administrator’s specific decisions coarse particles, the Staff Paper also of sources are present in both urban and non-urban regarding the indicator, averaging time, noted that there appear to be clear areas. Industrial sources, for example, are found in level and form of a standard for thoracic non-urban areas, though they are more commonly distinctions between (1) the character of located in urban areas. Similarly, agricultural and coarse particles are described below. the ambient mix of particles generally mining sources are primarily non-urban sources, found in urban areas as compared to but may be found in or near urban areas as well.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61186 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

The Staff Paper concluded that the mix study supports evidence available in the The Staff Paper also noted that of thoracic coarse particles in urban last review regarding potential effects of epidemiologic studies that have areas would likely differ in composition road dust particles (EPA, 1996b, p. V– examined exposures to thoracic coarse from that in rural areas, being 70). In contrast, a number of studies particles generally found in urban influenced to a relatively greater degree have reported that Mt. St. Helens environments, together with studies that by components from urban mobile and volcanic ash, an example of have taken into account exposures to stationary source emissions. uncontaminated natural crustal material natural crustal materials typical of rural While detailed composition data are of geologic origin, has very little toxicity areas, generally support the view that more limited for PM10–2.5 than for PM2.5, in animal or in vitro toxicologic studies the mix of thoracic coarse particles available measurements from some (EPA, 2004a, p. 7–216). generally found in urban areas is of areas as well as studies of road dust A few toxicologic studies have used concern to public health, in contrast to components do show a significant ambient thoracic coarse particles from natural crustal dusts of geologic origin. influence of urban sources on both the urban/suburban locations (PM10–2.5), With respect to the urban results, composition and mass of thoracic coarse and the results suggest that effects can several recent studies have shown particles generally found in urban areas. be linked with several components of associations between PM10–2.5 and Although crustal elements and natural PM10–2.5. These in vitro toxicologic health outcomes in a few sites across the biological materials represent a studies linked thoracic coarse particles U.S. and Canada. Associations have significant fraction of thoracic coarse with effects including cytotoxicity, been reported with morbidity in a few particles in urban areas, both their oxidant formation, and inflammatory urban areas, some of which had relative quantity and character may be effects (EPA, 2005, sections 3.2 and relatively low PM10–2.5 concentrations. altered by urban sources (EPA, 2005, p. 5.4.1). While these studies cannot be For mortality, statistically significant 5–54). Traffic-related activities can also used for quantitative assessment of associations have been reported only for grind and resuspend vegetative morbidity or mortality effects, they two urban areas that have notably materials into forms not as common in suggest that several components (e.g., higher ambient PM10–2.5 concentrations. more natural areas (Rogge et al., 1993). metals, endotoxin, other materials) may These associations are with short-term Studies of urban road dusts find that have roles in various health responses exposures to aggregated PM10–2.5 mass, levels of a variety of components are but do not suggest a focus on any and no epidemiologic evidence is increased from traffic as well as from individual component. available on associations with different other anthropogenic urban sources, components or sources of PM . Although largely focused on 10–2.5 including products of incomplete However, these studies have all been undifferentiated PM , the series of combustion (e.g. polycyclic aromatic 10 conducted in urban areas of the U.S., epidemiologic observations and hydrocarbons) from motor vehicle and thus reflect effects associated with toxicologic experiments related to the emissions and other sources, brake and the ambient mix of thoracic coarse Utah Valley suggest that directly tire wear, rust, salt and biological particles generally present in urban emitted (fine and coarse) and materials (EPA, 2004a, p. 3D–3). environments, which includes PM from resuspended (coarse) urban industrial Limited ambient coarse fraction traffic and industrial sources. composition data from various emissions are of concern. Of particular The Staff Paper also pointed to other comparisons show that metals and interest are area studies spanning a 13- evidence from epidemiologic studies sometimes elemental carbon contribute month period when a major source of suggesting that mortality and possibly a greater proportion of thoracic coarse PM10 in the area, a steel mill, was not other health effects are not associated particle mass in urban areas than in operating. Observational studies found with thoracic coarse particles from dust nearby rural areas. In addition, while that respiratory hospital admissions for storms or other such wind-related large uncertainties exist in emissions children were lower when the plant was events that result in suspension of inventory data, the Staff Paper observed shut down (Pope, 1989). More recently, natural crustal materials of geologic a set of toxicologic and controlled that major sources of PM10–2.5 emissions origin. The clearest example is a study in the urban counties in which human exposure studies have used in Spokane, WA, which specifically epidemiologic studies have been particles extracted from filters from assessed whether mortality was conducted are paved roads and ‘‘other’’ ambient PM10 monitors from periods increased on dust-storm days using sources (largely construction), and that when the plant did and did not operate. case-control analysis methods. The such areas also have larger contributions In both human volunteers and animals, average PM10 level was more than 200 from industrial emissions, whereas greater lung inflammatory responses µg/m3 higher on dust storm days than unpaved roads and agriculture are the were reported with particles collected on control days, and the authors report main sources of PM10–2.5 emissions when the source was operating, as no evidence of increased mortality on outside of urban areas. compared to the period when the plant these specific days (Schwartz et al., In the proposal, EPA also stated that was closed (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–73). In 1999). One caveat of note is the toxicologic studies, although quite addition, in some studies it was possibility that people may reduce their limited, support the view that thoracic suggested that the metal content of the exposure to ambient particles on the coarse particles from sources common particles was most closely related to the dustiest days (e.g., Gordian et al., 1996; in urban areas are of greater concern effects reported (EPA, 2004a, p. 9–74). Ostro et al., 2000). Nevertheless, these than uncontaminated materials of While peak days in the Utah Valley studies provide no suggestion of geologic origin. One major source of occur in conditions that enhance fine significant health effects from thoracic coarse particles in urban areas particle concentrations, over the long uncontaminated natural crustal is paved road dust; the Criteria run, over half of the PM10 was in the materials that would typically form a Document discussed results from a coarse fraction. The aggregation of major fraction of coarse particles in recent toxicologic study in which road particles collected on the filters during rural areas. tunnel dust particles had greater allergy- the study period reflects this long-term Beyond the urban and rural related activity than several other composition and represent the kinds of distinctions discussed above, the Staff particle samples (Steerenberg et al., industrial components that would be Paper also considered the extent to 2003; EPA, 2004a, pp. 7–136–137). This incorporated in road dusts in the area. which there is evidence of effects from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61187

exposure to the ambient thoracic coarse is associated with health effects in monitoring network designed to be particles in communities predominantly studies conducted in urban areas, and consistent with the intent of such an influenced by agricultural or mining the limited available health evidence indicator and to facilitate sources.67 For example, in the last more strongly implicates the ambient implementation of such a standard. It review, EPA considered health evidence mix of thoracic coarse particles that is should be noted that EPA has related to long-term silica exposures dominated by traffic-related and historically used other implementation- from mining activities, but found that industrial sources than that dominated related policies, specifically its there was a lack of evidence that such by uncontaminated soil or geologic guidelines regarding the handling of emissions contribute to effects linked sources. The limited evidence does not data affected by exceptional or natural with ambient PM exposures (EPA, support either the existence or the lack events, to address elevations in thoracic 1996b, p. V–28). Similarly in this of causative associations for community coarse particle levels that may occur in review, there is an absence of evidence exposures to thoracic coarse particles urban areas as a result of dust storms or related to such community exposures. from agricultural or mining industries. other such events for which the staff- While crustal and organic dusts Given the apparent differences in recommended indicator was not generated from agricultural activity can composition and in the epidemiologic intended to apply. The Staff Paper include a variety of biological materials, evidence, the Staff Paper concluded that recommended that both new criteria for and some occupational studies it is not appropriate to generalize the monitor network design and revised discussed in the Criteria Document available evidence of associations with natural/exceptional events policies report effects at occupational exposure health effects that have been related to should work in concert with a revised levels (EPA, 2004a, Table7B–3, p. 7B– thoracic coarse particles generally found thoracic coarse particle indicator to 11), such studies do not provide in urban areas and apply it to the mix ensure the most effective application of relevant evidence for effects at the much of particles typically found in non- a thoracic coarse particle standard. lower levels of community exposure. urban or rural areas (EPA, 2005, p. 5– In its review of the Staff Paper Further, it is unlikely that such 57). The Staff Paper concluded that the recommendation for a thoracic coarse predominantly non-urban sources available evidence collectively suggests particle indicator (Henderson, 2005b, p. contribute to the effects reported in the that a more narrowly defined indicator 4), the CASAC generally agreed that recent urban epidemiologic studies. for thoracic coarse particles should be ‘‘thoracic coarse particles in urban areas The Criteria Document concluded its considered that would protect public can be expected to differ in composition integrated assessment of the effects of health against effects that have been from those in rural areas;’’ that ‘‘coarse natural crustal materials as follows: linked with the mix of thoracic coarse particles in urban or industrial areas are Certain classes of ambient particles appear to particles generally present in urban likely to be enriched by anthropogenic be distinctly less toxic than others and are areas. Such an indicator would be pollutants that tend to be inherently unlikely to exert human health effects at principally based on particle size, but more toxic than the windblown crustal typical ambient exposure concentrations (or also reflect a focus on the mix of material which typically dominates perhaps only under special circumstances). coarse particle mass in arid rural areas;’’ For example, particles of crustal origin, thoracic coarse particles that is generally present in urban environments and that ‘‘evidence of associations with which are predominately in the coarse health effects related to urban coarse- fraction, are relatively non-toxic under most and the sources that principally mode particles would not necessarily circumstances, compared to combustion- generate that mix. The Staff Paper related particles (such as from coal and oil recommended consideration of thoracic apply to non-urban or rural coarse particles.’’ Further, most CASAC Panel combustion, wood burning, etc.) However, coarse urban particulate matter members concurred that ‘‘the current under some conditions, crustal particles may (UPM ) as an indicator for a thoracic become sufficiently toxic to cause human 10–2.5 scarcity of information on the toxicity of coarse particle standard, referring to the health effects. (EPA, 2004a, p. 8–344) rural dusts makes it necessary’’ for EPA mix of airborne particles between 2.5 to base its standard for thoracic coarse The Staff Paper assessment of the and 10 µm in diameter that are generally particles ‘‘on the known toxicity of available evidence relevant to the present in urban environments, which, urban-derived coarse particles.’’ While appropriate scope of an indicator for as discussed above, are principally most Panel members concurred with the coarse particles can be summarized as comprised of resuspended road dust follows. Ambient concentrations of thoracic coarse particle indicator typical of high traffic-density areas and recommended in the Staff Paper, a few thoracic coarse particles generally emissions from industrial sources and reflect contributions from local sources, members recommended specifying an construction activities (EPA, 2005, p. 5– unqualified PM indicator in and the limited information available 54, 5–57–58). The Staff Paper concluded 10–2.5 from speciation of thoracic coarse conjunction with monitoring network that such an indicator would more design criteria and natural/exceptional particles and emissions inventory data likely be an effective indicator for indicate that the sources of thoracic events policies that would emphasize standards to protect against health urban influences. In either case, CASAC coarse particles in urban areas generally effects that have been associated with differ from those found in non-urban indicated that the intent of any such thoracic coarse particles than a more indicator should be to ‘‘provide areas. As a result, the mix of thoracic broadly focused PM indicator. This coarse particles people are typically 10–2.5 protection against those components of indicator would also be consistent with exposed to in urban areas can be PM10–2.5 that arise from anthropogenic a cautious interpretation of the expected to differ appreciably from the activities occurring in or near urban and epidemiologic evidence that does not mix typically found in non-urban or industrial areas.’’ potentially over-generalize the results of rural areas. Ambient PM10–2.5 exposure Based on these considerations, the the limited available studies. Administrator proposed to establish a 67 As used in the Staff Paper, the term ‘‘mining In conjunction with this new indicator for thoracic coarse sources’’ is intended to include all activities that recommendation of an indicator defined particles in terms of PM10–2.5, qualified encompass extraction and/or mechanical handling in terms of the mix of thoracic coarse so as to include any ambient mix of of natural geologic crustal materials. In the context of this rulemaking, neither mining nor agricultural particles that are generally present in PM10–2.5 that is dominated by sources are included in the more general category urban areas, the Staff Paper also resuspended dust from high-density of ‘‘industrial sources.’’ discussed the importance of a traffic on paved roads and PM generated

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61188 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

by industrial sources and construction proposed approach came almost entirely smoke, and dust from unpaved roads. sources, and to exclude any ambient from those industrial sectors whose Though the coarse particle mix in urban mix of PM10–2.5 that is dominated by sources were excluded from the areas also contains significant crustal rural windblown dust and soils and PM proposed qualified PM10–2.5 indicator materials, the commenters stated that it generated by agricultural and mining (i.e., agriculture and mining interests). is contaminated by a wide variety of sources (71 FR 2667–68). Furthermore, While these commenters argued that industrial and combustion-related EPA proposed that ‘‘[a]gricultural EPA should not maintain any standard byproducts, such as metals and organic sources, mining sources, and other for thoracic coarse particles, they materials (tire and brake wear, vehicle similar sources of crustal material shall conditionally supported the qualified exhaust, industrial emissions, not be subject to control in meeting this indicator if any standard were to be set. residential fuel combustion). These standard’’ (71 FR 2699). As summarized In contrast, all other commenters, commenters noted that studies above in section I.E, the proposed including environmental and public conducted in urban areas have linked standard also included specific monitor health groups, State and local agencies, health effects specifically to these site-suitability requirements which any and industries not excluded from the urban-industrial contaminants. For monitor would have to meet in order to proposed indicator (e.g., transportation example, the American Farm Bureau be used for comparison to the NAAQS, and construction), opposed the Federation cited the distinction between including a requirement that such proposed qualified indicator. studies that found health effects related monitors be sited in urbanized areas Representatives from a variety of groups to traffic emissions in urban areas with a minimum population of 100,000. who otherwise disagreed on various (Pearson et al., 2000; Kramer et al., These requirements were designed to aspects of the proposed indicator 2000; and Lin et al., 2002) and a study ensure that the monitors were capturing commented on the need for additional they suggested found a strong the ambient mix of PM10–2.5 dominated research to address the uncertainties in association between cardiovascular by the sources of concern. the current body of evidence regarding mortality and motor vehicle exhaust Subsequent to the proposal, CASAC coarse particles and health effects. In components, but a negative association provided additional comments to the addition, a variety of commenters urged between soil and total mortality (Mar et Administrator on the proposed indicator EPA to deploy additional PM10–2.5 al., 2000).68 Some of these commenters for thoracic coarse particles. In a letter monitors in both urban and rural areas, argued that coarse mode particles, dated March 21, 2006, the Committee consistent with the advice of CASAC, to especially crustal coarse mode particles, stated that ‘‘the PM Panel was pleased provide a more robust and complete are unlikely to serve as carriers of to see that the indicator for coarse body of evidence regarding coarse urban-area contaminants because they thoracic particles of concern to public particle effects. have less surface area, do not adsorb health took into account some of the Commenters conditionally supporting contaminants easily, and have short various approaches that the PM Panel the proposal expressed the view that atmospheric residence times. These identified for consideration’’ EPA should exclude non-urban wind- commenters conditionally agreed with (Henderson 2006, p. 4). The CASAC blown dust and soil from the PM10–2.5 EPA’s proposed goal of focusing reiterated its earlier statement that ‘‘the indicator. According to these regulatory efforts on the sources known current scarcity of information on the commenters, ‘‘such particles have been to be associated with toxic coarse toxicity of rural dusts makes it shown to be nontoxic, and the scientific particles, especially traffic (Coarse necessary for the Agency to base its studies show that they are not Particle Coalition). Some of these regulations on the known toxicity of associated with adverse health effects’ commenters cited new studies urban-derived coarse particles.’’ (American Farm Bureau Federation, p. completed after the close of the Criteria However, the Committee went on to say 1). Furthermore, these commenters Document as providing additional that ‘‘the CASAC neither foresaw nor agreed with the proposed exclusion for evidence of associations between traffic- endorsed a standard that specifically agricultural and mining sources, stating related emissions and adverse health exempts all agricultural and mining that ‘‘the preponderance of scientific effects (e.g. Kim et al., 2004; Ryan et al., sources, and offers no protection against evidence continues to demonstrate that 2005; Garshick et al., 2003; McDonald et episodes of urban-industrial PM in fugitive dust from agricultural and 10–2.5 al., 2004; and Ostro et al., 2006). areas of populations less than 100,000.’’ mining operations presents no These commenters also stated that The Committee recommended the substantial health or welfare concerns’ while urban contaminants may increase ‘‘expansion of our knowledge of the (National Mining Association, p. 1; see the toxicity of coarse particles, studies toxicity of rural dusts rather than also National Cattlemen’s Beef have demonstrated a lack of adverse exempting specific industries (e.g. Association, p. 1). These commenters effects associated with exposure to mining, agriculture)’’ from control quoted extensively from the Criteria coarse particles in non-urban areas (e.g., under the standard (id at 5). Document and Staff Paper, and made Buist et al. (1983) study of exposure to points that were in many cases 2. Comments on Indicator for Thoracic Mount St. Helens’ ash among diabetic conceptually similar to the arguments in Coarse Particles children). Furthermore, these these documents and in the proposal. commenters argued that studies have The EPA received a large number of These commenters also tended to argue found a lack of effects associated with comments on its proposed decision with that there is substantial scientific exposure to crustal materials in general. regard to the indicator of thoracic coarse evidence showing an absence of health They cited the lack of an association particles which overwhelmingly effects from rural particles. opposed the proposed indicator. Few These commenters cited differences between mortality and dust storms commenters unconditionally supported in the composition of the mix of found in Schwartz et al. (1999) and also noted that studies such as the 6-city EPA’s proposal to replace the PM10 particles in urban areas versus the mix study by Laden et al. (2000) have found indicator with a qualified PM10–2.5 of particles in non-urban areas, which indicator that would provide targeted they stated is dominated by wind-blown 68 Commenters cite the original publication. In protection by including certain ambient soil fractions including silicates, the subsequent reanalysis, the investigators report mixes of thoracic coarse particles and primary organic materials including ‘‘our original findings remained unchanged’’ (Mar excluding others. Support for the ground plant matter, residential wood et al. 2003).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61189

that crustal material, in both the fine characteristics and exposure estimates need to maintain a coarse particle and coarse fractions, is not associated in different locations and differences in standard, EPA is aware of the studies with increased mortality. Thus, these health outcomes, including comparisons that found no effects on mortality at commenters argued that there is in rural and urban areas; and (4) lower coarse particle concentrations, but sufficient evidence to show that crustal characterize the composition and believes, consistent with the Staff Paper particulate matter is essentially benign variability of PM10–2.5 in towns, cities or and Criteria Document conclusions, that and therefore should be excluded from metropolitan areas, including the evidence is suggestive of a coarse the coarse particle indicator. comparisons of rural and urban areas. In particle effect in urban or industrial The EPA agrees with these addition, as described in the final areas.70 The EPA continues to believe commenters that the strongest available monitoring rule published elsewhere in that urban sources may significantly evidence relates to the toxicity of the today’s Federal Register, EPA and the alter both the relative quantity and ambient mix of coarse particles found in states will require measurement of character of crustal and natural urban environments. The limited PM10–2.5 at 75 new multipollutant biological materials in ambient mixes in evidence available from epidemiologic monitoring sites around the country. urban areas. As noted above in section and toxicologic studies indicates These sites will provide continuous III.C.1, metals and other contaminants exposure to ambient thoracic coarse measurements of mass as well as such as elemental carbon tend to appear particulate in urban areas is associated chemical speciation. EPA will locate 55 in higher concentrations in the urban with health effects, and the health of these sites in urban areas and 20 in PM10–2.5 mix, and vegetative materials evidence more strongly implicates rural areas in order to gather are ground and resuspended by traffic- coarse particles from urban types of information on the composition and related activities into forms not common sources such as resuspended dust from transport of coarse particles in urban outside urban areas. In contrast to those few commenters high-density traffic on paved roads and and rural areas. In addition, these who conditionally supported EPA’s PM generated by industrial sources and monitors will employ the latest in proposed indicator, the vast majority of construction sources than coarse speciation technology to advance the commenters opposed one or more particles from uncontaminated soil or science so that future regulation will aspects of EPA’s proposed indicator, geologic sources. The EPA also agrees provide more targeted protection against the effects only of those coarse particles including: (1) The basic decision to that there is far more evidence and related source emissions that prove qualify the indicator to focus on concerning health effects associated to be of concern to public health. particles associated with certain types of with thoracic coarse particles in urban In addition, EPA disagrees with these sources and to exclude other ambient areas than in non-urban areas. However, commenters that there is sufficient mixes; and (2) the particular EPA disagrees with these commenters evidence to exclude crustal materials qualifications applied to the indicator, that there is sufficient evidence to from the coarse particle indicator including the proposed siting demonstrate that there are no adverse regardless of the degree of requirements for coarse particle health effects from community-level contamination. Although there is some monitors suitable for comparison with exposure to coarse particles in non- evidence that coarse particles of natural the NAAQS and the proposed exclusion urban areas. Rather, the existing geologic origin are relatively non-toxic of agricultural, mining, and other evidence is inconclusive with regard to in their uncontaminated form, the similar sources from control under the whether or not community-level Criteria Document notes that such standard. This large group of exposures to thoracic coarse particles particles may become sufficiently commenters advanced scientific as well are associated with adverse health ‘‘contaminated by toxic trace elements as legal and policy arguments against effects in non-urban areas. However, or other components from previously drawing a distinction between particles EPA does agree with these commenters deposited fine PM,’’ to cause health typical of urban versus non-urban or that additional research is needed to effects (EPA, 2004a, 8–344). Indeed, the rural areas. These commenters included clarify this issue and to reduce some of urban coarse PM associated with public health groups such as the the other uncertainties regarding the adverse health effects in the studies American Lung Association, the effects associated with coarse particles. discussed above was, by mass, American Heart Association, the As discussed above, the EPA is, in fact, predominantly crustal in origin.69 As American Cancer Society, the American expanding both its research and noted in the proposal and in the Diabetes Association, and the American monitoring programs to collect response to these commenters on the Public Health Association, and additional evidence on the differences environmental groups such as between coarse particles typically found 69 The American Farm Bureau Federation’s Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, in urban areas and those typically found summary of the results of Mar et al. (2000), offered and the Natural Resources Defense in rural areas. Specifically, EPA notes in support of their arguments about the lack of effect of soil or crustal materials, misses some Council. It also included the State and that the Agency’s National Center for important elements of the study results. A major Territorial Air Pollution Program Environmental Research recently issued finding of the original study as well as the a Request for Proposals on ‘‘Sources, reanalysis (Mar et al., 2003) was an association 70 The Laden et al. (2000) study cited by Composition, and Health Effects of between PM10–2.5 particles and mortality. The commenters was reanalyzed in Schwartz (2003), Coarse Particulate Matter’’ which is analysis in this work that examined sources and with qualitatively similar findings. As in Mar et al. components examined contributions to the effects (2000, 2003), this study examined the associations designed to (1) improve understanding of PM2.5, not to PM10–2.5. In the opinion of the of crustal materials in the fine particle fraction, in of the type and severity of health authors, the factor commenters call motor vehicle which they make up such a small fraction of fine outcomes associated with exposure to exhaust ‘‘probably represents the influence of motor mass that one of the six cities had to be excluded PM ; (2) improve understanding of vehicle exhaust and resuspended road dust’’ (Mar from the analysis (Laden et al., 2000, p. 945). While 10–2.5 et al., 2000, p. 351). The negative association for this result does not provide any support for subpopulations that may be especially ‘‘soil’’ in the fine fraction cited by the commenter associations between coarse crustal materials and sensitive to PM10–2.5 exposures was apparently related to problems in the PM2.5 mortality, given the lower concentrations of coarse including minority populations, highly measurement. When the data were reassessed for particles in five of the six cities and the lack of the period with an improved sampler, the authors examination of coarse particle composition, the exposed groups, and other susceptible report that the association between soil and results are inconclusive with respect to the groups; (3) characterize and compare the mortality was ‘‘positive and significant at 0 days potential effects of higher concentrations of coarse influence of mass, composition, source lag’’ (ibid., p. 352). particles.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61190 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Administrators and the Association of showing that the coarse PM found in agricultural and mining activities are Local Air Pollution Control Officials rural areas is commonly contaminated harmless. Citing a long history of (STAPPA/ALAPCO) and numerous with the same toxic components as occupational studies documenting individual State and local air pollution particles found in urban areas (e.g. effects and EPA’s statement in the control agencies, as well as dozens of Alaska Department of Environmental proposal that ‘‘in the 1987 review, EPA Tribes and Tribal organizations such as Conservation; American Lung found that occupational and the National Tribal Caucus, the National Association; Engine Manufacturers toxicological studies provided ample Tribal Air Association and its parent Association; Veranth). Moreover, these cause for concern related to higher organization, the National Tribal commenters noted that rural dusts may levels of thoracic coarse particles’ (71 Environmental Council. In addition, a contain additional toxic contaminants FR 2654), these commenters urged EPA number of industry groups expressed such as molds, fungi, endotoxins, to give greater weight to the results of opposition to the proposal to qualify the pesticides, and carbonaceous such studies. coarse particle indicator; in general, compounds including polycyclic A number of commenters opposing a these comments came from groups aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), all of qualified PM10–2.5 indicator referenced representing industry categories that which are associated with rural sources ‘‘new’’ epidemiologic and toxicologic were not excluded from the proposed and have been shown to produce toxic studies which were not included in the indicator, such as the Engine effects (citing studies including: Monn Criteria Document in support of their Manufacturers Association, the Alliance and Becker 1999; Soukup and Becker arguments in favor of an unqualified of Automobile Manufacturers, and the 2001; Horvath et al., 1996; Offenberg PM10–2.5 indicator. Specifically, the National Association of Home Builders. and Baker, 2000; Eleftheriadis and commenters pointed to recent Though these industry commenters Colbeck, 2001). (See American Lung epidemiologic studies showing primarily argued against setting any Association et al., pp. 92–100.) In statistically significant adverse health coarse particle standard at this time, addition, some commenters pointed to effects from exposure to coarse particles they stated that if a standard were to be studies of the composition of coarse of varying composition, such as one adopted, scientific evidence did not particles in particular locations, such as study that found an association between support the proposal to qualify the Owens and Mono Lakes in California, as exposure to volcanic ash and wheeze indicator based on the mix of sources evidence of the dangerous nature of and exercise-induced present. rural particles. Commenters noted that bronchoconstriction (Forbes et al., Commenters opposed to a qualified coarse particles from these areas are 2003). In addition, commenters cited coarse particle indicator advanced contaminated by heavy metals, arsenic, several ‘‘new’’ studies of health effects numerous scientific arguments to and other toxic contaminants, but associated with exposure to coarse support their position. They criticized would be excluded from the proposed particles during Asian dust storms EPA’s interpretation of key indicator. (Chen Y-S et al., 2004; Chen and Yang, epidemiologic studies, such as Gordian 2005; Yang C-Y et al., 2005; Chang et al., et al. (1996), Choudhury et al. (1997), Commenters critical of the proposed 2006). Commenters also pointed to Ostro et al. (2003), Smith et al. (2000) decision to qualify the coarse particle ‘‘new’’ toxicologic studies such as and Mar et al. (2003), arguing that these indicator also stated that EPA had Schins et al. (2004), Veranth (2004, studies linked thoracic coarse particles inappropriately relied on the relatively 2006), Becker (2005), Labban et al. to adverse health effects in few studies involving exposure to (2004, 2006), and Steerenberg et al. environments where crustal crustal materials, especially the Mt. St. (2006), arguing that toxicological studies components formed a significant part of Helens’ studies. These commenters do not show consistent differences expressed the view that EPA should not the ambient mix of PM10–2.5. For between urban and rural dusts. example, commenters argued that the equate exposure to volcanic ash to In response to these commenters’ first study conducted by Ostro et al. (2003) exposure to coarse particles emitted point regarding the epidemiologic in Coachella Valley, which found from agricultural and mining industries. studies that were included in the statistically significant associations Commenters noted that volcanic ash Criteria Document, EPA does not agree between exposure to coarse particles lacks many of the organic components with the commenters that these and mortality, provides direct evidence typical of rural coarse PM, including epidemiologic studies provide direct of harm from exposure to rural particles. pesticides and PAHs. Commenters evidence of harm from non-urban or These commenters also challenged the pointed to specific components of rural crustal material. While EPA results of Schwartz et al. (1999), coarse particles emitted by agricultural acknowledges that crustal particles may attributing the lack of statistically or mining activities, including have dominated the ambient mix in significant mortality results in that endotoxins, pesticides, and metals, that some of the locations in which these study to avoidance behavior (i.e., people they claim are associated with adverse studies were done, it is also the case may stay inside during dust storms) and health effects. These commenters argued that these areas are all urban, so the noting that the study might have drawn that coarse particles in rural and other crustal materials in the ambient mix different conclusions if morbidity non-urban areas are not generally typically would be contaminated by endpoints had been considered. In ‘‘uncontaminated materials of geologic metals, road dust, and other combustion support of this argument, they pointed origin’’ or ‘‘uncontaminated natural byproducts. At the same time, EPA to Hefflin et al. (1994), which looked at crustal dusts.’’ They argued that some of notes that CASAC cited the studies by hospitalizations for bronchitis and the effects noted in epidemiologic Ostro et al. (2000, 2003) as suggestive of sinusitis during dust storms and did studies of thoracic coarse particles, such health effects associated with exposure find a small increase in these effects in as Mar et al. (2003), occurred in areas to rural crustal materials: ‘‘Little is the same area. dominated by agricultural or mining known about the potential toxicity of In addition, a number of commenters, dusts (Maricopa County Air Quality rural dusts, although the 2000 and 2003 including States, researchers, Department, p. 3–4). Some commenters Coachella Valley, CA studies from Ostro environmental and public health also stated that EPA had not et al. showed significant adverse health groups, and industry commenters, cited demonstrated or even claimed that effects, primarily involving exposures to studies of particle composition as coarse particles associated with coarse-mode particles arising from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61191

crustal sources’ (Henderson, 2005a, p. further support to a cautious approach these commenters expressed the view 4). Thus while EPA does not agree with in considering revisions to the standards that EPA must demonstrate these commenters that the affording protection from thoracic affirmatively that the coarse particle epidemiologic studies demonstrate that coarse particles. Finally, to the extent standards will ensure an absence of non-urban or rural crustal particles are that commenters cited new scientific adverse effects on sensitive individuals harmful, at the same time EPA believes studies that were not considered in the (American Lung Association, p. 82, the studies do raise credible concerns Criteria Document in support of their citing Lead Industries Ass’n v. EPA, 647 and suggest the need to be cautious in arguments against a qualified coarse F.2d 1130, 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1980) and interpreting the epidemiologic and other particle indicator, EPA notes that as American Lung Ass’n v. EPA, 134 F.3d evidence. discussed above in section I.C, EPA it is 388, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1998)), and that in The EPA agrees with these basing the final decisions in this review the absence of evidence, or in the face commenters that the observations of on the studies and related information of significant uncertainty, the CAA Hefflin et al. (1994) suggest it is possible included in the PM air quality criteria requirement to provide an adequate that the lack of mortality effects on dust that have undergone CASAC and public margin of safety obligates EPA to storm days observed in Schwartz et al. review, and will consider the newly regulate all coarse particles equally (1999) may be due to avoidance published studies for purposes of (Lead Industries Ass’n v. EPA, 647 F.2d behavior. As noted in the proposal (71 decision making in the next PM NAAQS 1154–55). Some of these commenters FR 2666), there is a possibility that review. pointed to the DC Circuit Court’s people may reduce their exposure to Overall, the scientific evidence instruction in ATA III that ‘‘[t]he Act ambient particles on the most dusty supports a conclusion that the risks of requires EPA to promulgate protective days. This argues for caution in adverse health effects associated with primary NAAQS even where * * * the interpreting the results of Schwartz et thoracic coarse particles typically found pollutant’s risks cannot be quantified or al. (1999) with regard to the potential in urban or industrial areas warrant ‘precisely identified as to nature or health effects associated with exposure targeted protection. Although the degree’’’ (ATA III, 283 F.3d 355, 369 to natural crustal material. limited and inconclusive evidence does (quoting PM NAAQS, 62 FR 28653)). The EPA acknowledges the not support such a conclusion Commenters also argued that, under limitations on the scientific evidence concerning thoracic coarse particles the CAA, EPA is charged with setting identified by these commenters typically found in non-urban or rural ambient standards that are national in regarding the differences in composition areas, it supports a cautious approach scope and application, and that the and toxicologic effects of urban and concerning thoracic coarse particles. proposed qualified indicator fails this rural thoracic coarse particles. As noted The EPA agrees with all the commenters test. Citing Whitman, 531 U.S. at 473, in the Criteria Document and Staff who pointed to the need for additional some of these commenters stated that Paper, there is clear evidence of toxicity research to strengthen the current body the proposed qualified indicator is a of certain components of thoracic coarse of evidence to reduce some of the thinly veiled attempt to establish a particles, such as metals and uncertainties regarding the health coarse particle standard that only endotoxins, as well as evidence that effects associated with coarse particles. applies to urban areas, and that it denies natural crustal materials of geologic In addition to their criticisms of the citizens in non-urban areas adequate origin, such as Mt. St. Helens volcanic scientific basis for EPA’s proposed health protection. Several commenters, ash, may have very little toxicity. There indicator, commenters opposed to a including numerous Tribes, argued that is largely an absence of evidence qualified indicator also advanced legal the qualified indicator, by virtue of regarding the presence or absence of and policy arguments against EPA’s depriving non-urban populations of toxicologic effects associated with other proposed approach. In particular, protection from coarse particles, types of coarse particles in non-urban commenters criticized the proposal’s violated principles of environmental areas. However, EPA agrees that provision that ‘‘agricultural sources, justice and the government’s Trust thoracic coarse particles in non-urban mining sources, and other similar Responsibility to Tribes. areas may become contaminated with a sources of crustal materials shall not be Commenters pointed to other wide variety of toxic materials (EPA, subject to control in meeting this concerns as well, many of them focused 2004a, p. 8–344). Clearly, however, standard’’ (71 FR 2699); a large number on specific aspects of the proposed crustal material associated with of commenters expressed the view that PM10–2.5 indicator. First, some particular locations, such as the dry the exclusion is flatly illegal, citing CAA commenters stated that the proposed lakebeds of Owens and Mono Lakes, can section 101 (a) (3) and case law in qualified indicator inadequately be highly contaminated with metals, support. These commenters also pointed describes the substance(s) being salts, and other toxic constituents. The to CASAC’s March 21, 2006 letter to the regulated. These commenters argued EPA agrees with commenters that the Administrator which stated that EPA that EPA is attempting to establish a potential toxicity of these components is had misconstrued the finding of the composition-based indicator without well recognized; however, such Committee and that the proposed rule— being able to define adequately which locations tend to be isolated and not particularly the source-category particular chemical or physical representative of other locations. exclusions—was not consistent with the components are associated with adverse In response to other comments raised Committee’s recommendations. health effects. Furthermore, commenters by this group of commenters, EPA These commenters also stated that pointed out that the indicator was continues to find it inappropriate to EPA had failed to demonstrate that its defined in large part through an assume that effects observed in proposed qualified indicator would implementation strategy—i.e. via the occupational studies should be protect public health with an adequate placement of monitors—rather than in considered representative of effects that margin of safety. Pointing again to the scientific terms. The Alliance of would occur at community exposure relative paucity of data regarding health Automobile Manufacturers expressed levels. However, EPA agrees with effects associated with coarse particles concern that the result would be that commenters that the presence of of differing compositions, and the two sources of coarse particulate matter occupational exposure studies almost complete lack of evidence with similar composition that demonstrating adverse effects lends regarding health effects in rural areas, presumably produce similar health

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61192 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

impacts would be ‘‘given different of the types of coarse particles of commenters recommended that EPA regulatory treatment based merely on concern or the nature of the ambient utilize the Exceptional Events Rule, the non-scientific qualifiers established mix. Commenters pointed out that the proposed on March 10, 2006 (71 FR in EPA’s indicator’’ (Alliance of monitor siting criteria, by virtue of their 12592–12610), to exclude violations Automobile Manufacturers, p. 9). highly prescriptive role in defining caused by rural windblown dust. In addition, some commenters where the pollutant can and cannot be According to these commenters, this pointed to a logical paradox inherent in measured, in essence define the would be consistent with historical the proposed PM10–2.5 indicator, which indicator itself, and artificially narrow practice, because in the past the Natural is defined to include any ambient mix its scope such that in many instances, Events Policy has been applied in many ‘‘dominated by’’ particles from coarse particles of concern would not be instances to exclude data associated particular types of sources. Commenters covered by the indicator. These with dust storms and other events from noted the potential for the same commenters argued that by failing to consideration under the PM10 standard concentration of ‘‘harmful’’ coarse provide protection from coarse particles (see New Mexico Air Quality Bureau, p. particles—i.e. particles from high- of concern in non-urban areas even 10). density traffic, industrial sources and though the composition of those Some commenters advocating an construction sources—to be regulated particles may be identical to that of unqualified PM10–2.5 indicator stated differently in different locations coarse particles found in large urban that, given the limitations on the depending on what percentage of the areas, the qualified indicator, as EPA scientific evidence, and in light of some ambient mix it constitutes relative to proposed to implement it, would be of the other problems identified with ‘‘crustal’’ particles. These commenters under inclusive. Many Tribes and some the proposed qualified indicator, EPA stated that the coarse particle standard other commenters raised concerns about should consider retaining the current must provide a consistent level of the environmental justice implications PM10 standards to continue protection protection from particles of concern, of the proposal and stated that EPA had from coarse particles. They expressed and that use of a 50 percent domination violated its Trust Responsibility toward particular concern about the absence of threshold would result in a variable Tribes, because Tribal lands would be control in the interim period between level of protection from particles of virtually excluded from coverage under the issuance of the final PM NAAQS concern. the proposed monitor siting criteria, rule (which as proposed would include The EPA also received an extremely regardless of the mix of particles the revocation of existing PM10 large number of comments from diverse present. Furthermore, numerous standards in almost all locations) and stakeholder groups—some of whom commenters stated that the siting the completion of designations under a conditionally supported a qualified criteria would be impossible to new PM10–2.5 standard (which would indicator—regarding perceived implement, so the criteria undermined require deployment of a new monitoring problems with implementing the the proposed standard on a practical network followed by 3 years of data proposed PM indicator. Many 10–2.5 level. Commenters particularly objected collection). A few of the commenters commenters pointed out that EPA failed to the fifth part of the monitor-site advocating the retention of the PM10 to specify which source types were suitability test, which as proposed standards suggested that measurements included in the broad source category would require an affirmative of PM10 could be adjusted by subtracting descriptions listed in the indicator. demonstration that the ambient mix at out PM2.5 to avoid double regulating the They requested further definition of the site was dominated by sources of fine fraction, to satisfy a concern voiced what could be considered an by the D.C. Circuit in ATA I (e.g., concern, even if all of the other four ‘‘agricultural source,’’ a ‘‘mining Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; monitor site-suitability criteria were source,’’ or ‘‘other similar sources of also some Tribes and States). Some met. Commenters stated that this crustal material’’ (i.e. those sources that Tribal, State and local commenters demonstration would be impossible to would be excluded from control under suggested that the 24-hour PM execute due to the lack of suitable data 10 the proposed standard), and which standard be retained permanently in all and techniques, undermining the siting ‘‘industrial’’ and ‘‘construction’’ sources areas where the PM standard did of any NAAQS-comparable PM 10–2.5 were included in the indicator. 10–2.5 not apply by virtue of the monitoring monitors. Furthermore, some commenters requirements, which limited NAAQS- inquired about the treatment of sources In response to these perceived comparable monitors to sites that met that were neither explicitly included in problems with the proposed qualified the five-point site suitability test nor excluded from the proposed indicator, commenters suggested a outlined in the monitoring rule. indicator, such as residential and number of remedies. A few commenters, While EPA proposed a qualified commercial sources. In addition, mostly industry representatives who indicator that attempted to include commenters wondered how EPA or the preferred that no coarse particle certain ambient mixes of thoracic coarse States would make the determination standard be set at the current time, particles and exclude others, EPA’s that one set of sources was ‘‘dominant,’’ stated that if EPA does set a standard, evaluation of the large number of given the scarcity of knowledge about it should be based on a qualified adverse comments received on the coarse particle emissions and air quality PM10–2.5 indicator, but EPA should fix proposed qualified indicator has led it concentrations, and the lack of suitable specific problematic aspects of the to the conclusion that significant source attribution techniques. proposal (e.g. clarify the definition of caution is warranted in considering Commenters also objected to the included vs. excluded industries). Most such revisions to the scope of the proposed five-part test for siting commenters, including States, Tribes, indicator affording public health NAAQS-comparable monitors, noting and environmental and public health protection from coarse particles. As that as written, the monitor siting groups, urged EPA to adopt an discussed below, there are two main criteria arbitrarily would prohibit unqualified PM10–2.5 indicator to ensure issues that arise from consideration of a monitoring and regulation of coarse adequate public health protection and to qualified indicator for thoracic coarse particles outside urbanized areas of avoid some of their perceived legal and/ particles: (1) The inability to effectively 100,000 population, regardless of the or policy issues associated with the and precisely identify which coarse presence of large or numerous sources qualified indicator. A few of these particles are included in the indicator

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61193

and which are not; 71 and (2) the would be under-inclusive. The EPA has commenters that the proposed qualified importance of providing some level of considered several options to modify indicator is fundamentally flawed, protection from exposure to all thoracic the quantitative criteria, including those because it cannot effectively and coarse particles while targeting discussed in the proposal (see precisely identify the ambient mixes of protection at those kinds of thoracic Weinstock, 2006). For example, EPA concern and because modifications to coarse particles for which there is more evaluated different possible minimum the indicator that could rectify this and evidence regarding adverse health population thresholds (e.g., 25,000 or other problems highlighted by the effects. 50,000 instead of 100,000) for areas commenters have not been identified. As explained earlier in this section, eligible to site NAAQS-comparable At the present time, therefore, EPA EPA continues to believe that, from a monitors, and/or the possibility of believes that there is an inherent risk scientific standpoint, it is appropriate to adding additional criteria to include that a qualified indicator would not draw a distinction between the areas that do not meet a quantitative include all of the ambient mixes of character of the ambient mix of thoracic population threshold but are dominated concern which the indicator is intended coarse particles generally found in by industrial or traffic-oriented sources. to capture. urban areas and that found in non-urban Each of these options, however, was Furthermore, in light of the significant and, more specifically, rural areas, found too inflexible to capture all scientific uncertainty surrounding the recognizing that the mix of coarse relevant areas or too difficult to health effects associated with different particles in urban areas is influenced to implement in practice. Thus, EPA ambient mixes of coarse particles, EPA a relatively greater degree by believes that even a more complex set agrees with commenters that the components from urban mobile and of quantitative criteria would fail to proposed qualified indicator would be stationary source emissions and that the resolve the basic problem inherent in insufficiently protective and further evidence of health effects associated precisely identifying those ambient concludes that, given the limitations on with exposure to these urban types of mixes to include and those to exclude. the evidence regarding the health risks coarse particles should not be Based on the data available to us in this associated with different ambient mixes, generalized to other types of coarse review, there still remains a clear risk of some protection from exposure to particles. In the presence of significant, failing to capture all ambient mixes of thoracic coarse particles is warranted in though limited, evidence of effects in concern, or of capturing ambient mixes all areas. The EPA recognizes that urban areas, it remains EPA’s view that that are intended to be excluded from additional data will be collected and a targeted indicator that focuses control the qualified indicator. analyzed that will be useful to inform on areas with ambient mixes of coarse Moreover, as a general matter, the use the next review. particles known to be associated with of a qualified indicator without such The EPA has already set out the adverse health effects will provide the objective monitor site-suitability criteria reasons for providing protection from most certain and substantial public would still present serious problems exposure to ambient mixes dominated health benefits. because it is currently impossible to by the types of thoracic coarse particles However, EPA also recognizes a determine with any precision which found in urban or industrial areas. With number of flaws in the proposed sources ‘‘dominate’’ the ambient mix in respect to other ambient mixes, some qualified indicator, as noted by many different locations. Although it commenters have argued that the numerous commenters, most may be easy in certain instances to scientific evidence, including specifically the difficulties inherent in identify an ambient mix dominated by epidemiologic, dosimetric, toxicologic, attempting to effectively and precisely urban and/or industrial sources, in and occupational studies, demonstrates identify the ambient mixes of concern. many cases it would be difficult to that non-urban mixes of thoracic coarse These include: (1) The artificial determine whether that precise ambient particles are harmful, and therefore that constraints on the reach of the indicator mix presents the types of health risks EPA should maintain an unqualified resulting from the application of identified in the epidemiologic and indicator. Other commenters argue that quantitative monitor site-suitability other studies. The EPA is currently the evidence demonstrates that non- criteria such as the requirement that unable to identify any set of objective urban mixes of thoracic coarse particles NAAQS-comparable monitors can only criteria or techniques such as chemical are benign and therefore EPA should be sited in urbanized areas with air quality speciation or modeling that retain a qualified indicator. The EPA minimum 100,000 population even if could be practically employed to ensure disagrees with both of these views there is an ambient mix of concern adequate inclusion of all areas with regarding the strength of the evidence. around such an area; and (2) the particles of concern, and exclusion of The existing evidence is inconclusive difficulties associated with attempting areas without such particles. with regard to whether or not to determine with any precision which The EPA is also aware that the legal community-level exposures to thoracic sources ‘‘dominate’’ the ambient mix of concerns raised by commenters with coarse particles are associated with coarse particles in different locations. regard to the exemption of agricultural adverse health effects in non-urban The quantitative constraints in the and mining sources from control under areas. In light of this uncertainty and the monitor site-suitability criteria result in the standard, and the specific sections need for caution in considering the an under-inclusive indicator that fails to of the Clean Air Act that speak to this evidence, and recognizing the large include all ambient mixes of concern. issue, would require careful population groups potentially exposed Smaller urban and/or industrial areas, consideration if the proposed qualified to non-urban thoracic coarse particles for example, would not meet the indicator were to be adopted. The and the nature and degree of the health proposed monitor siting criteria, but logical paradox noted by commenters is effects at issue, it is the judgment of the might have an ambient mix of concern. also a flaw in the qualified indicator Administrator that the proper response Consequently, EPA agrees with that would need to be resolved. It is to this body of evidence is to provide commenters that unless the constraints another example of the lack of precision some protection from thoracic coarse were changed, the proposed indicator in the use of such a qualified indicator. particles in all areas. Congress After careful consideration of the ‘‘specifically directed the Administrator 71 These concerns apply both to defining the concerns raised by commenters and the to allow an adequate margin of safety to qualified indicator and implementing the standard. options available, EPA now agrees with protect against effects which have not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61194 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

yet been uncovered by research and responding to the recommendations and degree of the health effects at issue, effects whose medical significance is a regarding a qualified PM10–2.5 indicator have convinced the Administrator that matter of disagreement * * * Congress’ in the final Staff Paper, the PM Panel it is inappropriate to adopt a qualified directive to the Administrator to allow noted that some members did not favor PM10–2.5 indicator at this time. In the an ‘‘adequate margin of safety’’ alone adoption of a qualified indicator. following section, EPA considers what plainly refutes any suggestion that the Moreover, CASAC clearly anticipated indicator would most appropriately Administrator is only authorized to set the difficulties associated with adopting provide the type of targeted but primary air quality standards which are a qualified PM10–2.5 indicator: comprehensive protection judged designed to protect against health effects CASAC generally agrees with EPA staff appropriate based on its review of the that are known to be clearly harmful.’’ conclusions that thoracic coarse particles in scientific evidence. Lead Industries v. EPA, 647 F.2d at urban areas can be expected to differ in 3. Decision Not To Revise PM 1154–55; see also American Petroleum 10 composition from those in rural areas and Indicator Inst. v. Costle, 665 F.2d at 1186 (‘‘in that evidence of associations with health setting margins of safety the effects related to urban coarse-mode particles For reasons discussed in the previous Administrator need not regulate only would not necessarily apply to non-urban or section, in the view of the Administrator the known dangers to health’’). rural coarse particles (although it is likely it is not appropriate to revise the PM10 The Administrator has carefully that there will be some overlap of the same indicator by replacing it with a qualified reviewed the scientific evidence and contaminants in both areas). Most Panel indicator for thoracic coarse particles at recommendations contained in the Staff members concurred that the current scarcity this time. Based on the scientific of information on the toxicity of rural dusts evidence already summarized, the Paper, the advice and recommendations makes it necessary for the Agency to base its from CASAC, and the public comments regulations on the known toxicity of urban- Administrator believes it is necessary to received regarding the appropriate derived coarse particles, and that an urban maintain some protection from all indicator for coarse particles. After coarse particle indicator should be specified ambient mixes of thoracic coarse doing so, the Administrator has decided as UPM10–2.5. Other Panel members particles, and also to have that level of that it would not be appropriate at this recommended specifying a national PM10–2.5 protection reflect the varying degree of time to revise the indicator for coarse standard accompanied by monitoring and public health concern presented by the particles by adopting a qualified exceptional-events guidance that emphasized different ambient mixes of thoracic urban influences. Some members also PM10–2.5 indicator, either as proposed or coarse particulate matter. This would with modifications. At the same time, expressed concerns whether EPA would be mean allowing lower ambient able to specify a clear definition of ‘‘urban’’ concentrations of thoracic coarse the Administrator believes it is to effectively determine in advance the appropriate to target protection from specific conditions in which the standard particles in urban areas, where the thoracic coarse particles principally would (and would not) apply. It is evidence indicates the public health towards those types of coarse particles recognized that, as more information on the risks to be significant, and higher levels that have been demonstrated to be toxicity of rural dusts is acquired, the name in non-urban areas where the public associated with significant adverse and/or geographical focus of a coarse-particle health concerns are less certain. The health effects, specifically urban and indicator may need to be reconsidered* * *. difficulty of the task is compounded industrial ambient mixes of coarse There is a paucity of data currently available because there presently is no means of particles. on health outcomes related to thoracic coarse achieving this objective by linking In general, EPA believes these particles in rural areas and limited allowable concentrations to specific conclusions regarding the potential information on the composition and toxicity coarse particle chemical components. of rural area coarse particles. (Henderson health effects associated with thoracic 2005b, p. 4) As CASAC noted, ‘‘[s]ufficient data are coarse particles, and the conclusion that lacking at the present time to set an unqualified indicator that provides CASAC also commented negatively on standards [for thoracic coarse targeted protection is the most the proposed qualified indicator, raising particulate matter] based specifically on appropriate approach for regulating concerns about the quantitative criteria composition’’ (Henderson 2005b, p. 5). coarse particles, are consistent with for monitor siting and the source Given these objectives and views expressed by CASAC. In its June exclusions, as well as flagging the need constraints, EPA carefully considered 6, 2005 letter, CASAC expressed the for more information about health various possibilities regarding the view that it was ‘‘important to qualify effects in non-urban areas (Henderson, indicator for coarse particles, including the PM10–2.5 standard by somehow 2006, p.4). adopting an unqualified PM10–2.5 allowing exceptions for regions where The comments and concerns indicator, retaining the existing PM10 the coarse fraction was composed expressed by CASAC are consistent indicator, and/or retaining the PM10 largely of material that was not with the difficulties EPA has indicator with adjustment to avoid contaminated by industrial- or motor encountered in attempting to craft a double-counting the PM2.5 fraction. vehicle traffic-associated sources. qualified indicator, and the Committee These options are discussed below. Options discussed by members of the correctly anticipated these difficulties. a. Unqualified PM10–2.5 Indicator. The Panel for attempting to achieve this Furthermore, CASAC’s advice is EPA evaluated whether an unqualified approach included limiting the standard generally consistent with the ultimate PM10–2.5 indicator would satisfy the to cover ‘‘all’’ urban areas, the judicious decision by the Administrator not to goals for public health protection siting of monitors with a focus on urban move to a qualified PM10–2.5 indicator at described above. However, if such an areas, or regulatory exceptions for present. The practical difficulties and indicator were utilized as part of a regions where road dust is not an issue imprecision associated with a qualified standard with a single unvarying level, or where rural components dominate indicator, as well as the substantial it would not reflect the critical the source. No single option was scientific uncertainty regarding the difference in evidence regarding the favored’’ (Henderson, 2005a, p. 8, health effects associated with different relative public health risks associated emphasis added). CASAC thus components and mixes of coarse with urban and non-urban thoracic recognized that there were numerous particles, the large population groups coarse particles. If the level were ways to approach the need for targeted potentially exposed to non-urban selected to provide appropriate protection. In its September 2005 letter thoracic coarse particles and the nature protection against effects associated

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61195

with exposure to the ambient mixes composition and relative toxicity, and resulting combination of PM2.5 and PM10 typical of urban or industrial areas, the about the distribution of ambient coarse standards would lead to double standard would likely be more stringent particle mixes of varying composition, it regulation of fine particles and the than necessary to protect against effects will be appropriate in a future review to potential under-regulation of coarse associated with exposure to the ambient revisit the option of a PM10–2.5 standard particles, since the amount of allowable mixes in non-urban areas. In the with a variable level or a qualified coarse particles would always depend judgment of the Administrator, the indicator. on the amount of fine particles in the evidence warrants a lower ambient b. PM10 Indicator. An alternative air. Id. The court rejected the third of concentration of ambient coarse approach would be to retain PM10 as an EPA’s arguments, the pragmatic, particles in urban areas than in non- indicator. The EPA recognizes, as did administrative convenience of using the urban areas, where the coarse particles many commenters, that the D.C. Circuit existing monitoring network, on the are typically from different sources and concluded that EPA’s 1997 choice of grounds that only factors related to there is less evidence of public health PM10 as the indicator for coarse particles public health can be considered in risk. Conversely, if a less stringent level was arbitrary and capricious. ATA I, 175 establishing a NAAQS. Id. at 1054–55. were adopted on the grounds that there F.3d at 1027, 1054–55. In that case, the In sum, the court rejected EPA’s is less certainty that the ambient mix in court noted the tension between EPA’s adoption of a PM10 indicator as arbitrary non-urban areas poses a health risk, conclusion that coarse and fine particles because of the inadequacy of the reasons then the standard would not provide are different kinds of particles and pose provided by the Agency as support for sufficient protection from the ambient independent and distinct threats to the decision. mix found in urban or industrial areas. public health, and its choice to address Based on the current review of the In both instances the standard would the public health risks associated with scientific evidence, EPA feels it is now not be requisite overall, i.e., ‘‘not lower coarse particles indirectly, using an appropriate to reconsider utilizing PM10 or higher than is necessary,’’ to protect indicator for coarse particles that as an indicator for coarse particles. the public health with an adequate nonetheless includes both fine and Unlike its view in 1997, EPA views margin of safety. Whitman, 531 U.S. at coarse particles. Although EPA adopted PM10–2.5 as an unsatisfactory indicator in 476. PM10 as a ‘‘surrogate for coarse fraction this review, for the reasons described in particles,’’ the court also noted EPA’s the previous subsection. In addition, Arguably this dilemma could be recognition ‘‘that PM would have EPA is not maintaining, as it did in resolved by adopting a standard based 10–2.5 served as a satisfactory coarse particle 1997, that a PM10 indicator will work in on a PM10–2.5 indicator with a varying indicator.’’ With this backdrop, the conjunction with the PM2.5 standard to level depending on whether the area is court evaluated EPA’s three bases for regulate coarse particles exclusively, nor urban or non-urban. However, selecting PM as the indicator: (a) That is the Agency justifying its choice of the determining appropriate levels for 10 the two epidemiologic studies PM10 indicator on grounds of different kinds of ambient mixes is not underlying the standards for coarse administrative convenience. Instead, feasible at this time. The EPA notes that particles used PM rather than PM after careful consideration, it is the view given the variety of sources contributing 10 10–2.5 as the indicator; (b) that the PM10 of the Administrator that the PM10 to PM10–2.5 concentrations in different standards would work in conjunction indicator will in fact provide the type of locations, a wide variety of ‘‘ambient with the PM2.5 standards ‘‘by regulating targeted protection from thoracic coarse mixes’’ are likely to exist, greatly the portion of particulate pollution not particles which is justified by the complicating the determination of the regulated by the PM2.5 standards’’; and emerging body of scientific evidence, appropriate standard level for each (c) that a nationwide monitoring that it will do so more effectively and location. There is a lack of evidence to network for PM10 already existed. Id. at more appropriately than all other support establishing specific 1054. indicators evaluated by EPA during the quantitative distinctions in level based The court rejected the first two course of this review, and that the on variations in coarse particle arguments for two interrelated reasons. inclusion of PM2.5 in the PM10 indicator composition and differential toxicity. In First, use of PM10 as the indicator does not over-regulate fine particles or addition, there is insufficient evidence regulates both fine and coarse particles, under-regulate coarse particles. regarding coarse particle composition in contrary to EPA’s argument that the To the contrary, the inclusion of PM2.5 different areas to allow for the proper PM10 indicator would work in in the PM10 indicator plays two assignment of different standard levels conjunction with the PM2.5 standard to important roles in effectively providing in different locations, and the technical regulate only the coarse particle fraction the kind of targeted health protection capabilities necessary to make such of PM10. The court concluded: ‘‘we called for under the current state of the determinations are currently lacking. cannot discern exactly how a PM10 science. Because the PM10 indicator Even if EPA tried to assign only two standard, instead of a PM10–2.5 standard, includes both coarse PM (PM10–2.5) levels, urban and non-urban, the same will work alongside a PM2.5 standard to and fine PM (PM2.5), the concentration problems identified earlier with respect regulate only the coarse fraction of of PM10–2.5 allowed by a PM10 to a qualified indicator would apply PM10. EPA provides no explanation to standard set at a single level declines as here, given the inability to effectively aid us in understanding its decision.’’ the concentration of PM2.5 increases. and precisely identify different ambient Id. at 1054. Second, because the PM10 Thus, the level of coarse particles mixes. Therefore, EPA finds that the indicator regulates both fine and coarse allowed varies depending on the level of current state of the science does not particles, the amount of coarse particles fine particles present. At the same time, provide an adequate basis upon which allowed ‘‘will depend (quite arbitrarily) PM2.5 levels tend to be lower in rural to establish a PM10–2.5 standard with an on the amount of PM2.5 pollution in the areas and higher in urban areas. EPA, appropriately varying level. As EPA’s air.’’ Id. EPA failed to explain why this 2005, p. 2–54, and Figures 2–23 and 2– new research program produces result was consistent with its argument 24 at pp. 2–52 and 2–53. Thus, to the speciated monitoring data, thereby that a PM10 indicator would increase the extent that higher PM2.5 levels lead to a improving scientific knowledge, likelihood that the standard would lower allowable level of coarse particles revealing more specific and precise achieve the desired level of protection in some areas compared to others, this information about coarse particle from exposure to coarse particles. The will occur in precisely those locations—

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61196 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

i.e. urban or industrial areas—where the or rural areas, and also is in accord with contamination of coarse particles by science has shown the strongest our current understanding of the PM2.5 is addressed in the suite of fine evidence of adverse health effects observed toxicity in urban and and coarse PM standards. associated with exposure to coarse industrial areas. As noted in both the Some commenters nonetheless particles. The EPA’s recent Particle proposal and the Criteria Document, the maintained that the court’s opinion in Pollution Report (EPA, 2004b, Figure 5, observed toxicity of coarse particles in ATA I bars use of PM10 as an indicator p. 8) provides evidence that annual urban and industrial areas comes from for coarse particles, stressing the court’s average concentrations of PM2.5 in the kind of coarse particles found in statement that ‘‘[i]t is the very presence selected eastern and western urban these environments, for example direct of a separate PM2.5 standard that makes areas consistently exceed the annual emissions from industrial sources or retention of the PM10 indicator arbitrary average levels of PM2.5 in nearby rural materials released to road dust from and capricious.’’ 175 F. 3d at 1054. The areas. This means that a PM10 standard motor vehicles such as brake and tire EPA disagrees that the ATA I decision set at a single, unvarying level will wear, as well as from the contamination precludes use of a PM10 indicator. The permit, on average, lower levels of of coarse particles that can occur. This court did not hold that it was unlawful coarse particles in urban areas, where contamination can come from both per se to use PM10 as an indicator for PM2.5 concentrations tend to be higher. mobile and stationary sources. In thoracic coarse particles. Instead, the The varying levels of coarse particles particular, specific components, such as court noted two particular problems— allowed by a PM10 indicator will byproducts of incomplete combustion the variable level of allowable therefore target protection in urban and (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) concentrations of PM10–2.5 and double industrial areas where the evidence of most commonly emitted from motor regulation of PM2.5—and found that EPA adverse health effects associated with vehicles and other sources in the form either failed to address these issues, or exposure to coarse particles is strongest. of PM2.5, as well as metals and other provided explanations that were For the same reason, lower levels of contaminants emitted from other inconsistent and unsupported. Id. In PM2.5 lead to a higher allowable level of anthropogenic sources, appear in higher large part, the court’s decision was an coarse particles in non-urban areas, levels in urban areas (EPA, 2004a, p. 8– important factor in EPA’s close again an appropriate result given the 344; 71 FR 2665). Many of these evaluation and subsequent proposal of a inconclusive evidence of health risks contaminants in PM10–2.5 come qualified PM10–2.5 indicator as part of associated with coarse particles in these originally from fine particles, which this NAAQS review. See EPA, 2005, p. areas. The varying amounts of coarse may become attached in the atmosphere 1–5. However, EPA now believes that a particles that are allowed in urban vs. or be deposited and mixed into coarse qualified PM10–2.5 indicator is non-urban areas under the 24-hour PM10 materials on the ground. Thus the inappropriate, and that an unqualified standard, based on the varying levels of greater the concentration of PM2.5, with PM10–2.5 indicator is more problematic PM2.5 present, appropriately reflect the higher levels typically found in urban and less effective than a PM10 indicator differences in the strength of evidence areas, the greater the level of at providing the requisite level of regarding coarse particle effects in urban contamination of coarse particles by fine protection from the varying risks 72 and non-urban areas. particles. This contamination increases associated with thoracic coarse This result is consistent with our the potential health risk posed by those particles. Indeed, for the reasons current understanding of the strength of coarse particles. For that reason, it is described above, PM is an effective the evidence regarding the toxicity of 10 logical to allow lower levels of coarse indicator for targeting coarse particles different ambient mixes of thoracic particles when fine particle because it provides the desired coarse particles in urban and non-urban concentrations are high. In other words, variability in allowable coarse particle inclusion of PM2.5 in the PM10 indicator concentrations. 72 The EPA recognizes that this relationship is qualitative. That is, the varying coarse particle for purposes of coarse particle Far from being arbitrary and concentrations allowed under the PM10 standard do protection would appropriately reflect capricious, inclusion of PM2.5 serves not precisely correspond to the variable toxicity of the contribution that contaminants two important functions: first, it is the thoracic coarse particles in different areas. While emitted in fine particle form can make currently available information does not allow any mechanism that provides for the more precise adjustment for relative toxicity, EPA to the overall health risk posed by variation in allowable PM10–2.5 believes the standard will generally ensure that the coarse particles. concentrations, targeting lower coarse particle levels allowed will be lower in Moreover, due to the contamination of allowable levels where there is greater urban areas and higher in non-urban areas. While the allowable levels will vary with location due to PM10–2.5 by PM2.5, use of a PM10 public health concern; and second, to differing levels of fine particles, that variability will indicator will not result in the extent that there is ‘‘double ultimately be limited by implementation of the inappropriate double regulation of the regulation’’ of PM2.5 by virtue of its PM2.5 standards. Areas that do not meet these PM2.5 component. To the extent that use inclusion in the PM10 indicator (175 standards are taking steps to reduce PM2.5, Currently, the annual fine particle standard places of a PM10 indicator would result in any F.3d at 1054), regulation of PM2.5 via limits on both the long- and short-term levels of fine reduction in PM2.5 concentrations in an this indicator serves valid, non- particles in a number of cities, particularly in the area, this would reduce the potential duplicative purposes in providing east and in some California cities. In the long run, health risk from coarse particles in the requisite protection from thoracic coarse this will serve to make the ‘‘headroom’’ allowed for area as well. There is no certainty that particles. The EPA also notes that thoracic coarse particles (i.e. the allowable PM10 level minus the corresponding PM2.5 concentration) the contribution of PM2.5 to the health ‘‘double regulation’’ of a pollutant, in more uniform among cities. The new 24-hour PM2.5 risk associated with exposure to the context of multiple NAAQS standard of 35 µg/m3 will promote this same result. contaminated coarse particles would be standards, is neither impermissible nor It should cause areas that now meet the annual appropriately addressed through the even unusual. For example, there are PM2.5 standard, but have high 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, to adopt additional controls, further fine particle standards alone. Thus, to both annual and 24-hour standards for reducing the variability in the ‘‘headroom’’ for the extent that the inclusion of the PM2.5 PM2.5, as well as both primary and allowable thoracic coarse particle concentrations. In fraction in the PM10 indicator amounts secondary standards for PM2.5. The key combination with the annual standard, the revised to double regulation of PM2.5, its is that the different standards 24-hour PM2.5 standard thus will provide for more consistent allowable levels of thoracic coarse inclusion is non-duplicative and reasonably serve different purposes ‘‘ particles in cities under the PM10 standard. reasonable: it ensures that this risk of they are directed at different effects, or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61197

are not inconsistent when directed at however, would be that PM10–2.5 levels ambient mixes are included in the the same effect—as is the case here. would be allowed to increase relative to indicator and which are not. The EPA also recognizes that the current PM10 standard when PM2.5 (4) The evidence of health effects selection of PM10 as the indicator for levels are highest. As explained above, associated with non-urban ambient thoracic coarse particles differs in some this is the opposite result from that mixes of coarse particles is limited and degree from the specific advice desired from a public health inconclusive: in general, the evidence provided by CASAC to use a qualified perspective. There should be less does not demonstrate that community- PM10–2.5 indicator directed at urban or allowable coarse particulate matter as level exposures in non-urban areas are industrial thoracic coarse particles (71 PM2.5 levels increase because these are associated with either the existence or FR 2665). However, EPA believes that the conditions under which PM10–2.5 absence of adverse health effects. the PM10 indicator is consistent with the tends to become more contaminated and (5) In light of the entire body of central thrust of CASAC’s advice—to therefore more harmful. Furthermore, it evidence concerning thoracic coarse utilize an indicator directed at urban would essentially relax the level of particles, and given the potentially types of coarse particulate matter, given protection afforded by the current 24- serious nature of the health risks posed the known toxicity of these particles— hour PM10 standard because it would by at least some thoracic coarse particles because it would generally allow lower allow higher total PM10 levels on days and the potential size of the population levels of PM10–2.5 in urban areas. The with high PM2.5 levels. As explained exposed, it is appropriate to provide EPA has also explained why it has below in section III.D.2, EPA believes it some protection for all types of thoracic rejected a qualified PM10–2.5 indicator at is important to maintain the current coarse particles, consistent with the this time, and notes that CASAC itself level of protection from health effects requirement of the Act to allow an considered multiple ways to achieve associated with exposure to thoracic adequate margin of safety. some degree of targeted protection and coarse particles. For both of these With all of the foregoing voiced strong objections to the qualified reasons, therefore, EPA rejected this considerations in mind, the PM10–2.5 indicator which the Agency approach. Administrator judges it appropriate not proposed (Henderson, 2006, p. 4). The to revise the current PM10 indicator at EPA has carefully considered CASAC’s 4. Conclusions Regarding Indicator for this time. In the view of the Thoracic Coarse Particles views in making its decision, and Administrator, the PM10 indicator believes the final decision is consistent After extensive evaluation of the provides the type of targeted variation with the critical part of CASAC’s advice, evidence, the alternatives available to in allowable coarse particle i.e., to focus the indicator (and standard) the Agency, the advice and concentrations that is justified by the on the type of thoracic coarse particles recommendations of CASAC, and all of emerging body of scientific evidence, known to be harmful, which are found the public comments, EPA concludes while providing some protection in all in urban and/or industrial that retaining the PM10 indicator will be areas. A decision not to revise the PM10 environments. more effective in providing targeted indicator reflects an appropriately c. Unqualified PM Indicator, with 10 public health protection than all other cautious approach in two respects. First, Adjustment to the PM Component. 2.5 options available and, based on the it ensures inclusion of all ambient mixes EPA also solicited comment on an current state of the science, is the most of coarse particles of known concern in approach that would use PM as an 10 appropriate indicator to protect against the indicator; and second, it addresses indicator but subtract out the amount of the health effects associated with the potential that additional scientific PM in excess of the 24-hour daily 2.5 exposure to thoracic coarse particles. research may reveal that non-urban or standard for PM to avoid the double 2.5 Thus, in the judgment of the rural ambient mixes of thoracic coarse regulation of PM in the situations 2.5 Administrator, it is appropriate to retain particles present public health risks that where this would have the most PM as the indicator for coarse particles the evidence does not clearly identify at regulatory consequence (71 FR 2673). 10 at this time. The conclusions that led to this time. It is EPA’s goal that its new Specifically, this option would retain research and speciated monitoring the indicator, form and level of the 1987 this decision can be summarized as follows: program will produce data to determine PM10 standard, but on days when the what effect differences in particle measured concentration of PM (1) All thoracic coarse particulate 10 composition may have on health exceeds the level of the standard and matter can deposit in the sensitive outcomes. Such results have the the measured concentration of PM regions of the lung of most concern, the 2.5 potential to provide the kind of exceeds the level of the daily PM tracheobronchial and alveolar regions. 2.5 certainty and specificity required for standard, the amount of PM in excess (2) It remains appropriate to provide, 2.5 making future decisions on indicators of the daily PM standard would be to the extent possible, targeted 2.5 for thoracic coarse particles that might subtracted from the total PM . A few protection from thoracic coarse particles 10 incorporate qualifications, such as the commenters, including certain industry that have been demonstrated to be proposed qualified indicator related to commenters and several local agencies associated with significant adverse coarse particles from agriculture and and Tribes, expressed conditional health effects. Urban or industrial support for pursuing this approach: ambient mixes of coarse particulate mining. though they preferred either no coarse matter dominated by high density D. Conclusions Regarding Averaging particle standard (in the case of industry vehicular, industrial, and construction Time, Form, and Level of the Current commenters) or an unqualified PM10–2.5 emissions are of greatest concern, and PM10 Standards standard applied nationally (in the case should be the focus of protection. 1. Averaging Time of Tribes or local agencies), they (3) The proposed qualified PM10–2.5 suggested that an adjusted PM10 indicator was beset by numerous In the last review, EPA retained both indicator would be an acceptable problems. Possible modifications to the 24-hour and annual PM10 standards to alternative. This alternative, like an qualifications considered by EPA failed provide protection against the known unadjusted PM10 indicator, would allow to resolve these problems, which stem and potential effects of short- and long- variable ambient concentrations of from the basic inability at this time to term exposures to thoracic coarse coarse particles. The net result, effectively and precisely identify which particles (62 FR 38677–79). That

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61198 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

decision was based in part on review of the Staff Paper, CASAC conclusions about the relative role of qualitative considerations related to the recommended retention of a 24-hour coarse as opposed to fine particles. The expectation that deposition of thoracic averaging time and agreed that an WHO panel recommendations for PM10 coarse particles in the respiratory annual averaging time is not currently limits cited by commenters also do not system could aggravate effects in warranted for the coarse particle provide any independent scientific individuals with asthma. In addition, standard (Henderson, 2005b, p.5). justification regarding the need for a quantitative support for retaining a 24- The EPA received relatively few separate long-term standard for coarse hour standard came from limited comments regarding the appropriate particles.74 epidemiologic evidence suggesting that averaging time of the coarse particle The long-term exposure studies of aggravation of asthma and respiratory standard. Most of those who did mortality and morbidity that permit infection and symptoms may be comment generally supported the comparisons of fine and coarse particles associated with daily or episodic retention of a 24-hour, but not annual, continue to suggest that, at current increases in PM10, where dominated by averaging time, as proposed. A few of ambient levels in the US, fine particles thoracic coarse particles including the commenters who concurred with are associated with health effects and fugitive dust. The decision to retain an EPA’s proposal to revoke the annual coarse particles are not.75 The EPA annual standard as well was generally standard urged reconsideration of the believes that the PM2.5 standards it is based on considerations of the appropriateness of an annual averaging establishing in today’s notice address plausibility of the potential build-up of time in the next PM NAAQS review. the major risk suggested in the PM10 insoluble thoracic coarse particles in the Several commenters, however, studies cited by commenters. To the lung after long-term exposures to high including a few States and several extent that additional concerns may levels of such particles. environmental and public health exist with regard to long-term exposures New information available in this groups, urged EPA to retain an annual to coarse particles that have not been review, discussed above, includes standard as well as a 24-hour standard. fully identified by scientific research, several epidemiologic studies that The American Lung Association, in the Staff Paper notes that the short-term report statistically significant particular, stated that EPA had standard for coarse particles, which is associations between short-term (24- inappropriately ignored evidence of generally controlling, has and will hour) exposure to PM10–2.5 and various long-term morbidity effects in several continue, as a practical matter, to limit morbidity effects and mortality. With studies, including Gauderman et al. such long-term exposures.76 regard to long-term exposure studies, (2000, 2002) and Avol et al. (2001), and After reviewing the available while one study conducted in southern had also ignored substantial evidence evidence, the Administrator concurs California reported a link between from European studies as well as the with staff and CASAC recommendations reduced lung function growth and long- recommendations for an annual PM10 and concludes that the evidence term exposure to PM10–2.5 and PM2.5, standard made by a WHO working continues to support a 24-hour other such studies reported no group. These commenters argued that an averaging time for a coarse particle associations (EPA, 2005, p. 3–19, 3–23– annual standard was requisite to protect standard, based primarily on evidence 24). Thus, the Criteria Document public health with an adequate margin suggestive of associations between concluded that the available evidence of safety. short-term (24-hour) exposure and does not suggest an association with EPA disagrees that it ignored the morbidity effects and, to a lesser degree, long-term exposure to PM10–2.5 (EPA, evidence that is relevant to evaluating mortality. As noted above, a 24-hour 2004a, p. 9–79). the health effects associated with long- standard would in effect also provide Based on these considerations, the term exposure to thoracic coarse protection against any as yet Staff Paper concluded that the newly particles. The EPA’s assessment, both in unidentified potential effects of long- available evidence continues to support this review and the previous review, term exposure at ambient levels. a 24-hour averaging time for a standard placed greatest weight on studies that Further, the Administrator concludes intended to control thoracic coarse measured PM10–2.5 or on studies particles, based primarily on evidence conducted in areas where it is 74 The WHO panel essentially developed their suggestive of associations between reasonable to expect the PM10 recommendations for PM10 standards by deriving a short-term (24-hour) exposure and measurements to be dominated by ratio of fine particles to PM10 and adjusting their morbidity effects and, to a lesser degree, coarse particles (EPA, 2005). By recommended levels for PM2.5 to derive an equivalent PM10 metric, for areas that do not yet mortality. Noting the absence of contrast, these commenters have placed have access to PM2.5 monitors (WHO, 2005, p. 8). evidence judged to be suggestive of an inappropriate reliance on studies that 75 See EPA 2004a, pp. 8–306 to 307 (‘‘no association with long-term exposures, measured PM10, and were conducted in statistically significant associations have been the Staff Paper concluded that there is Southern California cities (Gauderman reported between long-term exposure to coarse fraction particles and cause-specific mortality’’); pp. no quantitative evidence that directly et al., 2000, 2002) or in European cities 8–313 to 314 (‘‘[t]he recent studies suggest that supports an annual standard, while where it is not reasonable to assume that long-term exposure to fine particles is associated recognizing that it could be appropriate PM10 associations are dominated by with development of chronic respiratory disease to consider an annual standard to coarse particles.73 In such cases, it is and reduced lung function growth; little evidence is available on potential effects of exposure to provide a margin of safety against difficult to draw meaningful coarse fraction particles’’). possible effects related to long-term 76 The Staff Paper analysis of PM10 air quality 73 exposure to thoracic coarse particles The only one of these studies (Gauderman et data indicates that the current 24-hour PM10 that future research may reveal. The al., 2000) to include measurements of coarse standard is ‘‘controlling’’ in virtually every area in Staff Paper observed, however, that a particles found an association between lung the US; that is, virtually all areas that violate the 24-hour standard that would reduce 24- function growth for PM10, PM2.5, PM10–2.5, NO2, and PM10 standards violate the 24-hour PM10 standard. acids. The authors were unable to cite any single Some of them may violate the annual PM10 standard hour exposures would also likely reduce pollutant as responsible for these results, but they as well, but (depending on the year) few, if any, long-term average exposures, thus chose not to include measures for coarse particles areas violate the annual PM without violating the providing some margin of safety against in their follow-up study (Gauderman et al., 2002). 24-hour PM10 standard (EPA, 2005, p. 2–31 to 32). As noted in the 1996 PM Staff Paper, the other A supplemental analysis in the Response to the possibility of health effects major study of lung function and long-term air Comments document shows that for 2003–2005, all associated with long-term exposures pollution in children found no associations with of the areas that would violate the annual PM10 (EPA, 2005, p. 5–61). Based on its coarse particles (EPA, 1996, p. 5–67a). standard also violate the 24-hour standard.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61199

that an annual coarse particle standard concentrations in the relevant studies in significant associations, the reported is not warranted at this time. Thus, the terms of the 98th and 99th percentile 98th percentile PM10–2.5 values were Administrator is retaining the 24-hour values.77 generally below 50 µg/m3. PM10 standard and revoking the annual In looking first at the morbidity In examining the air quality data used PM10 standard. studies that report statistically in the key morbidity and mortality significant associations with respiratory- studies considered in the Staff Paper,

2. Level and Form of the 24-Hour PM10 and cardiac-related hospital admissions EPA recognized that the uncertainty Standard in Toronto (Burnett et al., 1997), Seattle related to exposure measurement error This section summarizes the major (Sheppard, 2003), and Detroit (Ito, associated with using ambient considerations that led to the proposed 2003), the 98th percentile PM10–2.5 concentrations to represent area-wide decision regarding the appropriate level values reported in these studies range population exposure levels can be and form for the 24-hour standard for from approximately 30 to 36 µg/m3. To potentially quite large. For example, in thoracic coarse particles, summarizes provide some perspective on these looking specifically at the Detroit study, and addresses public comments on the PM10–2.5 levels, the Staff Paper noted the Staff Paper noted that the PM10–2.5 appropriate level of protection to be that the level of the 24-hour PM10 air quality values were based on air provided by the standard, and presents standard was exceeded on only a few quality monitors located in Windsor, the Administrator’s final conclusions occasions during the time periods of the Canada. While the study authors regarding the level and form of the 24- studies in Detroit and Seattle.78 In the concluded that these monitors were hour standard. The proposed level and mortality studies that report statistically appropriate for use in exploring the form for the 24-hour standard for significant and generally robust association between air quality and thoracic coarse particles were based associations with short-term exposures hospital admissions in Detroit, a close primarily on an assessment of studies to PM10–2.5 in Phoenix (Mar et al., 2003) examination of air quality levels at that measured PM10–2.5, as well as and Coachella Valley, CA (Ostro et al., Detroit and Windsor sites in recent studies that measured PM10 in areas that 2003), the reported 98th percentile years led to the conclusion that the were dominated by PM10–2.5. Now that values were approximately 70 and 107 statistically significant, generally robust the Administrator has concluded that it µg/m3, respectively. These studies were association with hospital admissions in is appropriate to retain PM10 as the conducted in areas with air quality Detroit likely reflects population indicator for thoracic coarse particles, levels that did not meet the current exposures that may be appreciably rather than adopting a PM10–2.5 indicator PM10 standards. In addition, as part of higher in the central city area, but not as proposed, the Administrator relied on the Six Cities study, Schwartz et al. necessarily across the broader study this same body of studies as the (1996 and reanalysis 2003a) reported a area, than would be estimated using principal basis for determining an statistically significant association data from the Windsor monitors (EPA, appropriate level and form for a between PM10–2.5 and mortality in 2005, p. 5–64). standard based on the PM10 indicator. Steubenville, where the PM10–2.5 The Staff Paper also looked more Therefore, in this section EPA reviews concentrations were fairly high, with a specifically at the Coachella Valley the basis for its conclusions in the reported 98th percentile value of 53 µg/ mortality study (Ostro et al., 2003), in proposal, and then discusses how this m3, although in a second reanalysis, the which data were used from a single evidence informs the choice of level and association did not remain statistically monitoring site in one city, Indio, form for the 24-hour PM10 standard. significant (Klemm and Mason, 2003). within the study area where daily In considering the available evidence On the other hand, the Staff Paper noted measurements were available. A close as a basis for setting a 24-hour standard that no statistically significant mortality examination of air quality levels across for thoracic coarse particles, the Staff associations were reported in a number the Coachella Valley suggested that Paper focused on relevant U.S. and of other studies, including those in the while the association of mortality with Canadian epidemiologic studies five other cities that were part of the Six PM10–2.5 measurements made at the showing associations between short- Cities study (Boston, St. Louis, Indio site was statistically significant, a term PM10–2.5 concentrations and Knoxville, Topeka, and Portage), and in portion of the study population would morbidity and mortality effects, as Santa Clara County, CA, Detroit, have been expected to experience discussed above in section III.A. As an Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. With the appreciably lower ambient exposure initial matter, the Staff Paper recognized exception of Pittsburgh, these cities had levels. In contrast to the Detroit study, that these individual short-term much lower 98th percentile PM10–2.5 air quality data used in the mortality exposure studies provide no evidence of values, ranging from 18 to 49 µg/m3. study conducted in Coachella Valley clear population thresholds, or lowest- Thus, in mortality studies that reported appeared to represent concentrations on observed-effects levels, in terms of 24- statistically significant associations, the the high end of PM10–2.5 levels for hour average concentrations. As a reported 98th percentile PM10–2.5 values Coachella Valley communities. On the consequence, this body of evidence is were all above 50 µg/m3, and all in areas other hand, a close examination of the difficult to translate directly into a that exceeded the level of the daily PM10 air quality data used in the other studies specific 24-hour standard that would standard, whereas in the mortality discussed above generally showed less protect against the range of effects that studies that reported no statistically disparity between air quality levels at have been associated with short-term the monitoring sites used in the studies exposures to coarse particles. 77 This examination of the evidence is based on and the broader pattern of air quality In considering the evidence, the Staff air quality information and analyses presented in levels across the study areas than that Paper noted the significant uncertainties two staff memos which were part of the materials described above in the Detroit and reviewed by CASAC (Ross and Langstaff, 2005; and the limited nature of the available Ross, 2005). Coachella Valley studies. evidence. In examining the available 78 As shown in air quality data trends reports: for The Staff Paper noted that this close evidence to identify a basis for a range Seattle, 1997 Air Quality Annual Report for examination of air quality information of standard levels that would be Washington State, p. 17, at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ generally reinforced the view that pubs/97208.pdf; for Detroit, Michigan’s 2003 appropriate for consideration, the Staff Annual Air Quality Report, p. 46, at http:// exposure measurement error is Paper focused on the upper end of the www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-aqd-air- potentially quite large in studies distributions of daily PM10–2.5 reports-03AQReport.pdf. focusing on thoracic coarse particles. As

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61200 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

a consequence, the air quality levels some level to protect against the provide protection against morbidity reported in these studies as measured by morbidity and mortality effects observed effects especially in those urban areas ambient concentrations at monitoring in the studies, regardless of whether an where, unlike several of the study areas, sites within the study areas are not associated population exposure level PM10 is generally dominated by coarse- necessarily good surrogates for can be clearly discerned from the fraction rather than fine-fraction population exposures that are likely studies. particles. Such a standard would also associated with the observed effects in Based on this more cautious likely provide protection against the the study areas or that would likely be approach, the Staff Paper concluded more serious, but less certain, coarse- associated with effects in other urban that it would be reasonable to interpret particle-related mortality effects areas across the country. The Detroit the available epidemiologic evidence observed in some studies, generally at example suggests that population more qualitatively. Considering the somewhat higher concentrations. exposures were probably appreciably available evidence in this way led to the The Staff Paper went on to consider underestimated in the Detroit morbidity following observations: what level for a 24-hour PM study, such that the observed effects are (1) The statistically significant 10–2.5 standard for urban coarse particles likely associated with higher PM mortality associations with short-term 10–2.5 would provide an equivalent level of levels than reported. In contrast, the exposure to PM10–2.5 reported in the protection to that afforded by the Coachella Valley mortality study Phoenix and Coachella Valley studies current 24-hour PM10 standard. This provides an example in which PM10–2.5 were observed in areas that did not meet consideration of a PM10–2.5 standard levels to which the study populations the current PM10 standards. providing generally ‘‘equivalent’’ were exposed were probably (2) The statistically significant appreciably overestimated, such that the morbidity associations with short-term protection reflected a judgment that while the epidemiologic evidence observed effects may well be associated exposure to PM10–2.5 reported in the supported establishing a short-term with lower PM10–2.5 levels than reported. Detroit and Seattle studies were At relatively low levels of air quality, observed in areas that exceeded the standard for urban thoracic coarse particles at such a generally population exposures implied by these level of the current 24-hour PM10 studies as being associated with the standard on just a few occasions during ‘‘equivalent’’ level, the evidence observed effects become more uncertain, the time periods of the studies. concerning air quality levels of thoracic suggesting a high degree of caution in (3) All but one of the statistically coarse particles in the studies was not interpreting the air quality levels from significant morbidity and mortality strong enough to provide a basis for the group of morbidity studies as a basis associations with short-term exposure to changing the level of protection for identifying a standard level that PM10 that were reported in areas in generally afforded by the current PM10 would protect against the observed which PM10 was dominated by the standards (EPA, 2005, pp. 5–68–69). effects. See generally EPA, 2005, pp. 5– coarse particle fraction (including Reno/ The Staff Paper examined various 65–66. Sparks, NV, Tucson, AZ, Anchorage, approaches to providing this equivalent Taking into account this close AK, and the Utah Valley area) were level of protection, including examination of the air quality data observed in areas that did not meet the establishing a level of 70 µg/m3 (98th associated with health effects in these current PM10 standards. Id. at p. 5–67. percentile form) for the qualified studies, the Staff Paper concluded that Based on these considerations, the PM10–2.5 standard (Id. at 5–67–68), this evidence suggests that EPA could Staff Paper found little basis for which is what EPA proposed (71 FR consider a standard for urban thoracic concluding that the degree of protection 2671). afforded by the current PM standards coarse particles at a PM10–2.5 level at 10 CASAC generally supported the least down to 50 µg/m3, in conjunction in urban areas is greater than warranted, Agency’s proposed range of 50–70 µg/ since potential mortality effects have with a 98th percentile form. This view m3 (98th percentile) for the 24-hour been associated with air quality levels takes into account the conclusion that PM standard. As noted, the upper not allowed by the current 24-hour 10–2.5 this evidence is particularly uncertain end of this range was based on EPA’s standard, but have not been associated as to population exposures, especially assessment of a level for an urban coarse with air quality levels that would from the morbidity studies reporting particle standard that would provide a generally meet that standard, and effects at relatively low concentrations, generally equivalent level of protection morbidity effects have been associated as well as the general lack of evidence to that afforded by the current PM with air quality levels that exceeded the 10 of associations from the group of standards. The lower end of the range current 24-hour standard only a few mortality studies with reported was developed in consideration of an times. Further, the Staff Paper found concentrations below these levels. Id. at approach that would place greater little basis for concluding that a greater p. 5–66. weight on the effects levels reported in degree of protection is warranted in The Staff Paper also outlined another several studies with lower ambient light of the very high degree of view that reflected a more cautious or coarse particle concentrations. The uncertainty in the relevant population restrained approach to interpreting the CASAC Panel noted that ‘‘there was exposures implied by the morbidity limited body of PM10–2.5 epidemiologic general agreement among Panel studies. The Staff Paper concluded, evidence. This approach would judge members that Agency staff had therefore, that it is reasonable to that the uncertainties as to population presented a reasonable justification for interpret the available evidence as exposures associated with the observed the ranges of levels proposed’’ supporting consideration of a short-term effects in this whole group of studies (Henderson 2005b, p. 6). were too large to permit direct use of the standard for urban thoracic coarse reported effects levels as a basis for particles, so as to provide generally Relatively few public commenters setting a specific standard level. Such a ‘‘equivalent’’ protection to that afforded addressed the issue of whether ‘‘general judgment would be consistent with by the current 24-hour PM10 standard, equivalence’’ was an appropriate goal concluding that these studies, together recognizing that no one PM10–2.5 level for the level and form of the proposed with other dosimetric and toxicologic will be strictly equivalent to a specific coarse particle standard. Some evidence, provide support for retaining PM10 level in all areas (EPA, 2005, p. 5– commenters, particularly those industry standards for thoracic coarse particles at 67). Such a standard would likely commenters advocating that no coarse

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61201

particle standard be adopted,79 stated groups, disagreed with EPA’s proposal protection provided by the current 24- that seeking ‘‘equivalence’’ to the PM10 to seek an ‘‘equivalent level of hour PM10 standard, the limited extent standard was fundamentally flawed protection’’ because they believe the of epidemiological evidence as well as because, in their view: (1) The level of scientific evidence mandates a lower the unusually large uncertainties in the current PM10 standard was not based level to protect against adverse health measuring exposures to thoracic coarse on coarse particle studies; (2) the effects. These commenters cited studies particles, particularly at lower levels, proposed standard is not equivalent to reviewed in the Staff Paper and noted argue for the more cautious the PM10 standard; and (3) the court had above, which they claimed showed interpretation advocated by EPA staff already declared any standard based significant associations between health and CASAC. Because the Administrator directly or indirectly on PM10 to be effects and PM10–2.5 concentrations at has decided to continue the use of PM10 invalid. The EPA agrees that the 1987 levels between 30–40 µg/m3, and recent as the indicator for coarse particles, PM10 standards were designed to protect decisions by the European Union and commenters’ remaining concerns about against the health effects of both fine the State of California to adopt 24-hour whether the proposed levels for PM10–2.5 3 and coarse particles, and based in part PM10 standards of 50 µg/m . are as protective as current standards on epidemiological studies that These commenters argued that, even are no longer relevant. variously measured particles both considering EPA’s analyses of the For reasons summarized in section smaller and larger than PM10. However, uncertainties in the relevant ambient II.F above, EPA does not believe that the arguments regarding the origin of concentration measurements, these standards adopted by the State of the 1987 standards as well as studies, particularly those in Atlanta, California or, by extension, the commenters’ claims about the basis for Seattle, and Toronto and the six-cities European Union, which operates under the PM10 standards promulgated in study of respiratory symptoms in a different legal and policy structure, 1997 80 are not relevant to the current children (Schwartz and Neas, 2000), provide a relevant guide for establishing review. In determining whether to demonstrate the need for a more U.S. National Ambient Air Quality revise the standards in this review, EPA stringent level of protection than that Standards. While EPA agrees that the has examined the degree of protection provided by the current standards. assessment of Brunekreef and Forsberg provided by the current 24-hour PM10 These commenters also argued that (2005) supports separate regulation of standard in light of the quantitative EPA’s approach to determining an fine and coarse particles, these authors evidence from the expanded equivalent level resulted in less make no recommendations with respect epidemiological data base that includes protection than the current standard, to appropriate levels of protection. To studies using direct PM10–2.5 even in urban areas. In addition, these the extent that commenters cited ‘‘new’’ measurements as well as studies using commenters pointed to the study review studies in support of their argument for PM10 measurements in areas where conducted by Brunekreef and Forsberg a more stringent standard to protect coarse particles dominate the (2005) and numerous ‘‘new’’ studies against health effects associated with distribution. published too recently for inclusion in exposure to coarse particles, EPA notes Because as discussed in section III.C.3 the Criteria Document such as Mar et al. that as in past NAAQS reviews, it is above, the Administrator has decided (2004), Chen Y et al. (2005), and Lin et basing the final decisions in this review that it is appropriate to retain PM10 as al. (2005), as supportive of lower levels. on the studies and related information the indicator for thoracic coarse As noted above, EPA has conducted a included in the PM air quality criteria particles, there can be no uncertainty as careful assessment of the studies cited that have undergone CASAC and public to whether the final standard is by commenters 81 from the Staff Paper review, and will consider the newly equivalent to the current standard, assessment but reaches substantially published studies for purposes of making the commenters’ second point different conclusions about their decision making in the next PM NAAQS above moot. With regard to their third implications for the level of a 24-hour review, as discussed above in section point, for reasons outlined in section standard for thoracic coarse particles. I.C. As evidenced by the uncertainties III.C.3, EPA believes that it has Based on that assessment, EPA staff found in the detailed assessment of key addressed the concerns raised by the recommended consideration of a range coarse particle studies in the Staff court regarding PM10 as an indicator, of levels for a 24-hour PM10–2.5 standard Paper, the kind of assessment and and in any case, the D.C. Circuit did not extending from a level equivalent to the analysis provided by the formal criteria address the issue of the level of current PM10 standard down to a level and standards review process is protection from thoracic coarse particles of 50 µg/m3, which is clearly above that particularly crucial for coarse particle afforded by the 1997 or 1987 24-hour suggested by these commenters. CASAC studies that may be relevant to selecting PM10 standard. found general agreement that the ‘‘staff the level of the standard. Other commenters, particularly had presented a reasonable After considering the public environmental and public health justification’’ for this range oflevels. comments on this issue, EPA continues While EPA strongly agrees that the to believe that the available evidence 79 As discussed in section III.B.2, these available scientific evidence supports leads to the conclusion that the degree commenters call EPA’s interpretation of the key of protection afforded by the current 24- studies discussed in this section into question. and requires maintaining the level of EPA’s response to the criticisms of use of these hour PM10 standard is requisite to studies for standard setting is summarized in 81 As detailed in the Response to Comment protect public health with an adequate section III.B.2 and presented in more detail in the document, EPA had various reasons for not placing margin of safety. Having chosen to Response to Comments document. primary reliance on the reported air quality results retain the current indicator for the 80 Commenters also suggested that, in in these studies for selecting a standard level. The standard (PM10), and to retain the same promulgating revised PM10 standards in 1997, EPA Atlanta study (Tolbert et al, 2000), found a degree of protection, it is still necessary did not consider whether the level of the PM10 significant effect for PM10, but not for coarse standards it promulgated was lower than necessary particles. Both the Six Cities children’s diary study to determine the appropriate form and and did not base the levels on coarse particle health (Schwartz and Neas, 2000) and the Toronto hospital level for the standard. In the context of effects data. While EPA disagrees with both of these admissions study (Burnett et al.,, 1997) were proposing a standard based on a claims—for example, EPA relied on two PM10 conducted for a periods of less than one year, studies done in areas dominated by coarse particles making it difficult to determine what peak value qualified PM10–2.5 indicator, EPA in selecting the level (62 FR 38679)—this argument across all seasons in a year might represent proposed to change the form of the 24- is not relevant to this review. exposures of concern. hour standard from a one-expected

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61202 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

exceedance form to a 98th percentile greater degree of protection is received on the proposal, the form. The 98th percentile form was warranted. Administrator is retaining the current intended to be consistent with the goal Moreover, as explained above in primary 24-hour PM10 standard at the of providing protection equivalent to section III.C.3.b, the PM10 indicator level of 150 µg/m3, which is met when that afforded by the current 24-hour provides appropriate variation in this level is not exceeded more than PM10 standard (71 FR at 2671; EPA, allowable coarse particle concentrations once per year on average over a three- 2005, p. 5–68). The few commenters in different areas based on the relative year period measured at each monitor addressing the proposed form supported proportions of PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 in the within an area. The Administrator also it, largely because the 98th percentile ambient mix. In urban areas where is revoking and not replacing the annual would provide a more stable statistical PM2.5 concentrations tend to be higher, PM10 standard. basis for making nonattainment the current 24-hour PM10 standard level As discussed in more detail in section determinations. However, some of 150 µg/m3 will result in lower VI, EPA is promulgating a new reference commenters objected to the 98th allowable levels of PM10–2.5. In non- method (FRM) for measurement of mass percentile form because they felt it was urban areas, the higher allowable levels concentrations of PM10–2.5 in the inappropriate to allow as many as 21 of coarse particles provided by the atmosphere. Although NAAQS for days over the level of the standard over current 24-hour PM10 standard will also PM10–2.5 have not been established by the course of a three-year period. These provide appropriate protection of public EPA, this new FRM will nevertheless be commenters argued for a more health, given the body of evidence defined as the standard of reference for restrictive form (generally 99th discussed above. The EPA therefore measurements of PM10–2.5 percentile) to ensure the protection of believes that the level of protection from concentrations in ambient air. This public health with an adequate margin coarse particles provided by the current should provide a basis for approving of safety. The EPA notes that the current 24-hour PM10 standard remains Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) and one-expected-exceedance form of the requisite to protect public health with promote the gathering of scientific data an adequate margin of safety. Revising to support future reviews of the PM 24-hour PM10 standard allows only three days above the standard over a either the level or the form of this NAAQS. One of the reasons for not three-year period. standard would alter the current level of finalizing a PM10–2.5 standard was the While EPA generally favors the protection and therefore would not be limited body of evidence on health concentration-based form for short-term appropriate based on the scientific effects associated with thoracic coarse

standards for reasons noted above, EPA evidence available at this time. particles from studies that use PM10–2.5 Therefore, after considering the measurements of ambient thoracic also notes that adopting such a form in available scientific evidence, the coarse particle concentrations. If an this review without changing the level rationale and recommendations FRM is available, researchers will likely would result in a standard that would contained in the Staff Paper, the advice include PM measurements of not provide the same protection as the 10–2.5 and recommendations of CASAC, and thoracic coarse particles in health current standard, and the level of the the public comments received regarding studies either by directly using the FRM standard would have to be adjusted the appropriate level and form for a 24- or by utilizing approved equivalent downward to achieve the desired hour standard intended to afford methods based on the FRM. protection. Given the overall decision to requisite protection of public health In addition, EPA published elsewhere provide the same protection as the from effects associated with exposure to in today’s Federal Register a current standards, the Administrator coarse particles, the Administrator has requirement for a new multi-pollutant concludes it is best to retain both the determined to retain the current level of monitoring network that takes an form and the level of the current 3 150 µg/m for the 24-hour PM10 integrated approach to air quality primary 24-hour PM10 standard. standard, and the current one-expected- measurements. One of the required In conclusion, it is EPA’s view, as exceedance form. In the Administrator’s measurements at these multi-pollutant expressed in the Staff Paper and judgment, based on the currently monitoring stations is PM10–2.5. The proposal and supported by CASAC and available evidence, a standard set at this availability of an FRM, and by the available health effects evidence, level remains requisite to protect public subsequently approved equivalent that the level of protection afforded by health with an adequate margin of safety methods for PM10–2.5, will support State the current 24-hour PM10 standard of from the morbidity and possibly and local agencies’ efforts to deploy 150 µg/m3, one-expected-exceedance mortality effects that have been robust methods at these monitoring form, continues to be appropriate for the associated with short-term exposures to stations for the measurement of thoracic types of thoracic coarse particles thoracic coarse particles in urban or coarse particles that do not include fine typically found in urban or industrial industrial areas, as well as to protect particles. These multi-pollutant areas. As explained above, mortality against the potential for risks from monitoring stations will provide a effects observed in epidemiologic exposure to thoracic coarse particles in readily available dataset at studies for coarse particles are generally other areas. The EPA intends to address approximately 75 urban and rural associated with exposure levels that the considerable uncertainties in the locations for atmospheric and health exceed the current standards, and currently available information on researchers to compare particle and morbidity effects are generally thoracic coarse particles as part of the gaseous air pollutants. associated with exposure levels that Agency’s ongoing PM research program. Finally, the PM10–2.5 FRM, by exceeded the current standards on only definition, provides a reference a few occasions. This suggests the level E. Final Decisions on Primary PM10 measurement. Because it is a filter based of protection afforded by the current Standards system, this method can itself be used PM10 standards is not greater than For the reasons discussed above in to provide speciated data and EPA will warranted. Furthermore, the very high this section, and taking into account the be issuing guidance to ensure the use of degree of uncertainty in the relevant information and assessments presented a consistent national approach for population exposures implied by the in the Criteria Document and Staff speciated coarse particle monitors as morbidity studies suggests there is little Paper, the advice and recommendations soon as possible. The reference basis for concluding at this time that a of CASAC, and public comments measurement from this instrument is

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61203

also important in the development of and 7) on the known and potential primarily fine particles and to relative alternative PM10–2.5 speciation samplers. welfare effects associated with PM, humidity. We will be developing dichotomous including PM-related visibility (3) The impacts of urban visibility samplers to meet the requirements of impairment and PM-related effects on impairment on public welfare, based in SAFETEA–LU. Appropriate guidance to vegetation and ecosystems, materials part on valuation studies of benefits ensure that the use of a consistent damage and soiling, and climate change, associated with improvements in national approach for speciated coarse respectively. This information is only visibility and in part on recognition of particle monitors will be issued with briefly outlined in subsections IV.A.1 a number of programs, standards, and this method. As discussed in more and IV.B.1 below. Subsequent sections planning efforts to address visibility detail in the final monitoring rule provide a more complete discussion of impairment, in the U.S. and abroad, that published elsewhere in today’s Federal the Administrator’s rationale, having illustrate the value that the public Register, EPA is requiring the considered the evidence in light of places on improved visibility. deployment of PM10–2.5 speciation public comments and his final decisions (4) Approaches to evaluating public samplers at all 75 multi-pollutant on the primary standards for PM, for his perceptions and attitudes about monitoring stations. Such speciation decision to revise the current PM visibility impairment, including new monitoring will help States in secondary standards by making them methods and tools that have been developing SIPs and will address a key identical in all respects to the revised developed to communicate and evaluate research need for thoracic coarse suite of primary PM standards. public perceptions of varying visual particles by providing a better effects associated with alternative levels understanding of the chemistry of the A. Visibility Impairment of visibility impairment relative to collected samples. This section presents the rationale for varying pollution levels and the Administrator’s decision to revise environmental conditions. IV. Rationale for Final Decisions on The summary of the evidence on Secondary PM Standards the current secondary PM2.5 standards to address PM-related visibility visibility impairment related to ambient fine particles in the proposal will not be This section presents the impairment by setting secondary repeated here. The EPA emphasizes that Administrator’s final decisions standards identical in all respects to the the final decisions on the secondary regarding the review of the current revised PM primary standards. As 2.5 standards take into account the more secondary NAAQS for PM. The existing discussed below, the rationale includes comprehensive and detailed discussions suite of secondary PM standards, which consideration of: (1) The latest scientific is identical to the suite of primary PM of the scientific information on visibility information on visibility effects standards, includes annual and 24-hour impairment contained in the Criteria associated with PM; (2) insights gained PM standards and annual and 24-hour Document and Staff Paper. 2.5 from assessments of correlations PM standards. The existing suite of 10 between ambient PM and visibility 2. Need for Revision of the Current secondary standards is intended to 2.5 impairment prepared by EPA staff; and Secondary PM2.5 Standards To Protect address visibility impairment associated (3) specific conclusions regarding the Visibility with fine particles,82 and materials need for revisions to the current damage and soiling related to both fine In 1997, EPA decided to address the standards (i.e., indicator, averaging and coarse particles. The following effects of PM on visibility by setting time, form, and level) that, taken discussion of the rationale for the final secondary standards identical to the together, would be requisite to protect decisions on revising the secondary PM suite of PM2.5 primary standards, in standards focuses on those the public welfare from adverse effects conjunction with the future considerations most influential in the of PM2.5 on visual air quality. establishment of a regional haze Administrator’s decisions, first 1. Visibility Impairment Related to program under sections 169A and 169B addressing visibility impairment as it Ambient PM of the Act (62 FR 38679–83). In reaching relates to the PM2.5 secondary standards this decision, EPA first concluded that and then addressing the other welfare Section IV.A.1 of the proposal (71 FR PM, especially fine particles, impairs effects as they relate to both the PM 2675–2678) outlined key information visibility in various locations across the 2.5 contained in the Criteria Document and and PM10 secondary standards. The country, including multi-state regions, other welfare effects considered in this Staff Paper relevant to considering urban areas, and remote Class I Federal review include effects on vegetation and visibility impairment that is related to areas (e.g., national parks and ecosystems, materials damage and ambient PM. The information wilderness areas). The EPA also soiling, and climate change.83 highlighted there summarizes: concluded that addressing visibility Sections IV.A and IV.B of the (1) The nature of visibility impairment solely through setting more proposal (71 FR 2675–2685) provide a impairment, including trends in visual stringent national secondary standards detailed summary of key information air quality and the characterization of would not be an appropriate means to contained in the Criteria Document current visibility conditions, with a protect the public welfare from adverse (EPA, 2004a, Chapters 4 and 9) and in particular focus on visibility impacts of PM on visibility in all parts the Staff Paper (EPA, 2005, Chapters 6 impairment in urban areas. of the country. As a consequence, EPA (2) Direct, quantitative relationships determined that an approach that 82 The Administrator recognized in establishing that exist between ambient PM combined national secondary standards the levels of the secondary standards for PM2.5 that constituents and light extinction, and with a regional haze program was the these standards would work ‘‘in conjunction with thus visibility impairment, based in part most appropriate and effective way to implementation of a regional haze program’’ under Section 169A to provide appropriate national on analyses of the extensive new data address visibility impairment (EPA protection against visibility impairment in both now available on PM2.5 concentrations, 2005, p. 7–2). urban and non-urban areas (62 FR 38683). primarily in urban areas, that explored As anticipated in the last review, EPA 83 As noted in section I.A above, in establishing factors that have historically promulgated a regional haze program in secondary standards that are requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated complicated efforts to address visibility 1999 (65 FR 35713). That program adverse effects, EPA may not consider the costs of impairment nationally, including requires States to establish goals for implementing the standards. regional differences related to levels of improving visibility in Class I areas and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61204 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

to adopt control strategies to achieve Denver, Phoenix, British Columbia) the CASAC advised the Administrator these goals. Since strategies to meet have produced reasonably consistent that most CASAC PM Panel members these goals are to reflect a coordinated results in terms of the visual ranges strongly supported the Staff Paper approach among States, multi-state found to be generally acceptable by the recommendation to establish a new regional planning organizations have participants in the various studies, distinct secondary PM2.5 standard to been formed and are now developing which spanned from approximately 40 protect urban visibility (Henderson, strategies, to be adopted over the next to 60 km in visual range. Standards 2005a).84 Most Panel members few years, that will make reasonable targeting protection within this range considered such a standard to be a progress in meeting these goals. have also been set by the State of reasonable complement to the Regional The initial issue to be addressed in Vermont and by California for the Lake Haze Rules that protect Class I areas. the current review of the secondary PM Tahoe area, in contrast to the statewide In the proposal, the Administrator standards is whether, in view of the California standard that targets a visual carefully considered the rationale and information now available, the existing range of approximately 16 km. recommendations in the Staff Paper, the secondary standards should be revised In addition to the information advice and recommendations from to provide requisite protection from PM- available from such programs, CASAC, and initial public comments on related adverse effects on visual air photographic representations (simulated the issue of whether the secondary PM quality. As discussed in the Criteria images and actual photographs) of standards should be revised to provide Document and Staff Paper, while new visibility impairment are available, as increased PM-related visibility research has led to improved discussed in section IV.A.1.d of the impairment primarily in urban areas. In understanding of the optical properties proposal (71 FR 2678), to help inform so doing, the Administrator first of particles and the effects of relative judgments about the acceptability of recognized that PM-related visibility humidity on those properties, it has not varying levels of visual air quality in impairment is principally related to fine changed the fundamental urban areas across the U.S. In particle levels, such that it is characterization from the last review of considering these images for Phoenix, appropriate to focus the review on the role of PM, and especially fine Washington, DC, and Chicago (for whether the current secondary PM2.5 particles, in visibility impairment. which PM2.5 concentrations are standards should be revised. The However, extensive new information reported), the Staff Paper observed that: Administrator also recognized that from visibility and fine particle (1) At concentrations at or near the perception of visibility impairment is monitoring networks since the last level of the current 24-hour PM2.5 most directly related to instantaneous µ 3 review has allowed for updated standard (65 g/m ), which equates to levels of visual air quality, such that in characterizations of visibility trends and visual ranges roughly around 10 km (6 considering whether the current suite of current levels in urban areas, as well as miles), scenic views (e.g., mountains, secondary standards would provide the Class I areas. As discussed in section historic monuments), as depicted in appropriate degree of protection, he first IV.A.1.b. of the proposal (71 FR 2676– these images around and within the considered whether the current 24-hour 2677), these new data were a critical urban areas, are significantly obscured secondary PM2.5 standard provides an component of analyses that better from view. appropriate level of protection from (2) Appreciable improvement in the characterized visibility impairment in visibility impairment, principally in visual clarity of the scenic views urban areas and the relationship urban areas. between visibility and PM2.5 depicted in these images occurs at PM2.5 µ 3 In the proposal, the Administrator concentrations, and led to the finding concentrations below 35 to 40 g/m , called attention to the Staff Paper which equate to visual ranges generally that PM2.5 concentrations can be used as finding that, at concentrations at or near above 20 km for the urban areas a general surrogate for visibility the level of the current 24-hour PM considered (EPA, 2005, p. 7–6). 2.5 impairment in urban areas. secondary standard (65 µg/m3) visual Taking into account the most recent (3) Visual air quality appears to be good in these images at PM ranges are degraded to a distance of monitoring information and analyses, 2.5 about 10 km (6 miles) and images of and recognizing that efforts are now concentrations generally below 20 µg/ m3, corresponding to visual ranges of scenic views (e.g., mountains, historic underway to address all human-caused monuments, urban skylines) around and visibility impairment in Class I areas approximately 25 to 35 km (EPA, 2005, within a number of urban areas are through the regional haze program p. 7–8). significantly obscured from view. implemented under sections 169A and While being mindful of the Further, the Administrator took note of 169B of the CAA, as discussed above, limitations inherent in using visual the various State and local standards this review focused on visibility representations from a small number of and programs that have been established impairment primarily in urban areas. In areas as a basis for considering national to protect visual air quality beyond the so doing, given the stronger link visibility-based secondary standards, degree of protection that would be between visibility impairment and the Staff Paper nonetheless concluded afforded by the current 24-hour short-term PM concentrations, EPA that these observations, together with 2.5 secondary PM standard. Based on all gave significant consideration to the information from the analyses and other 2.5 question of whether visibility programs discussed above, support of the above considerations, the Administrator provisionally concluded impairment in urban areas allowed by revising the current secondary PM2.5 the current 24-hour secondary PM standards to improve visual air quality, that it was appropriate to revise the 2.5 standard can be considered adverse to particularly in urban areas. As current 24-hour secondary PM2.5 public welfare. discussed below, the Staff Paper standard to provide an appropriate level As discussed in section IV.A.1.c. of recommended the establishment of a of protection from visibility impairment principally in urban areas, in the proposal (71 FR 2677–2678), studies new short-term secondary PM2.5 in the U.S. and abroad have provided standard to provide increased and more conjunction with the regional haze the basis for the establishment of targeted protection, primarily in urban 84 A dissenting view was expressed in one Panel standards and programs to address areas, from visibility impairment related member’s individual review comments to the effect specific visibility concerns in a number to fine particles (EPA, 2005, p. 7–12). that any urban visibility standard should be of local areas. These studies (e.g., in Based on its review of the Staff Paper, voluntary and locally adopted (Henderson, 2005a).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61205

program for protection of rural air recent visibility-related evidence and of the CASAC, as well as the public quality in Class I areas. analyses presented in the Criteria comments on this issue, the The majority of commenters who Document and Staff Paper provide no Administrator concludes that it is expressed an opinion on the secondary basis for considering more protective appropriate to revise the current standards, including NESCAUM, PM2.5 standards. As discussed in the secondary PM2.5 standards to provide STAPPA/ALAPCO, a number of Staff Paper, one of the key issues in the increased protection from visibility individual States, Tribal associations, last review was whether the differences impairment in urban areas. Consistent and local organizations, and combined in humidity between East and West with the considerations and rationale comments from various environmental complicated the establishment of a summarized above and in the proposal, groups supported the position that the nationally uniform PM2.5 secondary the Administrator believes that secondary PM2.5 standards should be standard, even for urban areas (EPA, emphasis should be placed on revisions revised to increase protection against 2005, p. 7–3). With the substantial to the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard visibility impairment. A number of addition to the air quality and visibility that would provide an appropriate level these commenters cited the studies and data made possible by the national of protection against visibility evidence in the PM Staff Paper, as well urban PM2.5 monitoring networks, an impairment principally in urban areas, as the recommendations of CASAC, in analysis conducted for this review in conjunction with the regional haze support of their views that a more found that, in urban areas, visibility program for protection of visual air protective standard is warranted. levels show far less difference between quality in Class I areas. NESCAUM noted that, though monitors eastern and western regions on a 24- 3. Indicator of PM for Secondary in the northeast region do not exceed hour or shorter time basis than implied Standard To Address Visibility the current secondary PM2.5 standards, by the largely non-urban data available Impairment their regional haze camera network in the 1997 review (EPA, 2005, p. 7–5). (CAMNET) routinely documents Of equal importance, more recent As discussed in the Staff Paper, fine extremely hazy days obscuring city studies of visibility values conducted particles contribute to visibility skylines and views. NESCAUM stated for several urbanized areas have found impairment directly in proportion to that ‘‘this shows that virtually all of results generally consistent with an their concentration in the ambient air. PM2.5 effects on visibility in the earlier study done for the city of Denver. Hygroscopic components of fine Northeast are occurring below the While such studies are still limited in particles, in particular sulfates and present secondary standard, justifying number and subject to uncertainty, they nitrates, contribute disproportionately EPA’s proposal to revise the existing suggest a remarkable consistency in to visibility impairment under high standard to a more stringent level public reaction to urban visibility humidity conditions. Particles in the adequately protective of public welfare’’ impairment caused by fine particles coarse mode generally contribute only (NESCAUM, attachment C, p. C–1) In (EPA 2005, p. 6–18 to 23). marginally to visibility impairment in general, EPA agrees with these Furthermore, staff and CASAC agreed urban areas. In analyzing how well commenters that the more recent on the utility of photographic evidence PM2.5 concentrations correlate with information on visibility values, in characterizing the nature of particle- visibility in urban locations across the photographic evidence, and air quality/ induced haze. At the level of the current U.S. (see EPA, 2005, section 6.2.3), the visibility relationships supports the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the potential Staff Paper concluded that the observed need to revise the current secondary subtleties associated with alternative correlations are strong enough to PM2.5 standards. photographic views alluded to by UARG support the use of PM2.5 as the indicator Other commenters, including UARG, would be obscured by the density of the for such standards. More specifically, American Public Power Association, accompanying haze, which would clear correlations exist between 24-hour and American Electric Power, opposed restrict the distance of the farthest average PM2.5 concentrations and a revision to strengthen the secondary discernable dark objects to only 6 miles reconstructed light extinction, which is PM2.5 standards at this time. UARG and greatly reduce the contrast for directly related to visual range. These stated that: objects at significantly shorter distances. correlations are similar in the eastern Although, as suggested by these and western regions of the U.S. Further, Because the record does not establish that the commenters, the annual standard serves these correlations are less influenced by risks to public welfare from ambient PM2.5 are greater, different in character, or more to limit excursions above the level of the relative humidity and more consistent certain than was understood when the current 24-hour standard, particularly in across regions when PM2.5 present standards were established, the eastern urban areas, continuation of the concentrations are averaged over Agency lacks a basis for revising its current 24-hr PM2.5 standard would shorter, daylight time periods (e.g., 4 to conclusion that those standards provide the permit a large number of exceedances of 8 hours). Thus, the Staff Paper requisite protection of public welfare. this level especially in some western concluded that it is appropriate to use (UARG, p. 36). urban areas, even when the standard is PM2.5 as an indicator for standards to UARG questioned the usefulness of just attained. In summary, contrary to address visibility impairment in urban the photographic images and urban the views of this set of commenters, areas, especially when the indicator is studies of acceptable visibility EPA believes that the combination of defined for a relatively short period of highlighted in the proposal for new insights from air quality analyses, daylight hours. Based on its review of determining appropriate levels of urban the standards and studies developed to the Staff Paper, most CASAC Panel visibility. They further noted that, for address urban visibility in several areas, members endorsed a PM2.5 indicator for most areas, the annual PM2.5 standard as well as an evaluation of the a secondary standard to address would prevent any exceedances of 65 photographic evidence, supports the visibility impairment (Henderson, µg/m3. need to revise the current secondary 2005a, p. 9). While, as summarized above, the key PM2.5 standards. The Administrator provisionally optical aspects of the relationship Having considered the evidence and concurred with the EPA staff and between fine particles and visibility analysis of visibility and fine particles CASAC recommendations, and have been established for a long time, in the Criteria Document and Staff proposed that PM2.5 should be retained EPA strongly disagrees that the more Paper, the advice and recommendations as the indicator for fine particles as part

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61206 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

of a secondary standard to address targeting the driest part of the day on the percent of areas not likely to visibility protection. No commenters (Henderson, 2005a, p. 9). In its advice meet various alternative PM2.5 disputed the appropriateness of to the Administrator, CASAC noted an standards, consistent with CASAC continuing to use PM2.5 as the indicator indirect but important benefit to advice to consider such information for fine particle secondary standards to advancing EPA’s monitoring program (Henderson, 2005a, p. 10). address visibility impairment. goals that would come from the direct In considering the remaining elements Having considered the scientific use of hourly data from a network of of a secondary PM2.5 standard (averaging information discussed in the proposal continuous PM2.5 mass monitors. time, form, and level) for purposes of and summarized above, as well as the In considering the Staff Paper the proposal, the Administrator looked recommendations of the staff and recommendation and CASAC’s advice, to the rationale presented in the Staff CASAC and the public comments on the Administrator provisionally Paper and to CASAC’s advice and this issue, the Administrator concludes concluded that averaging times from 24 recommendations for such a standard. that PM2.5 should be retained as the hours to 4 daylight hours would Based on photographic representations indicator for fine particles as part of a represent a reasonable range of choices of varying levels of visual air quality, secondary standard to address visibility for a standard to address urban visibility public perception studies, and local and protection. impairment. A 24-hour averaging time State visibility standards, as discussed could be selected and applied based on above, the Staff Paper concluded that 30 4. Averaging Time of a Secondary PM 2.5 the extensive data base currently to 20 µg/m3 PM represents a Standard for Visibility Protection 2.5 available from the existing PM2.5 FRM reasonable range for a national visibility As discussed in the Staff Paper, monitoring network, whereas a sub- standard primarily for urban areas, averaging times from 24 to 4 hours were daily averaging time would necessarily based on a sub-daily averaging time. considered for a revised standard to depend upon an expanded network of The upper end of this range is below the address visibility impairment. Within continuous PM2.5 mass monitors. While levels at which the illustrative scenic this range, clear and similarly strong the Administrator agreed that broader views are significantly obscured, and correlations were found between deployment of continuous PM2.5 mass the lower end is around the level at visibility and 24-hour average PM2.5 monitors is a desirable goal, working which visual air quality generally concentrations in eastern and western toward that goal does not depend upon appears to be good based on observation areas, while somewhat stronger nor provide an appropriate basis for of the illustrative views. Analyses of 4- correlations were found with PM2.5 setting a sub-daily standard. The hour average PM2.5 concentrations concentrations averaged over a 4-hour Administrator believed that it was indicate that this concentration range time period. In general, correlations appropriate to evaluate averaging time can be expected generally to correspond between PM2.5 concentrations and light in conjunction with reaching decisions to median visual ranges in urban areas extinction were found to be generally on the form and level of a standard. within regions across the U.S. of less influenced by relative humidity and Public comments on these issues, as approximately 25 to 35 km (see EPA, more consistent across regions as well as the rationale for the final 2005, Figure 7–1).85 This range of visual shorter, sub-daily averaging times, decisions on averaging time, form, and range values is bounded above by the within daylight hours from level of the secondary standards, are visual range targets selected in specific approximately 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., were presented in the following section. areas where State or local agencies considered. The Staff Paper concluded placed particular emphasis on 5. Final Decisions on Secondary PM that an averaging time from 4 to 8 hours, 2.5 protecting visual air quality. generally within this daylight time Standards for Visibility Protection In considering a reasonable range of period, should be considered for a In considering PM2.5 standards that forms for a PM2.5 standard within this standard to address visibility would provide an appropriate level of range of levels, the Staff Paper impairment. protection against PM-related concluded that a concentration-based In reaching this conclusion, the Staff impairment of visibility primarily in percentile form is appropriate for the Paper recognized that the PM2.5 Federal urban areas, the Administrator took into same reasons as those discussed in Reference Method (FRM) monitoring account the results of the public section II.F.1 above (on the form of the network provides 24-hour average perception and attitude surveys in the 24-hour primary PM2.5 standard). The concentrations, and, in some cases, on U.S. and Canada, State and local Staff Paper also concluded that the a third- or sixth-day sample schedule, visibility standards within the U.S., and upper end of the range of concentration such that implementing a standard with visual inspection of photographic percentiles should be consistent with a less-than-24-hour averaging time representations of several urban areas the percentile used for the primary would necessitate the use of continuous across the U.S. summarized in section standard, which was proposed to be the monitors that can provide hourly time IV.A.1 of the proposal. In the 98th percentile, and that the lower end resolution. Given that the data used in Administrator’s judgment, these sources of the range should be the 92nd the Staff Paper analysis discussed above provide useful but still quite limited percentile, which represents the mean were from commercially available PM2.5 information on the range of levels of the distribution of the 20 percent continuous monitors, such monitors appropriate for consideration in setting most impaired days, as targeted in the clearly could provide the hourly data a national visibility standard primarily regional haze program (EPA, 2005, p. 7– that would be needed for comparison for urban areas, given the generally 11 to 12). with a potential visibility standard with subjective nature of the public welfare In its advice to the Administrator, the a less-than-24-hour averaging time. effect involved. In considering CASAC Panel recognized that it is Most CASAC Panel members alternative forms for such standards, the difficult to select any specific level and supported the Staff Paper Administrator took into account the recommendation of a sub-daily (4 to 8 same general factors that were 85 The Staff Paper notes that a standard set at any daylight hours) averaging time, finding considered in selecting an appropriate specific PM2.5 concentration will necessarily result in visual ranges that vary somewhat in urban areas it to be an innovative approach that form for the 24-hour primary PM2.5 across the country, reflecting the variability in the strengthens the quality of the PM2.5 standard (as discussed above in section correlations between PM2.5 concentrations and light indicator for visibility effects by II.E.1), as well as additional information extinction (EPA, 2005, p. 7–8).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61207

form based on currently available and primary PM2.5 standards (EPA, the nature of visibility impairment, information (Henderson, 2005a, p. 9). 2005, Tables 7A–1 and 5B–1(a) 87). In so whose adverse effects are most evident Some Panel members felt that the range doing, the Administrator observed that during the daylight hours; using a 24- of levels recommended in the Staff the predicted percent of counties with hour standard as a proxy introduces Paper was on the high side, but monitors not likely to meet the error and uncertainty in protecting recognized that developing a more proposed suite of primary PM2.5 visibility; and sub-daily standards are specific (and more protective) level in standards (i.e., a 24-hour standard set at used for other NAAQS and should be future reviews would require updated 35 µg/m3, with a 98th percentile form, the focus for visibility. and refined public visibility valuation and an annual standard of 15 µg/m3) (2) They noted that CASAC and its studies, which CASAC strongly was actually somewhat greater (27 monitoring subcommittees have encouraged the Agency to support prior percent) than the predicted percent of repeatedly commended EPA’s initiatives to the next review. With regard to the counties with monitors not likely to promoting the introduction of form of the standard, the meet a sub-daily secondary standard continuous and near-continuous PM recommendations in the final Staff with an averaging time of 4 daylight monitoring, and that expanded Paper reflected CASAC’s advice to hours, a level toward the upper end of deployment of continuous PM2.5 consider percentiles in the range of the the range recommended in the Staff monitors is consistent with setting a 92nd to the 98th percentile. Some Panel Paper (e.g., up to 30 µg/m3), and a form sub-daily standard to protect visibility. members recommended considering a within the recommended range (e.g., (3) They cautioned that the analysis percentile within this range in around the 95th percentile) (24 percent). showing a similarity between conjunction with a level toward the A similar comparison was seen in percentages of counties not likely to upper end of the range recommended in considering the predicted percentages of meet what they considered to be a the Staff Paper.86 the population living in such areas. lenient 4- to 8-hour secondary standard Based on the above considerations, for Considering the evidence in light of and a secondary standard identical to purposes of the proposal the these comparisons, the Administrator the proposed 24-hour primary standard Administrator believed that it was provisionally concluded that revising is a numerical coincidence that is not appropriate to first consider the level of the current secondary 24-hour standard indicative of any fundamental relationship between visibility and protection that would be afforded by the for PM2.5 to be identical to the proposed proposed suite of primary PM health. 2.5 revised primary PM2.5 standard and standards (71 FR 2681). The limited and retaining the current annual secondary The CASAC Panel further stated that ‘‘visual air quality is substantially uncertain evidence currently available PM standard was a reasonable policy 2.5 impaired at PM concentrations of 35 for use in evaluating the appropriate approach to addressing visibility 2.5 µg/m3’’ and that ‘‘it is not reasonable to level of protection suggested that a protection primarily in urban areas. have the visibility standard tied to the cautious approach was warranted in Consistent with CASAC’s health standard, which may change in establishing a distinct secondary PM2.5 recommendation, the Administrator also ways that make it even less appropriate standard to address visibility solicited comment on a sub-daily (4- to impairment. While significantly more for visibility concerns.’’ (Id. at p. 6.) 8-hour averaging time) secondary PM2.5 Many of the public commenters who information is available since the last standard. review concerning the relationship supported a more stringent visibility In additional comments responding to standard also supported the more between fine PM levels and visibility EPA’s proposed revision of the across the country, there is still little specific EPA staff and CASAC secondary PM2.5 standards for visibility available information for use in making recommendations and urged EPA to protection (71 FR 2675–2781), the adopt a sub-daily (4- to 8-hour averaging the relatively subjective value judgment CASAC requested that a sub-daily needed in selecting the appropriate time) PM2.5 standard to address standard to protect visibility be visibility impairment, within the range degree of protection to be afforded by favorably reconsidered (Henderson, such a standard. Given this, the of 20 to 30 µg/m3 and with a form 2006, p. 2). As noted above, most of the within the range of the 92nd to 98th Administrator first evaluated the level CASAC Panel recommended a sub-daily of protection that the proposed primary percentile. In general, these commenters standard for PM2.5 with a level in the 20 based their recommendations on the PM2.5 standards would likely provide, to 30 µg/m3 range for a four- to eight- and then determined whether the same studies, analyses, and hour (4–8 hr) mid-day time period with considerations presented in the Staff available evidence warranted adopting a a 92nd to 98th percentile form. The standard with a different level, form, or Paper and in section IV.A of the CASAC members noted three cautions proposal.88 averaging time. regarding the Agency’s proposed In comparing the extent to which the EPA agrees with several of the key reliance on a secondary PM standard proposed suite of primary standards 2.5 technical points made in CASAC’s identical to the proposed 24-hour would require areas across the country original recommendations and their primary PM standard (Id. at pp. 5–6): to improve visual air quality with the 2.5 request for reconsideration. The (1) They noted that the PM2.5 mass Administrator recognizes that there is a extent of increased protection likely to measurement is a better indicator of be afforded by a standard based on a significant body of data and information visibility impairment during daylight indicating that a sub-daily standard has sub-daily averaging time, the hours, when humidities are low; the Administrator looked to an analysis of sub-daily standard more clearly matches the predicted percent of areas not likely 88 The American Lung Association et al. disagreed with the Administrator’s view that the to meet various alternative secondary 87 The information in these Tables is based on secondary standards should be focused primarily analysis of 2001–2003 air quality data, including on providing protection in urban areas, with 86 Some CASAC Panel members also 562 counties with FRM monitors that met specific protection of Class I areas provided by the Regional recommended that such a standard be implemented data completeness criteria for developing predicted Haze Rule. These commenters suggested that EPA in conjunction with an ‘‘exceptional events’’ policy percentages of counties not likely to meet the suite should not rely on the regional haze program and so as to avoid having non-compliance with the of primary PM2.5 standards and 168 counties with must set national standards to protect all areas. As standard be driven by natural source influences continuous PM2.5 monitors that met less restrictive discussed in the Response to Comments document, such as dust storms and wild fires (Henderson, data completeness criteria for developing predicted EPA believes that this issue was settled in ATA I. 2005a). percentages for a 4-hour secondary PM2.5 standard. (See 175 F.3d at 1056–1057.)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61208 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

strong technical merit. The fine particle/ indicative of any fundamental now being developed to address the visibility relationship is most consistent relationship between visibility and requirements of the regional haze rule across regions for shorter averaging public health. However, EPA does not established for protection of visual air times during the daylight hours, when believe that this coincidental similarity quality in Class I areas can be expected humidity tends to be lowest. The EPA weighs against considering making the to improve visual air quality in also agrees that visibility impairment secondary standard identical to the surrounding areas as well. The has the greatest impact on public revised primary standard. Administrator further believes that the welfare during the daylight hours, but Having considered the evidence, the development of local programs notes that daylight is not limited to a advice of CASAC, and public continues to be an effective and four to eight hour period. comments, the Administrator believes appropriate approach to provide The Administrator believes, however, that revising the current secondary additional protection for unique scenic that it is appropriate to consider the PM2.5 standards to be identical to the resources in and around certain urban protection the revised suite of primary revised suite of primary PM2.5 standards areas that are highly valued by people PM2.5 standards would provide against adopted in today’s notice is a reasonable living in those areas. adverse effects on public welfare. The policy approach to addressing visibility Based on all of the considerations analysis summarized above found that impairment primarily in urban areas. discussed above, the Administrator the relative protection provided by the The current annual and revised 24-hour concludes that it is appropriate to revise proposed primary standards was secondary PM2.5 standards will result in the current secondary PM2.5 standards to equivalent or more protective than improvements in visual air quality in as be identical in all respects to the revised several of the 4-hour secondary standard many or more urban areas across the suite of primary PM2.5 standards alternatives in the range recommended country as would the alternative adopted in today’s notice to provide an by the Staff Paper and CASAC. Given approach of setting a sub-daily standard appropriate level of visibility protection the limitations in the underlying studies consistent with the upper portion of the primarily in urban areas. and the subjective nature of the ranges recommended by CASAC. This B. Other PM-Related Welfare Effects judgment required, the Administrator approach recognizes the substantial continues to believe that caution is limitations in the available hourly air In considering the currently available warranted in establishing a distinct quality data and in available studies of evidence on non-visibility PM-related secondary standard for visibility public perception and attitudes with welfare effects, the Staff Paper noted impairment. Contrary to commenters regard to the acceptability of various that there was much information linking who recommended a distinct standard degrees of visibility impairment in ambient PM to potentially adverse providing greater protection, in this urban areas across the country. Given effects on vegetation and ecosystems case, the Administrator does not believe these limitations, the Administrator and on materials damage and soiling, that these studies warrant adopting a believes that a distinct secondary and on characterizing the role of secondary standard that would provide standard with a different averaging time, atmospheric particles in climatic and either more or less protection against level, or form is not warranted at this radiative processes. However, given the visibility impairment in urban areas time, because the available evidence evaluation of this information in the than would be provided by secondary does not support a decision to achieve Criteria Document and Staff Paper, standards set equal to the proposed a level of protection different from that which highlighted the substantial primary PM2.5 standards. While EPA provided by the revised suite of primary limitations in the evidence, especially agrees that the use of 24-hour and standards, and because no further the lack of evidence linking various annual averages will result in more change in averaging time, level, or form effects to specific levels of ambient PM, variability in visibility across urban appears needed to achieve a comparable the Administrator provisionally areas, as the Staff Paper notes, any PM2.5 level of protection. A decision in this concluded in the proposal that the secondary standard would result in review to make secondary standards available evidence did not provide a some variability in protection in equivalent in all respects to the primary sufficient basis for establishing distinct different locations (EPA, 2005, p. 7–8). standards, as revised, does not limit the secondary standards for PM based on While, as noted above and in the ability of the Agency to establish a any of these effects alone. proposal, the Administrator agrees with distinct secondary standard in the In the proposal, the Administrator CASAC’s point that broader deployment future if and when the underlying also addressed the question whether of continuous PM2.5 mass monitors is a evidence indicates that it is appropriate. reductions in PM likely to result from desirable goal, working toward that goal Further, the Administrator notes that the current secondary PM standards, or does not depend upon nor provide an continuing to advance the use of from the range of revised primary PM appropriate basis for setting a sub-daily continuous PM2.5 monitors is not standards, would provide appropriate standard. Moreover, pursuant to CASAC dependant on establishing a sub-daily protection against any of these PM- recommendations, EPA is today issuing secondary PM2.5 standard. related welfare effects. As discussed modifications to the PM2.5 reference and The Administrator believes that any below, these considerations included equivalent methods that will encourage secondary NAAQS for visibility the latest scientific information the certification and deployment of protection should be considered in characterizing the nature of these non- more continuous monitors (in a separate conjunction with the regional haze visibility PM-related effects and document published in today’s Federal program as a means of achieving judgments as to whether revision of the Register). With respect to the third appropriate levels of protection against current secondary standards is CASAC comment summarized above, PM-related visibility impairment in appropriate based on that information. EPA agrees that the result of the analysis urban, non-urban, and Class I areas showing a similarity in the percentages across the country. Programs 1. Evidence of Non-Visibility Welfare of counties not likely to meet the implemented to meet the national Effects Related to PM revised 24-hour primary PM2.5 standard primary standards can be expected to Particulate matter contributes to or a sub-daily standard set toward the improve visual air quality not just in adverse effects on a number of welfare upper end of the range of protectiveness urban areas but in surrounding non- effects categories other than visibility recommended by CASAC is not urban areas as well; similarly, programs impairment, including vegetation and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61209

ecosystems, soiling and materials radiation (especially UV–B) penetrating standard for PM10–2.5, which was damage, and climate. These welfare through the atmosphere to ground level. intended to provide an equivalent effects result predominantly from degree of protection to the current PM10 2. Need for Revision of the Current exposure to excess amounts of specific standards in areas where the proposed Secondary PM Standards To Address PM indicator would apply (which chemical species, regardless of their Other PM-Related Welfare Effects 10–2.5 source or predominant form (particle, tend to be more densely populated areas gas, or liquid). Reflecting this fact, the At the time of proposal, in where materials damage would be of Criteria Document concluded that considering the currently available greater concern), the Administrator regardless of size fraction, particles evidence on each type of PM-related believed that this proposed suite of containing nitrates and sulfates have the welfare effects discussed above, the standards would afford at least the greatest potential for widespread Administrator noted that there was degree of protection as that afforded by environmental significance. The nature much information linking the sulfur- the current secondary PM standards. of these welfare effects is discussed in and nitrogen-containing components of Finally, the Administrator believed the Criteria Document (Chapters 4 and ambient PM to potentially adverse that such standards should be 9) and Staff Paper (Chapter 6) and effects on ecosystems and vegetation, as considered in conjunction with the summarized in section IV.B.1 of the well as links between PM and its protection afforded by other programs proposal. The information highlighted constituents and materials damage and intended to address various aspects of there includes: soiling, as well as climatic and radiative air pollution effects on ecosystems and (1) PM-related effects on vegetation, processes. However, after reviewing the vegetation, such as the acid deposition specifically those associated with excess extent of relevant studies and other program and other regional approaches levels of particulate nitrate and sulfate information available since the 1997 to reducing pollutants linked to nitrate in acidifying deposition to foliage, review of the PM standards, which or acidic deposition. Based on these leading to accelerated weathering of leaf highlighted the substantial limitations considerations, and taking into account cuticular surfaces; increased in the evidence, especially with regard the information and recommendations to the lack of evidence linking various permeability of leaf surfaces to toxic discussed above, the Administrator effects to specific levels of ambient PM, materials, water, and disease agents; proposed to revise the current the Administrator concurred with increased leaching of nutrients from secondary PM2.5 and PM10 standards to conclusions reached in the Staff Paper foliage; and altered reproductive address these other welfare effects by and by CASAC (Henderson, 2005a) that processes—all which serve to weaken making them identical in all respects to the available data do not provide a trees so that they are more susceptible the proposed suite of primary PM2.5 and sufficient basis for establishing distinct to other stresses (e.g., extreme weather, PM10–2.5 standards. secondary PM standards based on any of In response to the proposal, in pests, pathogens). these non-visibility PM-related welfare addition to their recommendation for a (2) PM-related effects on ecosystems, effects. PM2.5 secondary standard, CASAC specifically those resulting from the While recognizing that PM-related recommended (Henderson, 2006, p. 4) nutrient or acidifying characteristics of impacts on vegetation and ecosystems ‘‘that a secondary PM10–2.5 standard be deposited PM on both terrestrial and and PM-related soiling and materials set at the same level as the primary PM aquatic ecosystems, which contribute to damage are associated with chemical coarse standard to protect against the adverse impacts on essential ecological components in both fine and coarse- various irritant, soiling and nuisance attributes such as species shifts, loss of fraction PM, the Administrator welfare or environmental effects of diversity, impacts to threatened and provisionally concluded that sufficient coarse particles. Since these effects are endangered species and alteration of information was not available at this not uniquely related to urban sources or native fire cycles. time to consider either an ecologically receptors, the standard should not be (3) Characterization of ecosystem based indicator or an indicator based limited to urban areas.’’ Only limited exposure to PM deposition, specifically distinctly on soiling and materials public comments were received on this the currently available deposition damage, in terms of specific chemical aspect of the proposal. monitoring network and the lack of components of PM. Further, consistent In general, public comments relating sufficient long-term monitoring of with the rationale and recommendations to secondary standards and other ecosystem response needed for PM- in the Staff Paper, the Administrator welfare effects focused on issues related related ecological risk assessment. agreed that it was appropriate to to the current secondary PM10 (4) The critical loads concept and its continue control of ambient fine and standards. Most of these commenters, applicability as an assessment tool in coarse-fraction particles, especially including the groups who objected to the context of the PM secondary long-term deposition of particles such as the use of a qualified indicator for the NAAQS review. particulate nitrates and sulfates that primary thoracic coarse particle (5) PM-related effects on materials, contribute to adverse impacts on standard, argued that current levels of specifically the physical damage caused vegetation and ecosystems and/or to PM dust contribute or potentially mainly by deposited particulate nitrates materials damage and soiling. The contribute to nuisance, soiling, and and sulfates and the impaired aesthetic Administrator also agreed with the Staff irritant impacts on personal comfort and qualities due to soiling caused mainly Paper that the available information did well being, especially in non-urban by particles consisting primarily of not provide a sufficient basis for the areas. The same commenters agreed carbonaceous compounds. development of distinct secondary with CASAC that, in the absence of a (6) PM-related effects on climate, standards to protect against such effects demonstration to the contrary, EPA is specifically through scattering and beyond the protection likely to be not justified in eliminating or reducing absorption of radiation by ambient afforded by the proposed suite of the level of protection to rural areas that particles, as well as effects on the primary PM standards. In considering is provided by the current suite of radiative properties of clouds through those proposed standards in secondary standards. Most of these changes in the number and size combination, including the proposed commenters recommended that EPA distribution of cloud droplets, and by more protective 24-hour standard for either retain the current PM10 secondary altering the amount of ultraviolet solar PM2.5 and the proposed 24-hour standard or replace it with a PM10–2.5

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61210 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

standard set identical to the proposed especially long-term deposition of appendices to 40 CFR Part 50 on primary standard without the proposed particles such as particulate nitrates and interpreting the primary and secondary qualifications that limited application of sulfates that contribute to the total input NAAQS for PM. the standard to urban areas. of nitrogen and sulfur to ecosystems that A. Amendments to Appendix N— A few commenters argued against has been shown to adversely affect Interpretation of the National Ambient retaining any secondary standard for sensitive aquatic and terrestrial Air Quality Standards for PM2.5 coarse particles. Many of these same ecosystems, and/or particles that commenters argued that if EPA did set contribute to materials damage and The EPA proposed to revise the data a secondary PM10–2.5 standard, it should soiling. The Administrator notes that handling procedures in appendix N to be set equal to the primary PM10–2.5 setting the secondary PM standards 40 CFR Part 50 for the annual and 24- standard because there was insufficient identical to the revised suite of primary hour PM2.5 standards (71 FR 2685– evidence to support adoption of a standards directionally improves the 2686). The proposed amendments to distinct secondary standard for PM10–2.5 level of protection afforded vegetation, appendix N detailed the computations at this time. Furthermore, these ecosystems, and materials. In addition, necessary for determining when the commenters noted that in the proposal, the Administrator continues to believe proposed primary and secondary PM2.5 EPA had correctly excluded from both that the secondary NAAQS should be NAAQS were met. The proposed primary and secondary standards ‘‘any considered in conjunction with the amendments also addressed data ambient mix of PM10–2.5 that is protection afforded by other programs reporting, monitoring considerations, dominated by rural windblown dust and intended to address various aspects of and rounding conventions. Key soils and PM generated by agricultural air pollution effects on ecosystems and elements of the proposed revisions to and mining sources’’ because these vegetation, such as the acid deposition appendix N were presented in section V particles are nontoxic and generally program and other regional approaches of the preamble to the proposed rule settle quickly. to reducing pollutants linked to nitrate and are summarized below, together In reaching a final decision on the or acidic deposition. with EPA’s final decisions on revisions need to revise the PM secondary Based on the above considerations, to appendix N. standards regarding these non-visibility the Administrator concludes that it is 1. General related welfare effects, the appropriate to address the other welfare Administrator has taken into account effects summarized in this section by As proposed, EPA is adding several several key factors, including: (1) The revising the current suite of PM2.5 new definitions to section 1.0 and using latest scientific information on non- secondary standards, making them these definitions throughout the visibility welfare effects associated with identical in all respects to the suite of appendix, most notably ones for ‘‘design PM, as previously described; (2) the primary PM2.5 standards, while values.’’ Also, the 24-hour sampling post-proposal recommendations of retaining the current 24-hour PM10 timeframe has been clarified as CASAC, (3) comments received during secondary standard and revoking the representing ‘‘local standard (word the public comment period, and (4) the current annual PM10 secondary inserted) time.’’ This revision reflects final decisions reached in today’s notice standard. For the reasons noted in EPA’s previous intent as well as on the primary standards for fine and section III.D.1 above, the 24-hour PM10 majority practice, and also avoids coarse particles, as well as the decision standard will provide adequate ambiguity since local clock time varies presented above on secondary PM2.5 protection against the known and according to daylight savings periods. standards to protect against visibility potential effects related to long-term No opposing comments were received impairment. The Administrator notes PM10 concentrations. on these changes. that extending today’s decision not to 2. PM Monitoring and Data Reporting revise the current 24-hour primary PM C. Final Decisions on Secondary PM 2.5 10 Considerations standard to the secondary standard Standards would be consistent with the For the reasons discussed above, and As proposed, two new sections are recommendations of CASAC and would taking into account the information and being added to appendix N to more address the issues raised by the first assessments presented in the Criteria specifically stipulate and highlight group of commenters summarized Document and Staff Paper, the advice monitoring and data considerations (71 above. Consistent with the assessment and recommendations of CASAC, and FR 2685). New section 2.0 includes of the evidence in the Staff Paper and public comments received on the statistical requirements for spatial the CASAC recommendations, the proposal, the Administrator is revising averaging (which is part of the form of Administrator disagrees with those who the current secondary PM standards by the annual standard for PM2.5). As assert that no secondary standard is making them identical in all respects to discussed in section II.F.2 above, EPA is needed to protect against the welfare the suite of primary PM standards, as tightening two of the constraints on the effects associated with coarse particles. revised by today’s action. In the use of spatial averaging to provide an On the other hand, the Administrator Administrator’s judgment, these adequate margin of safety to susceptible does not believe that distinct secondary standards, in conjunction with the subpopulations by reflecting enhanced standards for fine or coarse particles are regional haze program, will provide knowledge of typical monitor warranted for any of the effects appropriate protection to address PM- relationships in metropolitan areas. considered in this section. The available related welfare effects, including New section 3.0 to appendix N evidence is not sufficient to support the visibility impairment, effects on codifies aspects of raw data reporting selection of an ecologically based vegetation and ecosystems, materials and raw data time interval aggregation indicator or an indicator based damage and soiling, and effects on including specifications of number of distinctly on materials damage, soiling, climate change. decimal places. Previously, these irritant or nuisance effects, or other reporting instructions resided only in effects of PM. However, the V. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM associated guidance documents. Section Administrator recognizes that it is This section presents EPA’s final 3.0 also notes the process for appropriate to continue control of decisions regarding the revision, assimilating monitored concentration ambient fine and coarse particles, addition, and/or revocation of data from collocated instruments into a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61211

single ‘‘site’’ record; data for the site NAAQS level. See existing Part 50 App. appendix N as proposed with regard to record would originate mainly from the N 2.1 (b). The EPA proposed to also this issue. designated ‘‘primary’’ monitor at the site allow 11 or more samples per quarter as With regard to the 24-hour PM2.5 location, but would be augmented with an acceptable minimum if the standard, EPA proposed to revise collocated Federal reference method calculated annual standard design value appendix N to include a special formula (FRM) or Federal equivalent method exceeds the level of the standard. The (Equation 6 in the proposed rule, 71 FR (FEM) monitor data whenever valid data intent of this change was to prevent a 2702) for computing annual 98th are not generated by the primary site with a violating design value that is percentile values when a site operates monitor. This procedure will enhance made up of one (or more) annual means on an approved seasonal sampling the opportunity for sites to meet data under the level of the NAAQS from not schedule. This formula was previously completeness requirements. This being used for regulatory purposes just stated only in guidance documentation language likewise codifies existing because one (or more) of the quarters of (EPA, 1999) but was utilized, where practice, since the technique was the year(s) under the NAAQS level has appropriate, in official OAQPS design value calculations. No adverse previously documented in guidance less than 75% data capture. One comments were received on this documentation and implemented as commenter voiced a general concern addition. EPA standard operating procedure. over the lack of uniformity in Commenters agreed that this was a valid The proposed revisions to appendix N completeness criteria but the other approach and should be implemented. also incorporated language explicitly commenters supported the change. stating that 98th percentiles (for both 3. PM2.5 Computations and Data Taking these comments into regular and seasonal sampling Handling Conventions consideration, EPA is revising appendix schedules) were to be based on the As proposed, EPA is maintaining a N as proposed with regard to this issue. applicable number of samples rather spatially-averaged annual mean, with A second proposed change in the data than the actual number of samples. The revisions to the criteria for when spatial completeness requirements would EPA proposed that both annual 98th averaging can be used (see section 1 incorporate data substitution logic for percentile equations (proposed above, as well as section II.E.2), as the situations where the proposed 11 Equations 5 and 6) would reflect this form of the annual PM2.5 standard and samples per quarter minimum is not approach. The EPA acknowledges that it is retaining a 98th percentile met. Consistent with existing guidance made an error in the placement of the concentration as the form of the 24-hour and practice (implementing current ‘‘applicable number of samples’’ PM2.5 standard. Although no actual App. N 2.1 (c)), EPA proposed to references into the denominator of the computational change was proposed for incorporate the following requirement special seasonal 98th percentile formula a spatially-averaged annual mean, the into appendix N: a quarter with less (Equation 6) and has restored the proposed Appendix N differentiated, in than 11 samples would be complete and equation to its original form. The EPA language and formulae, between a valid if, by substituting an historically notes that the special season formula spatial average of more than one site low 24-hr value for the missing samples already takes into consideration and a spatial average of only one site. (up to the 11 minimum), the results oversampling in low periods. We are adopting these changes yield an annual mean, spatially Furthermore, because the ‘‘applicable throughout Appendix N as appropriate averaged annual mean, and/or annual number of samples’’ was removed from to alleviate confusion caused by the standard design value that exceeds the the seasonal formula, there was no need current ‘‘catch-all’’ generic reference level of the standard. The EPA proposed to stipulate that ‘‘seasons’’ could not (i.e., ‘‘spatial average’’ or ‘‘spatially divide months; that proposed to implement this procedure for making averaged’’) found throughout the requirement was only necessary to comparisons to the NAAQS and not to existing Appendix N. accommodate the calculation of permanently alter the reported data. The As proposed, appendix N identifies ‘‘applicable number.’’ the NAAQS metrics and explains data EPA considered this a very conservative The EPA solicited comment on the capture requirements and comparisons means of imputing data (and increasing ‘‘applicable number of samples’’ the opportunities for using monitoring to the standards for the annual PM2.5 concept and calculation and received standard and the 24-hour standard (in data that otherwise are valid), but several comments on the concept. One sections 4.1, and 4.2, respectively); data solicited comment on the proposed commenter endorsed it without rounding conventions (in section 4.3); approach. Several comments were discussion, one commenter did not and formulas for calculating the annual received on this approach and the object to it but noted that it was difficult and 24-hour metrics (in sections 4.4 and majority favored it. However, two to program, and another commenter 4.5, respectively). A significant commenters (NESCAUM and a thought that the concept unnecessarily comment related to the 98th percentile constituent State) suggested a limit of complicates matters and favored the use formula and an associated bias for one quarter (out of the 12 in a 3-year of ‘‘scheduled number of samples’’ periodic sampling is discussed above in period) where the substitutions could be instead. Two commenters said that it section II.E.1. made. They suggested the limitation would be an acceptable approach if it With regard to the annual PM2.5 because they were concerned that the still permitted ‘‘extra’’ sampling at the standard, EPA proposed to retain absence of a significant amount of data end of a month to make up for missed current data capture requirements with is an indication that site operator and/ samples. The EPA notes that it has two exceptions. The current appendix N or equipment problems exist. The EPA never endorsed this ‘‘extra’’ sampling had reduced data capture requirements shares this concern but observes that the practice for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, for years that exceeded the level of the method protocol itself guards against so that the commenter’s premise is annual NAAQS; specifically, a excessive utilization. The more missing incorrect. The EPA agrees with minimum of 11 valid samples per values that are potentially substituted comments that expressed concerns quarter as opposed to a more stringent with the method effectively reduce the about this calculation being too 75 percent (of scheduled samples) was chance of a valid result (i.e., a usable complicated and, therefore, has considered sufficient in those instances design value). Taking these comments simplified the procedure in a manner where the annual mean exceeded the into consideration, EPA is revising that corresponds to the calculation of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61212 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

data capture. The applicable number of C. Amendments to Appendix K— of a new National Core (NCore) multi- samples for a given year is now defined Interpretation of the National Ambient pollutant monitoring stations. The EPA as simply the sum of the number of Air Quality Standards for PM10 also plans to negotiate with some States completed scheduled (‘‘creditable’’) Because the Administrator has for additional NCore stations which samples for the year. The new appendix decided to retain the current 24-hour would include PM10–2.5 monitors. N defines the new term, ‘‘creditable’’ PM standard but to revoke and not The PM10–2.5 reference method is a 10 difference method based on separate, and describes its use in calculating data replace the annual PM10 standard, some capture rates and ‘‘applicable number.’’ changes are required to appendix K to concurrent measurements of PM10 and For sites that sample correctly (i.e. don’t 40 CFR Part 50 on interpreting the PM2.5, with the PM10–2.5 measurement oversample at the end of the month), the primary and secondary NAAQS for being the result of subtraction of the PM2.5 measurement from the simpler ‘‘applicable number’’ procedure PM10. The modifications principally will produce the same result as the entailed simply removing the obsolete corresponding PM10 measurement. The proposed calculation. annual standard related sections. 24-hour integrated measurements are To simplify the regulatory language, However some typographical based on conventional, low-volume as proposed, EPA is revising appendix corrections were also made to some of filter samples of particulate matter N to eliminate the equation the remaining sections related to the 24- analyzed gravimetrically after a period computational examples. The EPA will hour standard; a spelling error was of moisture and temperature provide extensive computational corrected and certain equal signs (=) equilibration. Although the component examples in forthcoming guidance were changed to plus signs (+) in the PM10 and PM2.5 filter samples can be documents. illustrative examples found in section 3 subsequently analyzed chemically, no actual, physically separated PM10–2.5 4. Conforming Revisions of the appendix in order to correct obvious mistakes in arithmetic. For sample is produced by the method for As proposed, EPA is revising readers’ convenience, EPA is reprinting chemical species analysis. The EPA terminology and data handling the entire Appendix K in the rule anticipates that one or more alternative procedures associated with exceptional section of this notice, but is not methods that do provide PM10–2.5 events to conform to rules which EPA reopening or reconsidering any parts of samples that are completely or nearly proposed to implement the recent the Appendix except those discussed completely separated physically for amendment to CAA section 319 (42 above. species analysis (such as the U.S.C. 7619) by section 6013 of the Safe, dichotomous sampler method) will Accountable, Flexible Efficient VI. Reference Methods for the become available as an FEM. Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Determination of Particulate Matter as The substantial advantages of the Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59). PM10–2.5 and PM2.5 method and the rationale for its selection as the FRM for PM are The EPA proposed rules to address A. Appendix O to Part 50—Reference 10–2.5 discussed in the proposal (71 FR 2687). exceptional events on March 10, 2006 Method for Determination of Coarse In that discussion, EPA acknowledges (71 FR 12592). The EPA is replacing the Particulate Matter as PM10–2.5 in the that the method does not provide a term currently used in appendix Atmosphere direct measurement of PM10–2.5, has N.1(b)—uncontrollable or natural The EPA proposed a new reference events—with ‘‘exceptional events,’’ some significant shortcomings, and method (FRM) for measuring mass likely will not ideally meet all needs for corresponding with the term used in the concentrations of coarse particles recent amendment. (Because this monitoring PM10–2.5 in the ambient air. (PM10–2.5) in ambient air as a new The EPA indicated that although the revision makes only a semantic change Appendix O to 40 CFR part 50.71 FR to existing appendix N, EPA believes method is readily usable in routine 2703. Although this method can fulfill monitoring networks, it is clearly less the change is consistent with section a variety of PM monitoring objectives, than optimally suited for such use. 6013(b)(4) of SAFETEA–LU, which its primary purpose is to serve as the Instead, EPA expects that alternative provided that EPA continue to apply standard of comparison for determining FEMs that typically offer some existing appendix N of part 50 (among the adequacy of alternative ‘‘equivalent’’ substantial advantage or advantages others) until the effective date of rules methods for use in lieu of the FRM. Id. over the FRM will become the principle implementing the exceptional event at 2687–88. In conjunction with methods deployed for routine provisions in amended section 319 of additional analysis, this method may be monitoring. Further, EPA anticipates the CAA.)89 used to develop speciated data. The that self-contained, automated FEMs B. Proposed Appendix P—Interpretation EPA expects to designate such will become available to provide near of the National Ambient Air Quality alternative methods as equivalent real-time, hourly monitoring data Standards for PM10–2.5 methods (FEMs) under revised availability and ease the monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 53, published burdens of monitoring agencies. The EPA proposed to add appendix P elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. Although the FRM will likely be used to 40 CFR Part 50 in order to add data The EPA is finalizing the FRM for initially in monitoring applications handling procedures for the proposed PM10–2.5, even though a NAAQS for because of its conventional nature and 24-hour PM10–2.5 standard. Since the PM10–2.5 is not being adopted. An similarity to the widely used PM current 24-hour PM standard is being 2.5 10 official FRM will be an important FRM, ultimately its principle purpose retained and a PM standard is not 10–2.5 element in facilitating consistent will be as the standard of reference for being implemented, the proposed new research on PM10–2.5 air quality and determining the adequacy of alternative, appendix P (on interpreting the health effects and in promoting the candidate FEMs and for assessing the proposed 24-hour PM10–2.5 standard) is commercial development of FEMs. In a quality of PM10–2.5 monitoring data not being added. separate final rule amending 40 CFR obtained in monitoring networks, part 58 elsewhere in today’s Federal particularly networks using alternative 89 EPA will answer all comments raising substantive issues relating to the natural events Register, the EPA is promulgating a FEMs. The FRM may thus be used on policy when it finalizes the pending exceptional requirement that States deploy about 60 a voluntary basis by states wishing to events proposal. FRM or FEM PM10–2.5 monitors as part deploy PM10–2.5 monitors prior to the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61213

January 1, 2011 deadline for operation for PM10–2.5, most of which will not rely (e.g. by a descriptor such as PM10c). of PM10–2.5 monitors at NCore multi- on subtraction of fine mode particle Also, conventional PM10 measurements pollutant sites (a requirement of the measurements from coarse mode are reported based on standard final rule amending 40 CFR part 58, particle measurements. Further, EPA is temperature and pressure, whereas elsewhere in today’s Federal Register), actively investigating the possibility that PM10c measurements are reported based although many of the required monitors a dichotomous-based method might on actual local conditions of operating at NCore sites in 2011 and ultimately provide a more direct means temperature and pressure. beyond may be FEMs. of measuring the coarse fraction of The EPA designation of specific, After considering alternative PM10. Within the time frame prescribed methodologies and weighing the various by the SAFETEA–LU, it appears very commercial candidate PM10–2.5 FRM pros and cons of other methods, as also likely that at least one such method will samplers will be based on an discussed in the proposal preamble, the be shown to achieve an adequate level application and on consideration in EPA concluded that the proposed of performance and may therefore be accordance with new or revised method is the best method currently identified and utilized as a ‘‘reference provisions of 40 CFR part 53, published available to serve these purposes, while method’’. The terms of the SAFETEA– elsewhere in this Federal Register. also being readily usable for many LU Act do not require that the Agency Since PM2.5 FRM samplers have been in initial monitoring applications. The promulgate a non-difference method as use for several years and are readily Ambient Air Monitoring and Methods either the sole FRM or as an alternative available, EPA designation of PM10–2.5 Subcommittee of the Clean Air FRM as specifically defined in part 53. FRM sampler models based on one or Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Until such a new, more direct method more currently available PM2.5 sampler concurs with this assessment and is demonstrated to be suitable and models is expected to occur soon after approach, recommending that EPA adequate and becomes commercially promulgation. The two samplers of the adopt the difference method as the available, the difference-based FRM of PM FRM sampler pair would be FRM, but that it ultimately be used 10–2.5 Appendix O provides a reliable, proven required to be of the same make and primarily as a benchmark for evaluating measurement method which can be model and matched design and the performance of continuous as well successfully implemented immediately. as other direct-measuring filter-based fabrication so that they are essentially The CASAC agreed that none of the identical (except that one would not integrated methods (Henderson, 2005c). direct sampling methods is presently Of the relatively few comments have a PM2.5 particle separator). The sufficiently reliable for use as an FRM, samplers may be of either single-filter or received on the proposed FRM, most Henderson, 2005c, but that suitable raised concern about some of the same multiple-filter (sequential-sample) direct measurement methods could be design, as long as both are of the same shortcomings of the method that had developed quickly enough to become already been considered by EPA in type, design, and configuration. For a approved as equivalent methods in a selecting the method (and by the commercial sampler that has already planned monitoring network. CASAC in concurring with EPA’s been designated as a PM2.5 FRM, no approach). No comments presented any The salient technical aspects of the further testing under part 53 would be issues that resulted in any changes to FRM are provided in the proposal required for designation as a PM preamble (71 FR 2690). The dual 10–2.5 the method. Thus, the FRM is being FRM, although the sampler samplers specified in the FRM are promulgated today (in Appendix O), manufacturer would have to submit a essentially identical to the sampler with the only change being deletion of formal, brief application under part 53. the reference to national ambient air specified in the PM2.5 FRM (40 CFR part Users may assemble their own PM10–2.5 quality standards in section 1.1 of the 50, appendix L) except for removal of sampler pair using existing PM2.5 the PM2.5 WINS impactor particle method, since the EPA is not using samplers of matched model or design by PM as the indicator in the NAAQS separator from the sampler used for 10–2.5 converting one of the samplers to a addressing thoracic coarse particles. PM10. Operational procedures and most One comment raised concern about other aspects are also similar or PM10c sampler, provided that the specific sampler pair has been the relationship of the new PM10–2.5 identical to those for the PM2.5 FRM. FRM to the requirements of Section One notable condition is that the PM10 previously designated by the EPA as a 6012 of the SAFETEA–LU, under which sampler of the PM10–2.5 FRM must meet PM10–2.5 FRM under part 53. the EPA is to ‘‘develop a Federal the higher standards of performance and A PM2.5 sampler pair consisting of reference method to measure directly manufacture of appendix L rather than samplers that are slightly dissimilar or particles that are larger than 2.5 the somewhat lesser requirements for have some minor design or model micrometers in diameter without conventional PM10 samplers in 40 CFR variations (and one sampler is reliance on subtracting from coarse part 50, appendix J. Thus, conventional configured as a PM10c sampler) may be particle measurements those particles PM10 FRM samplers will not be considered for designation by EPA as a

that are equal to or smaller than 2.5 acceptable for use as part of a PM10–2.5 Class I FEM under revised part 53. An micrometers in diameter.’’ As discussed FRM sampler pair. But both the PM10 application for an FEM determination in the proposal preamble at 71 FR 2690, and PM2.5 component measurements would need to be submitted under part EPA believes that this FRM does not obtained incidental to PM10–2.5 conflict with either the specific measurements would be valid as PM 53, and some supplemental or special 10 tests may be required. Also, a pairing of language or intent of the SAFETEA–LU or PM2.5 measurements under the Act. The new FRM, together with the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part slightly dissimilar samplers that has not additions to part 53 (published 58, provided they are sited at the been designated by EPA as an FRM or elsewhere in this Federal Register) that appropriate spatial scale. However, Class I FEM may be considered for will allow designation of FEMs for since such PM10 samplers meet higher approved use in PM10–2.5 monitoring monitoring PM10–2.5, will provide a standards of performance than networks as a user-modification of an strong incentive to stimulate the further conventional PM10 samplers, the FRM under section 2.8 of appendix C to commercial development and measurements need to be differentiated 40 CFR part 58. refinement of new or existing methods from conventional PM10 measurements

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61214 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

B. Amendments to Appendix L— implementation. The EPA identified commenters suggested that the 24-hour Reference Method for the Determination issues regarding transition to or PM10 standard should remain in place of Fine Particulate Matter (as PM2.5) in implementation of the standards everywhere until designations were the Atmosphere promulgated in this rule in an advance complete under the 24-hour PM10–2.5 In connection with the proposal of a notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) standard, or even until PM10–2.5 SIPs had on Transition to New or Revised been submitted by States. Some Tribal, new FRM for PM10–2.5, the EPA also proposed (71 FR 2691) minor technical Particulate Matter National Ambient Air State and local commenters suggested changes to the FRM for PM (40 CFR Quality Standards (71 FR 6718–6729, that the PM10 standard should be 2.5 February 9, 2006). In the ANPR, EPA Part 50, appendix L). EPA is adopting retained permanently in all areas where solicited comment on a wide range of these changes as proposed. These the PM10–2.5 standard did not apply by issues related to both the fine and coarse changes are to provide improvements in virtue of the monitoring requirements, particle NAAQS, including the the efficiency of the method in which limited NAAQS comparable schedules for implementation of these monitoring network operations without monitors to sites that met the five-point standards and the requirements that altering the method’s performance. site suitability test outlined in the would be applicable if any PM NAAQS The most significant change is the monitoring rule. Other commenters were revoked. The public comment addition of an alternative PM particle maintained that EPA has no authority to 2.5 period for the ANPR ended on July 10, size separator, specifically, a very sharp revoke the PM10 standards or the 2006. The EPA is currently reviewing cut cyclone (VSCCTM) manufactured by specific pollution controls mandated in the public comments received. In the BGI Incorporated, Waltham, MA. FRM Title I Subpart 4 for PM10 nonattainment near future, EPA intends to address, as 90 samplers now may be configured with areas. necessary, issues such as designations, The EPA notes that the either the original WINS impactor or the conformity, and new source review, alternative cyclone separator, and Administrator’s decision to retain the related to implementation of today’s current 24-hour PM10 standard existing FRM samplers may be final rule. In this section, EPA retrofitted by users with the cyclone, if alleviates these concerns. Because the highlights a few issues that may arise as 24-hour PM10 standard is generally desired. Sampler users wishing to an immediate consequence of today’s retrofit their samplers should contact controlling, as described above in final decision to retain the 24-hour PM10 section III.D.2, retention of this standard the sampler manufacturer to obtain the TM standards but revoke the annual PM10 ensures the continuation of existing correct BGI VSCC model along with standards, and restates existing policies the associated installation, operation, public health protections. The EPA and practices to address several further believes that it has the legal and maintenance instructions specific to concerns raised by commenters. the sampler model, and a new authority to revoke the annual PM10 designated method label to be attached A. Summary of Comments Received on standard, and addresses this issue in to the sampler. The seven sampler Transition detail in the Response to Comments document. models configured with the BGI Many commenters, particularly State TM VSCC that have been designated as and local air pollution control agencies B. Impact of Decision on PM10 FEMs will be re-designated as reference and Tribes, but also environmental and Designations methods, and owners of such sampler public health groups, voiced strong should contact the sampler The EPA notes that because it is concerns about EPA’s proposal to retaining the current 24-hour PM manufacturer to receive a new reference revoke current annual PM standards 10 10 standards, new nonattainment method label for the sampler. everywhere upon promulgation of this designations for PM will not be Another change is substitution of an final rule, and to revoke, upon 10 required under the provisions of the improved type of impactor oil for the finalization of a primary 24-hour Clean Air Act. As established in Section original PM2.5 WINS particle size standard for PM , the current 24- 10–2.5 107(d)(1) of the Act, the only time EPA separator to correct an occasional cold- hour PM standard everywhere except 10 is obligated to designate areas as weather performance issue with the in 15 large urbanized areas (with attainment or nonattainment is after it originally specified oil. Finally, minor population greater than 100,000) that promulgates or revises a NAAQS. Under increases in the time limits for sample have at least one monitor violating the an existing standard, all redesignations retrieval and sample weighing were 24-hour PM10 standard based on the proposed, as were minor reductions in most recent three years of air quality are at the Administrator’s discretion: the sampler data output reporting data. For these few areas, EPA proposed EPA has no legal obligation to redesignate an area even if a monitor requirements. Justifications for these to retain the 24-hour PM10 standard changes are discussed in the proposal until designations were completed should register a violation of that standard (see CAA Section 107(d)(3)). preamble. Of the very few comments under a final 24-hour PM10–2.5 standard. received in connection with these While a few local government Thus, this final decision does not affect proposed changes, all were supportive. commenters recommended that one or existing PM10 nonattainment Accordingly, the changes are adopted as another of the 15 areas be dropped from designations. This is consistent with proposed. this list—i.e., recommended that the 24- past practice. For example, when EPA decided not to revise the ozone hour PM10 standard should be retained VII. Issues Related to Implementation in fewer locations—most commenters standards in 1993 or the SO2 standards of PM10 Standards expressing views on transition in 1996, it did not revisit prior Issues related to implementation of suggested that EPA was being too hasty designations or designate any new areas as nonattainment. The EPA does regard the NAAQS are not relevant to the in dismantling existing PM10 Administrator’s decisions regarding protections. Pointing to long delays in air quality violations seriously, and does whether it is appropriate to set or revise the implementation timeline for the expect States to take actions to reduce a standard. For this reason, EPA has not 1997 PM2.5 standards due to litigation, 90 These comments and EPA’s responses to the addressed implementation-related such that designations were not issues raised by commenters are discussed in issues in preceding sections, nor has it completed for eight years after greater detail in the Response to Comments addressed public comments regarding promulgation of the final rule, these document.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61215

air quality to healthy levels in any areas total number of PM10 monitors to create new obligations to control that are experiencing violations. deployed, EPA believes, consistent with particular sources. In response to However, EPA recognizes that there are the basis for retaining the 24-hour PM10 comments regarding potential impacts other ways to address such violations standard, that priority should be given of any coarse particle standard on besides redesignating an area as to maintaining monitors sited in urban agricultural and mining sources, EPA nonattainment. For example, EPA can and industrial areas. notes that the NAAQS do not create work directly with a State and nearby In addition, if States and Tribes are emissions control obligations for industries to take appropriate actions to considering deploying new PM10 individual sources or groups of sources. reduce emissions that are contributing monitors, EPA recommends, again In this particular case, even if an to the violation. The EPA has worked in consistent with the basis for retaining individual source were shown to this way with States in the past. Of the 24-hour PM10 standard, that those contribute to an exceedance of the 24- course, States may request redesignation monitors be placed in areas where there hour PM10 standard, this would not of an area, either from nonattainment to are urban and/or industrial sources of necessarily result in regulation of that attainment, or from attainment to thoracic coarse particles. Furthermore, source. Decisions about which sources nonattainment, based on the most recent consistent with the monitors used in to control are generally made by the air quality data available, if they choose studies that informed the State in the context of developing or to do so. In addition, both transportation Administrator’s decision on the level of revising SIPs. Given that the available and general conformity will continue to the standard (see section III.D above), evidence regarding adverse health apply to all PM10 nonattainment and EPA recommends that any new PM10 effects associated with exposure to maintenance areas since no designations monitors be placed in locations that are thoracic coarse particles is strongest are changing. However, because EPA is reflective of community exposures at with respect to urban and industrial revoking the annual PM10 standard in middle and neighborhood scales of ambient mixes of those particles, EPA this final rule, after the effective date of representation, and not in source- encourages States to focus control this rule conformity determinations in oriented hotspots. programs on urban and industrial PM10 areas will only be required for the As summarized briefly above in sources to the extent that those sources 24-hour PM10 standard; conformity to section III.E and described in detail in are contributing to air quality violations. the annual PM10 standard will no longer section V.E.1 of the monitoring rule This would help to ensure that be required. The EPA will address published elsewhere in today’s Federal resources expended on implementing specific conformity issues related to the Register, EPA is also establishing the 24-hour PM10 standard realize the revocation of the annual PM10 standard requirements for a new multi-pollutant maximum public health and welfare either in future guidance or in another monitoring network that will include benefits. public document. The EPA also notes approximately 75 PM10–2.5 monitors that With regard to emissions of thoracic that PSD increments and baseline years will speciate according to the coarse particles from agricultural will not be affected by this decision. composition as well as size of the The EPA is retaining the current 24- sources, EPA recognizes that the United particles. These speciated PM10–2.5 States Department of Agriculture hour PM10 standards and revoking the monitors are a critical part of EPA’s (USDA) has been working with the annual PM10 standards. Today’s rule research program on coarse particles, does not change any existing guidance agricultural community to develop and will be sited in both urban and rural conservation systems and activities to related to the PM10 NAAQS as it applies locations. It is EPA’s expectation that to the 24-hour PM standards, and to control coarse particle emissions. Based 10 these monitors will help alleviate the the extent that modifications to the on current ambient monitoring current deficit of information regarding existing guidance are needed in information, these USDA-approved the public health impacts of PM response to today’s action, EPA will 10–2.5 conservation systems and activities have mixes in different locations.91 make such modifications in the near proven to be effective in controlling future. C. Impact of Decision on State these emissions in areas where coarse As described in the revisions to Part Implementation Plans (SIPs) and particles emitted from agricultural 53/58 appearing elsewhere in today’s Control Obligations activities have been identified as a Federal Register, EPA believes a contributor to violation of the NAAQS. The EPA’s decision today to retain the reduction in the size of the existing The EPA concludes that where USDA- PM NAAQS does not establish new monitoring networks for certain 10 approved conservation systems and legal obligations beyond those that pollutants, including PM , for which activities have been implemented, these 10 already exist. Specifically, this final rule the large majority of monitors record no systems and activities have satisfied the NAAQS violations, is appropriate as a does not obligate States to revise SIPs or Agency’s reasonably available control way to free up resources for higher measure and best available control 91 In addition, EPA notes that the Agency’s priority monitoring objectives. The National Center for Environmental Research measure requirements. The EPA current minimum PM10 network recently issued a Request for Proposals on believes that in the future, when requirements are based on the ‘‘Sources, Composition, and Health Effects of properly implemented, USDA-approved population of a metropolitan statistical Coarse Particulate Matter’’ which is designed to (1) conservation systems and activities improve understanding of the type and severity of area (MSA) and its historical PM10 air health outcomes associated with exposure to should satisfy the requirements for quality. This focus on larger urban areas PM10–2.5; (2) improve understanding of reasonably available control measures or is consistent with EPA’s belief that it is subpopulations that may be especially sensitive to best available control measures. The appropriate to target an indicator for PM10–2.5 exposures including minority populations, EPA will work with States to identify highly exposed groups, and other susceptible thoracic coarse particles toward urban groups; (3) characterize and compare the influence appropriate measures to meet their and industrial areas, where the ambient of mass, composition, source characteristics and RACM or BACM requirements, mix of thoracic coarse particles is exposure estimates in different locations and including site-specific conservation dominated by emissions from particular differences in health outcomes, including systems and activities. The EPA will comparisons in rural and urban areas; and (4) types of sources. See sections III.C.2 and characterize the composition and variability of continue to work with USDA to III.C.3 above. To the extent that States PM10–2.5 in towns, cities or metropolitan areas, prioritize the development of new and Tribes are considering reducing the including comparisons of rural and urban areas. conservation systems and activities;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61216 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

demonstrate and improve, where categories are generally not included in National Ambient Air Quality necessary, the control efficiencies of making major source determinations. Standards’’ (September 2006). The RIA existing conservation systems and However, the current NSR regulations estimates the nationwide costs and activities; and ensure that appropriate require that once any source qualifies as monetized human health and welfare criteria are used for identifying the most a major stationary source, that source benefits of attaining two alternatives to effective application of conservation must count all fugitive emissions the current suite of PM2.5 NAAQS (15 systems and activities. toward determining whether an µg/m3 annual, 65 µg/m3 daily). The EPA does not construe the Clean emissions increase results in a major Specifically, the RIA compares the Air Act (CAA) to require that the modification of that source regardless of current standards to the proposed Agency make an independent whether the source is associated with a alternative of 15 µg/m3 annual, 35 µg/m3 determination as to whether a PSD source category listed by the daily and a tighter alternative of 14 µg/ increment is violated in any specific Administrator. On July 11, 2003, we m3 annual, 35 µg/m3 daily. The RIA State or Tribal reservation. The EPA has received a petition for reconsideration contains illustrative analyses that the discretion to inquire into these of the current NSR regulations relating consider a limited number of emissions matters and call for revisions to a State’s to whether fugitive emissions must be control scenarios that States and SIP if an EPA investigation concluded counted for purposes of determining Regional Planning Organizations might with EPA finding that the PSD whether a major modification occurs. In implement to achieve the 1997 PM2.5 increment is being exceeded. The EPA’s January 2004, we agreed to reconsider NAAQS and these alternative PM2.5 regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(a)(3) this issue, and we expect to propose NAAQS. It calculates the incremental directs a state to make revisions to its changes to the existing regulations in costs that might be incurred between the SIP if EPA or a State finds such an the near future. base year of 2015, which is the year by exceedance. However, this regulation which States must all be in attainment E. Handling of PM10 Exceedances Due to does not require that EPA conduct its with the 1997 PM standards (15 µg/m3 Exceptional Events 2.5 own investigation and make such a annual, 65 µg/m3 daily), and 2020, finding in all cases where a State has The EPA recognizes that PM10 which is the final date by which States completed a periodic review and exceedances may be caused, in whole or would implement controls to attain the submitted its findings to EPA. Oversight in part, by exceptional events, including revised PM2.5 standards. of this nature is a matter within EPA’s natural events such as windstorms. In As discussed above in section I.B, the discretion. Likewise, section 110(k)(5) of some of these instances, the PM10 Clean Air Act and judicial decisions the Clean Air Act does not require that exceedance(s) may also be associated make clear that the economic and EPA periodically investigate and with anthropogenic emissions that technical feasibility of attaining ambient determine whether a SIP is sufficient to contribute to total PM10 concentrations. standards are not to be considered in protect the PSD increments. The EPA Under EPA’s March 2006 Proposed Rule setting or revising NAAQS, although has the discretion to decide when it is on the Treatment of Data Influenced by such factors may be considered in the appropriate to exercise its oversight Exceptional Events (71 FR 12592– development of State plans to authority and inquire into these issues 12610), and consistent with historical implement the standards. Accordingly, in a specific State or Tribal reservation. practice, an exceedance may be treated although an RIA has been prepared, the When EPA exercises this discretion and as an exceptional event even though results of the RIA have not been finds an exceedance of the increments anthropogenic sources such as considered in issuing this final rule. or another SIP deficiency, EPA is then agriculture and mining emissions required to issue a SIP call under contribute to the exceedance. (EPA’s B. Paperwork Reduction Act section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. However, Exceptional Events Rule will be the CAA affords EPA discretion on This action does not impose an finalized in March 2007 and will information collection burden under the whether to make a determination that a discuss this issue in more detail.) state SIP is deficient. See, New York provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Public Interest Research Group v. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. There are no Whitman, 321 F.3d 316, 331 (2d Cir. Reviews information collection requirements 2003) (considering analogous provision directly associated with revisions to a A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. of the CAA addressing EPA oversight of Planning and Review state Title V operating permit programs). Burden means the total time, effort, or Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive financial resources expended by persons D. Consideration of Fugitive Emissions Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose for New Source Review (NSR) Purposes 4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically or provide information to or for a Under the current NSR regulations, significant regulatory action’’ because it Federal agency. This includes the time for purposes of determining whether a is likely to have an annual effect on the needed to review instructions; develop, stationary source qualifies as a major economy of $100 million or more. acquire, install, and utilize technology stationary source, that source must Accordingly, EPA submitted this action and systems for the purposes of include fugitive emissions in calculating to the Office of Management and Budget collecting, validating, and verifying the total amount of a pollutant directly (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and information, processing and emitted, or the potential to emit that any changes made in response to OMB maintaining information, and disclosing pollutant, only if the source is recommendations have been and providing information; adjust the associated with a source category listed documented in the docket for this action existing ways to comply with any by the Administrator pursuant to notice (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2001– previously applicable instructions and and comment rulemaking in accordance 0017). requirements; train personnel to be able with Section 302(j) of the Clean Air Act In addition, EPA prepared a to respond to a collection of (CAA). Agricultural and mining sources regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of the information; search data sources; are generally not among those listed by potential costs and benefits associated complete and review the collection of the Administrator. Therefore, fugitive with this action, entitled ‘‘Regulatory information; and transmit or otherwise emissions from sources in these Impact Analysis for Particulate Matter disclose the information.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61217

An agency may not conduct or 205 do not apply when they are E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism sponsor, and a person is not required to inconsistent with applicable law. respond to a collection of information Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to Executive Order 13132, entitled unless it displays a currently valid OMB adopt an alternative other than the least ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, control number. The OMB control costly, most cost-effective or least 1999), requires EPA to develop an numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 burdensome alternative if the accountable process to ensure CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Administrator publishes with the final ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of C. Regulatory Flexibility Act rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes regulatory policies that have federalism The EPA has determined that it is not any regulatory requirements that may implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have necessary to prepare a regulatory significantly or uniquely affect small federalism implications’’ is defined in flexibility analysis in connection with governments, including Tribal the Executive Order to include this final rule. For purposes of assessing governments, it must have developed regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct the impacts of today’s rule on small under section 203 of the UMRA a small effects on the States, on the relationship entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A government agency plan. The plan must between the national government and small business that is a small industrial provide for notifying potentially the States, or on the distribution of entity as defined by the Small Business affected small governments, enabling power and responsibilities among the Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 officials of affected small governments various levels of government.’’ CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental to have meaningful and timely input in At the time of proposal, EPA jurisdiction that is a government of a the development of EPA regulatory concluded that the proposed rule would city, county, town, school district or proposals with significant Federal not have federalism implications. The special district with a population of less intergovernmental mandates, and EPA stated that the proposed rule would than 50,000; and (3) a small informing, educating, and advising not have substantial direct effects on the organization that is any not-for-profit small governments on compliance with States, on the relationship between the enterprise which is independently the regulatory requirements. national government and the States, or owned and operated and is not on the distribution of power and dominant in its field. Today’s final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory responsibilities among the various After considering the economic levels of government, as specified in impacts of today’s final rule on small provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for Executive Order 13132. However, EPA entities, EPA has concluded that this State, local, or Tribal governments or recognized that States would have a action will not have a significant the private sector. The rule imposes no substantial interest in this rule and any economic impact on a substantial new expenditure or enforceable duty on corresponding revisions to associated number of small entities. This rule will any State, local or Tribal governments or SIP requirements and air quality not impose any requirements on small the private sector, and EPA has surveillance requirements, 40 CFR part entities. Rather, this rule establishes determined that this rule contains no 51 and 40 CFR part 58, respectively. national standards for allowable regulatory requirements that might Therefore, in the spirit of Executive concentrations of particulate matter in significantly or uniquely affect small Order 13132, and consistent with EPA ambient air as required by section 109 governments. Furthermore, as indicated policy to promote communications of the CAA. See also ATA I at 1044–45 previously, in setting a NAAQS EPA between EPA and State and local (NAAQS do not have significant cannot consider the economic or governments, EPA specifically solicited impacts upon small entities because technological feasibility of attaining comment on the rule from State and NAAQS themselves impose no ambient air quality standards, although local officials at the time of proposal. regulations upon small entities). such factors may be considered to a degree in the development of State One commenter who opposed EPA’s D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act plans to implement the standards. See proposed decision on the standards for Title II of the Unfunded Mandates also ATA I at 1043 (noting that because thoracic coarse particles stated that the Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public EPA is precluded from considering costs decision violated E.O. 13132. The Law 104–4, establishes requirements for of implementation in establishing commenter argued that EPA’s proposal Federal agencies to assess the effects of NAAQS, preparation of a Regulatory to replace the PM10 standards with a their regulatory actions on State, local, Impact Analysis pursuant to the new 24-hour PM10–2.5 standard based on and Tribal governments and the private Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would a qualified indicator would sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, not furnish any information which the substantially impact CAA section 107 EPA generally must prepare a written court could consider in reviewing the which establishes that the States have statement, including a cost-benefit NAAQS). Accordingly, EPA has primary responsibility for analysis, for proposed and final rules determined that the provisions of implementation of the NAAQS. with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may sections 202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA Specifically, the commenter stated that result in expenditures to State, local, do not apply to this final decision. The the proposed rule language establishing and Tribal governments, in the EPA acknowledges, however, that any that ‘‘agricultural sources, mining aggregate, or to the private sector, of corresponding revisions to associated sources, and other similar sources of $100 million or more in any 1 year. SIP requirements and air quality crustal material shall not be subject to Before promulgating an EPA rule for surveillance requirements, 40 CFR part control in meeting this standard’’ was a which a written statement is needed, 51 and 40 CFR part 58, respectively, clear infringement upon States’ section 205 of the UMRA generally might result in such effects. authority with regard to implementation requires EPA to identify and consider a Accordingly, EPA has addressed of the NAAQS. The EPA notes that in reasonable number of regulatory unfunded mandates in the notice that light of the final decision to retain the alternatives and adopt the least costly, announces the revisions to 40 CFR part PM10 indicator, and the 24-hour PM10 most cost-effective or least burdensome 58, and will, as appropriate, address NAAQS, the concern voiced by this alternative that achieves the objectives unfunded mandates when it proposes commenter is no longer relevant. The of the rule. The provisions of section any revisions to 40 CFR part 51. final rule does not exclude any sources

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61218 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

from control under the 24-hour PM10 federally recognized Tribes within the G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of standard. lower 48 states and Alaska to give Tribal Children From Environmental Health & Therefore, EPA concludes that this leaders the opportunity for consultation, Safety Risks final rule does not have federalism and EPA staff also participated in Tribal Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of implications. It will not have substantial public meetings, such as the National Children from Environmental Health direct effects on the States, on the Tribal Forum meeting in April 2006, Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, relationship between the national where Tribes discussed their concerns April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: government and the States, or on the regarding the proposed rule. (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically distribution of power and Furthermore, the Administrator significant’’ as defined under Executive responsibilities among the various discussed the proposed PM NAAQS Order 12866, and (2) concerns an levels of government, as specified in with members of the National Tribal environmental health or safety risk that Executive Order 13132. The rule does Caucus and with leaders of individual EPA has reason to believe may have a not alter the relationship between the Tribes during the spring and summer of disproportionate effect on children. If Federal government and the States 2006, in advance of his final decision. regarding the establishment and the regulatory action meets both criteria, implementation of air quality During the course of these meetings the Agency must evaluate the improvement programs as codified in and in written comments submitted to environmental health or safety effects of the CAA. Under section 109 of the CAA, the Agency, Tribal commenters the rule on children, and explain why EPA is mandated to establish NAAQS; expressed significant concerns about the the regulation is preferable to other however, CAA section 116 preserves the implications of the proposed rule for potentially effective and reasonably rights of States to establish more Tribes. In particular, Tribes strongly feasible alternatives considered by the stringent requirements if deemed opposed the proposed qualified PM10–2.5 Agency. necessary by a State. Furthermore, this indicator and the proposed monitor site- This rule is subject to Executive Order rule does not impact CAA section 107 suitability requirements, especially the 13045 because it is an economically which establishes that the States have requirement that monitors used for significant regulatory action as defined primary responsibility for comparison with the NAAQS be located by Executive Order 12866, and we implementation of the NAAQS. Finally, within urbanized areas with a minimum believe that the environmental health as noted above in section E on UMRA, population of 100,000. Tribal risk addressed by this action may have this rule does not impose significant commenters pointed out that this would a disproportionate effect on children. costs on State, local, or Tribal virtually exclude Tribes from applying The NAAQS constitute uniform, governments or the private sector. Thus, the PM10–2.5 standards because very few national standards for PM pollution; Executive Order 13132 does not apply Tribal sites would meet this criterion. these standards are designed to protect to this rule. Tribes stated that EPA had violated its public health with an adequate margin Trust Responsibility to Tribes in three of safety, as required by CAA section F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation ways. First, the commenters claimed 109. However, the protection offered by and Coordination With Indian Tribal these standards may be especially Governments that EPA had failed to engage in meaningful consultation with Tribal important for children because children, Executive Order 13175, entitled leaders regarding the proposed qualified along with other sensitive population ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with subgroups such as the elderly and PM10–2.5 indicator and other aspects of Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR the proposed rule. Second, commenters people with existing heart or lung 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA claimed that the proposed 24-hour disease, are potentially susceptible to to develop an accountable process to health effects resulting from PM PM10–2.5 standard would have serious ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by adverse impacts on the existing level of exposure. Because children are tribal officials in the development of health protection for Tribes. Third, considered a potentially susceptible regulatory policies that have tribal Tribal commenters objected to the population, we have carefully evaluated implications.’’ This rule concerns the proposed exclusion of ‘‘agricultural the environmental health effects of establishment of PM NAAQS. The sources, mining sources, and other exposure to PM pollution among Tribal Authority Rule gives Tribes the similar sources of crustal material’’ from children. These effects and the size of opportunity to develop and implement the population affected are summarized the proposed PM indicator; like CAA programs such as the PM NAAQS, 10–2.5 in section 9.2.4 of the Criteria Document States, Tribes felt this provision was but it leaves to the discretion of the and section 3.5 of the Staff Paper, and illegal and Tribal commenters argued Tribe whether to develop these the results of our evaluation of the effect this violated Tribal sovereignty. The programs and which programs, or of PM pollution on children are EPA notes that its final decision to appropriate elements of a program, they discussed in sections II and III of this retain the current 24-hour PM will adopt. 10 preamble. Although EPA determined at the time standard, for the reasons noted above in of proposal that Executive Order 13175 Section III, without any qualifications or H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That did not apply to this rule, EPA changes to the monitor siting Significantly Affect Energy Supply, contacted tribal environmental requirements, effectively resolves the Distribution or Use professionals during the development of concerns raised by these commenters. This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy this rule. The EPA staff participated in EPA has determined that this final action’’ as defined in Executive Order the regularly scheduled Tribal Air call rule does not have Tribal implications, 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations sponsored by the National Tribal Air as specified in Executive Order 13175. That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Association during the summer and fall It does not have a substantial direct Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May of 2005 as the proposal was under effect on one or more Indian Tribes, 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to development, as well as the call in the since Tribes are not obligated to adopt have a significant adverse effect on the spring of 2006 during the public or implement any NAAQS. Thus, supply, distribution, or use of energy. comment period on the proposed rule. Executive Order 13175 does not apply The purpose of this rule is to establish The EPA sent individual letters to all to this rule. NAAQS for PM. The rule does not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61219

prescribe specific pollution control and environmental conditions would be arguing that the exclusive urban focus of strategies by which these ambient required to be sure that monitors the indicator failed to protect large standards will be met. Such strategies certified to purely performance-based segments of the U.S. population will be developed by States on a case- standards actually performed similarly (including Tribes and lower-income by-case basis, and EPA cannot predict in the field, which would in turn rural populations). The EPA believes whether the control options selected by require extensive testing of each that the final decision to retain the States will include regulations on candidate monitor design. Therefore, it current nationally applicable 24-hour energy suppliers, distributors, or users. is not practically possible to fully define PM10 standard adequately addresses the Thus, EPA concludes that this rule is the FRM in performance terms. concerns raised by these commenters, as not likely to have any adverse energy Nevertheless, our approach in the past discussed above in section III. effects and does not constitute a has resulted in multiple brands of Further, some commenters were significant energy action as defined in monitors qualifying as FRM for PM, and concerned that the proposed PM2.5 Executive Order 13211. we expect this to continue. Also, the standards would permit the FRM described in this final rule and the I. National Technology Transfer continuation of disproportionate equivalency criteria contained in the Advancement Act adverse health effects on minority and revisions to 40 CFR part 53 do low-income populations because those Section 12(d) of the National constitute performance based criteria for populations are concentrated in urban Technology Transfer Advancement Act the instruments that will actually be areas where exposures are higher and of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, deployed for monitoring PM10–2.5. are generally more susceptible (given Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) Therefore, for most of the measurements lack of access to health care and directs EPA to use voluntary consensus that will be made and most of the prevalence of chronic conditions such standards in its regulatory activities measurement systems that make them, as asthma). The EPA believes that the unless to do so would be inconsistent EPA is not precluding the use of any implications of the newly strengthened with applicable law or otherwise method, whether it constitutes a suite of PM2.5 standards will reduce impractical. Voluntary consensus voluntary consensus standard or not, as health risks precisely in the areas standards are technical standards (e.g., long as it meets the specified subject to the highest fine particle materials specifications, test methods, performance criteria. concentrations. Furthermore, the PM2.5 sampling procedures, and business NAAQS established in today’s final rule practices) that are developed or adopted J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental are nationally uniform standards which by voluntary consensus standards in the Administrator’s judgment protect bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations public health with an adequate margin provide Congress, through OMB, of safety. In making this determination, explanations when the Agency decides Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal the Administrator expressly considered not to use available and applicable Actions to Address Environmental the available information regarding voluntary consensus standards. Justice in Minority Populations and health effects among vulnerable and The final rule establishes Low-Income Populations,’’ requires susceptible populations, such as those requirements for environmental Federal agencies to consider the impact with preexisting conditions. Thus it monitoring and measurement. of programs, policies, and activities on remains EPA’s conclusion that this rule Specifically, it establishes the FRM for minority populations and low-income is not expected to have disproportionate PM10–2.5 measurement (and slightly populations. According to EPA negative impacts on minority or low amends the FRM for PM2.5). The FRM is guidance, agencies are to assess whether income populations. the benchmark against which all minority or low-income populations ambient monitoring methods are face a risk or a rate of exposure to K. Congressional Review Act measured. While the FRM is not a hazards that are significant and that The Congressional Review Act, 5 voluntary consensus standard, the ‘‘appreciably exceeds or is likely to U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small equivalency criteria established in 40 appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the Business Regulatory Enforcement CFR part 53 do allow for the utilization general population or to the appropriate Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides of voluntary consensus standards if they comparison group’’ (EPA, 1998). that before a rule may take effect, the meet the specified performance criteria. In accordance with Executive Order agency promulgating the rule must To the extent feasible, EPA employs a 12898, the Agency has considered submit a rule report, which includes a Performance-Based Measurement whether these decisions may have copy of the rule, to each House of the System (PBMS), which does not require disproportionate negative impacts on the use of specific, prescribed analytic minority or low-income populations. Congress and to the Comptroller General methods. The PBMS is defined as a set This rule establishes uniform, national of the United States. EPA submitted a of processes wherein the data quality ambient air quality standards for report containing this rule and other needs, mandates or limitations of a particulate matter, and is not expected required information to the U.S. Senate, program or project are specified, and to have disproportionate negative the U.S. House of Representatives, and serve as criteria for selecting appropriate impacts on minority or low income the Comptroller General of the United methods to meet those needs in a cost- populations. The EPA notes that some States prior to publication of the rule in effective manner. It is intended to be commenters expressed concerns that the Federal Register. A major rule more flexible and cost effective for the EPA had failed to adequately assess the cannot take effect until 60 days after it regulated community; it is also intended environmental justice implications of its is published in the Federal Register. to encourage innovation in analytical proposed decisions, and that the This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined technology and improved data quality. proposed revisions to both the fine by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be Though the FRM requirements utilize particle and coarse particle standards effective December 18, 2006. performance standards for some aspects would violate the principles of References of monitor design, multiple performance environmental justice. In particular, Abt Associates Inc. (2005). Particulate Matter standards defined for many numerous commenters criticized the Health Risk Assessment for Selected combinations of PM type, concentration, proposed qualified PM10–2.5 indicator, Urban Areas. Final Report. Bethesda,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61220 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

MD. Prepared for the Office of Air submitted by Robert Kappelmann. Assessment to the Honorable Stephen L. Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–1581. April Johnson. Docket No.OAR–2001–0017– Environmental Protection Agency, 16, 2006. 1945. April 17, 2006. Contract No. 68–D–03–002. EPA 452/R– American Electric Power (2006). Letter from Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment 05–007A. Available: http:// John M. McManus, Vice President (2006). Letter from Brent Newell, Staff www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/ Environmental Services, American Attorney, Center on Race, Poverty & the s_pm_cr_td.html. Electric Power Service Corporation, re: Environment, on behalf of multiple Alaska Department of Environmental National Ambient Air Quality Standards, community-based organizations re: Conservation. (2006) Letter from Tom Proposed Rule. Docket No. OAR–2001– Comments on Proposed Particulate Chapple, Air Quality Director to Lydia 7–2086. April 17, 2006. Matter National Ambient Air Quality Wegman, Director, Health and American Thoracic Society; American Standards and Monitoring Protocol. Environmental Impacts Division, EPA College of Cardiology; American Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–1902. April OAPQS. April 17, 2006. Academy of Pediatrics; American 17, 2006. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.. Association of Cardiovascular and Chang, C.C.; Lee, I.M.; Tsai, S.S.; Yang, C.Y. Comments of the Alliance of Automobile Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National (2006) Correlation of asian dust storm Manufacturers before the Environmental Association for the Medical Direction of events with daily clinic visits for allergic Protection Agency National Ambient Air Respiratory Care; American College of rhinitis in Taipei, Taiwan. J. Toxicol. Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Chest Physicians (2006). Letter to Environ. Health A. 69(3) 229–235. Proposed Rule. Docket No. OAR–2001– Administrator Johnson. Docket No. Chen, L.; Yang, W.; Jennison, B. L.; Omaye, 0017–1828. April 17, 2006. OAR–2001–0017–1910. April 17, 2006. S. T. (2000). Air particulate pollution American Association on Mental Retardation, Annapolis Center (2006). Letter from Harold and hospital admissions for chronic American Cancer Society; American M. Koenig, MD, Chair and President, obstructive pulmonary disease in Reno, College of Nurse Mid-wives; American Annapolis Center for Science-Based Nevada. Inhalation Toxicol. 12:281–298. Diabetes Association; American Heart Public Policy, to Administrator Johnson Chen, Y.S.; Sheen, P.; Chen, E.; Liu, Y.; Wu, Association; American Lung Association; regarding Comments on the Health T.; Yang, C. (2004) Effects pf Asian dust American Nurses Association; American Effects Of EPA’s Particulate Matter Air storm events on daily mortality in Public Health Association; Asthma and Quality Standard Proposal. Docket No. Taipai, Taiwan. Environ. Res. 95: 151– Allergy Foundation of America; Center OAR–2001–0017–1435. April 13, 2006. 155. for Children’s Health and the Avol, E.L.; Gauderman, W.J., Tan, S.M.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Q.; Krewski, D.; Burnett, Environment, Mount Sinai School of London, S.J.; Peters, J.M.(2001). R.T.; Shi, Y.; McGrail, K. (2005) The Medicine; Children’s Environmental Respiratory effects of relocating to areas effect of coarse ambient particulate Health Network; Easter Seals; Health of differing air pollution levels. Am. J. matter on first, second, and overall Care without Harm; Institute for Respir. Crit. Care Med. 164: 2067–2072. hospital admissions for respiratory Children’s Environmental Health; Becker, S.; Mundandhara, S.; Devlin, R.B.; disease among the elderly. Inh. Toxicol. National Latina Institute for Madden, M. (2005) Regulation of 17: 649–655. Reproductive Health; National Research cytokine production in human alveolar Chen, Y.S.; Yang, C.Y. (2005) Effects of Asian Center for Women & Families; macrophages and airway epithelial cells dust storm events on daily hospital Physicians for Social Responsibility; in response to ambient air pollution admissions for cardiovascular disease in Science and Environmental Health particles: further mechanistic studies. Taipei, Taiwan. Toxicol. Env. Health A. Network; The Arc of the United States; Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 207(Suppl 2): 68: 1457–64. The Learning Disabilities Association of 269–275. Children’s Health Protection Advisory America; Trust for America’s Health Brunekreef, B., Janssen, N.A.H.; de Hartog, J.; Committee (2005). Letter from Melanie (2006). Letter to EPA Administrator Harssema, H.; Knape, M.; van Vliet, P. Marty, Chair, Children’s Health Stephen L. Johnson re: Proposed (1997). Air pollution from truck traffic Protection Advisory Committee, to National Ambient Air Quality Standards and lung function in children living near Administrator Johnson re: Particulate for Particulate Matter. Docket No. OAR– roadways. Epidemiology 8:298–303. Matter National Ambient Air Quality 2001–0017–1557. April 17, 2006. Brunekreef, B. and Forsberg, B. (2005). Standard. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017– American Farm Bureau Federation (2006). Epidemiological evidence of effects of 0591. August 8, 2005. Letter from Mark Maslyn, Executive coarse airborne particles on health. Eur. Children’s Health Protection Advisory Director, Public Policy, AFBF on Respir. J. 26: 309–318. Committee (2006). Letter from Melanie National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Buist, A.S.; Johnson, L.R.; Vollmer, W.M.; Marty, Chair, Children’s Health Proposed Rule and Revisions to Ambient Sexton, G.J.; Kanarek, P.H. (1983). Acute Protection Advisory Committee, to Air Monitoring Regulations, Proposed effects of volcanic ash from Mount Saint Administrator Johnson re: Proposed Rule, Amendments. Docket No. OAR– Helens on lung function in children. Am. NAAQS for Particulate Matter. Docket 2001–0017–2398. April 17, 2006. Rev. Respir. Dis. 127: 714–719. No. OAR–2001–0017–0815. American Lung Association, Appalachian Burnett, R. T.; Cakmak, S.; Brook, J. R.; Chock, D. P.; Winkler, S.; Chen, C. (2000). A Mountain Club, Earthjustice, Krewski, D. (1997). The role of study of the association between daily Environmental Defense, National Parks particulate size and chemistry in the mortality and ambient air pollutant Conservation Association, Natural association between summertime concentrations in Pittsburgh, Resources Defense Council (2006). ambient air pollution and hospitalization Pennsylvania. J. Air Waste Manage. Comments on EPA’s Proposed Revisions for cardiorespiratory diseases. Environ. Assoc. 50: 1481–1500. to the National Ambient Air Quality Health Perspect. 105:614–620. Choudhury, A. H.; Gordian, M. E.; Morris, S. Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket Burnett, R. T.; Goldberg, M. S. (2003). Size- S. (1997) Associations between No. OAR–2001–0017–1890. April 17, fractionated particulate mass and daily respiratory illness and PM10 air 2006. mortality in eight Canadian cities. In: pollution. Arch. Environ. Health 52:113– American Medical Association (2006). Letter Revised analyses of time-series studies of 117. from Michael D. Maves, Executive Vice air pollution and health. Special report. Clyde, M.A.; Guttorp, P.; Sullivan, E. (2000) President, CEO, American Medical Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. Effects of ambient fine and coarse Association to EPA re: National Ambient 85–90. Available: http:// particles on mortality in Phoenix, Air Quality Standards for Particulate www.healtheffects.org/news.htm. May Arizona. Seattle, WA: University of Matter. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017– 16, 2003. Washington, National Research Center 1619. April 17, 2006. California Air Resources Board (2006). Letter for Statistics and the Environment; American Public Power Association (2006). from Cather Witherspoon, Executive NRCSE technical report series, NRCSE- Comments from American Public Power Officer Air Resources Board and Joan TRS no. 040. Available: http:// Association on National Ambient Air Denton, Director, Office of www.nrcse.washington.edu/research/ Quality Standards, Proposed Rule; Environmental Health Hazard reports.html.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61221

Coarse Particle Coalition (2006). Comments Matter. National Center for southern California children: results of the Coarse Particle Coalition Environmental Assessment, Office of from a second cohort. Am. J. Respir. Crit. submitted by Kurt E. Blase and J. Craig Research and Development, U.S. Care Med. 166: 76–84. Potter, O’Connor and Hannan, LLP. In Environmental Protection Agency, Gordian, M. E.; O¨ zkaynak, H.; Xue, J.; Morris, the Matter of: National Ambient Air Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; report S. S.; Spengler, J. D. (1996) Particulate air Quality Standards, Proposed Rule Docket no. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/ pollution and respiratory disease in No. OAR–2001–0017–1624. April 17, P–99/002bF. October 2004. Anchorage, Alaska. Environ. Health 2006. Environmental Protection Agency (2004b) Perspect. 104: 290–297 Delaware Department of Natural Resources & The Particle Pollution Report: Current Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Environmental Control (2006). Letter Understanding of Air Quality and District (2006). Letter from Theodore D. from Ali Mirzakhalili, Administrator Emissions through 2003. Emissions, Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, regarding: Comments on the proposed Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution PM NAAQS and monitoring regulations Office of Air Quality Planning and Control District, to Mr. Stephen L. 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, 58. Docket No. Standards, U.S. Environmental Johnson, EPA Administrator. Comments OAR–2001–0017–1799. April 13, 2006. Protection Agency. Research Triangle on Proposed Rule: National Ambient Air Delfino, R. J.; Murphy-Moulton, A. M.; Park, NC 27711; report no. EPA/454–R– Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Burnett, R. T.; Brook, J. R.; Becklake, M. 04–002. December 2004. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–0806. R. (1997). Effects of air pollution on Environmental Protection Agency (2005). February 10, 2006. emergency room visits for respiratory Review of the National Ambient Air Health Effects Institute (2003). Commentary illnesses in Montreal, Quebec. Am. J. Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: on revised analyses of selected studies. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 155: 568–576. Policy Assessment of Scientific and In: Revised analyses of time-series Delfino, R.J.; Murphy-Moulton, A.M.; Technical Information, OAQPS Staff studies of air pollution and health. Becklake, M.R. (1998). Emergency Room Paper. Research Triangle Park, NC Special report. Boston, MA: Health Visits for Respiratory Illnesses among the 27711: Office of Air Quality Planning Effects Institute; pp. 255–290. Available: Elderly in Montreal: Association with and Standards; report no. EPA EPA–452/ http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ Low Level Ozone Exposure. Environ R–05–005a. December 2005. TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004. Res., Sect. A 76: 67–77. Environmental Protection Agency (2006a). Health Effects Institute (2005) HEI Strategic Electric Power Research Institute (2006). Provisional Assessment of Recent Plan for Understanding Effects of Air Comments on the Proposed Rule for Studies on Health Effects of Particulate Pollution 2005–2010. April 2005. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Matter Exposure. National Center for Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/ research.htm. for Particulate Matter submitted by Environmental Assessment, Office of Hefflin, B. J.; Jalaludin, B.; McClure, E.; Cobb, Ronald E. Wyzga and Annette Rohr, Research and Development, U.S. N.; Johnson, C. A.; Jecha, L.; Etzel, R. A. Electric Power Research Institute. Docket Environmental Protection Agency, (1994). Surveillance for dust storms and No. OAR–2001–0017–1538. April 17, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; report respiratory diseases in Washington State, 2006. no. EPA/600/R–06/063. July 2006. 1991. Arch. Environ. Health 49: 170–174. Environmental Protection Agency (2006b). Eleftheriadis, K.; Colbeck, I. (2001). Coarse Henderson, R. (2005a). EPA’s Review of the atmospheric aerosol: size distributions of Review of the Process for Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards trace elements. Atmos. Environ. 35(31): National Ambient Air Quality Standards. for Particulate Matter (Second Draft PM 5321–5330. Report prepared by the NAAQS Process Staff Paper, January 2005): A review by Engine Manufacturers Association (2006). Review Workgroup for the Assistant the Particulate Matter Review Panel of Comments of the Engine Manufacturers Administrators of the Offices of Air and the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Association on National Ambient Air Radiation and Research and Committee. June 6, 2005. Available: Quality Standards for Particulate Matter Development, U.S. Environmental http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-05– Proposed Rule. Docket No. OAR–2001– Protection Agency. Available: http:// 007.pdf. 0017–???. April 17, 2006. www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/. March 2006. Henderson, R. (2005b). Clean Air Scientific Environmental Protection Agency (1982). Fairley, D. (2003). Mortality and air pollution Advisory Committee (CASAC) Review of Review of the National Ambient Air for Santa Clara County, California, 1989– the EPA Staff Recommendations Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: 1996. In: Revised analyses of time-series Concerning a Potential Thoracic Coarse Assessment of Scientific and Technical studies of air pollution and health. PM Standard in the Review of the Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Special report. Boston, MA: Health National Ambient Air Quality Standards Research Triangle Park, NC 27711: Office Effects Institute; pp. 97–106. Available: for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Air Quality Planning and Standards; http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ of Scientific and Technical Information report no. EPA–450/5–82–001. TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004. (Final PM OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA–452/ Environmental Protection Agency (1996a). Forbes, L.; Jarvis, D.; Potts, J.; Baxter, P.J. R–05–005). September 15, 2005. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate (2003) Volcanic ash and respiratory Available: http://www.epa.gov/sab/ Matter. Research Triangle Park, NC: symptoms in children on the island of panels/casacpmpanel.html. National Center for Environmental Montserrat, British West Indies. Occup. Henderson, R. (2005c). Letter to the EPA Assessment-RTP Office; report no. EPA/ Env. Med. 60: 207–211. Administrator from the Clean Air 600/P–95/001aF–cF. 3v. Garshick, E.; Laden, F.; Har, J.E.; Caron, A. Scientific Advisory Committee, dated Environmental Protection Agency (1996b). (2003). Residence near a major road and November 30, 2005, regarding peer Review of the National Ambient Air respiratory symptoms in U.S. veterans. review of the proposed Federal reference Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Epidemiology. 14: 728–736. method for PM10–2.5. Available: http:// Policy Assessment of Scientific and Gauderman, W. J.; McConnell, R.; Gilliland, www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac_06001.pdf. Technical Information, OAQPS Staff F.; London, S.; Thomas, D.; Avol, E.; Henderson, R. (2006) Letter from Dr. Rogene Paper. Research Triangle Park, NC Vora, H.; Berhane, K.; Rappaport, E. B.; Henderson, Chair, Clean Air Scientific 27711: Office of Air Quality Planning Lurmann, F.; Margolis, H. G.; Peters, J. Advisory Commitee to the Honorable and Standards; report no. EPA–452/R– (2000). Association between air pollution Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. 96–013. and lung function growth in southern EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Environmental Protection Agency (1999). California children. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Committee Recommendations Guideline on Data Handling Conventions Care Med. 162: 1383–1390. Concerning the Proposed National for the PM NAAQS; Office of Air Quality Gauderman, W. J.; Gilliland, G. F.; Vora, H.; Ambient Air Quality Standards for Planning and Standards, Research Avol, E.; Stram, D.; McConnell, R.; Particulate Matter. March 21, 2006. Triangle Park, NC 27711; report no. EPA/ Thomas, D.; Lurmann, F.; Margolis, H. Available: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ 454/R–99–008. G.; Rappaport, E. B.; Berhane, K.; Peters, casac-ltr–06–002.pdf. Environmental Protection Agency (2004a). J. M. (2002). Association between air Hopke, P. (2002). Letter from Dr. Phil Hopke, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate pollution and lung function growth in Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61222 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Committee (CASAC) to Honorable crossover and time-series analyses. Env. and Sharon Hampson, Chair, Tobacco Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, Health Perspect. 110: 575–581. Control Committee to Administrator U.S. EPA. Final advisory review report Lin, M.; Stieb, D.M.; Chen, Y. (2005). Coarse Johnson. Strengthen the Air Pollution by the CASAC Particulate Matter Review particulate matter and hospitalization for Standard. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017– Panel on the proposed particulate matter respiratory infections in children 1896. April 11, 2006. risk assessment. May 23, 2002. younger than 15 years in Toronto: A National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2006). Available: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ case-crossover analysis. Pediatrics 116: Comments on EPA PM NAAQS revisions casacadv02002.pdf. 235–240. proposal submitted by Tamara McCann Horvath H.; Kasahara, M.; Pesava, P. (1996). Lipfert, F. W.; Morris, S. C.; Wyzga, R. E. Thies, Director, Environmental Issues, The size distribution and composition of (2000). Daily mortality in the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. the atmospheric aerosol at a rural and Philadelphia metropolitan area and size- Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–2313. April nearby urban location. J. Aerosol Sci. classified particulate matter. J. Air Waste 17, 2006. 27(3): 417–435. Manage. Assoc. 50:1501–1513. National Mining Association (2006). Letter Ito, K. (2003). Associations of particulate Lippmann, M.; Ito, K.; Nadas, A.; Burnett, R. from Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Sr. Vice matter components with daily mortality T. (2000). Association of particulate President and General Counsel, Tawny and morbidity in Detroit, Michigan. In: matter components with daily mortality Bridgeford, Assistant General Counsel, Revised analyses of time-series studies of and morbidity in urban populations. and A. Todd Johnston, Director, Air air pollution and health. Special report. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute; Quality, re: National Ambient Air Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. research report 95. Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 143–156. Available: http:// Lipsett, M.; Hurley, S.; Ostro, B. (1997) Air Proposed Rule, and Revisions to www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ pollution and emergency room visits for Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, TimeSeries.pdf. May 12, 2004. asthma in Santa Clara County, California. Proposed Rule. OAR–2001–0017–1545. Kleinman, M.T.; Bhalla, D.K.; Mautz, W.J.; Env. Health Perspect. 105: 216–222. April 17, 2006. Phalen, R.F. (1995) Cellular and Mar, T.F.; Norris, G.A.; Koenig, J.Q.; Larson, National Research Council (2004). Research immunologic injury with PM–10 T.V. (2000) Associations between air Priorities for Airbourne Particulate inhalation. Inhalation Toxicol. 7:589– pollution and mortality in Phoenix, Matter: IV. Continuing Research 602. 1995–1997. Env. Health Perspect. 108(4): Progress. Washington, D.C.: National Klemm, R. J.; Mason, R. (2003). Replication 347–353. Academies Press. of reanalysis of Harvard Six-City Mar, T. F.; Norris, G. A.; Larson, T. V.; Neas, L. M.; Dockery, D. W.; Koutrakis, P.; mortality study. In: Revised analyses of Wilson, W. E.; Koenig, J. Q. (2003). Air Tollerud, D. J.; Speizer, F. E. (1995). The time-series studies of air pollution and pollution and cardiovascular mortality in association of ambient air pollution with health. Special report. Boston, MA: Phoenix, 1995–1997. In: Revised twice daily peak expiratory flow rate Health Effects Institute; pp. 165–172. analyses of time-series studies of air measurements in children. Am. J. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/ pollution and health. Special report. Epidemiol. 141: 111–122. Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. May 12, 2004. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. Neas, L. M.; Dockery, D. W.; Burge, H.; Kramer, U.; Koch, T.; Ranft, U.; Ring, J.; 177–182. Available: http:// Koutrakis, P.; Speizer, F. E. (1996). Behrendt, H. (2000). Traffic related air www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ Fungus spores, air pollutants, and other pollution is associated with atopy in TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004. determinants of peak expiratory flow rate children living in urban areas. Maricopa County Air Quality Department in children. Am. J. Epidemiol. 143: 797– Epidemiology 11: 64–70. (2006). Letter from Robert J. Kard, 807. Krewski, D.; Burnett, R. T.; Goldberg, M. S.; Director, Maricopa County Air Quality Neas, L. M.; Dockery, D. W.; Koutrakis, P.; Hoover, K.; Siemiatycki, J.; Jerrett, M.; Department, Phoenix, AZ. Comments of Speizer, F. E. (1999). Fine particles and Abrahamowicz, M.; White, W. H. (2000). Maricopa County (AZ) regarding peak flow in children: acidity versus Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities proposed national ambient air quality mass. Epidemiology 10:550–553. Study and the American Cancer Society standards for particulate matter and NESCAUM (2006). Letter from Arthur N. Study of particulate air pollution and proposed revisions to the ambient air Marin, Executive Director, Northeast mortality. A special report of the monitoring regulations. Docket No. States for Coordinated Air Use Institute’s particle epidemiology OAR–2001–0017–1723. April, 17, 2006. Management. Letter to Stephen L. reanalysis project. Cambridge, MA: McClellan, R. O. (2006). Letter from Roger O. Johnson re: Proposed Rule ‘‘ National Health Effects Institute. McClellan to Administrator Stephen Ambient Air Quality Standards for Labban, R.; Veranth, J.M.; Chow, J.C.; Johnson. Comments on EPA’s proposal: Particulate Matter. Docker No. OAR– Englebrecht, J.; Watson, J. (2004). Size national ambient air quality standards 2001–0017–1468. April 11. 2006. and geographical variation in PM1, for particulate matter: proposed rule. New Mexico Air Quality Bureau (2006). PM2.5, and PM10 source profiles from Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–1590. April Letter from Mary Uhl, Chief, Air Quality soils in the western United States. Water, 17, 2006. Bureau, State of New Mexico, Air, and Soil Pollution. 157:13–21. McDonald, J.D.; Eide, I.; Seagrave, J.; Environment Department. National Labban, R., Veranth, J.M.; Watson, J.G.; Zielinska, B.; Whitney, K.; Lawson D.R.; Ambient Air Quality Standards for Chow, J.C. (2006). Feasibility of soil dust Mauderly, J.L. (2004). Relationship Particulate Matter, Proposed Rule, and source apportionment using pyrolysis- between composition and toxicity of Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring gas chromatography analysis of organic motor vehicle emission samples. Env. Regulations, Proposed Rule. OAR–2001– compounds on filter samples. J. Air & Health Perspect. 112: 1527–1538. 0017–1864. April 14, 2006. Waste Manage. Assoc. 56: 1230–1242. Miller, F.J.; Gardner, D.E.; Graham, J.A.; Lee, Offenberg, J.H.; Baker, J.E. (2000). Aerosol Laden, F.; Neas, L.M.; Dockery, D.W.; R.E.; Wilson, W.E.; Bachmann, J.D. size distributions of elemental and Schwartz, J. (2000). Association of fine (1979) Size considerations for organic carbon in urban and over-water particulate matter from different sources establishing a standard for inhalable samples. Atmos. Enviro. 34: 1509–1517. with daily mortality in six U.S. cities. particles. J Air Pollution Control Assoc. Ostro, B. D.; Broadwin, R.; Lipsett, M. J. Env. Health Perspect. 108: 941–947. 29:610–615. (2000). Coarse and fine particles and Li, S., Lundgren, D.A. (1997). Effect of Clean Monn, C.; Becker, S. (1999). Cytotoxicity and daily mortality in the Coachella Valley, Air Core Geometry on Fine Particle induction of proinflammatory cytokines CA: a follow-up study. J. Exposure Anal. Contamination and Calibration of a from human monocytes exposed to fine Environ. Epidemiol. 10:412–419. Virtual Impactor. Aerosol Sci. Technol. (PM2.5) and coarse particles (PM10–2.5) in Ostro, B. D.; Broadwin, R.; Lipsett, M. J. 27: 625–635. outdoor and indoor air. Toxicol. Appl. (2003). Coarse particles and daily Lin, M.; Chen, Y.; Burnett, R.T.; Villeneuve, Pharmacol. 155: 245–252. mortality in Coachella Valley, California. P.J.; Krewski, D. (2002). The influence of National Association of Local Boards of In: Revised analyses of time-series ambient coarse particulate matter on Health (2006). Letter from Lauren studies of air pollution and health. asthma hospitalization in children: case- Dimitrov, Project Director, Tobacco Use, Special report. Boston, MA: Health

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61223

Effects Institute; pp. 199–204. Available: Ryan, P.H.; LeMasters, G.; Biagini, J.; pollution particulates are associated with http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ Bernstein, D.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Shukla, insoluble components of coarse material, TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004. R.; Wilson, K.; Villareal, M.; Burkle, J.; including particulate endotoxin. Toxicol. Pearson, R.L.; Wachtel, J.; Ebi, K.L. (2000) Lockey, J. (2005) Is it traffic type, Appl. Pharmacol. 171: 20–26. Distance-weighted traffic density in volume, or distance? Wheezing in infants STAPPA/ALAPCO (2006). Letter from Eddie proximity to a home is a risk factor for living near truck and bus traffic. J. Terrill, STAPPA President and John A. leukemia and other childhood cancers. J Allergy Clin. Immunol. 116: 279–284. Paul, ALAPCO President. OAR–2001– Air Wast Manage. Assoc. 50: 175–180. Sarnat, J.A.; Schwartz, J.; Catalano, P.J.; Suh, 0017–1620. April 17, 2006. Peters, A.; Liu, E.; Verrier, R. L.; Schwartz, H.H. (2001) Gaseous pollutants in Steerenberg, P. A.; Withagen, C. E.; Dormans, J.; Gold, D. R.; Mittleman, M.; Baliff, J.; particulate matter epidemiology J. A. M. A.; Van Dalen, W. J.; Van Oh, J. A.; Allen, G.; Monahan, K.; confounders or surrogates? Env. Health Loveren, H.; Casee, F. R. (2003). Dockery, D. W. (2000). Air pollution and Perspec. 109:1053–1061. Adjuvant activity of various diesel incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Schmidt. M; Frank, N.; Mintz, D.; Rao, T.; exhaust and ambient particle in two Epidemiology 11:11–17. McCluney, L. (2005). Analyses of allergic models. J. Toxicol. Environ. Peters, A.; Dockery, D. W.; Muller, J. E.; particulate matter (PM) data for the PM Health A 66: 1421–1439. Mittleman, M. A. (2001). Increased NAAQS review. Memorandum to PM Steerenberg, P.A.; van Amelsvoort, L.; Lovik, particulate air pollution and the NAAQS review docket EPA–HQ–OAR– M.; Hetland, R.B.; Alberg, T.; Halatek, T.; triggering of myocardial infarction. 2001–0017. June 30, 2005. Bloemen, H.J.T.; Rydzynski, K.; Swaen, Circulation 103:2810–2815. Schwartz, J. (1997). Air pollution and G.; Schwarze, P.; Dybing, E.; Cassee, F.R. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and Pittman hospital admissions for cardiovascular (2006). Relation between sources of (2006). Letter from David E. Menoitti and disease in Tucson. Epidemiology 8: 371– particulate air pollution and biological Jeffrey A. Knight, Pillsbury, Winthrop, 377. effect parameters in samples from four Shaw and Pittman on behalf of 19 Schwartz, J. (2003). Daily deaths associated European cities: An exploratory study. industry and business associations re: with air pollution in six U.S. cities and Inh. Tox. 18: 333–346. Comments on EPA’s Proposed ‘‘National short-term mortality displacement in Stieb, D. M.; Beveridge, R. C.; Brook, J. R.; Ambient Air Quality Standards for Boston. In: Revised analyses of time- Smith-Doiron, M.; Burnett, R. T.; Dales, Particulate Matter. Docket No. OAR– series studies of air pollution and health. R. E.; Beaulieu, S.; Judek, S.; Mamedov, 2001–0017–1523. April 17, 2006. Special report. Boston, MA: Health A. (2000). Air pollution, aeroallergens Pope, C. A., III. (1989) Respiratory disease Effects Institute; pp. 219–226. Available: and cardiorespiratory emergency associated with community air pollution http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ department visits in Saint John, Canada. and a steel mill, Utah Valley. Am. J. TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol.: Public Health 79: 623–628. Schwartz, J. (2005). Letter from Joel 10: 461–477. Pope, C. A., III. (1991) Respiratory hospital Schwartz, Professor of Environmental Thurston, G. D.; Ito, K.; Hayes, C. G.; Bates, admissions associated with PM10 Health and Epidemiology, Harvard D. V.; Lippmann, M. (1994). Respiratory pollution in Utah, Salt Lake, and Cache School of Public Health to Administrator hospital admissions and summertime Valleys. Arch. Environ. Health 46: 90– Johnson on behalf of more than 100 haze air pollution in Toronto, Ontario: 97. environmental health researchers and Consideration of the role of acid Pope, C. A., III; Schwartz, J.; Ransom, M. R. physicians. OAR–2001–0017–0504. aerosols. Environ. Res. 65:271–290. (1992) Daily mortality and PM10 December 5, 2005. Tolbert, P.; Mulholland, J.A.; MacIntosh, pollution in Utah valley. Arch. Environ. Schwartz, J. (2006). Comments from Joel D.L.; Xu, F.; Daniels, D.; Devine, O.J.; Health 47: 211–217. Schwartz, Professor of Environmental Carlin, B.P.; Klein, M.; Dorley, J.; Butler, Pope, C. A., III; Burnett, R. T.; Thun, M. J.; Health, Harvard School of Public Health A.J.; Nordenberg, D.F.; Frumkin, H.; Calle, E. E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K.; on the Proposed Revision of the PM2.5 Ryan, P.B.; White, M.C. (2000). Air Thurston, G. D. (2002). Lung cancer, Standard. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017– quality and pediatric emergency room cardiopulmonary mortality, and long- 1772. April 13, 2006. visits for asthma in Atlanta, Georgia. Am. term exposure to fine particulate air Schwartz, J.; Dockery, D. W.; Neas, L. M. J. of Epidemiol. 151: 798–810. pollution. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287:1132– (1996). Is daily mortality associated Tsai, F. C.; Apte, M. G.; Daisey, J. M. (2000). 1141. specifically with fine particles? J. Air An exploratory analysis of the Raizenne, M.; Neas, L. M.; Damokosh, A. I.; Waste Manage. Assoc. 46:927–939. relationship between mortality and the Dockery, D. W.; Spengler, J. D.; Schwartz, J.; Norris, G.; Larson, T.; Sheppard, chemical composition of airborne Koutrakis, P.; Ware, J. H.; Speizer, F. E. L.; Claiborne, C.; Koenig, J. (1999). particulate matter. Inhalation Toxicol. 12 (1996). Health effects of acid aerosols on Episodes of high coarse particle (suppl.): 121–135. North American children: pulmonary concentrations are not associated with UARG (2006). Comments of the Utility Air function. Environ. Health Perspect. 104: increased mortality. Environ. Health Regulatory Group on National Ambient 506–514. Perspect. 107: 339–342. Air Quality Standards for Particulate Rogge, W.F.; Hildemann, L.M.; Mazurek, Schwartz, J.; Neas, L. M. (2000). Fine Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. OAR– M.A.; Cass, G.R.; Simoneit, B.R.T. (1993). particles are more strongly associated 2001–0017–2214/. April 17, 2006. Sources of fine organic aerosol. 3. Road than coarse particles with acute Utah Department of Environmental Quality dust, tire debris, and organometallic respiratory health effects in (2006). Letter from Richard W. Sprott, brake lining dust: roads as sources and schoolchildren. Epidemiology 11:6–10. Director, Division of Air Quality, State of sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27:1982– Sheppard, L. (2003). Ambient air pollution Utah Department of Environmental 1904. and nonelderly asthma hospital Quality. Comments on EPA’s Proposed Ross, M.; Langstaff, J. (2005). Updated admissions in Seattle, Washington, Rule to Revise the National Ambient Air statistical information on air quality data 1987–1994. In: Revised analyses of time- Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. from epidemiologic studies. series studies of air pollution and health. Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–1610. April Memorandum to PM NAAQS review Special report. Boston, MA: Health 12, 2006. docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0017. Effects Institute; pp. 227–230. Available: Van Vliet, P.; Knape, M.; de Hartog, J.; Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–0261. http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/ Janssen, N.; Harssema, H.; Brunekreef, B. January 31, 2005. TimeSeries.pdf. October 18, 2004. (1997). Motor vehicle exhaust and Ross, M.; Langstaff, J. (2006). Statistical Smith, R. L.; Spitzner, D.; Kim, Y.; Fuentes, chronic respiratory symptoms in information on air quality data from M. (2000). Threshold dependence of children living near freeways. Env. additional epidemiological studies. mortality effects for fine and coarse Research 74: 122–132. Memorandum to PM NAAQS review particles in Phoenix, Arizona. J. Air Veranth, J. (2006). Letter from John M. docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0017. Waste Manage. Assoc. 50: 1367–1379. Veranth, PhD. To Dockets for National Docket ID No. OAR–2001–0017–1409. Soukup, J. M.; Becker, S. (2001). Human Ambient Air Quality Standards for April 5, 2006. alveolar macrophage responses to air Particulate Matter and Revisions to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61224 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations. measured at the actual ambient measured from midnight to midnight (local Docket No. OAR–2001–0017–1600. April temperature and pressure at the time). 14, 2006. monitoring site during the measurement Exceedance means a daily value that is Veranth, J.M.; Reilly, C.A. ; Veranth, M.M.; period. above the level of the 24-hour standard after Moss, T.A.; Langelier, C.R.; Lanza, D.L.; rounding to the nearest 10 µg/m3 (i.e., values Yost, G.S. (2004). Inflammatory § 50.6 [Amended] ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up). cytokines and cell death in BEAS–2B Expected annual value is the number lung cells treated with soil dust, 3. Section 50.6 is amended by approached when the annual values from an lipopolysaccharide, and surface- removing and reserving paragraph (b). increasing number of years are averaged, in modified particles. Toxicol. Sci. 82: 88– 4. A new § 50.13 is added to read as the absence of long-term trends in emissions 96. follows: or meteorological conditions. Veranth, J.M.; Moss, T.A.; Chow, J.C.; Year refers to a calendar year. Labban, R.; Nichols, W.K.; Walton, J.C.; § 50.13 National primary and secondary (c) Although the discussion in this Watson, J.G.; Yost, G.S. (2006). ambient air quality standards for PM2.5. appendix focuses on monitored data, the Correlation of in vitro cytokine responses (a) The national primary and same principles apply to modeling data, with the chemical composition of soil- secondary ambient air quality standards subject to EPA modeling guidelines. derived particulate matter. Env. Health for particulate matter are 15.0 2.0 Attainment Determinations Perspect. 114: 341–349. micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) Weinstock, Lewis (2006). PM10–2.5 Point 2.1 24-Hour Primary and Secondary Source Analysis: Evaluation of Proposed annual arithmetic mean concentration, µ 3 Standards Suitability Test Conditions 1 and 2, and 35 g/m 24-hour average (a) Under 40 CFR 50.6(a) the 24-hour Memorandum to the PM NAAQS Review concentration measured in the ambient primary and secondary standards are attained Docket, OAR–2001–0017. September 21, air as PM2.5 (particles with an when the expected number of exceedances 2006. aerodynamic diameter less than or equal per year at each monitoring site is less than WHO (2005). World Health Organization Air to a nominal 2.5 micrometers) by either: or equal to one. In the simplest case, the Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005. (1) A reference method based on number of expected exceedances at a site is Report on a working group meeting, appendix L of this part and designated determined by recording the number of Bonn Germany, October 18–20, 2005. in accordance with part 53 of this exceedances in each calendar year and then Yang, C.Y.; Tsai, S.S.; Chang, C.C.; Ho, S.C. chapter; or averaging them over the past 3 calendar (2005) Effects of Asian dust storm events (2) An equivalent method designated years. Situations in which 3 years of data are on daily admissions for asthma in in accordance with part 53 of this not available and possible adjustments for Taipei, Taiwan. Inhal. Toxicol. 17(14): unusual events or trends are discussed in 817–821. chapter. (b) The annual primary and secondary sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this appendix. Further, when data for a year are incomplete, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50 PM2.5 standards are met when the it is necessary to compute an estimated Environmental protection, Air annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with number of exceedances for that year by pollution control, Carbon monoxide, adjusting the observed number of Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, appendix N of this part, is less than or exceedances. This procedure, performed by µ 3 Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. equal to 15.0 g/m . calendar quarter, is described in section 3.0 (c) The 24-hour primary and of this appendix. The expected number of Dated: September 21, 2006. secondary PM2.5 standards are met when exceedances is then estimated by averaging Stephen L. Johnson, the 98th percentile 24-hour the individual annual estimates for the past Administrator. concentration, as determined in 3 years. For the reasons set out in the accordance with appendix N of this (b) The comparison with the allowable µ 3 expected exceedance rate of one per year is preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code part, is less than or equal to 35 g/m . 5. Appendix K to Part 50 is revised to made in terms of a number rounded to the of Federal Regulations is amended as nearest tenth (fractional values equal to or follows: read as follows: greater than 0.05 are to be rounded up; e.g., Appendix K to Part 50—Interpretation of the an exceedance rate of 1.05 would be rounded PART 50—NATIONAL PRIMARY AND National Ambient Air Quality Standards for to 1.1, which is the lowest rate for SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Particulate Matter nonattainment). STANDARDS 1.0 General 2.2 Reserved 1. The authority citation for part 50 (a) This appendix explains the 2.3 Data Requirements continues to read as follows: computations necessary for analyzing (a) 40 CFR 58.12 specifies the required Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. particulate matter data to determine attainment of the 24-hour standards specified minimum frequency of sampling for PM10. For the purposes of making comparisons 2. Section 50.3 is revised to read as in 40 CFR 50.6. For the primary and secondary standards, particulate matter is with the particulate matter standards, all data follows: produced by State and Local Air Monitoring measured in the ambient air as PM10 § 50.3 Reference conditions. (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less Stations (SLAMS) and other sites submitted than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers) to EPA in accordance with the part 58 All measurements of air quality that requirements must be used, and a minimum are expressed as mass per unit volume by a reference method based on appendix J of this part and designated in accordance of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10 samples (e.g., micrograms per cubic meter) other with part 53 of this chapter, or by an per quarter are required. than for the particulate matter (PM2.5) equivalent method designated in accordance (b) To demonstrate attainment of the 24- standards contained in §§ 50.7 and with part 53 of this chapter. The required hour standards at a monitoring site, the 50.13 shall be corrected to a reference frequency of measurements is specified in monitor must provide sufficient data to temperature of 25 (deg) C and a part 58 of this chapter. perform the required calculations of sections reference pressure of 760 millimeters of (b) The terms used in this appendix are 3.0 and 4.0 of this appendix. The amount of data required varies with the sampling mercury (1,013.2 millibars). defined as follows: Average refers to the arithmetic mean of frequency, data capture rate and the number Measurements of PM2.5 for purposes of the estimated number of exceedances per of years of record. In all cases, 3 years of comparison to the standards contained year, as per Section 3.1. representative monitoring data that meet the in §§ 50.7 and 50.13 shall be reported Daily value for PM10 refers to the 24-hour 75 percent criterion of the previous based on actual ambient air volume average concentration of PM10 calculated or paragraph should be utilized, if available,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61225

and would suffice. More than 3 years may be 3.0 Computational Equations for the 24- (f) To reduce the potential for considered, if all additional representative Hour Standards overestimating the number of expected years of data meeting the 75 percent criterion exceedances, the correction for missing data 3.1 Estimating Exceedances for a Year are utilized. Data not meeting these criteria will not be required for a calendar quarter in may also suffice to show attainment; (a) If PM10 sampling is scheduled less which the first observed exceedance has however, such exceptions will have to be frequently than every day, or if some occurred if: approved by the appropriate Regional scheduled samples are missed, a PM10 value (1) There was only one exceedance in the Administrator in accordance with EPA will not be available for each day of the year. calendar quarter; (2) Everyday sampling is subsequently guidance. To account for the possible effect of initiated and maintained for 4 calendar (c) There are less stringent data incomplete data, an adjustment must be quarters in accordance with 40 CFR 58.12; requirements for showing that a monitor has made to the data collected at each monitoring and failed an attainment test and thus has location to estimate the number of exceedances in a calendar year. In this (3) Data capture of 75 percent is achieved recorded a violation of the particulate matter during the required period of everyday standards. Although it is generally necessary adjustment, the assumption is made that the fraction of missing values that would have sampling. In addition, if the first exceedance to meet the minimum 75 percent data capture exceeded the standard level is identical to is observed in a calendar quarter in which requirement per quarter to use the the fraction of measured values above this the monitor is already sampling every day, computational equations described in section level. This computation is to be made for all no adjustment for missing data will be made 3.0 of this appendix, this criterion does not sites that are scheduled to monitor to the first exceedance if a 75 percent data apply when less data is sufficient to throughout the entire year and meet the capture rate was achieved in the quarter in unambiguously establish nonattainment. The minimum data requirements of section 2.3 of which it was observed. following examples illustrate how this appendix. Because of possible seasonal Example 1 nonattainment can be demonstrated when a imbalance, this adjustment shall be applied site fails to meet the completeness criteria. a. During a particular calendar quarter, 39 on a quarterly basis. The estimate of the out of a possible 92 samples were recorded, Nonattainment of the 24-hour primary expected number of exceedances for the with one observed exceedance of the 24-hour standards can be established by the observed quarter is equal to the observed number of standard. Using Equation 1, the estimated annual number of exceedances (e.g., four exceedances plus an increment associated number of exceedances for the quarter is: observed exceedances in a single year), or by with the missing data. The following eq = 1 × 92/39 = 2.359 or 2.36. the estimated number of exceedances derived equation must be used for these from the observed number of exceedances computations: b. If the estimated exceedances for the and the required number of scheduled other 3 calendar quarters in the year were samples (e.g., two observed exceedances with Equation 1 2.30, 0.0 and 0.0, then, using Equation 2, the every other day sampling). In both cases, estimated number of exceedances for the year expected annual values must exceed the  N  is 2.36 + 2.30 + 0.0 + 0.0 which equals 4.66 =× q  or 4.7. If no exceedances were observed for levels allowed by the standards. evqq   nq  the 2 previous years, then the expected 2.4 Adjustment for Exceptional Events and number of exceedances is estimated by: (1⁄3) Trends Where: × (4.7 + 0 + 0) = 1.57 or 1.6. Since 1.6 exceeds e = the estimated number of exceedances for (a) An exceptional event is an q the allowable number of expected calendar quarter q; uncontrollable event caused by natural exceedances, this monitoring site would fail vq = the observed number of exceedances for the attainment test. sources of particulate matter or an event that calendar quarter q; is not expected to recur at a given location. Example 2 Nq = the number of days in calendar quarter Inclusion of such a value in the computation q; In this example, everyday sampling was of exceedances or averages could result in nq = the number of days in calendar quarter initiated following the first observed inappropriate estimates of their respective q with PM10 data; and exceedance as required by 40 CFR 58.12. expected annual values. To reduce the effect q = the index for calendar quarter, q = 1, 2, Accordingly, the first observed exceedance of unusual events, more than 3 years of 3 or 4. would not be adjusted for incomplete representative data may be used. sampling. During the next three quarters, 1.2 (b) The estimated number of exceedances Alternatively, other techniques, such as the exceedances were estimated. In this case, the for a calendar quarter must be rounded to the estimated exceedances for the year would be use of statistical models or the use of nearest hundredth (fractional values equal to 1.0 + 1.2 + 0.0 + 0.0 which equals 2.2. If, as historical data could be considered so that or greater than 0.005 must be rounded up). before, no exceedances were observed for the the event may be discounted or weighted (c) The estimated number of exceedances two previous years, then the estimated according to the likelihood that it will recur. for the year, e, is the sum of the estimates for The use of such techniques is subject to the exceedances for the 3-year period would then each calendar quarter. 1 × approval of the appropriate Regional be ( ⁄3) (2.2 + 0.0 + 0.0) = 0.7, and the monitoring site would not fail the attainment Administrator in accordance with EPA Equation 2 guidance. test. (b) In cases where long-term trends in 4 = 3.2 Adjustments for Non-Scheduled emissions and air quality are evident, ee∑ q Sampling Days mathematical techniques should be applied q=1 (a) If a systematic sampling schedule is to account for the trends to ensure that the (d) The estimated number of exceedances used and sampling is performed on days in expected annual values are not for a single year must be rounded to one addition to the days specified by the inappropriately biased by unrepresentative decimal place (fractional values equal to or systematic sampling schedule, e.g., during data. In the simplest case, if 3 years of data greater than 0.05 are to be rounded up). The episodes of high pollution, then an are available under stable emission expected number of exceedances is then adjustment must be made in the equation for conditions, this data should be used. In the estimated by averaging the individual annual the estimation of exceedances. Such an event of a trend or shift in emission patterns, estimates for the most recent 3 or more adjustment is needed to eliminate the bias in either the most recent representative year(s) representative years of data. The expected the estimate of the quarterly and annual could be used or statistical techniques or number of exceedances must be rounded to number of exceedances that would occur if models could be used in conjunction with one decimal place (fractional values equal to the chance of an exceedance is different for previous years of data to adjust for trends. or greater than 0.05 are to be rounded up). scheduled than for non-scheduled days, as The use of less than 3 years of data, and any (e) The adjustment for incomplete data will would be the case with episode sampling. adjustments are subject to the approval of the not be necessary for monitoring or modeling (b) The required adjustment treats the appropriate Regional Administrator in data which constitutes a complete record, systematic sampling schedule as a stratified accordance with EPA guidance. i.e., 365 days per year. sampling plan. If the period from one

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.000 ER17OC06.001 61226 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

scheduled sample until the day preceding the sampling strata were measured. The one 6- standards for fine particulate matter specified next scheduled sample is defined as a day sampling stratum with 6 samples in § 50.7 and § 50.13 of this part are met. The sampling stratum, then there is one stratum recorded 2 exceedances. The remainder of measurement process is considered to be for each scheduled sampling day. An average the quarter with one sample per stratum nondestructive, and the PM2.5 sample number of observed exceedances is recorded zero exceedances. Using Equation 3, obtained can be subjected to subsequent computed for each of these sampling strata. the estimated number of exceedances for the physical or chemical analyses. Quality With nonscheduled sampling days, the quarter is: assessment procedures are provided in part estimated number of exceedances is defined Eq = (92/14) × (2/6 + 0 +. . .+ 0) = 2.19. 58, appendix A of this chapter, and quality as: 6. Appendix L to part 50 is amended assurance guidance are provided in by: references 1, 2, and 3 in section 13.0 of this Equation 3 appendix. a. Revising section 1.1;   mq   * * * * * Nq v j b. Revising the heading of section =   ×   7.3.4 Particle size separator. The sampler eq   ∑   7.3.4 and adding introductory text;  mq  jl=  k j  c. Revising paragraph (a) of section shall be configured with either one of the two alternative particle size separators described Where: 7.3.4.3: in this section 7.3.4. One separator is an e = the estimated number of exceedances for d. Adding section 7.3.4.4; q e. Revising Table L–1 in section impactor-type separator (WINS impactor) the quarter; described in sections 7.3.4.1, 7.3.4.2, and Nq = the number of days in the quarter; 7.4.19; f. Revising section 8.3.6; 7.3.4.3 of this appendix. The alternative mq = the number of strata with samples separator is a cyclone-type separator g. Revising the first sentence in during the quarter; (VSCCTM) described in section 7.3.4.4 of this vj = the number of observed exceedances in section 10.10 and revising section 10.13; appendix. stratum j; and and * * * * * kj = the number of actual samples in stratum h. Revising reference 2 in section 13.0 j. to read as follows: 7.3.4.3 * * * (c) Note that if only one sample value is (a) Composition. Dioctyl sebacate (DOS), recorded in each stratum, then Equation 3 Appendix L to Part 50—Reference Method single-compound diffusion oil. reduces to Equation 1. for the Determination of Fine Particulate * * * * * Matter as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere Example 3 7.3.4.4 The cyclone-type separator is 1.0 Applicability. identified as a BGI VSCCTM Very Sharp Cut A monitoring site samples according to a Cyclone particle size separator specified as systematic sampling schedule of one sample 1.1 This method provides for the part of EPA-designated equivalent method every 6 days, for a total of 15 scheduled measurement of the mass concentration of EQPM–0202–142 (67 FR 15567, April 2, samples in a quarter out of a total of 92 fine particulate matter having an 2002) and as manufactured by BGI possible samples. During one 6-day period, aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to Incorporated, 58 Guinan Street, Waltham, potential episode levels of PM10 were a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) in ambient suspected, so 5 additional samples were air over a 24-hour period for purposes of Massachusetts 20451. taken. One of the regular scheduled samples determining whether the primary and * * * * * was missed, so a total of 19 samples in 14 secondary national ambient air quality 7.4.19 * * *

TABLE L–1 TO APPENDIX L OF PART 50.—SUMMARY OF INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE SAMPLER

Appendix L Availability Format Information to be provided section End of Visual Data Digital reference Anytime 1 Units period 2 display 3 output 4 reading 5

Flow rate, 30-second maximum inter- val ...... 7.4.5.1 ...... ...... * XX.X ...... L/min Flow rate, average for the sample pe- riod ...... 7.4.5.2 ...... * * XX.X ...... L/min Flow rate, CV, for sample period ...... 7.4.5.2 ...... * * XX.X ...... % Flow rate, 5-min. average out of spec. (FLAG 6) ...... 7.4.5.2 ...... On/Off ...... Sample volume, total ...... 7.4.5.2 ...... * XX.X ...... m3 Temperature, ambient, 30-second in- terval ...... 7.4.8 ...... ...... ...... XX.X ...... °C Temperature, ambient, min., max., av- erage for the sample period ...... 7.4.8 ...... * { XX.X ...... °C Baro. pressure, ambient, 30-second interval ...... 7.4.9 ...... ...... ...... XXX ...... mm Hg Baro. pressure, ambient, min., max., average for the sample period ...... 7.4.9 ...... * XXX ...... mm Hg Filter temperature, 30-second interval 7.4.11 ...... ...... ...... XX.X ...... °C Filter temp. differential, 30-second in- terval, out of spec. (FLAG 6) ...... 7.4.11 ...... * On/Off ...... Filter temp., maximum differential from ambient, date, time of occurrence ... 7.4.11 ...... * * * * X.X, YY/ °C, Yr/Mon/ MM/DD Day Hrs. min HH.mm. Date and Time ...... 7.4.12 ...... ...... ...... YY/MM/DD Yr/Mon/Day HH.mm. Hrs. min Sample start and stop time settings .... 7.4.12 ...... YY/MM/DD Yr/Mon/Day HH.mm. Hrs. min Sample period start time ...... 7.4.12 ...... YY/MM/DD Yr/Mon/Day HH.mm. Hrs. min

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.002 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61227

TABLE L–1 TO APPENDIX L OF PART 50.—SUMMARY OF INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE SAMPLER—Continued

Appendix L Availability Format Information to be provided section End of Visual Data Digital reference Anytime 1 Units period 2 display 3 output 4 reading 5

Elapsed sample time ...... 7.4.13 ...... * HH.mm ...... Hrs. min Elapsed sample time, out of spec. (FLAG 6) ...... 7.4.13 ...... On/Off ...... Power interruptions ≤1 min., start time of first 10 ...... 7.4.15.5 ...... * * 1HH.mm, Hrs. min 2HH.mm, etc.. User-entered information, such as sampler and site identification ...... 7.4.16 ...... As entered. Provision of this information is required. * Provision of this information is optional. If information related to the entire sample period is optionally provided prior to the end of the sample period, the value provided should be the value calculated for the portion of the sampler period completed up to the time the information is pro- vided. Indicates that this information is also required to be provided to the Air Quality System (AQS) data bank; see § 58.16 of this chapter. For ambient temperature and barometric pressure, only the average for the sample period must be reported. 1. Information is required to be available to the operator at any time the sampler is operating, whether sampling or not. 2. Information relates to the entire sampler period and must be provided following the end of the sample period until reset manually by the op- erator or automatically by the sampler upon the start of a new sample period. 3. Information shall be available to the operator visually. 4. Information is to be available as digital data at the sampler’s data output port specified in section 7.4.16 of this appendix following the end of the sample period until reset manually by the operator or automatically by the sampler upon the start of a new sample period. 5. Digital readings, both visual and data output, shall have not less than the number of significant digits and resolution specified. 6. Flag warnings may be displayed to the operator by a single flag indicator or each flag may be displayed individually. Only a set (on) flag warning must be indicated; an off (unset) flag may be indicated by the absence of a flag warning. Sampler users should refer to section 10.12 of this appendix regarding the validity of samples for which the sampler provided an associated flag warning.

* * * * * samplers to the conditioning and weighing concentrations and the levels of the PM2.5 8.3.6 The post-sampling conditioning and laboratory. NAAQS are specified in the following weighing shall be completed within 240 * * * * * sections. hours (10 days) after the end of the sample (b) Data resulting from exceptional events, period, unless the filter sample is maintained 13.0 References for example structural fires or high winds, at temperatures below the average ambient * * * * * may be given special consideration. In some temperature during sampling (or 4 °C or 2. Quality Assurance Guidance Document cases, it may be appropriate to exclude these below for average sampling temperatures less 2.12. Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using data in whole or part because they could than 4 °C) during the time between retrieval Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent result in inappropriate values to compare from the sampler and the start of the Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure with the levels of the PM2.5 NAAQS. In other conditioning, in which case the period shall Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, cases, it may be more appropriate to retain not exceed 30 days. Reference 2 in section NC, November 1988 or later edition. the data for comparison with the levels of the 13.0 of this appendix has additional guidance Currently available at: http://www.epa.gov/ PM2.5 NAAQS and then for EPA to formulate on transport of cooled filters. ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. the appropriate regulatory response. * * * * * * * * * * (c) The terms used in this appendix are defined as follows: 10.10 Within 177 hours (7 days, 9 hours) of the end of the sample collection period, 7. Appendix N to part 50 is revised to Annual mean refers to a weighted the filter, while still contained in the filter read as follows: arithmetic mean, based on quarterly means, cassette, shall be carefully removed from the Appendix N to Part 50—Interpretation of the as defined in section 4.4 of this appendix. sampler, following the procedure provided in National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Creditable samples are samples that are the sampler operation or instruction manual given credit for data completeness. They PM2.5 and the quality assurance program, and include valid samples collected on required placed in a protective container. * * * 1. General sampling days and valid ‘‘make-up’’ samples * * * * * (a) This appendix explains the data taken for missed or invalidated samples on 10.13 After retrieval from the sampler, handling conventions and computations required sampling days. the exposed filter containing the PM2.5 necessary for determining when the annual Daily values for PM2.5 refers to the 24-hour sample should be transported to the filter and 24-hour primary and secondary national average concentrations of PM2.5 calculated conditioning environment as soon as ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for (averaged from hourly measurements) or possible, ideally to arrive at the conditioning PM2.5 specified in § 50.7 and § 50.13 of this measured from midnight to midnight (local environment within 24 hours for part are met. PM2.5, defined as particles with standard time) that are used in NAAQS conditioning and subsequent weighing. an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal computations. During the period between filter retrieval to a nominal 2.5 micrometers, is measured in Designated monitors are those monitoring from the sampler and the start of the the ambient air by a Federal reference sites designated in a State or local agency PM conditioning, the filter shall be maintained as method (FRM) based on appendix L of this Monitoring Network Description in cool as practical and continuously protected part, as applicable, and designated in accordance with part 58 of this chapter. from exposure to temperatures over 25 °C to accordance with part 53 of this chapter, or by Design values are the metrics (i.e., protect the integrity of the sample and a Federal equivalent method (FEM) statistics) that are compared to the NAAQS minimize loss of volatile components during designated in accordance with part 53 of this levels to determine compliance, calculated as transport and storage. See section 8.3.6 of chapter, or by an Approved Regional Method shown in section 4 of this appendix: this appendix regarding time limits for (ARM) designated in accordance with part 58 (1) The 3-year average of annual means for completing the post-sampling weighing. See of this chapter. Data handling and a single monitoring site or a group of reference 2 in section 13.0 of this appendix computation procedures to be used in monitoring sites (referred to as the ‘‘annual for additional guidance on transporting filter making comparisons between reported PM2.5 standard design value’’). If spatial averaging

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 61228 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

has been approved by EPA for a group of frequency during a season of expected low average of those valid collocated values shall sites which meet the criteria specified in concentrations (i.e., ‘‘seasonal sampling’’), be used as the daily value. section 2(b) of this appendix and section are subject to the approval of EPA. Annual (e) All daily values in the composite site 4.7.5 of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, then 98th percentile values are to be calculated record are used in annual mean and 98th 3 years of spatially averaged annual means according to equation 6 in section 4.5 of this percentile calculations, however, not all will be averaged to derive the annual appendix when a site operates on a ‘‘seasonal daily values are give credit towards data standard design value for that group of sites sampling’’ schedule. completeness requirements. Only (further referred to as the ‘‘spatially averaged 3.0 Requirements for Data Used for ‘‘creditable’’ samples are given credit for data annual standard design value’’). Otherwise, completeness. Creditable samples include the annual standard design value will Comparisons With the PM2.5 NAAQS and Data Reporting Considerations. valid samples on scheduled sampling days represent the 3-year average of annual means and valid make-up samples. All other types for a single site (further referred to as the (a) Except as otherwise provided in this of daily values are referred to as ‘‘extra’’ ‘‘single site annual standard design value’’). appendix, only valid FRM/FEM/ARM PM2.5 samples. (2) The 3-year average of annual 98th data required to be submitted to EPA’s Air percentile 24-hour average values recorded at Quality System (AQS) shall be used in the 4.0 Comparisons With the PM2.5 NAAQS. each monitoring site (referred to as the ‘‘24- design value calculations. 4.1 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. hour standard design value’’). (b) PM2.5 measurement data (typically Extra samples are non-creditable samples. hourly for continuous instruments and daily (a) The annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met when They are daily values that do not occur on for filter-based instruments) shall be reported the annual standard design value is less than scheduled sampling days and that can not be to AQS in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/ or equal to 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter µ 3 used as make-ups for missed or invalidated m3) to one decimal place, with additional ( g/m ). scheduled samples. Extra samples are used in digits to the right being truncated. (b) For single site comparisons, 3 years of mean calculations and are subject to (c) Block 24-hour averages shall be valid annual means are required to produce selection as a 98th percentile. computed from available hourly PM2.5 a valid annual standard design value. In the Make-up samples are samples taken to concentration data for each corresponding case of spatial averaging, 3 years of valid supplant missed or invalidated required day of the year and the result shall be stored spatially averaged annual means are required scheduled samples. Make-ups can be made in the first, or start, hour (i.e., midnight, hour to produce a valid annual standard design by either the primary or the collocated ‘0’) of the 24-hour period. A 24-hour average value. Designated sites with less than 3 years instruments. Make-up samples are either shall be considered valid if at least 75 of data shall be included in annual spatial taken before the next required sampling day percent (i.e., 18) of the hourly averages for averages for those years that data or exactly one week after the missed (or the 24-hour period are available. In the event completeness requirements are met. A year voided) sampling day. Also, to be considered that less than all 24 hourly averages are meets data completeness requirements when a valid make-up, the sampling must be available (i.e., less than 24, but at least 18), at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling administered according to EPA guidance. the 24-hour average shall be computed on the days for each quarter have valid data. 98th percentile is the daily value out of a basis of the hours available using the number [Quarterly data capture rates (expressed as a year of PM2.5 monitoring data below which of available hours as the divisor (e.g., 19). 24- percentage) are specifically calculated as the 98 percent of all daily values fall. hour periods with seven or more missing number of creditable samples for the quarter Year refers to a calendar year. hours shall be considered valid if, after divided by the number of scheduled samples substituting zero for all missing hourly for the quarter, the result then multiplied by 2.0 Monitoring Considerations. concentrations, the 24-hour average 100 and rounded to the nearest integer.] (a) Section 58.30 of this chapter specifies concentration is greater than the level of the However, years with at least 11 samples in which monitoring locations are eligible for standard. The computed 24-hour average each quarter shall be considered valid, making comparisons with the PM2.5 PM2.5 concentrations shall be reported to one notwithstanding quarters with less than standards. decimal place (the additional digits to the complete data, if the resulting annual mean, (b) To qualify for spatial averaging, right of the first decimal place are truncated, spatially averaged annual mean monitoring sites must meet the criterion consistent with the data handling procedures concentration, or resulting annual standard specified in section 4.7.5 of appendix D of 40 for the reported data). design value concentration (rounded CFR part 58 as well as the following (d) Except for calculation of spatially according to the conventions of section 4.3 of requirements: averaged annual means and spatially this appendix) is greater than the level of the (1) The annual mean concentration at each averaged annual standard design values, all standard. Furthermore, where the explicit 11 site shall be within 10 percent of the spatially other calculations shown in this appendix sample per quarter requirement is not met, averaged annual mean. shall be implemented on a site-level basis. the site annual mean shall still be considered (2) The daily values for each site pair Site level data shall be processed as follows: valid if, by substituting a low value among the 3-year period shall yield a (1) The default dataset for a site shall (described below) for the missing data in the correlation coefficient of at least 0.9 for each consist of the measured concentrations deficient quarters (substituting enough to calendar quarter. recorded from the designated primary FRM/ meet the 11 sample minimum), the (3) All of the monitoring sites should FEM/ARM monitor. The primary monitor computation still yields a recalculated principally be affected by the same major shall be designated in the appropriate State annual mean, spatially averaged annual mean emission sources of PM2.5. For example, this or local agency PM Monitoring Network concentration, or annual standard design could be demonstrated by site-specific Description. All daily values produced by the value concentration over the level of the chemical speciation profiles confirming all primary sampler are considered part of the standard. The low value used for this major component concentration averages to site record (i.e., that site’s daily value); this substitution test shall be the lowest reported be within 10 percent for each calendar includes all creditable samples and all extra daily value in the site data record for that quarter. samples. calendar quarter over the most recent 3-year (4) The requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) (2) Data for the primary monitor shall be period. If an annual mean is deemed through (3) of this section shall be met for 3 augmented as much as possible with data complete using this test, the original annual consecutive years in order to produce a valid from collocated FRM/FEM/ARM monitors. If mean (without substituted low values) shall spatially averaged annual standard design a valid 24-hour measurement is not produced be considered the official mean value for this value. Otherwise, the individual (single) site from the primary monitor for a particular day site, not the result of the recalculated test annual standard design values shall be (scheduled or otherwise), but a valid sample using the low values. compared directly to the level of the annual is generated by a collocated FRM/FEM/ARM (c) The use of less than complete data is NAAQS. instrument (and recorded in AQS), then that subject to the approval of EPA, which may (c) Section 58.12 of this chapter specifies collocated value shall be considered part of consider factors such as monitoring site the required minimum frequency of sampling the site data record (i.e., that site’s daily closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and for PM2.5. Exceptions to the specified value). If more than one valid collocated nearby concentrations in determining sampling frequencies, such as a reduced FRM/FEM/ARM value is available, the whether to use such data.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61229

(d) The equations for calculating the (b) Equation 2 of this appendix is then (e) The annual standard design value is annual standard design values are given in used to calculate the site annual mean: rounded according to the conventions in section 4.4 of this appendix. section 4.3 of this appendix before a Equation 2 comparison with the standard is made. 4.2 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 4 (a) The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when = 1 4.5 Equations for the 24-Hour PM2.5 the 24-hour standard design value at each XXys,,,∑ qys NAAQS µ 4 q=1 monitoring site is less than or equal to 35 g/ (a) When the data for a particular site and 3 m . This comparison shall be based on 3 Where: year meet the data completeness consecutive, complete years of air quality X¯ = the annual mean concentration for year requirements in section 4.2 of this appendix, data. A year meets data completeness y,s y (y = 1, 2, or 3) and for site s; and calculation of the 98th percentile is requirements when at least 75 percent of the X¯ q,y,s = the mean for quarter q of year y for accomplished by the steps provided in this scheduled sampling days for each quarter site s. have valid data. However, years shall be subsection. Equation 5 of this appendix shall considered valid, notwithstanding quarters (c) If spatial averaging is utilized, the site- be used to compute annual 98th percentile with less than complete data (even quarters based annual means will then be averaged values, except that where a site operates on with less than 11 samples), if the resulting together to derive the spatially averaged an approved seasonal sampling schedule, annual 98th percentile value or resulting 24- annual mean using equation 3 of this equation 6 of this appendix shall be used hour standard design value (rounded appendix. Otherwise (i.e., for single site instead. according to the conventions of section 4.3 of comparisons), skip to equation 4.B of this (1) Regular formula for computing annual this appendix) is greater than the level of the appendix. 98th percentile values. Calculation of annual standard. 98th percentile values using the regular (b) The use of less than complete data is Equation 3 formula (equation 5) will be based on the subject to the approval of EPA which may n creditable number of samples (as described 1 s consider factors such as monitoring site x = ∑ x below), rather than on the actual number of closures/moves, monitoring diligence, and y ys, ns s=1 samples. Credit will not be granted for extra nearby concentrations in determining (non-creditable) samples. Extra samples, Where: whether to use such data for comparisons to however, are candidates for selection as the the NAAQS. x¯ y = the spatially averaged mean for year y, annual 98th percentile. [The creditable (c) The equations for calculating the 24- x¯ y,s = the annual mean for year y and site s number of samples will determine how deep for sites designated to be averaged that hour standard design values are given in to go into the data distribution, but all meet completeness criteria , and section 4.5 of this appendix. samples (creditable and extra) will be 4.3 Rounding Conventions. For the ns = the number of sites designated to be considered when making the percentile purposes of comparing calculated values to averaged that meet completeness criteria. assignment.] The annual creditable number the applicable level of the standard, it is (d) The annual standard design value is of samples is the sum of the four quarterly necessary to round the final results of the calculated using equation 4A of this creditable number of samples. Sort all the calculations described in sections 4.4 and 4.5 appendix when spatial averaging and of this appendix. Results for all intermediate equation 4B of this appendix when not daily values from a particular site and year calculations shall not be rounded. spatial averaging: by ascending value. (For example: (x[1], x[2], x[3], * * *, x[n]). In this case, x[1] is the (a) Annual PM2.5 standard design values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1 µg/m3 Equation 4A smallest number and x[n] is the largest (decimals 0.05 and greater are rounded up to value.) The 98th percentile is determined the next 0.1, and any decimal lower than 0.05 When spatial averaging from this sorted series of daily values which is ordered from the lowest to the highest is rounded down to the nearest 0.1). 1 3 (b) 24-hour PM2.5 standard design values = number. Compute (0.98) x (cn) as the number xx∑ y µ 3 shall be rounded to the nearest 1 g/m 3 y=1 ‘‘i.d,’’ where ‘cn’ is the annual creditable (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to number of samples, ‘‘i’’ is the integer part of the nearest whole number, and any decimal the result, and ‘‘d’’ is the decimal part of the lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the result. The 98th percentile value for year y, nearest whole number). Equation 4B P0.98, y, is calculated using equation 5 of this appendix: 4.4 Equations for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. When not spatial averaging (a) An annual mean value for PM2.5 is 1 3 Equation 5 determined by first averaging the daily values xx= ∑ ys, = of a calendar quarter using equation 1 of this 3 y=1 PX098.,y []i+1 appendix: Where: Where: ¯ Equation 1 x = the annual standard design value (the P0.98, y = 98th percentile for year y; th spatially averaged annual standard x[i+1] = the (i+1) number in the ordered nq design value for equation 4A of this = l series of numbers; Xqys,,∑ Xiqys ,,, appendix and the single site annual i = the integer part of the product of 0.98 and nq il= standard design value for equation 4B of cn. this appendix); and Where: (2) Formula for computing annual 98th x¯ y = the spatially averaged annual mean for X¯ q,y,s = the mean for quarter q of the year y year y (result of equation 3 of this percentile values when sampling frequencies for site s; appendix) when spatial averaging is are seasonal. Calculate the annual 98th nq = the number of daily values in the used, or percentiles by determining the smallest quarter; and x¯ y,s the annual mean for year y and site s measured concentration, x, that makes W(x) th xi q,y,s = the i value in quarter q for year y (result of equation 2 of this appendix) greater than 0.98 using equation 6 of this for site s. when spatial averaging is not used. appendix:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.003 ER17OC06.004 ER17OC06.005 ER17OC06.006 ER17OC06.007 ER17OC06.008 61230 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Equation 6 d d Wx()= High Fx()+ Low F ()x + High + Low ddHigh Low ddHigh Low

Where: dLow = number of calendar days in the ‘‘Low’’ dLow

dHigh = number of calendar days in the season; ‘‘High’’ season; dHigh+ = days in a year; and

number of daily values in season a that are ≤× Fx()= a number of daily vaaluesin season a

Such that ‘‘a’’ can be either ‘‘High’’ or ‘‘Low’’; samples obtained in the PM10–2.5 shaped inlets and through one or more ‘‘x’’ is the measured concentration; and measurement process can be subjected to inertial particle size separators where the ‘‘dHigh/(dHigh + dLow) and dLow/(dHigh + dLow)’’ subsequent physical or chemical analyses. suspended particulate matter in the PM10 or are constant and are called seasonal 1.5 Quality assessment procedures are PM2.5 size range, as applicable, is separated ‘‘weights.’’ provided in part 58, appendix A of this for collection on a polytetrafluoroethylene (b) The 24-hour standard design value is chapter. The quality assurance procedures (PTFE) filter over the specified sampling then calculated by averaging the annual 98th and guidance provided in reference 1 in period. The air samplers and other aspects of percentiles using equation 7 of this appendix: section 13 of this appendix, although written this PM10–2.5 reference method are specified specifically for PM2.5, are generally either explicitly in this appendix or by Equation 7 applicable for PM10c, and, hence, PM10–2.5 reference to other applicable regulations or 3 measurements under this method, as well. quality assurance guidance. P 1.6 A method based on specific model 2.2 Each PM10c and PM2.5 sample ∑ 098.,y PM and PM samplers will be considered collection filter is weighed (after moisture = 10c 2.5 = y 1 a reference method for purposes of part 58 of and temperature conditioning) before and P098. 3 this chapter only if: after sample collection to determine the net (c) The 24-hour standard design value (3- (a) The PM10c and PM2.5 samplers and the weight (mass) gain due to collected PM10c or year average 98th percentile) is rounded associated operational procedures meet the PM2.5. The total volume of air sampled by according to the conventions in section 4.3 requirements specified in this appendix and each sampler is determined by the sampler of this appendix before a comparison with all applicable requirements in part 53 of this from the measured flow rate at local ambient the standard is made. chapter, and temperature and pressure and the sampling (b) The method based on the specific time. The mass concentrations of both PM 8. Appendix O is added to part 50 to 10c samplers and associated operational and PM2.5 in the ambient air are computed read as follows: procedures have been designated as a as the total mass of collected particles in the Appendix O to Part 50—Reference Method reference method in accordance with part 53 PM10 or PM2.5 size range, as appropriate, for the Determination of Coarse Particulate of this chapter. divided by the total volume of air sampled Matter as PM10–2.5 in the Atmosphere 1.7 PM10–2.5 methods based on samplers by the respective samplers, and expressed in that meet nearly all specifications set forth in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)at local 1.0 Applicability and Definition this method but have one or more significant temperature and pressure conditions. The 1.1 This method provides for the but minor deviations or modifications from mass concentration of PM10–2.5 is determined measurement of the mass concentration of those specifications may be designated as as the PM10c concentration value less the coarse particulate matter (PM10–2.5) in ‘‘Class I’’ equivalent methods for PM10–2.5 in corresponding, concurrently measured PM2.5 ambient air over a 24-hour period. In accordance with part 53 of this chapter. concentration value. conjunction with additional analysis, this 1.8 PM2.5 measurements obtained 2.3 Most requirements for PM10–2.5 method may be used to develop speciated incidental to the PM10–2.5 measurements by reference methods are similar or identical to data. this method shall be considered to have been the requirements for PM2.5 reference methods 1.2 For the purpose of this method, obtained with a reference method for PM2.5 as set forth in appendix L to this part. To PM10–2.5 is defined as particulate matter in accordance with appendix L of this part. insure uniformity, applicable appendix L having an aerodynamic diameter in the 1.9 PM10c measurements obtained requirements are incorporated herein by nominal range of 2.5 to 10 micrometers, incidental to the PM10–2.5 measurements by reference in the sections where indicated inclusive. this method shall be considered to have been rather than repeated in this appendix. 1.3 For this reference method, PM10–2.5 obtained with a reference method for PM10 in concentrations shall be measured as the accordance with appendix J of this part, 3.0 PM10–2.5 Measurement Range arithmetic difference between separate but provided that: 3.1 Lower concentration limit. The lower concurrent, collocated measurements of PM10 (a) The PM10c measurements are adjusted detection limit of the mass concentration and PM2.5, where the PM10 measurements are to EPA reference conditions (25 °C and 760 measurement range is estimated to be obtained with a specially approved sampler, millimeters of mercury), and approximately 3 µg/m3, based on the identified as a ‘‘PM10c sampler,’’ that meets (b) Such PM10c measurements are observed precision of PM2.5 measurements in more demanding performance requirements appropriately identified to differentiate them the national PM2.5 monitoring network, the than conventional PM10 samplers described from PM10 measurements obtained with other probable similar level of precision for the in appendix J of this part. Measurements (conventional) methods for PM10 designated matched PM10c measurements, and the obtained with a PM10c sampler are identified in accordance with part 53 of this chapter as additional variability arising from the as ‘‘PM10c measurements’’ to distinguish reference or equivalent methods for PM10. differential nature of the measurement them from conventional PM10 measurements process. This value is provided merely as a 2.0 Principle obtained with conventional PM10 samplers. guide to the significance of low PM10–2.5 Thus, PM10–2.5 = PM10c ¥ PM2.5. 2.1 Separate, collocated, electrically concentration measurements. 1.4 The PM10c and PM2.5 gravimetric powered air samplers for PM10c and PM2.5 3.2 Upper concentration limit. The upper measurement processes are considered to be concurrently draw ambient air at identical, limit of the mass concentration range is nondestructive, and the PM10c and PM2.5 constant volumetric flow rates into specially determined principally by the PM10c filter

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.009 ER17OC06.010 ER17OC06.011 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61231

mass loading beyond which the sampler can section 13 of this appendix provides the same balance, preferably in the same no longer maintain the operating flow rate additional information and guidance on this weighing session and by the same analyst. within specified limits due to increased requirement. 8.3 Due care shall be exercised to pressure drop across the loaded filter. This 6.0 Filters for PM10c and PM2.5 Sample accurately maintain the paired relationship upper limit cannot be specified precisely Collection. Sample collection filters for both of each set of concurrently collected PM10c because it is a complex function of the PM10c and PM2.5 measurements shall be and PM2.5 sample filters and their net weight ambient particle size distribution and type, identical and as specified in section 6 of gain data and to avoid misidentification or humidity, the individual filter used, the appendix L to this part. reversal of the filter samples or weight data. capacity of the sampler flow rate control 7.0 Sampler. The PM10–2.5 sampler shall See Reference 1 of section 13 of this system, and perhaps other factors. All PM10c consist of a PM10c sampler and a PM2.5 appendix for additional guidance. samplers are estimated to be capable of sampler, as follows: 9.0 Calibration. Calibration of the flow measuring 24-hour mass concentrations of at 7.1 The PM2.5 sampler shall be as rate, temperature measurement, and pressure least 200 µg/m3 while maintaining the specified in section 7 of appendix L to this measurement systems for both the PM10c and operating flow rate within the specified part. PM2.5 samplers shall be as specified in limits. The upper limit for the PM10–2.5 7.2 The PM10c sampler shall be of like section 9 of appendix L to this part. measurement is likely to be somewhat lower manufacturer, design, configuration, and 10.0 PM10–2.5 Measurement Procedure because the PM10–2.5 concentration represents fabrication to that of the PM2.5 sampler and 10.1 The PM10c and PM2.5 samplers shall only a fraction of the PM10 concentration. as specified in section 7 of appendix L to this 3.3 Sample period. The required sample part, except as follows: be installed at the monitoring site such that their ambient air inlets differ in vertical period for PM10–2.5 concentration 7.2.1 The particle size separator specified measurements by this method shall be at in section 7.3.4 of appendix L to this part height by not more than 0.2 meter, if least 1,380 minutes but not more than 1,500 shall be eliminated and replaced by a possible, but in any case not more than 1 minutes (23 to 25 hours), and the start times downtube extension fabricated as specified meter, and the vertical axes of their inlets are separated by at least 1 meter but not more of the PM2.5 and PM10c samples are within 10 in Figure O–1 of this appendix. minutes and the stop times of the samples are 7.2.2 The sampler shall be identified as a than 4 meters, horizontally. 10.2 The measurement procedure for also within 10 minutes (see section 10.4 of PM10c sampler on its identification label this appendix). required under § 53.9(d) of this chapter. PM10c shall be as specified in section 10 of 7.2.3 The average temperature and appendix L to this part, with ‘‘PM10c’’ 4.0 Accuracy (bias) average barometric pressure measured by the substituted for ‘‘PM2.5’’ wherever it occurs in 4.1 Because the size, density, and sampler during the sample period, as that section. volatility of the particles making up ambient described in Table L–1 of appendix L to this 10.3 The measurement procedure for particulate matter vary over wide ranges and part, need not be reported to EPA’s AQS data PM2.5 shall be as specified in section 10 of the mass concentration of particles varies base, as required by section 7.4.19 and Table appendix L to this part. with particle size, it is difficult to define the L–1 of appendix L to this part, provided such 10.4 For the PM10–2.5 measurement, the PM10c and PM2.5 samplers shall be accuracy of PM10–2.5 measurements in an measurements for the sample period programmed to operate on the same schedule absolute sense. Furthermore, generation of determined by the associated PM2.5 sampler and such that the sample period start times credible PM10–2.5 concentration standards at are reported as required. field monitoring sites and presenting or 7.3 In addition to the operation/ are within 5 minutes and the sample introducing such standards reliably to instruction manual required by section 7.4.18 duration times are within 5 minutes. samplers or monitors to assess accuracy is of appendix L to this part for each sampler, 10.5 Retrieval, transport, and storage of still generally impractical. The accuracy of supplemental operational instructions shall each PM10c and PM2.5 sample pair following sample collection shall be matched to the PM measurements is therefore defined be provided for the simultaneous operation 10–2.5 extent practical such that both samples in a relative sense as bias, referenced to of the samplers as a pair to collect concurrent experience uniform conditions. measurements provided by other reference PM and PM samples. The supplemental 10c 2.5 11.0 Sampler Maintenance. Both PM method samplers or based on flow rate instructions shall cover any special 10c and PM samplers shall be maintained as verification audits or checks, or on other procedures or guidance for installation and 2.5 described in section 11 of appendix L to this performance evaluation procedures. setup of the samplers for PM 10–2.5 part. 4.2 Measurement system bias for measurements, such as synchronization of monitoring data is assessed according to the the samplers’ clocks or timers, proper 12.0 Calculations procedures and schedule set forth in part 58, programming for collection of concurrent 12.1 Both concurrent PM10c and PM2.5 appendix A of this chapter. The goal for the samples, and any other pertinent issues measurements must be available, valid, and measurement uncertainty (as bias) for related to the simultaneous, coordinated meet the conditions of section 10.4 of this monitoring data is defined in part 58, operation of the two samplers. appendix to determine the PM10–2.5 mass appendix A of this chapter as an upper 95 7.4 Capability for electrical concentration. percent confidence limit for the absolute bias interconnection of the samplers to simplify 12.2 The PM10c mass concentration is of 15 percent. Reference 1 in section 13 of sample period programming and further calculated using equation 1 of this section: this appendix provides additional ensure simultaneous operation is encouraged information and guidance on flow rate but not required. Any such capability for Equation 1 accuracy audits and assessment of bias. interconnection shall not supplant each sampler’s capability to operate ()WW− 5.0 Precision = fi independently, as required by section 7 of PM10c 5.1 Tests to establish initial measurement appendix L of this part. Va precision for each sampler of the reference Where: method sampler pair are specified as a part 8.0 Filter Weighing µ 3 of the requirements for designation as a 8.1 Conditioning and weighing for both PM10c = mass concentration of PM10c, g/m ; reference method under part 53 of this PM10c and PM2.5 sample filters shall be as Wf, Wi = final and initial masses (weights), chapter. specified in section 8 of appendix L to this respectively, of the filter used to collect µ 5.2 Measurement system precision is part. See reference 1 of section 13 of this the PM10c particle sample, g; assessed according to the procedures and appendix for additional, more detailed Va = total air volume sampled by the PM10c schedule set forth in appendix A to part 58 guidance. sampler in actual volume units measured of this chapter. The goal for acceptable 8.2 Handling, conditioning, and weighing at local conditions of temperature and 3 measurement uncertainty, as precision, of for both PM10c and PM2.5 sample filters shall pressure, as provided by the sampler, m . monitoring data is defined in part 58, be matched such that the corresponding Note: Total sample time must be between appendix A of this chapter as an upper 95 PM10c and PM2.5 filters of each filter pair 1,380 and 1,500 minutes (23 and 25 hrs) for percent confidence limit for the coefficient of receive uniform treatment. The PM10c and a fully valid PM10c sample; however, see also variation (CV) of 15 percent. Reference 1 in PM2.5 sample filters should be weighed on section 3.3 of this appendix.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.012 61232 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

12.3 The PM2.5 mass concentration is Equation 2 Methods. Draft, November 1998 (or later version or supplement, if available). calculated as specified in section 12 of =− appendix L to this part. PM10− 2.. 5 PM 10c PM 2 5 Available at: www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ 12.4 The PM10¥2.5 mass concentration, in pgqa.html. 3 13.0 Reference µg/m , is calculated using Equation 2 of this 14.0 Figures section: 1. Quality Assurance Guidance Document Figure O–1 is included as part of this 2.12. Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using appendix O. Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.013 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61233

[FR Doc. 06–8477 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:19 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR2.SGM 17OCR2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES2 ER17OC06.014 Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61236 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION air concentrations well below the Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered AGENCY applicable National Ambient Air damage due to flooding during the last week Quality Standards. These amendments of June 2006. The Docket Center is 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 also revise certain provisions regarding continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to [EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0018; FRL–8227–2] monitoring network descriptions and periodic assessments, quality assurance, Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, RIN 2060–AJ25 and data certifications. A number of the and hours of operation for people who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to view amendments relate specifically to PM2.5, documents. Consult EPA’s Federal Register Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring revising the requirements for reference Regulations notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the and equivalent method determinations EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ AGENCY: Environmental Protection (including specifications and test epahome/dockets.htm for current Agency (EPA). procedures) for fine particle monitors. information on docket status, locations, and DATES: telephone numbers. ACTION: Final rule. This final rule is effective on December 18, 2006. SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing final ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For amendments to the ambient air docket for this action under Docket ID general questions concerning the final monitoring requirements for criteria No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0018. All amendments, please contact Mr. Lewis pollutants. The purpose of the documents in the docket are listed in Weinstock, U.S. EPA, Office of Air amendments is to enhance ambient air the http://www.regulations.gov index. Quality Planning and Standards, Air quality monitoring to better serve Although listed in the index, some Quality Assessment Division, Ambient current and future air quality information is not publicly available, Air Monitoring Group (C304–06), management and research needs. The e.g., confidential business information Research Triangle Park, North Carolina final amendments establish limited or other information whose disclosure is 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– ambient air monitoring requirements for restricted by statute. Certain other 3661; fax number: (919) 541–1903; e- thoracic coarse particles in the size material, such as copyrighted material, mail address: [email protected]. range of PM10¥2.5 to support continued will be publicly available only in hard For technical questions, please contact research into these particles’ copy. Publicly available docket Mr. Tim Hanley, U.S. EPA, Office of Air distribution, sources, and health effects. materials are available either Quality Planning and Standards, Air The ambient air monitoring electronically in http:// Quality Assessment Division, Ambient amendments also require each State to www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Air Monitoring Group (C304–06), operate one to three monitoring stations the Revisions to the Ambient Air Research Triangle Park, North Carolina that take an integrated, multipollutant Monitoring Regulations Docket, EPA/ 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– approach to ambient air monitoring. In DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 4417; fax number: (919) 541–1903; e- addition, the final amendments modify Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, mail address: [email protected]. the general monitoring network design DC. The Public Reading Room is open SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirements for minimum numbers of from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday ambient air monitors to focus on through Friday, excluding legal I. General Information populated areas with air quality holidays. The telephone number for the A. Does this action apply to me? problems and to reduce significantly the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, requirements for criteria pollutant and the telephone number for the Air Categories and entities potentially monitors that have measured ambient Docket is (202) 566–1742. regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities

Industry ...... 334513, 541380 Manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or vendor of ambient air monitoring in- struments; analytical laboratories or other monitoring organizations that elect to submit an application for a reference or equivalent method de- termination under 40 CFR part 53. Federal government ...... 924110 Federal agencies (that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that con- ducted by States under 40 CFR part 58 and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State data) or that elect to sub- mit an application for a reference or equivalent method determination under 40 CFR part 53. State/territorial/local/tribal government ...... 924110 State, territorial, and local, air quality management programs that are re- sponsible for ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58 or that elect to submit an application for a reference or equivalent method deter- mination under 40 CFR part 53 or for an approved regional method ap- proved under 40 CFR part 58 appendix C. The proposal also may af- fect Tribes that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that con- ducted by States and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State monitoring data. 1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be aware could potentially be regulated by territorial agency is regulated by this exhaustive, but rather provides a guide this action. Other types of entities not action, you should carefully examine for readers regarding entities likely to be listed in the table could also be the requirements for reference or regulated by this action. This table lists regulated. To determine whether your equivalent method determinations in 40 the types of entities that EPA is now facility or Federal, State, local, or CFR part 53, subpart A (General

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61237

Provisions) and the applicability criteria established by the final amendments I. General Information in 40 CFR 51.1 of EPA’s requirements may not be challenged separately in any A. Does this action apply to me? for State implementation plans. If you civil or criminal proceedings brought by B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action? have questions regarding the EPA to enforce these requirements. C. Public Comments on Proposed Amendments applicability of this action to a E. Peer Review D. Judicial Review particular entity, consult the person E. Peer Review listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER The EPA sought expert scientific F. How is this document organized? INFORMATION CONTACT section. review of the proposed methods, II. Authority technologies, and approach for ambient III. Overview B. Where can I obtain a copy of this air monitoring by the Clean Air A. Summary of Concurrent Final Action on action? Scientific Advisory Committee Revisions to the National Ambient Air In addition to being available in the (CASAC). The CASAC is a Federal Quality Standards for Particulate Matter docket, an electronic copy of this final advisory committee established to B. Summary of Changes to Ambient Air action will also be available on the review scientific and technical Monitoring Regulations Worldwide Web (WWW) through the information and make recommendations C. Significant Dates for States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Other Technology Transfer Network (TTN). to the EPA Administrator on issues Stakeholders Following the Administrator’s signature, related to the air quality criteria and D. Implementation of the Revised a copy of the final amendments will be corresponding NAAQS. CASAC formed Monitoring Requirements placed on the TTN’s policy and a National Ambient Air Monitoring E. Federal Funding for Ambient Air guidance page for newly proposed or Strategy (NAAMS) Subcommittee in Monitoring promulgated rules at http:// 2003 to provide advice for a strategy for IV. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions and www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN the national ambient air monitoring Major Comments on Proposed provides information and technology programs. This subcommittee, which Amendments to 40 CFR Part 53 exchange in various areas of air operated over a 1-year period, and a A. Overview of Part 53 Regulatory Requirements pollution control. new subcommittee on Ambient Air B. Requirements for Candidate Reference Monitoring and Methods (AAMM), C. Public Comments on Proposed Methods for PM10¥2.5 formed in 2004, provided the input for Amendments C. Requirements for Candidate Equivalent CASAC on its consultations, advisories, Methods PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 EPA received approximately 20,000 and peer-reviewed recommendations to D. Other Changes public comments on the proposed the EPA Administrator. V. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions and amendments to the ambient air In July 2003, the CASAC NAAMS Major Comments on Proposed monitoring regulations during the 90- Subcommittee held a public meeting to Amendments to 40 CFR Part 58 day comment period. These comments review EPA’s draft National Ambient A. Overview of Part 58 Regulatory were submitted to the rulemaking Air Monitoring Strategy document Requirements docket and also during public hearings (dated September 6, 2002), which B. General Monitoring Requirements 1. Definitions and Terminology held in Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, contained technical information 2. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Pennsylvania; and San Francisco, underlying planned changes to the Periodic Network Assessment California (71 FR 8228, February 16, ambient air monitoring networks. The 3. Operating Schedules 2006). Public comments on the EPA continued to consult with the 4. Monitoring Network Completion for proposed amendments were submitted CASAC AAMM Subcommittee PM10¥2.5 and NCore Sites by States, local governments, Tribes, throughout the development of the 5. System Modifications and related associations; energy, proposed amendments. Public meetings 6. Annual Air Monitoring Data mining, ranching, and agricultural were held in July 2004, December 2004, Certification interests and related associations; and September 2005 to discuss the 7. Data Submittal 8. Special Purpose Monitors vendors, laboratories, and technical CASAC review of nearly 20 documents 9. Special Considerations for Data consultants; health, environmental, and concerning methods and technology for Comparisons to the National Ambient public interest organizations; and measurement of particulate matter (PM); Air Quality Standards private citizens. The EPA has carefully data quality objectives for PM C. Appendix A—Quality Assurance considered these comments in monitoring networks and related Requirements for State and Local Air developing the final amendments. performance-based standards for Monitoring Stations and Prevention of Summaries of these comments and approval of equivalent continuous PM Significant Deterioration Air Monitoring EPA’s detailed responses are contained monitors; configuration of ambient air 1. General Quality Assurance in the Response to Comments document monitoring stations; 1 and other Requirements 2. Specific Requirements for PM ¥ , included in the docket. technical aspects of the proposed 10 2.5 PM2.5, PM10, and Total Suspended D. Judicial Review amendments. These documents, along Particulates with CASAC review comments and 3. Particulate Matter Performance Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean other information are available at: Evaluation Program and National Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ Performance Audit Programs final amendments is available only by casacinf.html. 4. Revisions to Precision and Bias Statistics filing a petition for review in the U.S. 5. Other Program Updates Court of Appeals for the District of F. How is this document organized? D. Appendix C—Ambient Air Quality Columbia Circuit by December 18, 2006. The information presented in this Monitoring Methodology Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, preamble is organized as follows: 1. Applicability of Federal Reference only an objection to the final Methods and Federal Equivalent 1 Methods amendments that was raised with ‘‘Station’’ and ‘‘site’’ are used somewhat 2. Approved Regional Methods for PM reasonable specificity during the period interchangeably in this notice of final rulemaking. 2.5 When there is a difference (which will be apparent E. Appendix D—Network Design Criteria for public comment can be raised during from context), ‘‘site’’ generally refers to the location for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring judicial review. Moreover, under section of a monitor, while ‘‘station’’ refers to a suite of 1. Requirements for Operation of 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements measurements at a particular site. Multipollutant NCore Stations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61238 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

2. Requirements for Operation of PM10¥2.5 III. Overview provisions (notably those which would Stations have prescribed which monitors could A. Summary of Concurrent Final Action 3. Requirements for Operation of PM2.5 have been used for comparison with on Revisions to the National Ambient Stations that proposed NAAQS) proposed as Air Quality Standards for Particulate 4. Requirements for Operation of PM10 amendments to 40 CFR part 58. The Matter Stations EPA is, however, finalizing the 5. Requirements for Operation of Carbon Elsewhere in this Federal Register, proposed FRM for PM10¥2.5 (see Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen EPA is finalizing revisions to the appendix O to 40 CFR part 50). This Dioxide, and Lead Monitoring Sites National Ambient Air Quality Standards FRM is based on paired filter-based 6. Requirements for Operation of Ozone (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). samplers for PM2.5 and PM10 and it will Stations These revisions were proposed on serve as the standard of reference for 7. Requirements for Operation of January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2620). For a measurements of PM10¥2.5 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring detailed explanation of these revisions, concentrations in ambient air. This Stations see that preamble elsewhere in this should provide a basis for approving F. Appendix E—Probe and Monitoring Federal Register. Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) and Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air The EPA is finalizing the PM2.5 Monitoring promote the gathering of scientific data NAAQS revisions as proposed. With to support future reviews of the PM 1. Vertical Placement of PM ¥ Samplers 10 2.5 regard to the primary standards for fine NAAQS. Because it is a filter based 2. Ozone Monitor Setback Requirement particles (generally referring to particles from Roads system, this method can itself be used less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers to provide speciated data. The reference G. Sample Retention Requirements (µm) in diameter, PM ), EPA is revising H. Deletion of Appendices B and F 2.5 measurement from the PM10¥2.5 FRM is the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard also important in the development of VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews µ to 35 micrograms per cubic meter ( g/ alternative PM10¥2.5 speciation samplers A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 3 Planning and Review m ), providing increased protection such as dichotomous samplers. The EPA B. Paperwork Reduction Act against health effects associated with will be issuing guidance to ensure the C. Regulatory Flexibility Act short-term exposure (including use of a consistent national approach for D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act premature mortality and increased speciated coarse particle monitors as E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism hospital admissions and emergency soon as possible. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation room visits). The EPA is retaining the In conjunction with the above and Coordination With Indian Tribal level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 NAAQS revisions and FRM provisions, Governments µg/m3, continuing protection against as part of this final monitoring rule, as G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of health effects associated with long-term described below EPA is finalizing Children From Environmental Health exposure (including premature certain provisions which support and Safety Risks mortality and development of chronic collection of additional high quality H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions respiratory disease). The EPA is also data on ambient concentrations of to Address Environmental Justice in finalizing the proposed revisions in the PM10¥2.5. These data should be useful in Minority Populations and Low-Income conditions under which spatial improving the understanding of Populations averaging of the annual primary PM2.5 PM10¥2.5 air quality and in conducting I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That NAAQS is permitted, and placing these future reviews of the PM NAAQS. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, conditions in appendix N of 40 CFR part As explained in the preamble to the Distribution, or Use 50 rather than in appendix D of 40 CFR NAAQS revisions, EPA is revoking the J. National Technology Transfer part 58. annual NAAQS for particles generally Advancement Act With regard to secondary PM less than or equal to 10 µm in diameter K. Congressional Review Act standards, EPA is revising the current (PM10). However, EPA is retaining the II. Authority 24-hour PM2.5 secondary standard by 24-hour PM10 NAAQS as a standard for making it identical to the revised 24- short-term exposure to thoracic coarse The EPA rules for ambient air hour PM2.5 primary standard, retaining particles, rather than revoking that monitoring are authorized under the annual PM2.5 and 24-hour PM10 standard in all but 15 areas as proposed. sections 110, 301(a), and 319 of the secondary standards, and revoking the This change from the NAAQS revision Clean Air Act (CAA). Section annual PM10 secondary standard. This proposal necessitates that the final 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires that suite of secondary PM standards is monitoring rule restore certain PM10 each State implementation plan (SIP) intended to provide protection against monitoring provisions that were provide for the establishment and PM-related public welfare effects, proposed for removal. operation of devices, methods, systems, including visibility impairment, effects B. Summary of Changes to Ambient Air and procedures needed to monitor, on vegetation and ecosystems, and Monitoring Regulations compile, and analyze data on ambient materials damage and soiling. air quality and for the reporting of air The EPA is finalizing the proposed This rule, in most respects, finalizes quality data to EPA. Section 103 Federal reference method (FRM) for the proposals put forth in the January authorizes, among others, research and PM2.5. This action in essence codifies 17, 2006, notice of proposed rulemaking investigations relating to the causes, certain desirable features that have (71 FR 2710). This final rule will effects, extent, prevention and control of already been in widespread use as facilitate monitoring program changes air pollution. Section 301(a) of the CAA elements of approved equivalent envisioned in the draft National authorizes EPA to develop regulations methods or national user modifications. Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy which needed to carry out EPA’s mission and The EPA is not finalizing the was fully described in the proposal. establishes rulemaking requirements. proposed NAAQS for PM10¥2.5, for These final changes, which apply to the Uniform criteria to be followed when reasons explained in the accompanying monitoring program for all of the criteria measuring air quality and provisions for preamble to the revisions to the pollutants, will reduce the required daily air pollution index reporting are NAAQS. As a result, EPA is not scale of monitoring for pollutants for required by CAA section 319. finalizing a number of related which most areas have reached

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61239

attainment. The changes are intended to Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas emission source types, and that many better focus monitoring resources on will be required to operate two or three but not all will be in well populated current air quality challenges. The NCore stations. For these States, the locations. changes will also allow States and local selection between two or three stations The EPA is not adopting the proposed monitoring agencies more flexibility to will be part of the development and population-based and population design their monitoring programs to approval of the NCore monitoring plan density-based siting requirements for reflect local conditions. that is due by July 1, 2009. The EPA also PM10¥2.5 monitors, or any part of the In amendments to 40 CFR part 53 plans to negotiate with a number of proposed five-part suitability test for (Reference and Equivalent Methods), States, local agencies, and/or Tribes to PM10¥2.5 monitoring sites, which as this final rule incorporates the proposed operate additional NCore stations on a proposed would have controlled criteria for approval of Federal voluntary basis, bringing the total whether PM10¥2.5 data from a equivalent methods (FEM) for PM2.5, number of stations to about 75. By monitoring site could be compared to with some modifications to the method approving some required stations to be the proposed PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. These testing requirements and approval in rural areas and by negotiating for proposed requirements were tied to the criteria in response to persuasive public additional voluntary sites in rural areas, establishment of a PM10¥2.5 NAAQS comments. The modifications will EPA expects that about 55 NCore sites with a qualified PM10¥2.5 indicator require a more robust set of testing will be in urbanized areas and about 20 based on a determination of whether conditions and closer performance in rural areas. The rural sites are ambient mixes of coarse particles are or matching of candidate FEMs to FRMs. intended to be sited away from any large are not dominated by coarse particle The EPA is also finalizing the rule with local emission sources, so that they emissions from enumerated types of some strengthening revisions to the represent ambient concentrations over sources. Since EPA is not adopting this proposed criteria for approved regional an extensive area. The NCore stations part of the proposal, these issues are methods (ARMs) for PM2.5. The new must perform the types of pollutant now moot. In the absence of a PM10¥2.5 criteria for PM2.5 FEMs and ARMs will measurements that were proposed, with NAAQS, our goal nevertheless will be to ¥ facilitate the commercialization and three exceptions. PM10¥2.5 locate PM10 2.5 monitors in a manner EPA approval of continuous PM2.5 mass measurements may be made on a 1-in- that satisfies an objective of the monitors, allowing them to be 3 day schedule rather than the proposed proposed rule, which was to focus most 2 substituted for many of the currently every day schedule, NOy monitoring resources on population operating filter-based FRMs, which will measurements may be waived by the centers. support additional monitoring EPA Administrator based on certain This final rule contains a requirement objectives and reduce annual criteria, and as explained later in this for PM10¥2.5 speciation to be conducted at NCore multipollutant monitoring monitoring costs. section, PM ¥ chemical speciation In other amendments to 40 CFR part 10 2.5 stations. The EPA had proposed a will be required in addition to PM10¥2.5 53, EPA is adopting FEM approval mass concentration measurements. requirement for PM10¥2.5 speciation in criteria for PM10¥2.5, with some The EPA estimated that the proposed 25 areas, with the areas required to have revisions from the proposal that will rule would have required States to this monitoring selected based on provide for approval and use of methods having a Metropolitan Statistical Area operate about 225 PM10¥2.5 monitors that can meet multiple monitoring based on the population and estimated (MSA) population over 500,000 and objectives. The new FEM performance having an estimated design value of PM10¥2.5 concentrations of metropolitan criteria for PM10¥2.5 will facilitate statistical areas (MSAs) with greater than 80 percent of the proposed approval of filter-based methods for populations of 100,000 or more. In PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. This would have direct sampling of PM10¥2.5 concentrated the PM10¥2.5 speciation addition, PM10¥2.5 monitors were concentrations that can be chemically proposed to be required at NCore monitoring in areas that have high speciated using post-sampling stations; some monitors likely would populations and high exposures to laboratory analysis. The FEM criteria are have satisfied both of these PM10¥2.5. Since EPA is requiring also expected to encourage requirements. Because EPA is not PM10¥2.5 monitoring at NCore primarily commercialization of highly time- for scientific purposes, it is more adopting a NAAQS for PM ¥ , the resolved continuous methods. The EPA 10 2.5 appropriate to have monitoring in a final monitoring rule does not include is hopeful that the PM and PM ¥ variety of urban and rural locations to 2.5 10 2.5 the proposed requirement for the broad FEM criteria together will result in the increase the diversity of areas for which network of PM ¥ monitoring stations approval and commercialization of 10 2.5 chemical species data will be available in MSAs over 100,000 population. methods that provide equivalent to use in scientific studies. The EPA had However, the final monitoring rule does measurements of PM2.5, PM10, and already proposed to require chemical require PM10¥2.5 monitors at the PM ¥ from a single instrument. speciation for PM at NCore stations. 10 2.5 required NCore multipollutant 2.5 In amendments to 40 CFR part 58 The collocation of both PM ¥ and monitoring stations. The data gathered 10 2.5 (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance), this PM speciation monitoring at NCore from these stations should be useful in 2.5 final rule, as proposed, requires States stations is consistent with the ¥ to establish and operate a network of improving understanding of PM10 2.5 multipollutant objectives of the NCore NCore multipollutant monitoring air quality and in conducting future network and will support further stations. The EPA intends the NCore reviews of the PM NAAQS. The EPA research in understanding the chemical network to consist of approximately 75 anticipates that due to natural variations composition and sources of PM , among the cities and rural areas where 10 stations, of which the rule requires PM10¥2.5, and PM2.5 at a variety of urban between 62 and 71 such stations. These the NCore stations will be sited, the and rural locations. The EPA will work NCore PM10¥2.5 monitors will represent stations must be operational by 2011. with States to ensure that PM10¥2.5 Most States, as well as the District of a range of concentrations and nearby speciation monitors employ the latest in Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin speciation technology to advance the 2 NOy refers to a broad class of nitrogen- Islands, will be required to operate a containing reactive compounds in ambient air, science so that future regulation will single station. California, Florida, explained in more detail in sections V.E.1 and V.E.7 provide more targeted protection against Illinois, Michigan, New York, North of this preamble. the effects only of those coarse particles

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61240 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

and related source emissions that prove sampling less frequently will be PM10¥2.5 in this final rule differs from to be of concern to public health. required to change to daily sampling. the proposed system in that it aims to Because the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is As proposed, minimum monitoring quantify data quality at the national being retained in all parts of the requirements for carbon monoxide (CO), level of aggregation rather than at the country, this final rule retains the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen level of individual monitoring existing minimum monitoring network dioxide (NO2) are eliminated in this organizations as had been proposed. design requirements for PM10. These final rule. Minimum requirements for Another change from the proposal is longstanding requirements are based on lead (Pb) monitoring stations and that a provision has been added the population of a MSA and its Photochemical Assessment Monitoring allowing the EPA Regional historical PM10 air quality. For any Stations (PAMS) are reduced to those Administrator to waive the usual quality given combination of these two that were proposed. For all five criteria system requirements for special purpose parameters, a range of required monitors pollutants, however, existing monitors when those requirements are is prescribed, with the required number monitoring sites (except those already logistically infeasible due to unusual to be determined as part of the annual designated as special purpose monitors) site conditions and are not essential to monitoring plan. The EPA estimates that cannot be discontinued without EPA the monitoring objectives. once States and Regional Administrators Administrator (for PAMS or NCore The EPA is finalizing the proposed have considered how current stations) or Regional Administrator (for provisions regarding when data from population data and recent PM10 air all other types of monitoring) approval. special purpose monitors (SPMs) can be quality affect the required number of Regional Administrator approval is also compared to a NAAQS, with minor PM10 monitors in each area, between required for discontinuation of O3, clarifications. In summary, the final rule 200 and 500 FRM/FEM monitors will be PM2.5, and PM10 sites even if they are in provides that if an ozone or PM2.5 SPM required, compared to about 1,200 in excess of minimum network design operates for only two years or less, EPA operation now. While States may of requirements. While the rule requires will not use data from that monitor to course choose to continue to operate EPA approval, such approvals should be make attainment/nonattainment monitors in excess of the minimum facilitated where appropriate by rule determinations. This limitation is requirements, EPA notes that many provisions which clearly establish inherent in the form of these NAAQS, PM10 monitors have been recording certain criteria under which which require three years of data for a concentrations well below the PM10 discontinuation will be approved. These determination to be made. For the other NAAQS and are candidates for criteria are the same as those proposed NAAQS pollutants, as a policy matter, discontinuation at a State’s initiative. with four minor changes explained in EPA will not use only two years of data States may choose to retain PM10 detail in section V.B.5, System from a SPM to voluntarily redesignate monitors that are recording Modifications. These criteria are not an area to nonattainment. This concentrations below the PM10 NAAQS exclusive, and monitors not meeting any limitation is possible because as level to support monitoring objectives of the listed criteria may still be established in Section 107(d)(1) of the other than attainment/nonattainment approved for discontinuation on a case- Act, the only time EPA is obligated to determinations, such as baseline by-case basis if discontinuation does not redesignate areas as attainment or monitoring for prevention of significant compromise data collection needed for nonattainment is after it promulgates or deterioration permitting or public implementation of a NAAQS. Specific revises a NAAQS. Under an existing information. monitoring for these pollutants may standard, voluntary redesignations are This final rule changes the currently be required in individual SIPs; at the Administrator’s discretion: EPA requirements for the minimum number this monitoring rule does not affect any has no legal obligation to redesignate an of monitors for PM2.5 and ozone (O3) SIP requirements for such specific area even if a monitor should register a monitoring networks. In response to monitoring. violation of that standard (see CAA comments, the final requirements Appendix A to this final rule includes Section 107(d)(3)). In particular, in the require more O3 and PM2.5 monitoring most of the proposed revisions to the case of PM10, EPA stated in section VII.B in more polluted areas and more quality system for ambient air of the preamble to the NAAQS rule monitors in CSAs than was proposed. monitoring. In particular, the proposed (printed in today’s Federal Register) While this final rule requires fewer requirement for States to ensure a that because EPA is retaining the monitors than are now operating for O3 program of adequate and independent current 24-hour PM10 standards, new and PM2.5, as did the pre-existing audits of their monitoring stations is nonattainment designations for PM10 monitoring rule, EPA does not intend to included in this final rule. One way, but will not be required under the encourage net reductions in the number not the only way, a State can satisfy this provisions of the Clean Air Act. The of O3 and PM2.5 monitoring sites in the requirement is to agree that EPA will same is true for CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. U.S. as a whole. The surplus in the conduct these audits using funds that However, all valid data from a SPM will existing networks relative to minimum otherwise would have been awarded to be considered in determining if a requirements gives States more the State as part of its annual air quality previously designated nonattainment flexibility to choose where to apply management grant. A small number of area has subsequently attained the monitoring resources for O3 and PM2.5. changes to the proposed quality system NAAQS. See also section V.B.8 below. For PM2.5, this final rule requires that requirements reflect public comments This final rule advances, to May 1, the sampling be conducted on a daily basis on details of the proposed revisions. date each year by which monitoring for monitors that have recently been Also, because the objective of PM10¥2.5 organizations must certify that their recording the highest concentrations in monitoring is to better understand submitted data is accurate to the best of their area and have been recording PM10¥2.5 air quality and to support their knowledge. However, this concentrations very near the 24-hour health effects studies, rather than to requirement will take effect one year NAAQS, to avoid a bias in attainment/ provide data for use in nonattainment later than proposed, in 2010 for data nonattainment designations that can designations, and because there collected in 2009. occur with less frequent sampling. consequently will be a much smaller This final rule retains the current Pursuant to this provision, EPA network of required PM10¥2.5 monitors requirement for an annual monitoring estimates that about 50 sites now than proposed, the quality system for plan and finalizes most of the new

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61241

substantive and procedural State, local, and Tribal monitoring quality data to the Administrator, via requirements that were proposed for agencies may seek approval of their the Air Quality System (AQS). However these plans. One change is that some PM2.5 continuous monitor as ARMs the rule now explicitly requires that required new elements proposed for the beginning today, either independently associated quality assurance data be annual plan have instead been shifted to or in cooperation with instrument submitted along with ambient the 5-year network assessment, to manufactures. concentration data. The first submission reduce the annual plan preparation • The revised quality system affected will be the one due on June 30, burden and to allow these elements to requirements, except that full quality 2007 for data collected in January be prepared more carefully. The first 5- assurance practices, if not waived, are through March of 2007. year network assessment has been not required until January 1, 2009 for As presently is the case, States must postponed by one year, to July 1, 2010. SPMs which use FRM, FEM, or ARM submit an annual network plan by July The proposed requirements regarding monitors. 1 of each year. The next plan is due July • probe heights for PM10¥2.5 monitors, The new minimum requirements 1, 2007. increased O3 monitor distance from (or absence of minimum requirements) States whose PM2.5, PM10, or O3 roadways (for newly established O3 for the number of monitors for specific networks do not meet the revised stations), data elements to be reported, NAAQS pollutants and for PAMS requirements of this final rule regarding and PM filter retention are included in stations, if the new minimum allows a the number of monitors in a given MSA this final rule. State to discontinue a previously or CSA are required to submit a plan for This final rule also removes and required monitor. See below for the adding the necessary additional reserves the pre-existing appendix B, compliance date of the new minimum monitors by July 1, 2007 and to begin Quality Assurance Requirements for requirements in situations in which the operating the new monitors by January Prevention of Significant Deterioration final requirement is greater than the 1, 2008. The EPA believes that this will (PSD) Air Monitoring, and appendix F, currently operating network. only affect O3 and PM2.5 monitoring in • Annual SLAMS Air Quality The criteria for EPA Regional fewer than ten locations each. The EPA Information, of 40 CFR part 58 because Administrator approval for removal of will notify these States directly. they are no longer needed. monitors that are in excess of minimum A plan for the implementation of the required, if a State seeks such removal. required NCore multipollutant C. Significant Dates for States, Local • The criteria for use of data from monitoring stations, including site Governments, Tribes, and Other SPMs in determinations of attainment/ selection, is due by July 1, 2009. States Stakeholders nonattainment. must implement the required NCore • Only State governments, and those The elimination of the requirement multipollutant stations by January 1, local governments that have been for reporting of certain PM2.5 monitor 2011, including PM10¥2.5 monitoring. operating parameters. States will be required to submit assigned responsibility for ambient air • monitoring by their States, are subject to The revised requirement for earlier certification letters regarding the the mandatory requirements of 40 CFR separation between roadways and O3 completeness and accuracy of the part 58.3 The following summary of monitors, for new O3 monitors whose ambient concentration and quality applicable requirements is presented in placement has not already been assurance data they have submitted to chronological order, as an aid for States approved as of December 18, 2006. the Air Quality System (AQS) operated • The new specification for probe in planning their activities to comply by EPA, starting May 1, 2010 for data heights for PM10¥2.5 monitors. collected during 2009. Until then, States with the rule. States are required to The new requirement to archive all comply with pre-existing requirements are required to submit these letters by PM10c and PM10¥2.5 filters for 1 year July 1 of each year. in 40 CFR part 58, until the compliance begins with filters collected on or after date for each new requirement is Network assessments are required January 1, 2007. However, EPA expects from States every 5 years starting July 1, reached. few if any monitoring agencies to be The following provisions in 40 CFR 2010. operating PM or PM ¥ filters this part 53 and part 58 are effective on 10c 10 2.5 Under the Tribal Authority Rule early, so most will be affected later.4 (TAR) (40 CFR part 49), which December 18, 2006: The requirement to submit mass data • The criteria and process for EPA implements section 301(d) of the CAA, on blank PM2.5 filters begins on January Tribes may elect to be treated in the Administrator approval of FRMs, FEMs, 1, 2007. and ARMs or where applicable Regional same manner as a State in implementing The required date to begin daily PM2.5 Administrator approval of ARMs. sections of the CAA. However, EPA sampling at certain PM2.5 monitoring Manufacturers of continuous PM2.5 and determined in the TAR that it was sites is January 1, 2007. The EPA inappropriate to treat Tribes in a PM10¥2.5 instruments may apply for believes this will affect about 50 PM2.5 manner similar to a State with regard to designation of their instruments as monitoring sites. The EPA will notify FRMs or FEMs starting today. The EPA specific plan submittal and the affected States directly. implementation deadlines for NAAQS- is eager to receive such applications as This final rule does not change the related requirements, including, but not soon as manufacturers can collect and schedule for reporting ambient air analyze the necessary supporting data. limited to, such deadlines in CAA sections 110(a)(1), 172(a)(2), 182, 187, 4 As explained in section IV.B of this preamble, 3 Throughout this preamble, ‘‘States’’ is meant to the term ‘‘PM10c’’ refers to a PM10 Federal reference and 191. See 40 CFR 49.4(a). For also refer to local governments that have been method (FRM) that is designated as a PM10c FRM example, an Indian Tribe may choose, assigned responsibility for ambient air monitoring under the final NAAQS rule appearing elsewhere in but is not required, to submit within their respective jurisdiction by their States. today’s Federal Register. In essence, it would be a implementation plans for NAAQS- This preamble also uses ‘‘monitoring organization’’ PM2.5 FRM with the inertial fractionator used to to refer to States, local agencies, and/or Tribes separate out particles larger than 2.5 microns related requirements, nor is any Tribe conducting monitoring under or guided by the removed so that all PM10 is collected. Unlike other required to monitor ambient air. If a provisions of 40 CFR part 58. This final rule applies PM10 instruments, a PM10c instrument must control Tribe elects to do an implementation the same requirements to the District of Columbia, flow to a specified flow rate of 16.67 liters/minute Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as apply to the at local conditions of temperature and pressure. A plan, the plan can contain program 50 States. Other U.S. territories are not subject to PM10¥2.5 FRM consists of a PM2.5 FRM and a PM10c elements to address specific air quality this final rule. FRM of the same model. See also 71 FR 2720. problems in a partial program. The EPA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61242 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

will work with the Tribe to develop an inaddition to those required by this final via grantees, such as the Institute for appropriate schedule for making any rule. The EPA also plans to work with Tribal Environmental Professionals and appropriate monitoring system changes the States, and possibly with some the Tribal Air Monitoring Support which meet the needs of each Tribe. Tribes, to establish and operate sites Center. Indian Tribes have the same rights that will measure only PM10¥2.5 The EPA will also continue to support and responsibilities as States under the concentrations in rural and less the National Park Service’s operation of CAA to implement elements of air urbanized locations, in addition to the the IMPROVE monitoring network, quality programs as they deem PM10¥2.5 monitors required at NCore which provides important data for necessary. Tribes can choose to engage sites. implementing both regional haze and 6 in ambient air monitoring activities. In An important element of PM2.5 attainment programs. The many cases, Indian Tribes will be implementing the new requirements number of sites in the IMPROVE required by EPA regions to institute will be EPA’s role in encouraging the program may vary, depending on EPA’s quality assurance programs that comply development and application of FEMs, enacted budget and the data needs of with 40 CFR part 58 appendix A, utilize and the development of a sampler or the regional haze and PM2.5 attainment FRM, FEM, or ARM monitors when samplers that can provide a direct programs. comparing their data to the NAAQS, measurement of PM10¥2.5 for collection The EPA will also continue to operate and to insure that the data collected is of filters used in chemical speciation the Clean Air Status and Trends representative of their respective and for continuous methods that Network (CASTNET), which monitors airsheds. For FRM, FEM, or ARM measure both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. The for O3, PM, and chemical components of monitors used for NAAQS attainment or EPA has determined that continuous PM in rural areas across the nation.7 nonattainment determinations, quality monitoring of PM2.5 has many EPA is in the process of revising assurance requirements of 40 CFR part advantages over the filter-based FRM. CASTNET to upgrade its monitoring 58 must be followed and would be This final rule makes it more practical capabilities to allow it to provide even viewed by EPA as an indivisible for manufacturers and users of more useful data to multiple data users. element of a regulatory air quality continuous PM2.5 instruments to obtain The EPA expects that about 20 monitoring program. designation for them as FEMs or ARMs. CASTNET sites will have new To ensure objectivity and a sound capabilities similar to some of the D. Implementation of the Revised scientific basis for decisions, EPA’s capabilities required at NCore Monitoring Requirements Office of Research and Development multipollutant sites. After promulgation, EPA will assist will review applications for FEM and This final rule includes a requirement States in implementing the amended ARM designations based on the criteria that States must ensure a program of requirements using several mechanisms. in this final rule and will recommend adequate and independent audits of The EPA will work with each State to approval or disapproval to the their monitoring stations. One way, but develop approvable monitoring plans Administrator. For agencies seeking use not the only way, a State can satisfy this for its new NCore multipollutant of an ARM already approved in another requirement is to agree that EPA will monitoring stations, including PM10¥2.5 monitoring network, the applicable conduct these audits using funds that monitoring. For example, EPA will Regional Office will conduct a review, otherwise would have been awarded to negotiate the selection of required new most often as part of the EPA approval the State as part of its annual air quality monitoring sites (or new capabilities at of an annual monitoring plan, based on management grant. In anticipation of the existing sites) and their schedules for the criteria in this final monitoring rule. possible inclusion of this requirement in start up as well as plans to discontinue The EPA will also provide technical this final rule, EPA has been working sites that are no longer needed. The EPA guidance documents and training with monitoring organizations to will negotiate with each State its annual opportunities for State, local, and Tribal determine which of these organizations grant for air quality management monitoring staff to help them select, prefer this approach. The EPA expects activities, including ambient monitoring operate, and use the data from new that, for 2007, nearly all monitoring work. Once States have established a types of monitoring equipment. The organizations will request that EPA new monitoring infrastructure to meet EPA has already distributed a technical conduct these audits. For those that the new requirements, EPA will review assistance document on the precursor chose another acceptable approach, EPA State monitoring activities, submitted gas monitors 5 that will be part of the will conduct limited cross-checks of data, and plans for further changes on NCore multipollutant sites and EPA has equipment, calibration standards, an annual basis. conducted multiple training workshops auditor preparation, and audit The EPA’s support for and on these monitors. Additional guidance procedures to ensure that their audit participation in enhancing the national will be developed and provided on programs are adequate. ambient air monitoring system to serve some other types of monitors with The EPA recognizes that current and future air quality which many State monitoring staff are characterizing and managing some air management and research needs will currently unfamiliar, and on network quality problems requires ambient extend beyond ensuring that States meet design, site selection, discontinuation of concentration and deposition data that the minimum requirements of this final sites, quality assurance, network cannot be provided by the types of monitoring rule. The EPA will work assessment, and other topics. While monitoring required by the monitoring with each State or local air monitoring Tribes are not subject to the monitoring activities addressed in today’s final rule. agency to determine what affordable requirements of this final rule, these These problems include near-roadway monitoring activities above minimum technical resources will also be exposures to emissions from motor requirements would best meet the available to them directly from EPA and diverse needs of the individual air 6 Additional information on EPA/National Park quality management program as well as 5 Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for Service IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of the needs of other data users. The EPA Precursor Gas Measurments in the NCore Protected Visual Environments) Visibility Program Multipollutant Monitoring Network. Version 4. U.S. is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ may also work with the States, and Environmental Protection Agency. EPA–454/R–05– visdata.html. possibly with some Tribes, to establish 003. September 2005. Available at: http:// 7 Additional information on CASTNET is and operate PM10¥2.5 speciation sites www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html. available at: http://www.epa.gov/castnet/.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61243

vehicles and mercury deposition. The monitoring, have been awarded under Several commenters stated that EPA EPA is actively researching these issues section 103 with the overall amount for should not use STAG funds for the and developing concepts for monitoring these funds established by the enacted improvement or operation of Federal programs to address them, but these budget. monitoring networks such as CASTNET. issues are outside the scope of this final During the public comment period for The EPA does not intend to use STAG rule. this rulemaking EPA received a large funds from fiscal year 2007 or beyond The Air Quality System (AQS) is the number of comments addressing in this way. data system EPA uses to receive ambient funding issues. Most of these comments IV. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions air monitoring data from State, local, expressed opposition to the and Major Comments on Proposed Tribal, and other types of monitoring Administration’s proposed EPA budget organizations and to make those data for fiscal year 2007, which included a Amendments to 40 CFR Part 53 available to all interested users. AQS is proposal to provide PM monitoring based on a particular data structure and 2.5 A. Overview of Part 53 Regulatory support through section 105 grant Requirements uses particular data input formats funding, as is done for all other criteria including data elements and defined pollutants. (As of today, the Congress Various appendices to 40 CFR part 50 values for categorical data. The existing has not enacted a 2007 budget for EPA.) define certain ambient air monitoring AQS data structure and input formats Commenters stated that if funding for methods as Federal reference methods are for the most part consistent with a monitoring were reduced as proposed, which may be used to determine number of changes made in this final State and local agencies would have less attainment of the National Ambient Air rule to pre-existing terminology and flexibility than desired in designing and requirements, but some changes will be Quality Standards (NAAQS), and which operating their monitoring programs, needed in AQS to re-establish full form the benchmark for determining and that the proposed requirements for consistency with requirements in the equivalency of other methods which new PM ¥ and NCore networks and monitoring rule. The changes to AQS 10 2.5 may also be used to determine will likely, in turn, require some for adequate and independent audits of attainment. Under 40 CFR part 53, EPA modifications to data preparation tools monitoring stations would be designates specific commercial and practices at monitoring agencies. burdensome. Some commenters instruments or other versions of The EPA will prepare and implement a requested that the proposed new methods as Federal reference methods plan for making these changes, and will requirements not be included in this (FRMs). To be so designated, a advise AQS users of the ramifications final rule for this reason. particular FRM must be shown, while doing so. Generally, the The EPA understands these concerns. according to the procedures and compliance deadlines in the rule are However, the CAA requirements from requirements of part 53, to meet all such that monitoring agencies are not which this final rule derives 8 are not specifications of both the applicable required to immediately comply with contingent on EPA providing funding to appendix of part 50 as well as any changes in rule provisions that States to assist in meeting those applicable specifications and would affect data transfer formats and requirements. Accordingly, the requirements of part 53. procedures. Monitoring agencies, for the comments regarding funding are not To foster development of improved present, should continue to follow pre- directly relevant to the content of this existing AQS formats and procedures final rule. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes alternative air monitoring methods, EPA until notified. that resources always have been and also designates—as Federal equivalent will remain a practical consideration for methods (FEMs)—alternative methods E. Federal Funding for Ambient Air establishing and operating monitoring that are shown to have measurement Monitoring programs. The EPA will continue to performance comparable to the EPA has historically funded part of work with States in this regard, in corresponding FRM. Part 53 contains the cost to State, local, and Tribal particular as EPA determines how to explicit performance tests, performance governments of installation and allocate enacted funding among States standards, and other requirements for operation of monitors to meet Federal and among types of monitoring so as to designation of both FRMs and FEMs for monitoring requirements. Sections 105 achieve the best possible environmental each of the criteria pollutants. In and 103 of the CAA allow EPA to outcomes. Several provisions of this addition, States’ air surveillance provide grant funding for programs for final rule reduce minimum monitoring networks are required, preventing and controlling air pollution requirements, which will provide under 40 CFR part 58, appendix C, to and for some research and development flexibility for States to reduce some of use only EPA-designated FRMs, FEMs, efforts respectively. Eligible entities their pre-existing costs. or ARMs at SLAMS sites. A list of all must apply for section 103 grants. methods that EPA has designated as Eligible entities must provide 8 Section 103(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act [42 either FRMs or FEMs for all criteria nonfederal matching funds for section U.S.C.A. 7403(c)] provides that the Administrator pollutants is available at http:// 105 grants. The EPA’s enacted budget shall conduct a program for sampling air pollution www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html. specifies overall how much State and that includes the establishment of a national network to monitor air quality and to ensure the Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, Tribal Air Grant (STAG) funding is comparability of air quality data collected in EPA is promulgating a new Federal available for these grants. different states. Section 110(a)(2)(B) [42 U.S.C.A In recent years, EPA has received 7410(a)] provides that each State implementation reference method for measurement of special authority through appropriations plan shall provide for establishment and operation mass concentrations of thoracic coarse acts to use section 103 grant funding for of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and particles (PM10¥2.5) in the atmosphere, procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and to be codified as appendix O to 40 CFR establishing and operating PM2.5-related analyze data on ambient air quality and upon monitoring stations. Funding for other request make such data available to the part 50. Although, as explained earlier, types of monitoring has been included Administrator. Section 182(c)(1) [42 U.S.C.A. EPA is not at this time adopting any 7511a(c)(1)] states that the Administrator will NAAQS for PM10¥2.5, EPA believes an in the grants awarded under section promulgate rules for enhanced monitoring for FRM for PM ¥ is still highly 105. Grants to Tribes for air quality ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic 10 2.5 management work, including ambient compounds in serious ozone areas. desirable to aid in a variety of needed

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61244 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

research studies.9 This new FRM is service requirements, and eliminate off- sampler must meet all requirements for defined as the standard of reference for site sample filter support services, as a PM2.5 reference method in 40 CFR part measurement of PM10¥2.5 well as to provide measurement 50, appendix L, as well as additional concentrations in ambient air. It will be resolution of 1 hour or less and near requirements in part 53. However, the an acceptable and readily available real-time reporting of monitoring data. PM10 sampler required by the method is PM10¥2.5 measurement method for new Therefore, EPA is interested in not a conventional PM10 sampler as NCore multipollutant monitoring sites encouraging the development of described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix to be located at approximately 75 urban alternative monitoring methods for J; rather, it is a sampler specified to be and rural locations. Availability of an PM10¥2.5 by focusing on the explicit test identical to the PM2.5 sampler of the approved FRM for PM10¥2.5 will also and qualification requirements pair, except that the PM2.5 particle size help provide consistency among necessary for designation of such types separator is removed. This special PM10 PM10¥2.5 measurements used in future of methods as FEMs for PM10¥2.5. In sampler is identified as a ‘‘PM10c’’ health studies of the adverse health fact, EPA anticipates that alternative sampler to differentiate it from effects associated with exposure to FEMs will eventually provide most of conventional PM10 samplers that meet thoracic coarse particles. Lastly, the the PM10¥2.5 monitoring data obtained the less exacting requirements of 40 CFR PM10¥2.5 reference method will provide in the States’ monitoring networks. part 50, appendix J. In view of the the basis for development of speciation Further, EPA recognizes that the similarity of the PM10¥2.5 FRM samplers capable of providing an potential benefits of automated/ requirements to those of the PM2.5 FRM, improved understanding of the continuous monitoring methods apply the new requirements will allow a compositions of different ambient mixes as well to FEMs for PM2.5. Accordingly, PM10¥2.5 sampler pair consisting of of thoracic coarse particles, so that this as proposed, EPA is also establishing samplers that have already been shown composition can be related to both new requirements in part 53 for to meet the PM2.5 FRM requirements health effects and to particle sources. designation of continuous FEMs for (except for the PM2.5 particle size Associated with this new reference PM2.5. See 71 FR 2721. The PM2.5 and separator in the case of the PM10c method, EPA is also establishing related PM10¥2.5 FEM provisions parallel each sampler) to be designated as a PM10¥2.5 amendments to 40 CFR part 53 to other in many respects so inclusion now reference method without further extend the designation provisions of is both appropriate and conforming. testing. FRMs and FEMs to methods for The new requirements for approval of C. Requirements for Candidate PM10¥2.5. These amendments set forth automated/continuous FEMs can Equivalent Methods for PM2.5 and explicit tests, performance standards, accommodate a wide range of potential ¥ PM10 2.5 and other requirements for designation PM10¥2.5 or PM2.5 continuous of specific commercial samplers, measurement technologies. Ambient air As pointed out in the preamble to the sampler configurations, or analyzers as testing of a candidate technology at proposed rule (71 FR 2721), EPA either FRMs or FEMs for PM10¥2.5, as diverse monitoring sites is required in believes very strongly that provisions to appropriate. order to demonstrate that the level of allow designation of Federal equivalent As noted in section VI.A of the comparability to collocated Federal methods provide an important incentive preamble to the NAAQS revisions reference method measurements is to encourage the commercial published elsewhere in this Federal adequate to meet established data development of innovative new and Register, EPA recognizes that the FRM, quality objectives (DQOs). advantageous alternative methods for while providing a good standard of This final rule also modifies monitoring air pollutants. However, it is performance for comparison to other somewhat certain existing requirements also important to show conclusively methods, is not itself optimal for routine for designation of alternative, non- that any new candidate method will use in PM10¥2.5 monitoring networks. continuous methods for PM2.5. As produce measurements comparable to Alternative methods are needed that explained in section IV.B of this those of the FRM and will have provide a more direct measurement of preamble, the modified requirements performance characteristics that are ambient PM10¥2.5 concentrations. will be fully consistent with the more adequate to meet DQOs. At the same Methods are also needed that collect advanced new requirements for both time, the testing that is necessary to samples of PM10¥2.5 that are more continuous and non-continuous FEMs show comparable and adequate physically separated for analysis of for PM10¥2.5. performance must not be so burdensome that it undermines incentives for new chemical species. Also, automated, B. Requirements for Candidate method development. continuous-type methods provide many Reference Methods for PM10¥2.5 operational advantages to ease Because of the complex nature of monitoring burdens, reduce on-site No comments were received related particulate matter, it is also complex to specifically to the PM10¥2.5 FRM test the performance of PM monitoring 9 Henderson, R. Clean Air Scientific Advisory designation requirements. These methods. For methods for PM2.5, EPA Committee (CASAC) Review of the EPA Staff provisions are adopted as proposed. defined three classes of candidate FEMs Recommendations Concerning a Potential Thoracic Because of the nearly complete (Classes I, II, and III) based on the extent Coarse PM Standard in the Review of the National similarity between the specifications for to which the method differs from the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and the new PM10¥2.5 reference method and FRM, so that the nature and extent of Technical Information (Final PM OAQPS Staff for the existing PM2.5 reference method, the performance and comparability Paper, EPA–452/R–05–005). September 15, 2005. the designation requirements for testing necessary can be more closely http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/ PM10¥2.5 reference methods are matched to the nature of the candidate casacpmpanel.html. ¥ Henderson, R. Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, essentially the same as those for PM2.5 method. See 40 CFR 53.3(a)(2) (4). In Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to reference methods. As set forth in the this final rule, as proposed, EPA is the Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, new appendix O to 40 CFR part 50, the extending these same class definitions U.S. EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee PM10¥2.5 reference method specifies a and tiered testing requirements to apply Recommendations Concerning the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pair of samplers consisting of a to PM10¥2.5 candidate FEMs as well. Particulate Matter. March 21, 2006. http:// conventional PM2.5 sampler and a Class I methods are limited to minor www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06-002.pdf. special PM10 sampler. The PM2.5 deviations from the FRM; Class II covers

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61245

integrated-sample, filter-based, Scientific Advisory Committee. The Of particular note to instrument gravimetric methods deviating more salient Class III FEM requirements were manufacturers, this final rule allows significantly from the FRM; and Class III summarized in the proposal preamble applications for Class II candidate FEMs methods (originally) included all other (71 FR 2722–2724). Not unexpectedly, a for both PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 to methods not categorized as Class I or II. considerable number of comments were optionally substitute the more extensive The three classes are described in more received in connection with the Class III comparability field tests in detail in the proposal preamble (71 FR specifics of the proposed Class II and subpart C for some or all of the rather 2721). As proposed, the definition of Class III requirements. The more extensive and arduous laboratory wind Class III FEMs is narrowed to include significant of these comments are tunnel tests, loading test, and volatility only continuous or semi-continuous addressed below, after a summary of the test of subpart F to which a Class II analyzer methods having 1-hour or less proposal regarding requirements for candidate FEM sampler may otherwise measurement resolution, which are the Class II and Class III methods. be subject. Such a substitution of test Class III methods that by far hold the Remaining comments are addressed in results may be particularly important most potential for monitoring the Response to Comments document. when the special facilities necessary for applications and FEM designation. The Class II candidate FEMs, although not the wind tunnel tests or other tests are EPA has thus avoided the restrictions offering the operational advantages of not available. Concurrent testing of and complexity that would be necessary continuous Class III methods, are multiple methods under the Class III to accommodate the wide variety of nevertheless important as well. Class II requirements may also help to reduce other types of non-Class I or II methods methods encompass the dichotomous overall testing costs. that are unlikely to be economically and and virtual impactor types of methods In regard to the proposed testing commercially practical. Also, the that can provide a more direct, requirements for Class III (continuous) continuous operational nature of such gravimetric, filter-based measurement of FEMs for PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5, EPA Class III methods gives rise to a PM10¥2.5 than available with the FRM. specifically solicited comments related statistical advantage that allows more These methods are also most likely to to the adequacy of the number and tolerant limits of adequate fulfill the substantial need for collecting location of the test sites required for the comparability, relative to a method that PM10¥2.5 samples that are physically field tests to determine comparability of is not operated continuously, to achieve separated from other particle sizes, or a candidate method to the respective a similar limit of uncertainty in the nearly so, for chemical species analysis. FRM. See 71 FR 2722. By definition, a monitoring data. New requirements for Class II FEMs for designated FEM is generally qualified Class III continuous methods appear PM10¥2.5 are being established in this for use at any monitoring site in the U.S. to offer many potential benefits for use final rule, and some of the previously (with the possible exception of some in routine field monitoring networks. established requirements for Class II areas with extreme conditions), so the These automated analyzers eliminate FEMs for PM2.5 are being changed test requirements for comparability need most, if not all, of the pre- and post- somewhat to make them more to represent a wide variety of possible weighing of sample filters, require less consistent with the corresponding new site conditions. The EPA proposed that frequent on-site service, may be less requirements for PM10¥2.5 Class II FEMs candidate methods be tested within costly to operate, and offer near real- and to incorporate some minor technical three general geographical areas: (1) The time, electronic reporting of hourly (or improvements. Los Angeles area in winter and summer less) mass concentration measurements The proposed Class II FEM seasons, (2) eastern U.S. in winter and (similar to data reporting that is requirements, as outlined in the summer, and (3) western U.S. in winter common for gaseous pollutant proposal preamble (71 FR 2721–2725), only (for a total of five 30-day test monitors). The EPA is accordingly were based on daily sampling; therefore, campaigns). Each proposed test site area adopting the proposed Class III FEM Class II equivalent methods used for was selected for representing particular provisions for PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 in determining compliance with the PM2.5 and diverse typical site conditions. today’s rule, with some changes in NAAQS would generally have been In response to several comments response to comments. restricted to daily sampling. However, addressing this issue, a fourth test site— Continuous methods, by nature, tend in response to concerns about method in the U.S. Midwest, with tests required to have somewhat different performance performance in relatively clean areas, in the winter season only—has been characteristics from those of the EPA has strengthened the additive bias added to the requirements to further corresponding filter-based FRMs, so the (intercept) requirement. With this increase the geographical diversity. comparability and performance testing tighter performance criteria and However, the requirement for a winter requirements must be adequately considering that Class II methods are test campaign in the eastern U.S. has comprehensive and discriminating filter-based samplers, a minimum of a been withdrawn while the requirement without being excessively burdensome. one-in-three day sample frequency will for a summer test campaign in the The Class III FEM requirements being be appropriate to meet the network data eastern U.S. has been retained, so the promulgated today are based quality objectives. Class II methods are total number of required test campaigns predominantly on demonstrating an also expected to be used for collecting (five) is unchanged. Comparability adequate degree of comparability samples used in chemical species testing of a candidate method is costly, between candidate method analysis, which would not require daily rendering it impractical to test a measurements and concurrent, operation. The character of the test sites candidate method under all possible collocated Federal reference method specified for Classes II and III tests for combinations of site and seasonal measurements under a representative both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 are similar, so conditions that might be encountered in variety of site conditions. Many issues concurrent testing for PM2.5 and national PM monitoring networks. The and much technical input were PM10¥2.5 methods of both classes can be EPA considers the specified carefully considered during the carried out, substantially reducing the complement of five test campaigns in development of the requirements, testing burden for candidate FEMs that the four specified geographical areas including peer review by the Ambient measure both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 or for and two seasons to be reasonable to Air Monitoring and Methods testing multiple candidate methods conduct and adequately representative Subcommittee of the Clean Air simultaneously. of the diversity of site and seasonal PM

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61246 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring conditions across the U.S. a variety of applications, EPA has guidance (to be used by instrument As noted above, the two test site areas somewhat strengthened the range of operators as they believe appropriate) specified for testing candidate Class II allowable intercepts for those candidate rather than as a formal part of the FEM FEMs are compatible with the test sites FEMs. For Class III FEMs, new fixed provisions. Therefore, no changes were 3 for candidate Class III methods, which limits of ±2.0 µg/m for PM2.5 methods made to the proposed requirement that 3 will significantly reduce testing costs by and ±7.0 µg/m for PM10¥2.5 methods FEM applicants submit the 1-hour FEM allowing Class II and III candidate have been added. For Class II FEMs for test data, and there is no designation methods to be tested simultaneously at PM10¥2.5, the fixed intercept limit has requirement based on 1-hour precision the same test site. Also, the test sites been reduced from ±7.0 to ±3.5 µg/m3. or any other particular 1-hour based have been relabeled for ease of (The intercept requirements proposed performance statistic. referencing east and west sites. for candidate Class II PM2.5 methods The EPA also asked for comments on Some commenters expressed concern were re-examined and found to be the adequacy and appropriateness of the that the Class III comparability test appropriate as proposed.) The more proposed test requirements for Class II standards might be inadequate because restrictive intercept limits will reduce FEMs. See 71 FR 2724. Some a candidate method that had an the maximum allowable measurement commenters suggested that the proposed unacceptable seasonal bias (such as has bias and are represented by smaller Class II tests were inadequate because been noted for some continuous hexagonal acceptance areas, as specified there was more variation in the PM at methods) could be found acceptable, in 40 CFR part 53, subpart C revised different sites than could be represented because in pooling test data from Table C–4 and as illustrated in revised in the tests—particularly in regard to summer and winter seasons the biases Figures C–2 and C–3 of this final rule. chemical compositions—and suggested would compensate. The EPA finds that Nevertheless, EPA wishes to point out that continued FEM designation should the associated minimum correlation that, because of the design of the be conditioned on a mandatory periodic requirement of the regression test equivalent method comparability tests reassessment of local-agency should adequately avoid that situation. (which require no low-level test comparisons to FRM measurements. Further, in the revised test concentrations) and the nature of the The EPA recognizes that data produced requirements, summer and winter tests regression analysis, a seemingly high by all FEMs operated in monitoring at the same site, where the data are positive or negative intercept resulting networks under 40 CFR part 58 should pooled, are required at only one of the from the regression analysis of the test meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) four required tests sites. data is not necessarily indicative or of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section Another issue concerning the likely to be characteristic of the actual 2.3.1 on a continuing basis. The proposed testing requirements for Class measurement errors or bias of the operational requirements of appendix A III (continuous), as well as Class II candidate method relative to the FRM at will help ensure this. Moreover, EPA candidate equivalent methods for PM2.5 low or very low concentrations. This can invoke designation cancellation and PM10¥2.5, was the specific situation may be particularly true when procedures for the method designation acceptance criteria for the regression the concentration coefficient of under 40 CFR 53.11 (Cancellation of analysis statistics—particularly the variation (CCV) for the FEM test data reference or equivalent method additive bias (intercept) parameter—of (see 40 CFR 53.35(h)) is relatively low, designation) if EPA observes that DQOs the comparison between collocated resulting in greater uncertainty in the are not being maintained for a particular measurements obtained with the predicted additive bias (and in the designated Class II equivalent method candidate and FRM methods. As multiplicative bias (slope) as well). (or for any FEM or FRM). However, EPA proposed, the upper and lower limits for Class III FEMs will generally provide believes that designation cancellation the regression intercept were specified 1-hour concentration measurements (in should be initiated by EPA when as functions of the corresponding slope, addition to the required 24-hour necessary, rather than have designations with the acceptable combinations of measurements), and EPA asked for conditioned on specific periodic slope and intercept represented by the comments on whether the FEM reassessments as commenters suggested. area inside a trapezoid or a hexagon provisions should include any specific Other commenters suggested that the shape plotted on a slope-intercept requirements for 1-hour precision, and test sites be approved by both EPA and coordinate system (Figures C–2 and C– if so, whether a specific standard of the STAPPA/ALAPCO Monitoring 3 in proposed revised subpart C of part performance should be specified and Committee, but EPA believes that would 53 at 71 FR 2768–2769). These how it should affect FEM designation. be cumbersome and unnecessary. acceptance limits were based on See 71 FR 2723. Of the few comments statistical considerations related to the received on this issue, most agreed with D. Other Changes uncertainty allowable in making correct EPA that 1-hour precision is an EPA proposed several other relatively NAAQS attainment decisions for PM2.5 important descriptor associated with a minor changes to various provisions of (or similar comparisons of PM10¥2.5 Class III candidate method and that 1- subparts A, C, E, and F of part 53. See concentrations to non-regulatory hour FEM test data should be submitted 71 FR 2724–2725. Organizational benchmarks). Several commenters were in a Class III FEM application so that the changes in subpart C consolidate the concerned that the range of acceptable short-term precision can be determined, provisions for various types of methods, intercepts proposed for Class II and III but no specific standard should be set making them easier to understand. FEMs, although appropriate for DQOs for the precision parameter in Other changes clarify or simplify some related to attainment (or similar) connection with the FEM designation existing provisions for PM10 and PM2.5 decisions, may allow excessive qualifications. A few commenters Class I and II FEM testing and measurement bias for FEMs used for suggested that a precision performance implement minor technical other PM monitoring applications— parameter based on a running average of improvements to test protocols, with especially those applications that a few (e.g., 3 to 5) hours should be little, if any, impact on the nature or require measurements of concentrations established and regulated, however, to efficacy of the tests. Minor changes are well below the level of the NAAQS. preserve flexibility, EPA believes that made to subparts A, E, and F to In response to these comments and in precision estimates are better included incorporate the new PM10¥2.5 deference to potential use of FEMs for in method-specific quality assurance provisions and some new definitions,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61247

make a few administrative adjustments, required monitors and their placement monitoring objectives, but which may and incorporate a few minor technical within a metropolitan or other area, not have been approved as FEM for changes. These changes are described appendix E addresses the details of nationwide use. more completely in the proposal monitoring station layout, and appendix The EPA proposed to adopt a new preamble (71 FR 2724), and they are G addresses AQI reporting. (Subpart B term, ‘‘Primary quality assurance being adopted as proposed, as no of the 1997 version was proposed to be organization’’ to clarify the working comments were received pertinent to removed. Subpart F was already definition of the term ‘‘Reporting these minor changes. reserved in the 1997 version. No organization’’ currently utilized in After considering all comments amendments were proposed to the part section 3.0.3. of 40 CFR part 58, carefully, EPA determined that no 58 requirements for reporting of the AQI appendix A, Quality Assurance further changes should be made to the and the associated appendix G.) Requirements, and to avoid confusion proposed new or revised FRM and FEM To aid in understanding the with the different way ‘‘reporting requirements. The EPA is thus adopting provisions of the final part 58 and their organization’’ has come to be used in a the proposed new or revised relationship to the 1997 and proposed related but distinct context (final requirements and provisions for Federal provisions, the following discussion for uploading of data to the Air Quality reference and Federal equivalent the most part follows the order of the System). See 71 FR 2778. methods for PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5, final part 58, addressing each affected The EPA also proposed additional modified to incorporate the changes numbered section and then the definitions to be consistent with described above. appendices. terminology used in 40 CFR part 50, appendix O, the FRM for PM10¥2.5. See V. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions B. General Monitoring Requirements 71 FR 2777. Modifications to the and Major Comments on Proposed 1. Definitions and Terminology definitions of key geographical terms Amendments to 40 CFR Part 58 were proposed, as needed, to reflect The EPA proposed to discontinue the changes in U.S. Census Bureau usage A. Overview of Part 58 Regulatory use of the term ‘‘National air monitoring Requirements since the last revision to monitoring stations (NAMS)’’. See 71 FR 2720. regulations. Part 58 of 40 CFR, Ambient Air Previously, this term was used to The EPA received some questions Quality Surveillance, contains designate Federal reference method seeking clarification of the new term requirements for ambient air monitoring (FRM) and Federal equivalent method ‘‘Primary quality assurance programs operated by States (or (FEM) monitors which were operated to organization,’’ which are addressed in designated local agencies). As proposed, meet set requirements for the number the Response to Comments document the structure of part 58 remains much (and, for some pollutants the type of available in the docket. No other the same as the 1997 version. Proposed location) of monitors and which adverse comments were received on subparts A through G, containing 40 required EPA Administrator approval these proposed definitions, and this CFR 50.1 through 50.61, provide for changes, as distinguished from final rule includes all of them. definitions of terms; require the ‘‘State and local air monitoring stations operation of certain numbers and types (SLAMS)’’ which referred to additional 2. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and of monitors by certain dates; require the FRM and FEM monitors for which Periodic Network Assessment use of certain monitoring methods, generally there was no minimum The EPA proposed to consolidate quality system practices, and sampling number, for which siting was more at current requirements for the SLAMS air schedules and frequencies; require the State’s discretion, and for which quality surveillance plan and NAMS annual plans describing a State’s changes were approved by the Regional network description into elements of the monitoring network and planned Administrator. annual monitoring network plan changes to it; provide criteria for EPA The EPA proposed a new definition described in 40 CFR 58.10 of the approval of planned changes; require for ‘‘National Core (NCore)’’ stations. proposed rule. See 71 FR 2725. The data submission and certification that The definition of ‘‘State or local air annual monitoring network plan would submitted data is accurate to the best of monitoring stations (SLAMS)’’ was provide a statement of purpose for each the knowledge of responsible State proposed to be modified to include monitor in a monitoring agency network official; address special rules regarding NCore, Photochemical Air Monitoring and provide evidence that siting and special purpose monitors; provide rules Systems (PAMS), and all other State or operation of each monitor meet the for comparing monitoring data to locally operated stations (such as PM2.5 requirements of appendices A, C, D, and applicable National Ambient Air speciation stations) that have not been E of part 58, as applicable. The EPA also Quality Standards (NAAQS); require designated as a special purpose monitor proposed the addition of some required reporting of the Air Quality Index (AQI) or monitoring station (SPM). This elements to the annual monitoring to the public in some areas; and provide change was proposed for convenience in network plan and proposed to add a for monitoring directly by EPA if a State referencing these types of monitors new requirement for a periodic network fails to operate required monitors. As together because some provisions in the assessment. proposed, part 58 also includes rule apply to all of them but not to The EPA received comments on a appendices A, C, D, E, and G which SPMs. See 71 FR 2720. Previously, number of specific elements within the were referenced by various numbered ‘‘SLAMS’’ referred only to FRM and annual monitoring network plan and sections in subparts A through G. These FEM monitors. with regard to the network assessment appendices contain many detailed The term, ‘‘Approved regional requirement. The comments that were requirements, as well as considerable methods’’ (ARMs), proposed at 71 FR the basis for modifications to the explanatory or background material and 2720, is added to refer to alternative proposed rule are discussed briefly here. non-binding advice. Appendix A PM2.5 methods that have been approved Detailed responses to all comments are addresses quality system requirements, by EPA for use specifically within a provided in the Response to Comments appendix C addresses monitoring State, local, or Tribal air monitoring document available in the docket. methods and equipment, appendix D network for purposes of comparison to Comments were received on the mostly addresses the number of the NAAQS and to meet other proposed requirement for a 30-day

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61248 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

public inspection period before State needed to develop guidance to discontinue sites, EPA notes that States submittal of a draft annual monitoring standardize the development of are already required to make their network plan to the Regional financial information and for States to annual network monitoring plans Administrator as well as on the collect and summarize the information available for public inspection and that proposed requirement for Regional for submittal. Without such process provides the basic framework Administrator approval of annual standardization, cost information would for disseminating information about monitoring network plans seeking be difficult to interpret. In view of these anticipated site discontinuations. The SLAMS network modifications comments, EPA has deleted this EPA recognizes that there are many including new monitoring sites. Some element from the list of required potential users of air quality information commenters requested clarification information to be contained in the and that States cannot be aware of all regarding what methods would be annual monitoring network plan. such users. However, to the extent that considered acceptable for making The EPA proposed a new requirement information about site shutdowns can documents available for public that the annual monitoring network be disseminated more widely, there are inspection. Commenters also expressed plan consider the ability of existing and benefits to be gained by protecting key concern that the 120 days proposed for proposed sites to support air quality monitors that (for example) support Regional Administrator review and characterization for areas with relatively ongoing health studies or that are the approval/disapproval would result in high populations of susceptible basis for long-term trend analyses, or unnecessary delays. individuals (e.g., children with asthma), otherwise provide information that is The EPA notes the general support in and, for any sites that are being used by stakeholders other than the the comments for the public inspection proposed for discontinuance, the effect operating agency. As such, EPA has requirement. Commenters also on data users other than the agency retained this provision in this final rule. supported the flexibility in the proposed itself, such as nearby States and Tribes The EPA will work with States and rule which would allow monitoring or health effects studies. See 71 FR health organizations to explore options agencies to design and implement 2780. Several commenters noted that for tracking the status of key air quality appropriate ways of allowing this this requirement would be challenging sites. inspection. The EPA supports use of to implement and involves knowledge The EPA received many comments in monitoring agency Web sites for such of public health that may not be readily response to the proposed requirement postings, along with other means of available to monitoring organizations. In for a network assessment to be providing public notice including hard- addition, it was noted that, absent the completed every 5 years and to be copy posting in libraries and public availability of a centralized information submitted with the required annual offices. Although the public inspection clearinghouse, it would be difficult for network monitoring plan. Commenters requirement does not specifically States to be aware of all possible users acknowledged the overall value of a require States to obtain and respond to of data for health studies or other types more complete evaluation of monitoring received comments, such a process is of research. programs but expressed concern about encouraged with the subsequent This new element of the annual the resource burden in meeting the transmission of comments to the monitoring network plan highlights the requirement. appropriate EPA Regional Office for importance that EPA places on the Network assessments are a key tool to review. Therefore, EPA has modified consideration of sensitive populations help ensure that the right parameters are this final rule from the proposal to when evaluating the relative value and being measured in the right locations, specify that where the State has representativeness of monitoring sites, and that monitoring resources are used provided for a public comment process particularly for areas where one or more in the most effective and efficient and provided any comments received to NAAQS may be approached or manner to meet the needs of multiple EPA, and the posted plan has not been exceeded.10 The EPA acknowledges the stakeholders. Network assessments can substantially altered as a result of the potential challenge in obtaining help identify new data needs and public comments, the requirement for information about the distribution of associated technologies, find the Regional Administrator to obtain susceptible individuals in specific opportunities for consolidation of public comment by a separate process geographic areas around existing and individual sites into multi-pollutant can be waived. The 120 days allowed proposed sites, and has purposely sites, and identify geographic areas for Regional Administrator review of an defined the requirement as a where network coverage should be annual plan is a feature of the current ‘‘consideration’’ to provide significant increased or decreased based on monitoring rule, and has been kept in latitude for monitoring organizations to changes in population and/or emissions. this final rule. determine the complexity and depth of The EPA has already issued draft The EPA received many comments on their response. In recognition of the guidance to describe the possible the proposed requirement for the annual potential complexity of preparing techniques that States can use in monitoring network plan to contain cost assessments of susceptible populations developing their assessments, and has information. See 71 FR 2780. on a sub-county sized spatial scale as purposely limited the required elements Commenters were concerned that no represented by typical monitoring sites, to provide flexibility in the amount of details were provided regarding what in this final rule EPA has moved this resources that would be required. After consideration of the comments, EPA has information would be required and how requirement to become a required retained the network assessment the information would be used. The element of the 5-year network requirement in this final rule. In light of accounting difficulty in calculating such assessment rather than the annual the concerns raised about the resource cost information was also noted along monitoring network plan. with concerns regarding the With regard to the proposed provision requirements needed to complete administrative burden of preparing and requiring States to consider the effect on network assessments, the deadline for documenting the cost estimates. data users of proposed actions to the first required assessment under this The EPA has considered the proposed final rule has been delayed an requirement for cost information in the 10 See S. Rep. No. 91–1196. 91st Cong. 2d Sess. additional year to July 1, 2010. annual monitoring network plan and 10 (1970) (NAAQS is to be set to protect sensitive, The EPA is not adopting the proposed agrees that considerable effort would be at-risk population groups). requirement for a separate plan

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61249

establishing a network of PM10¥2.5 Commenters also noted the lack of be physically established no later than stations as an addendum to the annual currently available continuous FEM January 1, 2009 is not included in this monitoring network plan (see 71 FR PM10¥2.5 instruments and the final rule. However, by January 1, 2011, 2740, 2779) since the only required burdensome resource requirements States must implement the less PM10¥2.5 monitoring will take place as associated with daily sampling extensive monitoring for PM10¥2.5, part of the NCore multi-pollutant requirements using the proposed filter- including speciation sampling, as part stations, already covered by the based FRM. of the generally-applicable requirement proposed plan due July 1, 2009. The The proposed requirement for daily to operate NCore multipollutant EPA has added clarifying language to PM10¥2.5 sampling was based on a data monitoring stations by that date. A plan this final rule requiring Administrator quality objective system analysis that for the implementation of the required approval for the NCore plan due July 1, identified such a frequency as being a NCore multipollutant monitoring 2009 and subsequent annual monitoring key factor in reducing statistical stations, including site selection, is due network plan elements proposing uncertainty at concentrations near the July 1, 2009. modifications, consistent with the level of the proposed 24-hour PM10¥2.5 Little comment was received on the requirement for Administrator approval NAAQS. Since EPA is not finalizing a requirement for the NCore of NCore stations in section 3(a) of PM10¥2.5 NAAQS but instead is multipollutant sites to be physically appendix D. requiring a more limited set of PM10¥2.5 established no later than January 1, The proposed plan element monitors at NCore sites to support 2011, and that requirement remains supporting PM10¥2.5 suitability tests for objectives other than and (obviously) unchanged in this final rule as EPA NAAQS comparisons likewise is not not including NAAQS compliance, continues to believe that this is practical being adopted since EPA is not additional flexibility in sampling and desirable. finalizing the proposed PM ¥ frequency requirements is appropriate. 10 2.5 5. System Modifications NAAQS. Although daily sampling of PM10¥2.5 at The proposed prescriptive wording NCore sites remains a desirable In part, EPA started this rulemaking with reference to public hearings in the outcome, and will become a more based on the recognition by EPA and context of reviews of changes to practical goal with the advent of leaders of State and local monitoring violating PM2.5 monitors and/or continuous FEM monitors in several agencies that State/local monitoring community monitoring zones (71 FR years, EPA has reduced the PM10¥2.5 networks should be modified to reduce 2780) has been modified to specify that sampling frequency requirement in this some types of monitoring activity in draft plans containing such proposed final rule to 1-in-3 days. some areas and to begin new types of changes to PM2.5 networks must be The EPA proposed reducing the monitoring. The EPA proposed rule made available for public inspection sample frequency requirement for PM10 changes to revise the minimum required and comment by States prior to manual methods. Reducing the sample number of monitors for ozone (O3), submission to the EPA Regional frequency for PM10 was possible since PM2.5, lead (Pb), and PAMS pollutants Administrator but that States can design EPA had proposed to have daily and to eliminate altogether the the process for achieving such goals. sampling of PM10¥2.5 to support minimum number of required monitors protection from thoracic coarse for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur 3. Operating Schedules particles. As published elsewhere in dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide The EPA proposed that manual PM2.5 today’s Federal Register, EPA is (NO2) in order to utilize scarce resources monitors at SLAMS be required to retaining the 24-hour PM10 standard and more productively by allowing for operate on a 1-in-3 day sampling not finalizing a PM10¥2.5 standard. The reductions in the number of monitoring frequency, except under certain EPA is also only finalizing a limited sites where appropriate. See 71 FR 2729. conditions and when approved by the network of PM10¥2.5 monitors at multi- The EPA stated in the proposal that Regional Administrator. See 71 FR 2780. pollutant NCore stations for scientific the remaining requirements for the As discussed in section II.E.1 of the purposes. Therefore, since the existing minimum number of monitors for Pb, preamble to the final revisions to the requirement for PM10 sample frequency PM2.5, and O3 were intended to be PM NAAQS, published elsewhere in is for daily sampling for the site with necessary but not always sufficient to this Federal Register, commenters the expected maximum concentration in meet the requirements in section pointed out a potential bias in the each area, and previous assessments of 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) method used to calculate the 98th the 24-hour standard demonstrates that that State implementation plans (SIPs) percentile form of the 24-hour PM2.5 maximizing sample frequency will provide for operation of appropriate NAAQS. As explained there, to avoid minimize decision errors, EPA is systems to monitor, compile, and this potential bias, EPA is requiring retaining the existing daily sample analyze data on ambient air quality. daily sampling at design value sites that frequency requirement for the site with Similarly, although EPA believes that are within 5 percent of the 24-hour expected maximum concentration in one-size-fits-all rules for the number of NAAQS for PM2.5. each area. This existing requirement CO, SO2, and NO2 monitors are no The EPA proposed that manual also allows for other sites in the same longer appropriate in light of the rarity PM10¥2.5 samplers at SLAMS stations area to operate on a 1-in-6 day sample of NAAQS violations for those must operate on a daily schedule, frequency. Sample frequency relief is pollutants, EPA believes that some without a requirement for any possible for expected maximum monitoring should be continued in collocated continuously operated FEM concentration sites that are significantly many areas for these pollutants. ¥ PM10 2.5 samplers. See 71 FR 2780. away from the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS Accordingly, EPA proposed to continue Numerous commenters noted that a 1- and in seasons exempted by the to require States to propose changes in in-3 day sampling frequency was Regional Administrator. their monitoring networks, including acceptable for PM2.5 sites and said that discontinuation of monitors, and obtain the same sampling frequency for 4. Monitoring Network Completion for EPA approval before making changes, PM10¥2.5 and NCore Sites PM10¥2.5 would produce sufficient data even when the remaining minimum for comparison to the proposed 24-hour The proposed requirement for requirements, if any, for number of PM10¥2.5 NAAQS averaged over 3 years. specified numbers of PM10¥2.5 sites to monitors would still be met after the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61250 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

changes. The EPA approval would be final rule, govern only EPA’s monitoring objectives. The paragraphs given by the Regional Administrator, consideration of changes which below address two objectives that were usually through approval of the annual monitoring agencies seek to adopt. The most often mentioned by commenters. monitoring network plan, except for EPA recognizes that funding constraints Several commenters stated that changes involving NCore sites, PAMS may require agencies to discontinue ambient monitoring can serve as a sites, and PM2.5 speciation trends sites monitors that they otherwise would continuing check on the compliance of which would require Administrator operate, but this reinforces the need for a specific source, or sources in the approval. EPA review and the usefulness of aggregate, with applicable emissions While local situations need to be having criteria for discontinuance to limits. The EPA believes that given that considered individually, EPA proposed govern that review. factors such as wind direction, six criteria for approval of requests to A few commenters suggested that EPA dispersion conditions, and atmospheric discontinue monitors. See 71 FR 2749. include in the rule or provide via reactivity conditions can greatly To summarize, the six criteria guidance specific formulas or influence the relationship between addressed: (1) Any monitor which could calculation procedures regarding the emissions and ambient concentrations, be shown to have a low probability of estimation of the probability of a future situations are infrequent in which future violations; (2) a CO, PM10, SO2, NAAQS exceedance, which is the basis ambient monitoring is a critical, or the or NO2 monitor that has been reading of the first of the six proposed most important, element of source consistently lower than another monitor adjudicative criteria. The EPA intends compliance monitoring. Other EPA in the same area; (3) any highest reading to provide guidance on this matter in rules address requirements for direct monitor that has not indicated any the future, but we believe that binding emissions and compliance monitoring NAAQS violation in the previous 5 formulas or procedures in rule form for many types of sources. Ambient years and for which the approved SIP would preclude development of better monitoring agencies will have the provides for an alternative to continued general procedures and the sort of case- option of continuing to operate ambient monitoring; (4) any monitor which specific analysis of unique factors that monitors they feel are useful for this cannot be compared to a NAAQS is likely to be appropriate in some objective. because of siting considerations; (5) any situations. Some commenters stated that the monitor designed only to measure A number of commenters stated that ability to track trends in air quality and transport from upwind areas if another the six proposed criteria were overly assess whether those trends are transport monitor were replacing it; and focused on whether a monitor is consistent with trends expected from (6) any monitor for which logistical providing data for use in making the emission control program in general problems make continued operation at comparisons to the NAAQS for or from specific control measures (i.e., the current site impossible. Situations purposes of attainment/nonattainment accountability) could be impaired if too not addressed by these criteria would be findings, and that decisions to remove many existing monitors are removed. considered on a case-by-case basis. or retain a monitor should also The EPA believes that tracking trends is The EPA received a number of recognize the utility of the monitor in most important for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 comments on the proposed removal of satisfying other required monitoring because these are the NAAQS with more the minimum monitoring requirements objectives. Section 1 of the proposed than a few remaining nonattainment for some of the criteria pollutants, on appendix D of 40 CFR part 58 stated that areas. For these pollutants the revised the revision of the minimum numbers of air monitoring networks must be requirements in this final rule for monitors for other criteria pollutants, on designed to meet three monitoring minimum number of monitors, the new the six proposed criteria for objectives: (1) Providing air pollution requirement for NCore multipollutant discontinuing monitors, and on the data to the public; (2) supporting monitoring stations, and the interest of issue of discontinuing monitors more compliance with ambient air quality monitoring agencies in continuing these generally, mostly from State and local standards and emission strategy types of monitoring as indicated by the monitoring agency officials. This final development; and (3) supporting air comments themselves will, in EPA’s rule provisions on minimum numbers of pollution research studies. Some opinion, result in networks that are monitors for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and Pb are commenters pointed out that EPA has appropriately robust for tracking trends discussed in section V.E of this articulated in the draft National and assessing causal factors. The EPA preamble. Comments on the other parts Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy 11 believes that the availability of multiple of the proposal are addressed here. A seven objectives for the NCore collocated and time resolved few commenters specifically endorsed multipollutant monitoring stations measurements at NCore sites will be a all or part of these proposals, or at least (overlapping in part with the three major advantage in this work. the intention to facilitate reductions in objectives in section 1 of appendix D) The Response to Comments document unnecessary or duplicative monitoring and stated that single-pollutant stations available in the docket explains in more activities. Most commenters expressed should be considered to be part of an detail how the other objectives concern over the proposals. overall network to meet these objectives. mentioned by commenters are A number of commenters appear to The EPA agrees that these two sets of consistent with the six proposed have interpreted the proposals as overlapping objectives are important criteria. indicators of network reductions EPA and that monitors should not be Accordingly, this final rule mirrors intended to require monitoring agencies discontinued without regard to whether the proposals, with the following four to make, and expressed opposition to these objectives will continue to be met, exceptions: such reductions. The EPA clarifies here but EPA believes the proposed criteria, (1) In the first criterion, which as that EPA believes that proposals for along with other provisions regarding proposed would have allowed the network modifications should generally approval of annual monitoring network removal of a monitor for any criteria be initiated by the monitoring agency; plans and periodic network pollutant if it has shown attainment EPA does not intend to compel any assessments, protect the required over the last five years and has less than agency to remove any monitor. The a 10 percent probability of exceeding 80 proposals related to network 11 ‘‘Draft National Ambient Air Monitoring percent of the NAAQS over the next modifications, and the provisions in this Strategy,’’ December 2005. three years and if it is not specifically

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61251

required by the attainment plan or required under the accelerated deadline agencies. See 71 FR 2748. The following maintenance plan, this final rule also to be due by May 1, 2009, for data Air Quality System (AQS) reporting conditions the removal of the last collected in 2008. The EPA proposed requirements were proposed for remaining SLAMS monitor in a this change to provide opportunity for elimination: Maximum and minimum nonattainment or maintenance area on an earlier start and completion for ambient temperature, maximum and the attainment plan or maintenance nationwide designation actions, to minimum ambient pressure, flow rate plan not having any contingency provide States and the public with coefficient of variation, total sample measure triggered by air quality earlier design values in time for most volume, and elapsed sample time. AQS concentrations. If a plan does have such ozone seasons, and to support other data reporting requirements were retained for a trigger, a plan revision to remove that uses that could benefit from earlier data average ambient temperature and trigger would have to be adopted by the certification. average ambient pressure, and any State and approved by EPA. The EPA In response, some commenters applicable sampler flags. will address the requirements for such expressed reservations about the The EPA also proposed a requirement a revision at a future date. accelerated schedule as it applies to all for the submission of data on PM2.5 field (2) While the preamble described a submitted data, while others supported blank mass in addition to PM2.5 filter- sixth criterion for approval of State the proposal for continuous instruments based measurements. See 71 FR 2749. proposals to discontinue a monitor, that collect and report hourly data but Field blanks are filters which are having to do with logistical problems at not for data requiring lab analysis for handled in the field as much as possible a current site, the proposed rule text samples collected in the field. These like actual filters except that ambient air inadvertently omitted this criterion. commenters were concerned about the is not pumped through them, to help This final rule includes it. feasibility and cost of meeting an quantify contamination and sampling (3) The second and third criteria have accelerated schedule. The EPA notes artifacts. This requirement only applies been slightly revised to make them that some States have recently provided to field blanks which States are already applicable also to the lower reading certifications for filter-based data ahead taking into the field and weighing monitor of a pair that are in the same not only of the July 1 deadline, but also through their laboratory procedures. attainment area and county, and not just of the proposed May 1 deadline, when Commenters supported the proposed to the lowest reading monitor of a pair such certifications were deemed changes to data submittal requirements that are in the same nonattainment area advantageous by the States for data uses and they are being finalized without or maintenance area. A commenter such as PM2.5 nonattainment modification. The requirement for pointed out the need for this revision to designations. This suggests that all reporting of field blank mass data begins achieve the obvious intention of the States could be capable of certifying with filters collected on or after January proposal. data by the proposed May 1 deadline, if 1, 2007. (4) The third proposed criterion, not earlier, if they invest in needed 8. Special Purpose Monitors worded to apply only to ‘‘the highest improvements in information reading monitor * * * in a county,’’ technology or efficiencies in The January 17, 2006 proposal required that a described monitor could administrative procedures. Therefore, included a background explanation of be removed only if the approved SIP this final rule includes the proposed the historical distinctions between provided for a specific, reproducible May 1 deadline. In recognition of the regular air monitors and special purpose approach to representing the air quality time necessary for States to adjust to the monitors (SPMs) with respect to of the affected county in the absence of accelerated certification requirement, monitoring objectives, siting actions, actual monitoring data. While EPA the implementation date has been quality assurance, and use of data. See intended the highest reading monitor to delayed 1 year, until May 1, 2010, for 71 FR 2745. The EPA proposed a be addressed in this third criterion, EPA data collected in 2009. revision of the definition of SPM, to the did not intend to preclude the One commenter questioned the types effect that any SPM must be in excess possibility that a lower reading monitor of annual summary reports that would of the required minimum number of ineligible for removal under the first required to be submitted with the data monitors and that designation of a two criteria could be addressed also. certification letter, finding the proposed monitor as an SPM be made by the This final rule revises the criterion to requirements of 40 CFR 58.15(b) State. The EPA also proposed that States encompass any monitor not eligible for unclear. The EPA notes that different would continue to be able to choose to removal under the first two criteria reports were mentioned in the proposal start and stop SPMs at will, without where applicable. to clarify the difference between SLAMS needing EPA approval and that States be and SPM monitors (only FRM, FEM, required to submit all data from SPMs 6. Annual Air Monitoring Data and ARM SPM monitors are required to to the AQS operated by EPA. In Certification be certified) and to ensure that annual addition, EPA proposed that States The EPA proposed a shorter summary reports are provided for both follow 40 CFR part 58 appendix A timeframe for States to submit the types of monitors. Providing one annual quality assurance requirements for any annual letter certifying ambient summary report for certification of both SPM that utilizes a FRM, FEM, or ARM concentration and quality assurance SLAMS and SPM data is appropriate. instrument and which is sited data to the Administrator. See 71 FR An additional report providing a consistently with the requirements of 2749. Under current requirements, summary of precision and accuracy data appendix E (which does not apply to States have until July 1 to certify data is necessary to demonstrate that SPMs on a mandatory basis). The from January 1 to December 31 of the applicable monitors meet appendix A existing rule provides that States follow previous year. For data collected in criteria. these requirements only if the data from 2006, for example, the annual the SPM are intended by the State for certification letter is due no later than 7. Data Submittal use in attainment/nonattainment July 1, 2007. Under the proposed The EPA proposed to reduce the data determinations. requirement, the schedule for reporting requirements associated with The EPA also proposed that data from certification would be moved up 60 PM2.5 FRMs to ease the data the first 2 years of operation of a SPM days, with the data certification letter management burden for monitoring (even if using a FRM, FEM, or ARM

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61252 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

instrument and meeting appendix A and appendix A, if the SPM is a FRM, FEM, monitoring that could benefit air quality E requirements) would not be used by or ARM. All other commenters on this management. EPA in attainment/nonattainment issue contended that States should be In the proposal preamble (71 FR 2745, findings for PM2.5 or O3 if the monitor allowed more flexibility. Most of these January 17, 2006), EPA stated that it stopped operating by the end of those 2 commenters agreed that regular quality understood and to some degree years. See 71 FR 2745. For CO, SO2, assurance practices were desirable sympathized with the thrust of very NO2, Pb, and the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, generally, but stated that practical similar input EPA had received during EPA proposed that data from the first 2 difficulties can arise at a specific SPM the development of the proposed rule, years of operation of a SPM would not site, such that requiring regular quality but that EPA believed that under the be used by EPA for nonattainment assurance practices would effectively CAA EPA may not legally ignore redesignations but that such data would mean that the SPM could not be legally technically valid data from FRM and be considered when determining operated at all and the useful data it FEM (and by implication and logical whether a nonattainment area had could have provided would be lost to extension ARM) monitors when making attained the NAAQS. The reasons for users. attainment or nonattainment this distinction by pollutant had to do After considering these comments, determinations. The comments have not with differences in the form of the EPA continues to believe that regular provided EPA with any reason to respective NAAQS and whether the quality assurance practices are practical change this view of our legal obligation. EPA action in question is mandatory or and of reasonable cost and feasibility in There are only two situations where discretionary. These reasons were nearly all situations, as shown by EPA would not have to consider such explained in detail in the preamble to successful adherence to these practices data. One situation is when the data the proposal. Finally, EPA proposed at thousands of regular monitoring would be insufficient for making a that currently operating monitors not stations. They are appropriate in most finding because it is of insufficient already designated as SPMs could not cases and should be the presumptive duration given the averaging period or be designated as SPMs after January 1, requirement. As proposed, this final form of the relevant NAAQS. This was 2007. rule provides for a transition period by the basis for the proposal concerning The EPA received many comments on delaying this requirement until January PM2.5 and O3 for which the form of the these issues, mostly from State and local 1, 2009. However, EPA recognizes that NAAQS requires 3 years of data. air monitoring officials but also from unusual situations may exist in which The other situation is when EPA has two industry groups. No commenter exceptions should be allowed. For the discretion to simply not make a objected to the flexibility States have to example, a State, perhaps with EPA finding or to take an action, for example start and stop SPMs. That flexibility is encouragement, might operate an by taking no action to redesignate an retained in this final rule. automated O3 monitor year-round but area to nonattainment even though a Some commenters pointed out an have difficulty getting personnel and SPM indicates a new violation of a ambiguity in the proposed requirement equipment to the site regularly in winter NAAQS subsequent to the area’s initial that data from SPMs be submitted to due to road conditions. This final rule designation as attainment. This was the AQS. The EPA intended, but did not allows the Regional Administrator to basis for the proposal concerning the clearly state in the proposal, that this approve other appropriate quality CO, SO2, NO2, Pb, and PM10 NAAQS. requirement apply only to SPMs that are assurance practices if the requirements Unlike the PM2.5 and O3 NAAQS, the FRMs, FEMs, or ARMs and that are of 40 CFR part 58 appendix A would be NAAQS for these pollutants have forms operated consistently with the physically and/or financially that allow a nonattainment finding requirements of 40 CFR 58.11 (network impractical due to physical conditions based on only 1 or 2 years of data, either technical requirements), 40 CFR 58.12 at the monitoring site and the quality because the NAAQS is explicitly based (operating schedule), and part 58, assurance practices are not essential to on only one year of data or because a appendix A (quality assurance achieving the intended data objectives. single year of data may include so many requirements). These would be the This approval can be given separately, exceedances that it is certain that the SPMs that produce data that will be of or as part of the approval of the annual average number of expected most interest to EPA and the public, monitoring plan. Approval of alternative exceedances over three years will be because except for possible quality assurance practices for all or greater than one. However, for these inconsistencies with the siting part of the year does not qualify the other NAAQS, EPA does not have a requirements of appendix E to part 58, affected data from an affected SPM for mandatory duty to make nonattainment these are the type of data which can be comparison to the relevant NAAQS. redesignations until such time as the compared to the respective NAAQS. Most of the comments received on the NAAQS are revised. In the absence of This final rule provides this SPM proposals addressed the either a NAAQS revision or a State clarification. application of SPM data to attainment/ request for redesignation, the One commenter suggested that the nonattainment findings and Administrator has discretion in specific reference to the AQS data designations. One citizen supported the determining whether to redesignate an system be made more general, to proposal. About 20 commenters argued area based on data from a SPM which provide for the development and use of for a general, indefinitely long has operated for two years or less. The other suitable data submission systems prohibition on the use of data from EPA does regard air quality violations in the future. This comment is relevant SPMs for nonattainment findings and seriously, and does expect States to take to all monitoring data, not just data from designations, for States to have a way of actions to reduce air quality to healthy SPMs. This final rule retains references blocking EPA from using particular SPM levels in any areas that are experiencing to AQS. If AQS is replaced or data indefinitely, or for States to be able violations. However, EPA recognizes supplemented with approved to negotiate in advance with EPA for that there are other ways to address alternatives in the future, terminology particular SPM data to not be used. such violations besides redesignating an can be updated at that time. Those commenters who explained their area as nonattainment. For example, One State official supported the position generally stated that the risk of EPA can work directly with a State and proposal that SPMs be subject to the a nonattainment finding would nearby industries to take appropriate regular quality requirements of discourage voluntary special purpose actions to reduce emissions that are

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61253

contributing to the violation. The EPA part 58 of the 1997 rule), 12 a SPM that comparable to the respective NAAQS has worked in this way with States in is not population-oriented may not be under existing rules and EPA policies. the past. In the case of PM10, EPA stated used in comparisons to the PM2.5 See 71 FR 2719–20. The EPA also in section VII.B of the preamble to the NAAQS; this may be the situation in proposed to relocate one of the NAAQS rule (printed in today’s Federal some studies focusing on near-source provisions mentioned in the discussion, Register) that because EPA is retaining impacts as well as in some studies of proposing to move pre-existing PM2.5 the current 24-hour PM10 standards, transport of air pollution from rural rule language currently found in section new nonattainment designations for upwind areas. If the Regional 2.8.1.2.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR 58.30 PM10 will not be required under the Administrator has approved alternative of subpart D without substantive provisions of the Clean Air Act. quality assurance practices in place of change. This relocation would provide a With respect to the second situation, the requirements of appendix A, the more prominent rule location for applicable to the CO, SO2, NO2, Pb, and data from the affected SPM are not monitoring requirements detailing the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, EPA believes it eligible for comparison to the relevant comparability of ambient data to the could have extended the proposed 2- NAAQS. PM2.5 NAAQS. See 71 FR 2782. One year exclusion from use of SPM data in In reviewing comments about SPMs, commenter objected, not to this making nonattainment findings to a EPA noticed that the proposed rule text proposed rearrangement of rule longer period. However, such a for 40 CFR 58.11(d) implied that all language, but rather to the underlying provision could exclude more data than SPMs using FRM, FEM, or ARM existing (1997) requirement that PM2.5 appropriate and could prevent methods must meet appendix E siting sites must be population-oriented to be consideration of violations in making requirements. This was not our comparable to the PM2.5 NAAQS. This nonattainment decisions even when a intention, as the study objective for a commenter stated that EPA had failed to SPM monitor has shown violations over SPM may require it to be located justify any benchmark for defining an 3 or more years. The EPA believes that inconsistently with appendix E area as population-oriented. Another in some and perhaps many situations requirements. The implied restriction in commenter challenged whether EPA like this, it would be good policy to 40 CFR 58.11(d) as proposed conflicted had provided an adequate public health avoid a nonattainment designation and with an explicit statement to the basis for this provision. to find other less prescriptive contrary in 40 CFR 58.20(b) as The EPA considers these comments to approaches to reducing risk to public proposed. Removing this implication is be outside the scope of the proposal. health. EPA also believes, however, that certainly in keeping with the sense of EPA noted in the preamble to the it could be appropriate to base a most SPM-related comments, which monitoring proposal that some existing nonattainment designation on such data supported flexibility for States to regulatory language was being reprinted in some other cases, where a operate SPMs as they choose. The without change and that such reprinting nonattainment designation is the promulgated version of 40 CFR 58.11(d) was done solely for the readers’ appropriate way to deal with a long- is drafted so as to remove this implied convenience to aid in viewing the term nonattainment problem. Since restriction. Data from a SPM not sited proposal in a single context (71 FR under the final rule EPA still has the consistently with appendix E are not 2712). EPA also stated that all of the discretion not to make nonattainment eligible for comparison to the respective background description of existing redesignations based on three more NAAQS, unless the State has requested regulatory provisions—including the years of data if EPA so chooses, EPA and EPA has approved a waiver of these provision the commenters challenged— concludes the appropriate approach is criteria. was presented not to reexamine any of not to universally extend the exclusion In the course of considering all the the background provisions but rather and rather rely on the Administrator’s public comments on SPMs, EPA ‘‘to facilitate informed public comment’’ discretion to redesignate areas only in realized that the proposed restriction on on certain aspects of the proposal other appropriate cases. designating pre-existing SLAMS than these background provisions. This final rule follows the proposed monitors as SPMs after January 1, 2007 These other provisions were approach for use of data from SPMs. would have the effect of preventing a ‘‘requirements for the proposed The EPA would like to emphasize, State from switching a monitor to SPM PM10¥2.5 NAAQS’’, ‘‘provisions for however, that States and other parties status even if EPA had approved the special purpose monitors’’, provisions will have practical ways of obtaining outright removal of that monitor under ‘‘related to the required spacing between useful information using SPMs without other provisions. This could be counter- ozone monitors and roadways’’, and risk of a nonattainment redesignation. In productive. This final rule provides that ‘‘certain quality assurance many situations, the potential problem if EPA has approved the discontinuation requirements’’ (71 FR at 2719). EPA thus to be investigated, or the place under of a SLAMS monitor, the State may did not seek comment on, reconsider, or investigation, is such that a FRM, FEM, choose to retain the monitor and otherwise reopen the pre-existing or ARM instrument meeting the siting redesignate it to be a SPM. Such a provision regarding population-oriented requirements of 40 CFR part 58, PM monitors (or any of the other monitor could be removed later without 2.5 appendix E is not the only suitable provisions recited in the background further EPA approval. measurement system, and may not even section). The EPA notes, however, that be a preferred way to measure. For 9. Special Considerations for Data the pre-existing rule and this final rule example, there are many commercially Comparisons to the National Ambient do provide the same definition of available PM2.5 monitors that lack FRM, Air Quality Standards population-oriented, in 40 CFR 58.1 FEM, or ARM status that nevertheless By way of background, the preamble Definitions, which while not quantified would be suitable for an initial study of to the proposed monitoring rule in terms of population affected has PM2.5 concentrations in an unmonitored provided an explanation of when and served to guide PM2.5 monitor area of interest. In some other cases, 2 how monitoring data are considered placement and interpretation of years may be sufficient to achieve the monitoring data since 1997. study objectives. Finally, under the 12 EPA is recodifying this provision in section The most controversial portion of this 1997 rule (see statement at 71 FR 2719 58.30 of the final monitoring rule, but is not part of the proposal dealt with issues and section 2.8.1.2.3 of appendix D to reconsidering or otherwise reevaluating it. pertaining to the proposed NAAQS for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

PM10¥2.5. The EPA proposed a new five- help determine and ensure data quality for example, the data quality necessary part suitability test for the comparison comparability across individual for EPA or a monitoring organization to of PM10¥2.5 data to the proposed monitoring programs. make data comparisons against the qualified PM10¥2.5 indicator. This test The EPA received some comments NAAQS. The DQOs help to establish the included an urbanized area population expressing concerns about the funding requirements for the data quality criterion, a block group population of the quality system. Funding issues indicators of precision, bias, density criterion, a requirement for sites are addressed in section III.E of this completeness, and detectability and the to be population oriented, an exclusion preamble. Substantive and procedural rationale for the acceptance criteria for for source-influenced microscale sites, issues are addressed here. these indicators. The EPA received a and a site-specific assessment to insure 1. General Quality Assurance number of endorsements on this that data were dominated by certain Requirements approach and did not receive negative sources of concern. See 71 FR 2736– comments. This final rule matches the 2738. The EPA received extensive The EPA proposed to revise or proposed rule. comment on the proposed PM10¥2.5 include a number of general QA 2. Specific Requirements for PM ¥ qualified indicator and on the proposed provisions that would serve to 10 2.5, PM2.5, PM10 and Total Suspended PM ¥ NAAQS five-part site- consolidate information and to ensure 10 2.5 Particulates suitability test. These issues are now conformance to the QA requirements moot since EPA is not adopting a specified in EPA Order 5360.1 A2. The EPA proposed to revise some of The EPA proposed to consolidate the NAAQS using a PM10¥2.5 indicator. See the PM2.5 and PM10 QA requirements in also section III.C of the preamble to the QA requirements for SLAMS and PSD an attempt to provide consistency in final rule adopting revisions to the PM stations from two separate appendices, implementation and assessment. Since NAAQS which explains why EPA did 40 CFR part 58, appendices A and B, PM10¥2.5 monitoring was proposed to be not adopt the proposed qualified into one single appendix A because both required, EPA included similar QA indicator for thoracic coarse particles programs have similar QA requirements. requirements for this monitoring. These and why the proposed monitoring See 71 FR 2725. The EPA received only requirements included the suitability criteria proved to be endorsements on the proposed implementation of flow rate audits inappropriate. consolidation and therefore this final conducted by the monitoring rule consolidates these appendices. organization, collocated monitoring, and C. Appendix A—Quality Assurance The EPA proposed to revise the part performance evaluations. Requirements for State and Local Air 58 appendix A to conform to the current The EPA proposed to make all the Monitoring Stations and Prevention of EPA Quality Assurance Policies in EPA requirements for flow rate verifications Significant Deterioration Air Monitoring Order 5360.1 A2 which requires and audits consistent among the A quality system provides a agencies that accept Federal grant PM10¥2.5, PM2.5, and PM10 methods. See framework for planning, implementing funding for their air monitoring 71 FR 2728. This requirement would and assessing work performed by an programs to have a QA program with have increased the audit frequency for organization and for carrying out certain elements including quality PM10 monitoring and decreased the required quality assurance (QA) and management plans (QMPs), quality audit frequency for PM2.5 monitoring. quality control (QC) activities. The assurance project plans (QAPPs), and Most commenters endorsed the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part the identification of a QA management proposed approach but a few 58, appendix A were intended to function. EPA received three sets of commenters voiced concerns regarding provide the requirements necessary to comments endorsing the revision and the increased frequency for high-volume develop quality systems for monitoring received one comment expressing samplers for PM10 and total suspended the pollutants of SO2, NO2, O3, CO, concern about the identification of the particulates (TSP) which operate PM2.5, PM10 and PM10¥2.5 at SLAMS QA manager function. See 71 FR 2725. somewhat differently and are not as stations including NCore stations, The proposed regulation would not easy to audit. The EPA reviewed the PAMS, and Prevention of Significant have required that monitoring comments and revised the flowrate Deterioration (PSD) networks, and SPM organizations identify a QA manager but verification requirement from monthly stations using FRM, FEM, or ARM would have required that they provide to quarterly for the hi-volume manual monitors. The proposed revisions for a QA management function, which instruments sampling for PM10 and TSP addressed responsibilities for provides for independent oversight of only. implementing the quality system for the ambient air monitoring quality The EPA proposed to revise the EPA and monitoring organizations. system. The EPA feels that the proposed sampling frequency for the They also addressed adherence to EPA’s language captures the essence of the implementation of the PM2.5 QA policy, DQOs, and the minimum QC requirements in EPA Order 5360.1A2, Performance Evaluation Program (PEP). requirements and performance while accommodating the diverse See 71 FR 2726. This proposed evaluations needed to assess the data nature of the ambient air monitoring approach, based on historical PM2.5 quality indicators of precision, bias, community which is made up of large precision and bias data, identified the detectability, and completeness. In and small (local and Tribal) minimum number of performance addition, the proposed amendments organizations. Consistent with the evaluations required for all primary described the required frequency of the majority of positive feedback, and the quality assurance organizations to QC requirements and performance need for conformance to the EPA Order, provide an adequate assessment of bias, evaluations, the data to be collected, this final rule matches the proposed rule rather than the current requirement that and the statistical calculations for on this point. a uniform 25 percent of monitors in a estimates of the data quality indicators The EPA proposed to revise the QA primary quality assurance organization at various levels of aggregation. The program by emphasizing the DQO be evaluated each year. The revision revised statistical calculations would be process. See 71 FR 2725. A DQO is a would establish a suitable sampling used to determine attainment of the qualitative and quantitative statement frequency of five valid audits a year for DQOs. The proposed amendments also that defines the appropriate quality of organizations with less than or equal to addressed required auditing programs to data needed for a particular decision— five monitoring sites and eight valid

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61255

audits a year for those organizations sample size, lowering the concentration provide a distribution of collocation with greater than five monitoring sites. values tends to tighten or lower the across the United States, EPA will The majority of commenters approved confidence limits because more data require, at a minimum, one collocated of the PEP reduction frequency. A few points are available in the sample and site in each EPA Region. The Regional commenters suggested that some therefore offsets any greater variability Administrator shall select the sites for primary quality assurance organizations that might be associated with lower collocation. The site selection process do not need to be audited and said PEP concentrations. Therefore this final rule will also consider selecting States with audits should only focus on those matches the proposed rule. more than one PM10¥2.5 site to have one producing inferior results. The EPA Based upon the decision that there is or two of the required collocations and will aim for an appropriate distribution disagrees with this comment and no need to implement a PM10¥2.5 believes that because the PEP program monitoring program broad enough to among rural and urban sites. needs to provide a periodic estimate of systematically determine attainment/ For the PEP, this final rule departs from the proposal by requiring only one bias for each primary quality assurance nonattainment with a PM10¥2.5 NAAQS, organization, the program must be EPA has modified the proposed PEP audit at one PM10¥2.5 site in each primary quality assurance organization implemented at each primary quality PM10¥2.5 collocation precision assurance organization. requirement and the Performance each year. The proposed rule would There was also a comment suggesting Evaluation Program (PEP) requirements have required five or eight PEP audits further reductions to the auditing in this final rule. See 71 FR 2726. The for PM10¥2.5 in each organization. See 71 FR 2787, 2788. Since the PEP is frequency or requiring the same number proposed quality system for PM ¥ 10 2.5 already being run, at present, for the of audits over a longer period of time. was developed for NAAQS comparison PM network and it is expected that The proposed audit cycle is based on 3 purposes and would have provided 2.5 the PM ¥ FRMs will utilize the same years since that is how many years of reliable precision and bias estimates at 10 2.5 FRMs as the PM samplers, the PEP data are collected for comparison the the primary quality assurance 2.5 audit for the PM ¥ site can count PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the audit organization level of aggregation. 10 2.5 towards the required number of PEP cycle frequency was based on the However, EPA is not adopting a NAAQS audits for PM2.5 sites. It will be number of audit values needed to using a PM ¥ indicator at this time, 10 2.5 necessary to place a PM PEP sampler provide EPA the confidence in our bias so EPA is now requiring a network of 10c at the NCore site also but, this estimates at the primary quality PM ¥ monitors only at NCore 10 2.5 incremental requirement will not be a assurance organization over a 3 year stations. The goal of these monitors will period. Therefore, this final rule significant additional resource burden. be to improve our understanding of When and if FEMs are implemented at matches the proposed rule. PM10¥2.5, support health studies for some PM ¥ sites, the PEP audit will The EPA proposed to reduce the future reviews of the NAAQS, and 10 2.5 lower ends of concentration limits for be an additional audit at those promote improvements in the particular sites and will require which collocated data can be used to monitoring technology. States may provide precision estimates. See 71 FR additional resources for auditing. choose to operate additional PM10¥2.5 The incremental cost of placing and 2727. The lower ends of concentration monitors. With this in mind, the quality operating PM10¥2.5 samplers for limits would be reduced from 6 system need not be focused on the data µ 3 purposes of tracking precision will also micrograms per cubic meter ( /m ) to 3 quality assessments at the primary µ 3 be minor in most cases. Many of the /m for PM2.5 and PM10c (low-volume quality assurance organization level of µ 3 µ 3 primary quality assurance organizations samplers) and from 20 /m to 15 /m aggregation but rather can and should be for PM (high-volume samplers). that will implement the PM10¥2.5 10 focused on understanding and monitor at NCore sites are required to Statistical evaluation of 3 years of PM2.5 controlling the data quality of each of implement PM2.5 and PM10 networks. and PM10 data revealed comparable the methods used to collect PM10¥2.5. ¥ estimates of precision using data from Some or most of the initial PM10 2.5 Also, since it is now anticipated that a deployments will be with manual FRM both of these reduced concentration primary quality assurance organization ranges, and also revealed that the instruments, similar to the instruments would have very few PM10¥2.5 sites, the addition of the data at these lower used in the PM2.5 networks and to some proposal, if adopted without change, of the instruments used in the PM ranges will increase the level of 10 would have required almost every networks. The EPA will allow confidence in the precision estimates. NCore site to have a collocated second collocated PM ¥ monitors to be The majority of commenters endorsed 10 2.5 PM10¥2.5 monitor, and the proposal included in the primary quality the approach but there were a few would not provide for assessment of assurance organization’s count for commenters who were concerned that FEM precision even if FEMs are required PM and PM collocation. In the lower concentrations, based on the 2.5 10 approved and deployed in place of some most cases, the primary quality statistics used to estimate precision, or most FRMs since as proposed the first assurance organization’s collocation might lead to greater imprecision collocation requirement of an FEM in a requirements for FRMs will not increase estimates. The evaluation that EPA primary quality assurance organization overall, since it is not anticipated that made with the data from these lower would always be with a FRM. To avoid any one primary quality assurance concentrations included did not show these undesirable outcomes, this final organization will have many additional any major increase in imprecision rule requires fewer collocated samplers PM ¥ sites that are not already both compared to omitting those data.13 10 2.5 than the proposal would have. Under PM2.5 and PM10 sites. The only Since EPA has proposed the use of this final rule, EPA will ensure that restriction to this aggregated collocation target upper confidence limits for collocated sampling for estimating count will be for monitoring statistical assessments and an upper precision be implemented at 15 percent organizations that are operating high- confidence limit is influenced by of FRMs (all FRMs aggregated) and 15 volume PM10 samplers. Since the PM10c percent of the FEMs of each method monitor in a PM10¥2.5 FRM will be a 13 ‘‘Proposal to Change PM2.5 and PM10 Collocation Sampling Frequency Requriements,’’ designation. The number of collocated low-volume sampler, PM10 high-volume Mike Papp and Louise Camalier; November 2005. sites would thus be based on the size of and PM10 low-volume samplers cannot http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmgainf.html. the final PM10¥2.5 network. In order to be aggregated together in the collocation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

count and at least one collocated Monitoring organizations that choose three monitoring organizations (besides monitor must be identified for each type to comply with the revised provisions of the one already implementing NPAP) within primary quality assurance appendix A to 40 CFR part 58 regarding opted to implement the NPAP and three organization. Therefore, it is expected performance evaluations by relying on monitoring organizations (besides the that the 15 percent collocation EPA audits, for PM2.5, PM10¥2.5, and/or two already implementing PEP) opted to requirement for PM10¥2.5 FRMs will not other NAAQS pollutants, would be implement the PEP. The EPA believes it actually increase the overall collocation required to agree that EPA hold back has the capability to ensure these State burden at the majority of the primary part of the grant funds they would will implement programs will produce quality assurance organizations beyond otherwise receive directly. These funds data of a quality comparable to the what they would have been required to would be used by EPA to hire Federally implemented program. implement for their PM10 and PM2.5 contractors to perform the audits and to The EPA also received comments networks. purchase expendable supplies. To stating concerns about the stringency of For any FEMs that might be used at ensure national consistency and the definition of adequate and PM10¥2.5 sites, EPA will require 15 effective audits, EPA included independent. Adequacy refers to the percent collocation of each method provisions to ensure certification of data number of audits administered at any designation or at least two collocations comparability for audit services not primary quality assurance organization within each method designation. The provided by EPA and for traceability of and the technical procedures used in EPA will require two collocations in gases and other audit standards to the audits. This final rule does not order to collocate one FEM instrument national standards maintained by the require any additional adequacy with the same method designation to National Institute for Standards and requirements above and beyond what provide estimates of within method Technology. EPA currently implements for the precision and collocate a second with The EPA received a broad range of federally implemented program. The an FRM to provide for an estimate of comments on this proposed revision. EPA evaluates data quality at the bias. These collocations would not The EPA received a few comments in aggregation called ‘‘reporting necessarily need to be at separate support of these programs and one organization’’ (which was changed to monitoring sites. commenter felt that the PEP audits ‘‘primary quality assurance should be increased. In general, the organization’’ in the proposal). The EPA 3. Particulate Matter Performance comments expressing concern with the feels that it needs to collect enough data Evaluation Program and National proposed language did not suggest that to be able to judge data quality within Performance Audit Programs these programs were not necessary but each primary quality assurance The EPA proposed to revise the were concerned about some technical organization over the same period that current regulatory requirements dealing aspects of the programs or with funding it uses the data for comparison to the with responsibilities for independent implications. Funding issues are NAAQS (3 years). assessments of monitoring system addressed in section III.E of this In the case of the PEP for PM2.5, performance. See 71 FR 2726. These preamble. today’s action requires five audits per evaluations are the subject of sections The EPA received a number of year for organizations with five or fewer 2.4 and 3.5.3.1 of the existing (1997) comments expressing concerns that sites and eight audits for those appendix A to 40 CFR part 58. Section allowing the monitoring agencies to organizations with greater than five 2.4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 58 implement the audit programs sites, the same as proposed. The number applied to all NAAQS pollutants and themselves or through third parties of audits aggregated over three years section 3.5.3.1 applied only to PM2.5. would increase the variability in the provides a reasonable estimate of bias at The EPA proposed to revise the text performance evaluation data. Since one a primary quality assurance of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A to cover of the major goals in the historically organization within an acceptable level PM10¥2.5 and also to clarify that it is the centralized and federally implemented of confidence. For the NPAP program responsibility of each monitoring PEP and NPAP programs has been the addressing NAAQS for CO, SO2, Pb, and organization to make arrangements for, evaluation of data comparability, EPA is NO2, the goal is to perform audits on and to provide any necessary funding also concerned about any additional about 20 percent of the sites each year, for, the conduct of adequate variability and its effect on data but since there may be a number of high independent performance evaluations of comparability. It has been EPA’s priority sites within a primary quality all its FRM or FEM criteria pollutant practice with regard to any State which assurance organization that should be monitors. The proposed language also already performs these audits to perform audited more often, it is anticipated that clearly indicates that it is the side-by-side comparisons of EPA’s NPAP might audit each site within a monitoring organization’s choice equipment and procedures and the primary quality assurance organization whether to obtain its independent State’s procedures to ensure both are over about 7 to 8 years. This 20 percent performance evaluations through EPA’s producing results of acceptable quality. goal is the current EPA practice, but was National Performance Audit Program The EPA has successfully performed not proposed to be required by rule and, (NPAP) and PM2.5 PEP programs, or these comparisons with the California therefore, does not appear in this final from some other independent Air Resources Board’s audit system. rule. organization. An independent These comparisons will be expanded to There were a few comments organization could be another unit of include any additional States which suggesting that some primary quality the same agency that is sufficiently choose to perform audits themselves or assurance organizations do not need to separated in terms of organizational through third parties, rather than ask be audited and that EPA mandatory reporting and which can provide for EPA to do so. During the comment audits for CO, SO2, Pb, and NO2 should independent filter weighing and period, EPA asked the monitoring only focus on those organizations performance evaluation auditing. The organizations whether or not, assuming producing inferior results. The EPA proposed approach would ensure that finalization of the proposed rule continues to believe that it is important adequate and independent audits are changes, they would continue to use the to develop an estimate of bias for each performed and would provide flexibility federally implemented program or primary quality assurance organization. in the implementation approach. perform the audits itself. For 2007, only To do this, the audit program must be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61257

implemented at each primary quality appendix A (with the exception of to use these older technologies. The assurance organization. The NPAP PM2.5) combine precision and bias EPA received only comments endorsing audits using a through-the-probe together into a probability limit at the the removal of the manual audit checks. approach, which is generally not how primary quality assurance organization Therefore, this final rule matches the audits are performed by the primary level of aggregation. Since the standard proposed rule. quality assurance organizations EPA DQO process uses separate The EPA proposed to change the themselves. By auditing some stations estimates of precision and bias, EPA concentration ranges for QC checks and within a primary quality assurance examined separated assessment annual audit concentrations. The one- organization each year using the methods that were statistically point QC check concentration ranges for through-the-probe approach, the NPAP reasonable and simple. the gaseous pollutants SO2, NO2, O3, can identify problems which the For SO2, NO2, CO, and O3, EPA and CO were expanded to include lower organization may not be aware of on its proposed to estimate precision and bias concentrations. Lower audit ranges were own. Also, EPA continues to believe on confidence intervals at the site level added to concentration ranges for the that it is necessary to provide an of data aggregation rather than the annual audits. Adding or expanding the adequate assessment of data primary quality assurance organization. required range to lower concentration comparability of all primary quality Estimates at the site level can be ranges was appropriate due to the lower assurance organizations every year. accomplished with the automated measured concentrations at many There were also comments concerning methods for SO2, NO2, CO, and O3 monitoring sites as well as the potential the requirement to use independent because there is sufficient QC for NCore stations to monitor areas filter weighing laboratories for the information collected at the site level to where concentrations are at trace ranges. implementation of the PEP. When EPA perform adequate assessments. In addition, EPA proposed that the first implemented the PEP program, The precision and bias statistics for selection of QC check gas concentration EPA established two independent PM measurements (PM10, PM10¥2.5 and must reflect the routine concentrations laboratories to weigh filters for the PEP PM2.5) are generated at a primary quality normally measured at sites within the audits. Due to program efficiencies, EPA assurance organization level because, monitoring network in order to is now using one filter weighing unlike the gaseous pollutants, due to appropriately estimate the precision and laboratory. If primary quality assurance costs only a percentage of the sites have bias at these routine concentration organizations implement the PEP precision and bias checks performed in ranges. The majority of the comments themselves, they should not be able to any year and only a few times per year. EPA received on this proposal were utilize the same laboratory in which As with the gaseous pollutants, the positive but EPA received comments they weigh their routine sampler filters statistics would use the confidence limit that asked for more guidance on how a since any bias or contamination that approach. Using a consistent set of monitoring organization would choose might occur at the routine lab will also statistics simplifies the procedures. the appropriate audit ranges. The EPA be ‘‘passed on’’ to the PEP filter. The EPA also proposed to change the would like to provide as much Because the PEP provides an estimate of precision and bias statistics for Pb to flexibility as possible for the monitoring bias (systematic error), it is necessary to provide a framework for developing and organization to use their local avoid having a systematic bias occurring assessing a DQO. See 71 FR 2727. The knowledge of their monitoring sites to in the routine filter weighing lab affect QC checks for Pb come in three forms: choose their audit concentration ranges. both the PEP filters and the routine Flow rate audits, Pb audit strips, and Accordingly, in this final rule, section filters. Primary quality assurance collocation. The EPA proposed to 3.2.2.1 of appendix A to part 58 organizations interested in combine information from the flow rate establishes a non-binding goal that the implementing the PEP themselves have audits and the Pb audit strips to provide primary quality assurance organization the option to make arrangements with an estimate of bias. Precision estimates select the three audit concentration other State labs, contractor labs, or would still be made using collocated ranges which bracket 80 percent of the utilize the PEP national lab. sampling but the estimates would be routine monitoring concentrations at the The EPA believes that both the NPAP based on the upper 95 percent site. So in general, with some minor and PEP programs serve as an integral confidence limit of the coefficient of modification to address comments, this part of the overall ambient air variation, similar to the method final rule matches the proposed rule. monitoring program quality system and described for the automated instruments The EPA proposed to revise the PM10 provide EPA and the public with for SO2, NO2, CO, and O3. collocation requirement. See 71 FR independent and objective assessments The EPA received only positive 2726. Fifteen percent of all PM2.5 sites of data quality and data comparability. comments on the proposed statistics are required to maintain collocated Both programs provide the only and some typographical corrections. samplers. For PM10, the collocated quantitative independent assessments of This final rule matches the proposed requirements in the existing (1997) data quality at a national level. rule. regulation were three alternative values Therefore, the proposed language was based on the number of routine not changed and this final rule matches 5. Other Program Updates monitors within a primary quality the proposed rule. The EPA proposed several QA assurance organization. For consistency, program changes to update the existing the proposed amendments would have 4. Revisions to Precision and Bias requirements in 40 CFR part 58 to changed the PM collocation Statistics 10 reflect current program needs and requirement to match the PM2.5 The EPA proposed to change the terminology. requirement. This proposed change statistics for assessment of precision and The EPA proposed to remove SO2 and would make the collocation requirement bias for criteria pollutants. See 71 FR NO2 manual audit checks. A review of consistent for PM2.5 and PM10. The EPA 2727. Two important data quality all SLAMS/NAMS/PAMS sites by did not receive any comments on this indicators that are needed to assess the monitor type revealed that no proposed change. Therefore, this final achievement of DQOs are bias and monitoring organizations are using rule matches the proposed rule. precision. Statistics in the current manual SO2 or NO2 methods, nor are The EPA proposed to revise the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, any monitoring organizations expected requirements for PM2.5 flow rate audits.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

See 71 FR 2728. Based on an evaluation methods used at NCore stations are the U.S. which utilizes uniform air of flow rate data and discussions within addressed in section V.E.1 of this quality monitoring criteria and the QA Strategy Workgroup,14 EPA preamble. methodology * * *’’. The EPA proposed to reduce the frequency of The EPA proposed that SLAMS use recognizes that there may be occasions flow rate audits from quarterly to FRMs or FEMs for criteria pollutants. when a unique method is better suited semiannually and to remove the See 71 FR 2728. The EPA also proposed to meet a specific monitoring objective alternative method which allows for that these sites have the additional that is different from NAAQS decision obtaining the precision check from the option of using ARMs for PM2.5. making. In these cases, EPA will allow analyzers internal flow meter without Approved regional methods are for these innovative methods, so long as the use of an external flow rate transfer described in section V.D.2 of this the monitoring agency is not attempting standard. Most monitoring organizations preamble. to use them to meet minimum participating in the QA Strategy Photochemical assessment monitoring requirements for the number of Workgroup considered auditing with an stations (PAMS) were proposed to be monitors for a given criteria pollutant. external transfer standard to be the required to use FRM or FEM monitors For example, a low cost method might preferred method and believed that the for O3, with most expected to use the O3 be applied as a SPM to provide short quarterly audit data demonstrated the ultraviolet photometry FEM and the term data for validation of an air quality instruments were sufficiently stable to nitric oxide (NO) and NO2 model. reduce the audit frequency. The EPA chemiluminescence FRM for criteria 2. Approved Regional Methods for PM did not receive any comments on this pollutant measurements. See 71 FR 2.5 proposal; therefore, this final rule 2728. Methods for volatile organic The EPA proposed amendments that matches the proposed rule. compounds (VOC) including carbonyls, expanded the allowed use of alternative additional measurements of gaseous PM2.5 measurement methods through D. Appendix C—Ambient Air Quality nitrogen, such as NOy, and ARMs. See 71 FR 2729. The EPA also Monitoring Methodology meteorological measurements are proposed to extend the existing 1. Applicability of Federal Reference routinely operated at PAMS. Because provisions for approval of a Methods and Federal Equivalent these measurements are not of criteria nondesignated PM2.5 method as a Methods pollutants, the methods were not subject substitute for a FRM or FEM at a to the requirements for reference or specific individual site to a network of The EPA proposed that monitoring equivalent methods. However, these sites. This approval would be extended methods used in the multipollutant methods were described in detail in the on a network basis to allow for NCore, SLAMS, and PAMS networks report, ‘‘Technical Assistance Document flexibility in operating a hybrid network were required to be FRMs, FEMs, ARMs, (TAD) for Sampling and Analysis of of PM2.5 FRM and continuous monitors. or where appropriate, other methods Ozone Precursors.’’ 15 The size of the network, in which the designed to meet the DQOs of the The EPA proposed that SPM sites ARM could be approved, would be network being deployed. See 71 FR have no restrictions on the type of based on the location of test sites 2731. Specifics on the monitoring method to be utilized. While FRM and operated during the testing of the methods proposed for use at each type FEM can be employed at SPM sites, candidate ARM. The proposed of site are described below. other methods, not limited to The EPA proposed that NCore amendments would have required that continuous, high-sensitivity, and multipollutant stations must use FRMs test sites be located in urban and rural passive methods, may also be utilized. or FEMs for criteria pollutants when the locations that characterize a wide range Because the SPM provision was expected concentration of the pollutants of aerosols expected across the network. designed to encourage monitoring, was at or near the level of the NAAQS. A hybrid network of monitors was agencies could design SPM sites with For criteria pollutant measurements of envisioned to address monitoring methods to meet monitoring objectives CO and SO , where the level of the objectives beyond just determining 2 that may not be achievable with FRMs compliance with NAAQS. The hybrid pollutant is well below the NAAQS, or FEMs. Additional information on network was expected to lead to a EPA observed that it may be more SPMs is included in section V.E.8 of reduced number of existing FRM appropriate to operate higher sensitivity this preamble. samplers and an increase in continuous monitors than typical FRM or FEM The EPA received several comments ARM samplers that would all be instruments. See 71 FR 2728. In these on its proposed approach for ambient approved for direct comparison with the cases, higher sensitivity methods were air monitoring methodology. Some of applicable forms of the PM2.5 NAAQS. expected to support additional these comments expressed concern that Many comments were received on monitoring objectives that conventional requiring only designated reference or EPA’s proposal regarding ARMs for FRMs or FEMs cannot. In some cases, equivalent methods takes away PM2.5. Several commenters suggested higher-sensitivity gas monitors have flexibility and the drive for requiring on-going collocation with an also been approved as FEM and can improvements to air quality FRM. Commenters also raised concerns serve both NAAQS and other instrumentation. The EPA agrees that about ensuring data quality, especially monitoring objectives. Options for high- some flexibility is desirable for agencies in light of the lower level of the 24-hour sensitivity measurements of CO, SO2, to use innovative methods that can PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore the and total reactive nitrogen (NOy) are support other objectives beyond perceived need to ensure that the described in the report, ‘‘Technical NAAQS decision making. However, statistical criteria are met in each Assistance Document for Precursor Gas CAA section 319 requires ‘‘* * * an air season. One commenter was so Measurements in the NCore quality monitoring system throughout concerned about the data quality issues Multipollutant Monitoring Network.’’ that the commenter recommended Comments regarding monitoring 15 Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for dropping the ARM provision. Other Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. U.S. commenters voiced strong support for 14 The QA Strategy Workgroup consists of EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. Human State, and local staff responsible for monitoring Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division. EPA/ the ARM provision, but also quality assurance activities who meet informally to 600–R–98/161. September 1998. Available at: recommended that EPA allow for less exchange information on current monitoring issues. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pams.html. collocation with FRMs than the 30

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61259

percent that was proposed. Several when using an ARM, including non- years as described in section V.B.2 of commenters recommended that EPA linear ones, so long as the this preamble. allow non-linear data adjustment factors transformations are described in both The testing criteria EPA will use for as are used for AIRNow and mapping the ARM application and the approval of PM2.5 continuous methods purposes. monitoring agency’s quality assurance as ARMs are intended to be robust but In reviewing comments on the project plan (or addendum to the not overly burdensome. The two main provision for ARMs, EPA agrees that QAPP), the transformations are features of testing that are different than data quality issues need to be prospective, and the ARM application FEMs are the duration and locations of appropriately addressed. Since ARMs provides for details on how often or testing. The duration is expected to be will be used for several monitoring under what circumstances they will be 1 year to provide an understanding of objectives, including NAAQS recalculated, based on what data, and the quality of the data on a seasonal attainment/nonattainment which analytical method. basis. The locations for testing are determinations, they must meet the Since participation in seeking expected to be a subset of sites in a Class III FEM performance criteria set approval of ARMs is voluntary and network where the State desires the out in part 53. However, as proposed, approval of an ARM applies only in the PM2.5 continuous monitor to be these performance criteria left open the territory of the agency seeking approval, approved as an ARM. Testing will be possibility that in cleaner environments no monitoring agency having concerns carried out in multiple locations to where concentration data approached will be required to utilize the ARM include up to two Core-based Statistical background levels of PM2.5 that provisions. However, for many agencies Area/Combined Statistical Areas approved methods may have this approach will offer an opportunity (CBSA/CSA) and one rural area or small unacceptable levels of bias to meet other to improve their monitoring network’s city for a new method. For methods that monitoring objectives. Therefore, the utility, by using methods that can serve have already been approved by EPA in Class III equivalency criteria, which are multiple objectives, while having lower other networks, one CBSA/CSA and one the same criteria used for PM2.5 ARMs, costs. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the rural area or small city are required to has been strengthened to address ARM provisions as proposed, with the be tested. concerns about additive bias in cleaner exceptions of the additive bias To ensure that approvals of new environments. The EPA performed an requirement being strengthened; methods are made consistently on a extensive investigation into developing changes to the required collocation national basis, the procedures for equivalency criteria for PM2.5 requirement; and clarifying use of data approval of methods are similar to the continuous methods. One of the transformations, including non-linear requirements specified in 40 CFR part conclusions from that process was that ones. 53, i.e., the EPA Administrator (or continuous methods, by virtue of being Today’s final action thus allows State, delegated official) will approve the able to provide a sample every day, local, and Tribal monitoring agencies to application. However, to optimize generate data with more certainty in independently, or in cooperation with flexibility in the approval process, all decision making than methods used instrument manufacturers, seek other monitoring agencies seeking with lower sample frequencies (i.e., a 1- approval of ARMs where PM2.5 approval of an ARM that is already in-3 day sample schedule), with all continuous monitor data quality is approved in another agency’s other factors being equal. Although sufficiently comparable to FRMs for monitoring network can seek approval biases can be seasonal, correlation integration into the agency’s PM2.5 through their EPA Regional combined with the other performance network used in NAAQS attainment Administrator. This approach will criteria will guard against high biases in findings. The performance criteria for provide a streamlined approval process, one season cancelling out low biases in approval of candidate ARMs are the as well as an incentive for consistency another. Together, the performance same criteria for precision, correlation, in selection and operation of PM2.5 criteria and the daily sample schedule and additive and multiplicative bias continuous monitors across various will ensure that data quality objectives that have been finalized for approval of monitoring agency networks. are met when making NAAQS decisions continuous PM2.5 Class III equivalent The QA requirements for approval of with data from ARMs. methods, described in section IV.C of continuous PM2.5 ARM at a network of With respect to requiring on-going this preamble. These performance sites are the same as for FEM in 40 CFR collocation with FRMs at 30 percent of criteria are to be demonstrated by part 58, appendix A, except that 30 the sites with continuous PM2.5 monitoring agencies independently or percent—rounded up—of the required monitors, EPA has considered how this in cooperation with instrument sites that utilize a PM2.5 ARM would be would affect agencies with many manufacturers under actual operational collocated with an FRM and required to continuous monitors and finds it conditions using one to two FRM and operate at a sample frequency of at least unnecessary to require such a large one to two candidate monitors each. a 1-in-6 day schedule. The higher absolute number of collocated sites, This is a departure from the very tightly- collocation requirement would support although the number of collocated FRM controlled approach used for national the main goal of the particulate matter under a 30 percent collocation equivalency demonstration in which continuous monitoring implementation requirement makes sense for smaller three FRM and three candidate monitors plan, which was to have an optimized networks. Therefore, this final rule are operated. The ARM will be validated FRM and PM2.5 continuous monitoring states that monitoring agencies are only periodically in recognition of changing network that can serve several required to have 30 percent collocation aerosol composition and instrument monitoring objectives. This collocation of the ARMs they count towards the performance. These validations will be requirement is necessary to retain a applicable minimum number of performed on at least two levels: (1) minimum number of FRM for continued required FRM/FEM/ARM sites— Through yearly assessments of data validation of the ARM, direct rounded up, rather than 30 percent of quality provided for as part of the on- comparison to NAAQS, and for long- their full networks of ARMs. going quality assurance (QA) term trends that are consistent with the For the issue of non-linear data requirements in 40 CFR part 58, historical data set archived in the AQS. transformations, this final rule appendix A, and (2) through network The collocated sites are to be located at specifically allows data transformations assessments conducted at least every 5 the highest concentration sites, starting

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61260 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

with one site in each of the largest These NCore multipollutant stations gradients, including specifically population MSA in the network and are intended to track long-term trends requiring additional rural sites. working to the next highest-population for accountability of emissions control Regarding methods, a few commenters MSA with the second site and so forth. programs and health assessments that recommended not requiring the total Finally, EPA reiterates that ARMs contribute to ongoing reviews of the reactive NOy measurement, since this may be used to measure compliance NAAQS; support development of measurement in some but not all cases emissions control strategies through air is little different from the existing NO2 with the PM2.5 NAAQS. See section 50.13(b) and (c) (as published elsewhere quality model evaluation and other measurement by chemiluminescence, in today’s Federal Register) (annual and observational methods; support which uses the same measurement 24-hour primary and secondary scientific studies ranging across principle as NOy. In reviewing the comments, EPA standards are met when designated technological, health, and atmospheric notes that more NCore sites can be concentrations ‘‘as determined in process disciplines; and support deployed than required by regulation. accordance with Appendix N’’ are met), ecosystem assessments. Of course, these For example, in our proposal EPA stated and Part 50 Appendix N section 1.a (for stations together with the more numerous PM , PM , O , and other that it would develop a design of the purposes of section 50.13, PM can be 2.5 10 3 2.5 NAAQS pollutant sites would also network for rural sites—not specifically measured by FRM, FEM, ‘‘or by an provide data for use in attainment and required of any individual State—that Approved Regional Method (ARM) nonattainment designations and for leveraged existing rural networks such designated in accordance with part 58 of public reporting and forecasting of the as IMPROVE, CASTNET and, in some this chapter’’). AQI. cases, State-operated rural sites. In some E. Appendix D—Network Design The EPA proposed that these NCore cases it may be appropriate to have Criteria for Ambient Air Quality multipollutant stations be required to enough NCore multipollutant sites to Monitoring measure O2; CO, SO2, and total reactive assess gradients; however, in other areas nitrogen (NOy) (using high-sensitivity having enough sites to develop 1. Requirements for Operation of methods, where appropriate); PM2.5 gradients with all the parameters Multipollutant NCore Stations (with both a FRM and a continuous required of an NCore station may not be The EPA proposed requirements for monitor); PM2.5 chemical speciation; needed and would therefore present an NCore stations applicable to States PM10¥2.5 (with a continuous FEM); and unnecessary burden to the States. individually that would, in the meteorological parameters including Therefore, EPA is finalizing the NCore temperature, wind speed, wind network design requirements as aggregate, result in the deployment of a direction, and relative humidity. See 71 proposed. new network of multipollutant FR 2730. High-sensitivity measurements For required methods, EPA agrees that monitoring stations in approximately 60 are necessary for CO, SO , and NO to in areas where the existing NOX method mostly urban areas. See 71 FR 2730. In 2 y adequately measure these pollutants in provides comparable data to the NOy the proposal, most States would have most air sheds for data purposes beyond method, monitoring agencies should be been required to operate one urban NAAQS attainment determinations. For allowed to operate NOX instead of the station; however, rural stations could be the other criteria pollutants, EPA more challenging measurement of NOy. substituted in States that have limited proposed use of conventional ambient However, EPA notes much of the reason dense urban exposures. Such air monitoring methods. for NOy and NOX reading being so close substitution would not change the goal At least one NCore station was may be a positive bias with current of having about 20 rural NCore sites. proposed to be required in each State, typical NOX (NO + NO2) instruments California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, unless a State determines through the which may over report NO2. Since New York, North Carolina, Ohio, network design process that a site which further development of the NOX method Pennsylvania, and Texas would be meets their obligation can be reasonably is underway, monitoring agencies which required to operate one to two represented by a site in a second State, seek waivers for the NOy method are additional NCore stations in order to and the second State has committed to encouraged to utilize high sensitivity account for their unique situations. establishing and operating that site. Any versions of the chemiluminescence These stations, combined with about 20 State could propose modifications to method so that they are capable of multipollutant rural stations, which these requirements for approval by the switching from high sensitivity NOX to were not proposed to be required of Administrator. While the proposed high sensitivity NOy in performing specific States, would form the new amendments did not specify the cities gaseous nitrogen measurements. The NCore multipollutant network. The in which the States would have to place EPA is therefore finalizing the required rural NCore stations would be their NCore multipollutant monitoring measurements at NCore multipollutant negotiated using grant authority as part stations, EPA anticipated that the sites as proposed; however, EPA will of an overall design of the network that overall result would be a network that allow for waivers of the NOy method in is expected to leverage existing rural has a diversity of locations to support areas where measured NOX is expected networks such as IMPROVE, CASTNET the purposes listed earlier. For example, to provide virtually the same data as and, in some cases, State-operated rural there would be sites with different NOy. This is largely expected to be in 16 sites. levels and compositions of PM2.5 and urban environments until such time as PM10¥2.5, allowing air quality models to the NO2 method (and hence the NOX) is 16 To clarify, under the proposed rule, and this be evaluated under a range of sufficiently improved that having final rule, 41 States, the District of Columbia, the conditions. separate measurements of NOy and NOX Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico will be required to operate one NCore site. The other nine States will The EPA received several comments provides more useful information than be required to operate two or three sites, for a on the proposed requirements for the existing technology. See also section national total of 62 to 71 required sites. Some of operating the NCore multipollutant V.E.7. these required sites might be waived by EPA. The monitoring stations. Some commenters The NCore stations are to be deployed EPA anticipates, but the rule does not require that some of these sites will be rural. Counting non- recommended requiring additional at sites representing as large an area of required sites, the goal is a total of about 75 sites, NCore monitoring stations for better relatively uniform land use and ambient about 20 of which will be rural. spatial coverage and to capture air concentrations as possible (i.e., out

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61261

of the area of influence of specific local filter methods on as infrequent a resources for other types of monitoring. sources, unless exposure to the local schedule as a 1-in-3 day sampling. Alternatively, the CASTNET stations source(s) is typical of exposures across This final rule contains a requirement will contribute to a more robust rural the urban area). Neighborhood-scale for PM10¥2.5 speciation to be conducted network with multipollutant sites may be appropriate for NCore at NCore multipollutant monitoring capabilities. stations. The EPA had proposed a multipollutant monitoring stations in 2. Requirements for Operation of cases where the site is expected to be requirement for PM10¥2.5 speciation in PM10¥2.5 Stations similar to many other neighborhood 25 areas, with the areas required to have scale locations throughout the area. In this monitoring selected based on For PM10¥2.5, EPA proposed a new some instances, State and local agencies having an MSA population over 500,000 minimum network requirement based on metropolitan statistical area (MSA) may have a long-term record of several and having an estimated design value of population and estimated PM ¥ measurements at an existing location greater than 80 percent of the proposed 10 2.5 design value. See 71 FR 2732–2736. that deviates from this siting scheme. PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. This would have concentrated the PM ¥ speciation Under that proposal, only those MSAs The State or local agency may propose 10 2.5 monitoring in areas that have high that contained an urbanized area of at utilizing these kinds of sites as the populations and high exposures to least 100,000 persons were required to NCore multipollutant monitoring station PM ¥ Since EPA is requiring have one or more monitors. The to take advantage of that record. The 10 2.5. PM10¥2.5 monitoring at NCore primarily minimum network design requirements EPA will approve these sites, for scientific purposes, it is more would not have included separate considering both existing and expected appropriate to have monitoring in a requirements for multiple urbanized new users of the data. The NCore variety of urban and rural locations so areas of 100,000 persons or more within multipollutant stations should be as to increase the diversity of areas that a single MSA. Where more than one collocated, when appropriate, with have available chemical species data to MSA was part of a CSA, each MSA was other multipollutant air monitoring use in scientific studies. The EPA had treated separately and was subject to stations including PAMS, National Air already proposed to have chemical individual requirements. Toxic Trends Station sites, and the speciation for PM2.5 at NCore stations. The EPA proposed that the actual or PM2.5 chemical Speciation Trends The collocation of both PM10¥2.5 and estimated PM10¥2.5 design value (3-year Network sites. Collocation will allow PM2.5 speciation monitoring at NCore average of 98th percentile 24-hour use of the same monitoring platform and stations is consistent with the concentrations) of a MSA, where one equipment to meet the objectives of multipollutant objectives of the NCore could be calculated, be used as a second multiple programs where possible and network and will support further factor to increase the minimum number advantageous. Of the approximately 60 research in understanding the chemical of monitors in MSAs with higher required NCore stations, up to 35 composition and sources of PM10 and estimated ambient coarse particle levels existing State-operated multi-monitor PM10¥2.5, and PM2.5 at a variety of urban and to reduce requirements in MSAs stations are already also operating or and rural locations. with lower estimated concentrations. preparing to also operate the high- Once these multipollutant NCore The EPA developed an initial database sensitivity monitors for CO, SO2, and stations are established, it is EPA’s of estimated PM10¥2.5 design values by NOy that are part of the NCore intention that they operate for many analyzing concentrations from existing requirement. years in their respective locations. collocated or nearly collocated PM10 Therefore, State and local agencies are and PM2.5 monitors in each MSA and Although EPA is retaining the 24-hour encouraged to insure long-term identifying which pairs met the PM NAAQS for requisite protection 10 accessibility to the sites proposed for proposed siting criteria which specified against short-term exposure to thoracic NCore monitoring stations. Relocating when a monitor was suitable for coarse particles and is not promulgating these stations will require EPA comparison to the proposed PM10¥2.5 a PM ¥ NAAQS, the NCore stations 10 2.5 approval, which will be based on the NAAQS. Monitoring agencies were are also being required to deploy a data needs of the host State and other given the option of proposing other PM10¥2.5 FRM or FEM to build a dataset clients of the information. procedures for calculating estimated for scientific research purposes, The EPA may negotiate with some PM10¥2.5 design values as a substitute including supporting health studies and States, and possibly with some Tribes, for EPA-calculated values. future reviews of the PM NAAQS. for the establishment and operation of The EPA’s proposal would have Separate PM10 monitoring will not be additional rural NCore multipollutant required as many as five PM10¥2.5 required at NCore stations. For many monitoring stations to complement the monitors in MSAs with total population PM10¥2.5 methods, including the FRM, stations required by today’s action. of more than 5 million with actual or PM10 data will be readily available as The EPA is in the process of estimated design values of greater than part of the calculated PM10¥2.5 upgrading the CASTNET monitoring 80 percent of the proposed PM10¥2.5 measurement. Even if a PM10¥2.5 capabilities to allow stations to provide NAAQS, and no monitors in MSAs method that does not report PM10 is even more useful data to multiple users. under 1 million people with actual or approved as an FEM and is deployed to The EPA expects that about 20 estimated design values less than 50 one or more NCore sites, PM10 will still CASTNET sites, operated at EPA percent of that proposed NAAQS. The be available by virtue of the expense, will have new capabilities EPA estimated that the size of the independent measurements of PM2.5 equivalent to some of the capabilities minimum required PM10¥2.5 network and PM10¥2.5 (which could envisioned for NCore multipollutant would be approximately 250 monitors appropriately be summed). Therefore, sites. After consultations with State air based on these proposed requirements EPA is not making measurements of quality planners and other data users, and the most recent estimates of PM10 a requirement of the NCore EPA may adjust the goal of having 20 PM10¥2.5 design values available at the network. Also, since the NCore network rural State-operated NCore stations, if time of proposal. An additional review of PM10¥2.5 FRM/FEM is not being used some of these CASTNET stations can of urbanized area population counts and for attainment/nonattainment achieve the same data objectives. This estimated design values completed after determinations, agencies may operate would preserve State/local funding proposal subsequently reduced the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61262 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

estimated size of the required PM10¥2.5 provide data for health and ecosystem the severity and extent of the PM2.5 network to approximately 225 monitors assessments that contribute to periodic problem and possibly in more need of (not counting PM10¥2.5 monitors at reviews of the NAAQS. More than 500 other types of data to address it. NCore stations) through the elimination continuous PM2.5 monitors are operated We proposed to retain the current of some MSAs where the population of to support public reporting and siting criteria for PM2.5, which have an the urbanized area was found to be forecasting of the AQI. emphasis on population-oriented sites fewer than 100,000 persons, or where The EPA proposed to modify the at neighborhood scale and larger. See 71 updated estimated design values network minimum requirements for FR 2741. In the proposal, EPA stated decreased sufficiently for monitoring PM2.5 monitoring so that multiple urban that these current design criteria requirements to drop into an adjoining monitors in the same MSA or CSA are appeared to remain appropriate for design value category with lower not required if they are redundant or are implementation of the proposed requirements. measuring concentrations well below primary PM2.5 NAAQS. See 71 FR 2742. As noted earlier, in addition to the the NAAQS. See 71 FR 2741. EPA The proposal stated that the existing minimum monitoring requirements, proposed to base minimum monitoring minimum requirements effectively EPA proposed a five-part test that would requirements on PM2.5 concentrations as ensure that monitors are placed in be used to determine whether potential represented by the design value of the locations that appropriately reflect the PM10¥2.5 monitoring sites were suitable area, and on the census population of community-oriented area-wide for comparison to the proposed NAAQS. the CSA, or in cases where there is no concentrations levels used in the All five parts of the site-suitability test CSA, the MSA. Overall, this was epidemiological studies that support the were required to be met for data from expected to result in a lower number of proposed (and now final) lowering of required monitors or non-required required sites (to satisfy minimum the 24-hour NAAQS. monitors to be compared to the network design requirements); however, The EPA further proposed that proposed PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. EPA recommended that States continue background and transport sites remain a The EPA received extensive to operate a high percentage of the required part of each State’s network to comments on all aspects of the PM10¥2.5 existing sites now utilizing FRM, but support characterization of regional network design proposal including the with FEM and ARM continuous transport and regional scale episodes of minimum monitoring requirements, methods replacing the FRM monitors at PM2.5. To meet these requirements, five-part suitability test for PM10¥2.5 many of the sites.17 Id. IMPROVE samplers could be used even NAAQS comparability, and monitor The EPA proposed to require that all though they would not be eligible for placement criteria. As summarized in sites counted by a State towards meeting comparison to the PM2.5 NAAQS; these section III.C.2 of the preamble for the the minimum requirement for the samplers are currently used in visibility NAAQS revisions published elsewhere number of PM2.5 sites have an FRM, monitoring programs in Class I areas in this Federal Register, EPA is not FEM, or ARM monitor. The EPA also and national parks. Sites in other States adopting a proposed PM10¥2.5 NAAQS proposed that at least one-half of all the which are located at places that make but instead will be retaining the current required PM2.5 sites be required to them appropriate as background and 24-hour PM10 standard. Therefore, the operate PM2.5 continuous monitors of transport sites could also fulfill these elements of the PM10¥2.5 monitoring some type even if not an FEM or ARM. minimum siting requirements. network design that were proposed to As noted, EPA proposed to use design The preamble to the proposal also implement an ambient network for the value and population as inputs in pointed out that in most MSAs, the primary purpose of determining deciding the minimum required number PM2.5 monitor recording the maximum NAAQS compliance are no longer of PM2.5 monitoring sites in each CSA/ annual PM2.5 concentrations is the same required and are not included in this MSA. The EPA proposed these inputs so as the monitor showing the maximum final rule. that monitoring resources would be 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, As described elsewhere in this notice, prioritized based on the number of suggesting that generally it will be these EPA is requiring PM10¥2.5 mass people who may be exposed to a common high-reading monitors that will concentration and speciation problem and the level of exposure of determine attainment/nonattainment for monitoring as part of the NCore network that population. Metropolitan areas with both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 of multipollutant sites. These sites are smaller populations would not be NAAQS. 71 FR 2742. The preamble intended to track long-term trends for required to perform as much monitoring further noted that where this is the case, accountability of emissions control as larger areas. If ambient air supplemental monitors, such as programs and health assessments that concentrations as indicated by historical continuous PM2.5 monitors and PM2.5 contribute to ongoing reviews of the monitoring are low enough, these speciation monitors, should already be NAAQS; support development of smaller population areas would not well located to help in understanding emissions control strategies through air have been required to continue to the causes of the high PM2.5 quality model evaluation and other perform any PM2.5 monitoring. concentrations. In a relatively small observational methods; support The proposed amendments also number of cases, certain microscale scientific studies ranging across would have required fewer sites when PM2.5 monitors that have not been technological, health, and atmospheric design values are well above (rather eligible for comparison to the annual process disciplines; and support than near) the level of the NAAQS to PM2.5 NAAQS and that have been ecosystem assessments. allow more flexibility in the use of complying with the pre-existing 24-hour 3 PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 µg/m , and 3. Requirements for Operation of PM monitoring resources in areas where 2.5 States and EPA are already confident of therefore have no impact on attainment Stations status, may become more influential to The PM2.5 network includes over 17 As explained earlier, an approved regional attainment status under the more 1,200 FRM samplers at approximately method (ARM) is a PM2.5 method that has been stringent level of the then-proposed, 900 sites that are operated to determine approved specifically within a State, local, or Tribal now adopted 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In air monitoring network for purposes of comparison compliance with the NAAQS; track to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and these cases, EPA noted that States may trends, development, and accountability to meet other monitoring objectives. See section choose to move accompanying of emission control programs; and V.D.2 of this preamble. speciation and continuous monitors to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61263

the new site of particular interest to get The EPA also received several minimum PM2.5 monitoring a better characterization of PM2.5 at that comments regarding the location of requirements. In a CSA, each MSA must location. required PM2.5 monitoring sites, meet the MSA requirements separately. The EPA received a number of questioning EPA’s proposal to keep the In considering the comments on comments regarding the PM2.5 network siting requirements for PM2.5 monitors requiring one-half the required PM2.5 design. Several commenters expressed the same despite the revision of the 24- sites to have continuous monitors, EPA concern regarding the provision to allow hour NAAQS to a level at which notes that the existing network of fewer required sites when monitored commenters asserted that violations of monitors is providing invaluable data PM2.5 concentrations are significantly the 24-hour NAAQS may occur in many for reporting and forecasting of the AQI above the PM2.5 NAAQS. Commenters middle scale or microscale locations not and in support of emergency situations stated that allowing fewer sites would presently experiencing violations of the such as wildfires and natural disasters be inadequate to demonstrate actual current 24-hour NAAQS. The gist of the (e.g., Hurricane Katrina). Ensuring a ambient air conditions. One commenter comments was that more monitors minimum network of these monitors is stated that the provision had merit for should be deployed in middle and/or essential to informing the public and long-term NAAQS such as the annual microscale locations to find such policy makers on the quality of the air average but not for short term standards. violations. One commenter during air pollution episodes. The The commenter pointed out that long recommended that EPA specifically technology utilized in the network term standards, where concentrations require a monitoring organization to continues to evolve as agencies adopt are averaged out over a multiple year have at least one microscale site in any the most suitable methods for use in period, tend to provide relatively area that is nonattainment or marginally their own network. The EPA believes uniform results even over a large nonattainment for the 24-hour NAAQS. that as agencies continue to purchase geographical area; however, daily In response to concerns about the most optimal equipment for their observations are going to be more requiring fewer PM2.5 monitoring sites networks and as instrument variable at a given site and from site to when monitored PM2.5 concentrations manufacturers now will have the site. Other commenters expressed are significantly above the NAAQS, EPA opportunity to receive FEM or ARM concern that while they appreciated the is not adopting the provision and will approval for their method(s), flexibility to redirect resources to instead provide two ranges of minimum manufacturers will continue to develop speciation sampling in areas with monitoring requirements depending on better continuous instruments. The EPA significantly high NAAQS design design value. As proposed, agencies is therefore adopting the proposed values, there would still be a need for with areas that are significantly below requirement for one-half the required both speciation and FRM data. In these the PM2.5 NAAQS (less than or equal to PM2.5 sites to have continuous monitors cases, while the flexibility may be 85 percent of the annual and 24-hour as proposed. However, to address the available, in practice it would be PM2.5 NAAQS) will have a lower concern about whether required difficult to shut down a monitor in an minimum monitoring requirement. continuous monitors need to be area that is significantly above the Areas that are within 15 percent of the collocated with a matching second NAAQS. NAAQS or above it will be required to continuous monitor, this final rule The EPA also received comments on operate more PM2.5 monitoring sites states that only one of all the required using CSA as the definition for a (i.e., be required to deploy a greater PM2.5 continuous monitors in each MSA metropolitan area in which to apply the minimum number of monitors), relative needs to have such a collocated match. minimally required PM2.5 monitoring to those at less than 85 percent of the This will allow a minimal level of network criteria. Commenters expressed NAAQS. performance characterization of the concern that the CSA was too large an To address the comments concerning continuous monitors in each area that area to apply minimum monitoring the most appropriate Census Bureau they are operated. Additional PM2.5 requirements and that it may result in definition in which to apply the PM2.5 continuous monitors, when required, the loss of essential monitors necessary minimum monitoring requirements, can either be collocated with FRMs or to characterize the extent of EPA compared the current network to set up at non-collocated sites to provide nonattainment areas. In addition, EPA the number of monitors that would be better spatial coverage of the MSA. received comments on the proposed required using either CSA or MSA as With regard to concerns expressed in requirement for the PM2.5 monitoring the unit for applying monitoring comments about monitor siting in light network to provide for one-half the requirements. The results demonstrated of the revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, required sites, rounded-up, to operate that using MSA ensures a few more EPA agrees that the proposed change in PM2.5 continuous monitors. required sites in areas that have the level of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 Commenters expressed concern that multiple MSAs making up a large CSA NAAQS from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 requiring PM2.5 continuous monitors, with high populations and large raised the issue of whether any none of which at present meet FEM geographical areas, without requiring commensurate changes would be and/or ARM performance criteria, may new sites of less obvious priority in needed in these requirements. The EPA result in minimizing the impetus for MSAs that have smaller geographic has considered the original equipment manufacturers to further coverage and population. Since the requirements for PM2.5 network design develop versions of these technologies overall goal of reducing redundant promulgated in 1997 and their rationale, that would meet the FEM/ARM required sites in large metropolitan how the PM2.5 network is currently performance criteria. Some commenters areas can be met by using MSA as the configured, what if any changes need to expressed concern that although PM2.5 unit for monitoring requirements, and be made to this network to make it continuous monitors serve multiple using MSA as the unit will also result consistent with the intended level of monitoring objectives, which in multiple MSAs with high design protection of the lower 24-hour PM2.5 underscores the need for their values in the same CSA each having NAAQS in combination with the annual operation, requiring collocation with minimum monitoring requirements to PM2.5 NAAQS, and whether these or any FRMs should not be a requirement of all address spatial gradients in large areas, changes should be required by a general the sites since it places an unnecessary EPA is adopting the MSA in as the rule or developed on a case-by-case burden on the States. geographic unit for applying the basis.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61264 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

In specifying monitor siting criteria dimensions of at least a few kilometers On the other hand, States and EPA for the original PM2.5 monitoring and thus can be considered community- may agree as part of the annual network in 1997, EPA noted that the oriented. The existing PM2.5 monitoring monitoring plan submission by the State annual standard had been set based on network continues to mostly be made and approval by the Regional epidemiology studies in which monitors up of these population-oriented, Administrator that in specific cases generally were representative of community-oriented, neighborhood placement of new or relocated monitors community-average exposures. The EPA scale monitoring sites. The EPA is into microenvironment or middle scale stated its expectations that the annual presently aware of fewer than ten PM2.5 locations is warranted and consistent standard would generally be the monitors that are sited in relatively with the intended level of protection of controlling standard in designating unique population-oriented microscale the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. States may nonattainment areas and that areas, localized hot spots, or unique also propose, and EPA would be controlling emissions to reduce annual population-oriented middle-scale areas. inclined to approve, the placement of averages would lower both annual and Such sites may have higher PM2.5 monitors in populated areas too 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations across concentrations than neighborhood scale small to be subject to the requirements each annual NAAQS nonattainment sites on at least some days because they regarding minimum numbers of area. Accordingly, the PM2.5 network may be close to and downwind of large monitors, if there is reason to believe design provisions in that final rule (62 emission sources, but the number of PM2.5 concentrations are of concern. Of FR 38833, July 18, 1997) and EPA’s people exposed to such concentrations particular interest may be smaller cities subsequent negotiations with State/local is not large relative to the surrounding and towns which presently lack any monitoring agencies over monitoring communities. PM2.5 monitor but which experience plans were largely but not solely The EPA believes the PM2.5 networks emission patterns such as use of wood directed at obtaining air quality data that were deployed were, and the stoves and/or weather conditions such reflecting community-wide exposures networks that are now operating as inversions which can create high by placing monitors in neighborhood currently are, consistent with the short-term concentrations of PM2.5. and larger scales of representation. intended level of protection of the States also remain free to place SPM at Section 2.8 of appendix D of 40 CFR annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistency or any location, without need for EPA part 58 as promulgated in 1997 had only inconsistency with regard to the 24-hour review or approval.18 a few definite requirements regarding The proposed rule text for 40 CFR 58, PM2.5 NAAQS has not been of practical the siting of PM2.5 monitors. Section significance until now due to the near appendix D inadvertently failed to 2.8.1.3 specified how many ‘‘core’’ absence of violations of that standard. In include rule text on PM2.5 monitoring monitors representing community-wide the January 17, 2006, proposal notice, network design criteria, found in air quality were required based on MSA EPA said that it believed that the 1997 existing appendix D section 2.8.1.2.3, population. For areas with populations rule’s design criteria remained setting forth the requirements that: (1) of 500,000 or more, section 2.8.1.3.1(a) appropriate for implementation of the The required monitors are sited to required that at least one core proposed primary PM NAAQS, represent community-wide air quality, monitoring station must be placed in a 2.5 including the lower 24-hour NAAQS, (2) at least one monitoring site is placed ‘‘population-oriented’’ area of expected because these requirements effectively in a ‘‘population-oriented’’ area of maximum concentration and (unless ensured that monitors are placed in expected maximum concentration, and waived under section 2.8.1.3.4) at least (3) at least one station is placed in an one core station in an area of poor air locations that appropriately reflect the community-oriented areawide area of poor air quality. Therefore, this quality. Areas with populations between final rule restores these pre-existing 200,000 and 500,000 were required to concentration levels used in the epidemiological studies that support the requirements to appendix D. This final operate at least one core monitor. rule sets out these criteria (in Section 2.8.1.3.4 strongly encouraged proposed lowering of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 71 FR 2742. The EPA substantively identical but slightly any State with an MSA with only one redrafted form) in appendix D section required monitor (due to being fewer continues to believe this, noting that the monitors used in the epidemiology 4.7.1(b). than 500,000 in population or due to a Also, as noted in the proposal and studies underlying the 24-hour PM2.5 waiver) to site it so it represented again above, some monitors that have community-oriented concentrations in NAAQS were sited similar to the majority of monitors in the existing not measured high concentrations areas of high average PM2.5 State/local networks. relative to the 1997 24-hour NAAQS concentrations. Section 2.8.1.3.7 may become more influential to No comments directly contradicted required core monitoring sites to attainment status under the just this assessment. While an implication of represent neighborhood or larger spatial adopted, more stringent 24-hour the final monitoring rule provisions scales. States could at their initiative NAAQS. In these cases, EPA encourages regarding siting of PM monitors is that place additional monitors anywhere, but 2.5 States to consider adding or moving States may choose not to monitor monitors in relatively unique speciation and continuous monitors to microenvironment or middle scale microscale, localized hot spot, or unique the newly influential site to get a better locations where some people are middle-scale locations cannot be characterization of PM concentrations exposed to 24-hour concentrations 2.5 compared to the annual NAAQS, and and their causes at that location. above the level of the 24-hour NAAQS, any monitoring site must be population- Finally, this final rule clarifies that such a result remains consistent with oriented to be compared to either IMPROVE monitors operated by an NAAQS. Part 58 App. D section the community-oriented area-wide level 2.8.1.2.3. of protection on which the 24-hour 18 The possible additional monitoring discussed In practice, the majority of PM2.5 PM2.5 NAAQS is premised. Thus, EPA in the text above could be compared solely to the monitors are deployed at neighborhood believes it is not appropriate to 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, the scale and larger, meaning that they are specifically require any number of 1997 rules provide that monitors that are sited in relatively unique population-oriented microscale located far enough from large emission monitors to be placed in areas, localized hot spots, or unique population- sources that they represent the fairly microenvironment or hot spot locations oriented middle-scale areas, may not be compared uniform air quality across an area with as one commenter suggested. to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61265

organization other than the State may be should be required overall for PM10. areas. States may of course choose to counted as satisfying the State’s This final rule therefore retains the retain PM10 monitors that are recording obligation to operate background and current PM10 minimum network concentrations below the PM10 NAAQS transport monitoring sites for PM2.5. requirements, except that these will no level to support monitoring objectives longer be called ‘‘NAMS’’ requirements. other than attainment/nonattainment 4. Requirements for Operation of PM10 The current PM10 minimum determinations, such as baseline Stations monitoring requirements in section monitoring for prevention of significant PM10 monitors currently are deployed 3.7.7 of part 58 appendix D are based on deterioration permitting or public throughout the country at about 1,200 MSA population and three different information. The EPA expects to work sites, with most metropolitan areas ranges of ambient PM10 concentrations with States to assess their PM10 already operating more PM10 monitors as compared to the PM10 NAAQS. For networks and help determine which of than are required by current monitoring MSAs in the lowest category of ambient these monitors are delivering valuable requirements. PM10 concentrations, those for which data and which monitors present In the January 17, 2006, proposal ambient PM10 data show concentrations disinvestment opportunities. As should notice, EPA proposed changes to the less than 80 percent of the NAAQS, at be evident, however, States may not PM10 requirements in coordination with least one monitor is required if the reduce their PM10 networks below the new minimum requirements for a population of the MSA is 500,000 or minimum requirements for monitoring PM10¥2.5 monitoring network in support greater. For MSAs in the highest within MSAs given in 40 CFR part 58 of the proposed 24-hour PM10¥2.5 category of ambient PM10 appendix D. NAAQS which would have eventually concentrations, those for which ambient In addition, if States and Tribes are replaced the PM10 NAAQS entirely. See PM10 data show concentrations considering deploying new PM10 71 FR 2742. As already explained, EPA exceeding the NAAQS by 20 percent or monitors, EPA recommends, again is not finalizing the proposed NAAQS more, at least one monitor is required if consistent with the basis for retaining for PM10¥2.5 and instead is retaining the the population of the MSAs is 100,000 the 24-hour PM10 standard, that those 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for all parts of the persons or greater. These requirements monitors be placed in areas where there U.S. This change has necessitated a list ranges of required monitors, with are urban and/or industrial sources of different approach for PM10 minimum the actual number of monitors to be thoracic coarse particles. Furthermore, monitoring requirements from the one determined by EPA and States. consistent with the monitors used in proposed. Based on PM10 ambient data for 2003– studies that informed our decision on Rather than revoking PM10 monitoring 2005 and current census population the level of the standard (see section requirements, as proposed, EPA believes statistics, a minimum of between 200 III.D of the final rule on the PM NAAQS that a robust nationwide monitoring and 500 PM10 FRM/FEM monitors will published elsewhere in today’s Federal network is required to provide be required across all affected MSAs. Register), EPA recommends that any compliance data for the 24-hour PM10 Over 800 PM10 monitors are in fact new PM10 monitors be placed in NAAQS and to support other objectives currently deployed in these MSAs. locations that are reflective of including the assessment of long-term About 400 other PM10 monitors community exposures at middle and trends, evaluations of the effectiveness currently operate outside the boundary neighborhood scales of representation, of State and local coarse particle control of any MSA. As stated in section III.B and not in source-oriented hotspots that programs, and health effects research. of this preamble, EPA believes a are not population oriented. The EPA has therefore considered reduction in the size of the existing The final rule omits two passages in whether the existing National Air monitoring networks for certain section 4.6 (Particulate Matter (PM10) Monitoring Station Criteria in Table 4 of pollutants, including PM10, for which Design Criteria) of 40 CFR 58, appendix appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, last the large majority of monitors record no D that were included for providing revisited in 1997, are still appropriate NAAQS violations, is an appropriate context for the proposed rule. The for these purposes. Because these way to free up resources for higher omitted passages are 4.6(b)(4) (Urban criteria have an urban focus by being priority monitoring objectives. These scale) and 4.6(b)(5) (Regional scale). As based on MSAs, allow for local higher priority objectives could include explained below, these two passages are considerations to be a factor in meeting both the new requirements in not consistent with EPA’s intention to determining the actual required number this final rule such as the NCore preserve the substance of the 1997 of stations, require more stations in multipollutant measurements and monitoring rule regarding scales of larger MSAs and MSAs with more objectives defined by the local air representativeness, while restructuring evidence of poor PM10 air quality while quality management program. The EPA appendix D to eliminate SLAMS versus also requiring some stations even in notes that many PM10 monitors have NAMS distinctions and to make clearer clean MSAs of a certain size, and in the been recording concentrations well which requirements (and explanatory aggregate will result in a required below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and background and guidance) applied to number of PM10 monitors that is similar thus are candidates for discontinuation each individual pollutant. In appendix to the required numbers of ozone and at a State’s initiative. States may also D of the 1997 monitoring rule, section PM2.5 monitors, EPA believes these choose to continue to operate monitors 2.8 (Particulate Matter Design Criteria criteria are appropriate. With regard to in excess of the minimum requirements. for SLAMS) addressed both PM2.5 and the comparison to the required numbers To the extent that States and Tribes are PM10, in some sentences referring of ozone and PM2.5 monitors, EPA has considering reducing the total number explicitly to PM2.5, PM10, or both, and in considered two directionally opposite of PM10 monitors deployed, EPA some sentences referring only in general factors. PM10 is less spatially uniform believes, consistent with the basis for to particulate matter. In this final rule, than O3 or PM2.5, suggesting the need for retaining the 24-hour PM10 standard, section 4.6 (Particulate Matter (PM10) relatively more intensive monitoring in priority should be given to maintaining areas with PM10 problems, but PM10 monitors sited in urban and industrial 19 encompass extraction and/or mechanical handling concentrations in most areas are below of natural geologic crustal materials. In the context of this rule making, neither mining nor agricultural the PM10 NAAQS (unlike for O3 and 19 As used in the Staff Paper, the term ‘‘mining sources are included in the more general category PM2.5) suggesting that fewer monitors sources’’ is intended to include all activities that of ‘‘industrial sources.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61266 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Design Criteria) addresses this subject The EPA proposed to revoke all low as 350,000 people in population matter for PM10, while section 4.7 (Fine minimum requirements for CO, SO2, would be required to operate as few as Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Design and NO2 monitoring networks, and one site. An even smaller area would Criteria) does so for PM2.5. In the reduce the requirements for Pb. See 71 have no required monitor, provided its proposed rule, for the purpose of FR 27423. The proposal allowed for design values (for example, from a providing context, EPA included reductions in ambient air monitoring for previously required monitor or a SPM) paragraphs on microscale, middle scale, CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb, particularly were sufficiently low. Taking the same neighborhood scale, urban scale, and where measured levels are well below approach used in the proposed regional monitoring scales in both the applicable NAAQS and air quality minimum requirements for PM2.5 sites, section 4.6 and 4.7. However, EPA upon problems are not expected, except in EPA proposed that high-population closer consideration has determined cases with ongoing regulatory areas with measured ambient that omitting the paragraphs on urban requirements for monitoring such as SIP concentrations significantly above the scale and regional scale from section 4.6 or permit provisions. The EPA stated it NAAQS be allowed to operate one less is appropriate for PM10, in terms of would work with States on a voluntary site than areas with measured ambient clarifying and preserving the effective basis to make sure that at least some concentrations near the NAAQS to substance of the 1997 rule for PM10. The monitors for these pollutants remain in allow flexibility of monitoring resources bases for reaching this conclusion place in each EPA region. Measurement in those areas. include the following: (1) The of CO, SO2, and NOy were also proposed The EPA received a number of paragraphs concerning these scales of as required measurements at NCore comments on the proposed minimum representation in the 1997 appendix D sites. There may be little regulatory network requirements for O3. Similar to (section 2.8.0.7 and 2.8.0.8) mention purpose for keeping many other sites the comments received on PM2.5, many PM2.5 specifically but not PM10, (2) the showing low concentrations, other than commenters had concerns with paragraph which precedes the five specific State, local, or Tribal requiring only one site when an area is paragraphs on the five scales (2.8.0.2) commitments to do so. However, in significantly above the NAAQS and states that middle and neighborhood limited cases, some of these monitors with defining the minimum monitoring scales are the most important scales for may be part of a long-term record requirements by CSA instead of by a smaller level of a metropolitan area. For PM10, (3) section 2.8 in the 1997 rule utilized in a health effects study. Under was titled as applying to SLAMS in 40 CFR 58.11 of this final rule, States instance, several commenters noted that particular but no SLAMS monitors were must consider the effect of monitoring by applying the minimum monitoring specifically required at any spatial scale site closures on data users other than requirements by CSA, agencies may not or scales, (4) under section 3.7 the State itself, such as health effects be required to deploy enough monitors (Particulate Matter Design Criteria for studies. The EPA expects State and local to characterize the within-MSA gradient agencies to seek input on which needed to adequately characterize O3 NAMS) specific numbers of PM10 monitors were required but without monitors are being used for health across a metropolitan area. In response to concerns about specification as to spatial scale, and (5) effects studies so they can give this allowing one less O monitoring site Table 6 of appendix D in the 1997 rule consideration. See also section IV.E.8 of 3 when a high-population area is indicates that only the micro, middle, this preamble. significantly above the NAAQS, EPA is and neighborhood scales are ‘‘required 6. Requirements for Operation of Ozone not adopting this provision. This final for NAMS.’’ The EPA notes that in the Stations rule instead provides two values for the final rule, the same numbers of PM10 Ozone (O3) monitors currently are minimum required number of monitors monitors are required as in the 1997 deployed throughout the country at according to design value. Agencies rule, but they are not referred to as about 1,200 sites, with most with areas that are significantly below NAMS monitors. The EPA notes that metropolitan areas already operating the O NAAQS (less than or equal to 85 urban scale and regional scale are of 3 more O3 monitors than would be percent of the O3 NAAQS) have the little, if any, relevance to PM10 required by today’s action. The EPA lower minimum monitoring monitoring, because of the short does not anticipate or recommend requirement. Areas that are within 15 transport distances for PM10, especially significant changes to the size of this percent of the NAAQS or above it have when emitted near ground level. In network because O3 remains a pollutant will be required to operate more O3 contrast, because PM2.5 is a secondary with measured levels near or above the monitoring sites. pollutant, large spatial scales are NAAQS in many areas throughout the To address the comments concerning relevant because monitors in such country. However, this final rule should the most appropriate Census Bureau- locations will reflect regional emissions help to better prioritize monitoring defined area for which to apply the O3 trends and transport patterns. resources depending on the population minimum monitoring requirements, 5. Requirements for Operation of Carbon and levels of O3 in an area. EPA investigated the current network Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen For O3, EPA proposed changing the compared with using either CSA or Dioxide, and Lead Monitoring Stations minimum network requirement from at MSA as the basis for applying the least two sites in ‘‘any urbanized area minimum network requirements. The Criteria pollutant monitoring having a population of more than results demonstrate that using MSA networks for the measurement of CO, 200,000’’ to an approach that considers ensures a few more sites in the small SO2, NO2, and Pb are primarily operated the level of exposure to O3, as indicated number of large CSAs that have high to determine compliance with the by the design value, and the census populations and large geographical NAAQS and to track trends and population of a metropolitan area. See areas without unnecessarily requiring accountability of emission control 71 FR 2742. The proposal stated that a new sites in the many areas that have programs as part of a SIP. Because these CSA, or MSA if there is no CSA, with smaller geographic coverage and criteria pollutant concentrations are a population of 10 million or more and population. Since using MSA does not typically well below the NAAQS, there a design value near the O3 NAAQS impose a significant new burden on the is limited use for public reporting to the would be required to operate at least States and makes it more likely that AQI. four sites. Smaller CSAs and MSAs as within-MSA gradient characterization of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61267

O3 will be characterized in high Type 1 or one Type 3 site. Several many methods, EPA continues to concentration areas, EPA is adopting commenters stated that the PAMS NOy evaluate improvements to the method, MSA as the appropriate unit of a requirement is not likely to be but at this time EPA believes that the metropolitan area to apply the beneficial. They argued that NOy data in current method (and commercially minimum O3 monitoring requirements. urban areas are likely to be available instrumentation) provides data All other monitoring requirements for indistinguishable from NOX data, the of sufficient quality to meet the PAMS O3 are adopted as proposed. commercial NOy instrumentation is not program objectives. yet fully developed, NO monitors are While proper siting of an NOy monitor 7. Requirements for Operation of y difficult to site properly, and that few (installing a 10 meter tower and meeting Photochemical Assessment Monitoring States have the modeling capability to proper fetch characteristics) may be Stations employ NOy data. difficult in some urban settings, EPA Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA required The EPA disagrees with the believes that NOy monitors can be EPA to promulgate rules requiring commenters’ statements that PAMS NOy adequately sited at most PAMS areas. enhanced monitoring of O3, NO, and measurements will not be beneficial. As Nonetheless, if siting a NOy monitor is VOC in ozone nonattainment areas compared to NOX measurements, NOy not practicable in a given PAMS area, a classified as serious, severe, or extreme. measurements provide a more complete State may request an alternative plan, as On February 12, 1993, EPA promulgated measurement of the available reactive allowed for under paragraph 5.3 of requirements for State and local nitrogen species involved in the appendix D to part 53, to allow monitoring agencies to establish PAMS photochemical reactions that lead to O3 monitoring of NOX instead of as part of their SIP monitoring networks formation. One of the primary uses of monitoring for NOy. in ozone nonattainment areas classified NOy data is for O3 modeling. However, After review and consideration of the as serious, severe, or extreme. During O3 modeling is not the only use for NOy comments received, EPA has decided to 2001, EPA formed a workgroup data. Long-term measurements of NOy finalize the revisions to the PAMS consisting of EPA, State, and local provide the best indicator of the requirements as proposed. monitoring experts to evaluate the effectiveness of NO controls at X F. Appendix E—Probe and Monitoring existing PAMS network. The PAMS reducing the reactive nitrogen Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air workgroup recommended that the compounds involved in O formation. In 3 Monitoring existing PAMS requirements be addition, a relatively simple analysis of streamlined to allow for more the O3-to-NOy ratio, or VOC-to-NOy ratio The proposed revisions to this individualized PAMS networks to suit can be performed to identify if an area appendix consisted of minor the specific data needs for a PAMS area. is ‘‘NOX limited’’ or ‘‘VOC limited’’ organizational changes and two The EPA proposed changes to the which would indicate if additional NOX technical changes to the siting criteria minimum PAMS monitoring controls would be more beneficial than affecting PM10¥2.5 and O3 monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58 to additional VOC controls. sites. See 71 FR 2748. implement the recommendations of the Ideally, the NOX method should 1. Vertical Placement of PM ¥ PAMS workgroup. See 71 FR 2743. 10 2.5 measure NO and NO2, whereas NOy Samplers Specifically, EPA proposed the measurements include NO, NO2, and following changes: The number of other important reactive nitrogen Specific probe siting criteria were required PAMS sites would be reduced; species (referred to here as NOz) which required to support the proposed only one Type 2 site would be required includes nitrous acids [nitric acid PM10¥2.5 network. The EPA proposed per area regardless of population and (HNO3), and nitrous acid (HONO)], vertical probe placement requirements Type 4 sites would not be required; and organic nitrates [peroxyl acetyl nitrate that limited microscale PM10¥2.5 sites to only one Type 1 or one Type 3 site (PAN), methyl peroxyl acetyl nitrate an allowable height range of 2 to 7 would be required per area. The (MPAN), and peroxyl propionyl nitrate, meters and neighborhood and large requirements for speciated VOC (PPN)], and particulate nitrates. scale PM10¥2.5 sites to a range of 2 to 15 measurements would be reduced. However, recent studies have shown meters. These ranges were identical to Speciated VOC measurements would that existing NOX monitors also measure the existing requirements for PM10. The only be required at Type 2 sites and one (and misreport as NO2) some NOz range for middle-scale PM10¥2.5 sites other site (either Type 1 or Type 3) per species. The NOy method was was limited to 2 to 7 meters which PAMS area. Carbonyl sampling would developed as an extension of the NOX represented a change from PM10 where only be required in areas classified as method to accurately measure all 2 to 15 meters was the allowed vertical serious or above for the 8-hour O3 reactive nitrogen compounds. placement range for middle-scale sites. standard. Conventional NO2/NOX Nonetheless, EPA will allow for waivers Several commenters supported the monitors would only be required at of the NOy method (via an alternative proposed PM10¥2.5 middle-scale vertical Type 2 sites. High sensitivity NOy plan provided for under paragraph 5.3 requirement as being consistent with the monitors would be required at one site of appendix D to part 53) in areas where expectation that coarse particle per PAMS area (either Type 1 or Type measured NOX is expected to provide concentrations nearest the breathing 3). High sensitivity CO monitors would virtually the same data as NOy. This is zone would be important to measure in be required at Type 2 sites. largely expected to be in areas with the assessment of exposure risk, and The EPA received comments on the fresh oxides of nitrogen emissions until that monitoring sites with more elevated proposed amended PAMS requirements. such time as the NO2 method (and inlets would be more likely to miss Overall, the commenters supported the hence the NOX method) is sufficiently localized concentrations where the reduction in minimum PAMS improved that having separate public is exposed. By contrast, other requirements which will allow for more measurements of NOy and NOX provides commenters raised concerns that the individualized PAMS networks and more useful information than the requirement would result in the alternative enhanced O3 monitoring existing technology. The EPA has measurement of localized (microscale) initiatives. However, some commenters evaluated a number of commercially near-ground conditions not were concerned with the proposed available NOy monitors and has found representative of a middle-scale sized requirement for NOy monitoring at one them accurate and reliable. As with area. Commenters also noted the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61268 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

importance of keeping identical inlet G. Sample Retention Requirements The EPA did not propose a specific requirements for PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 to effective date for this requirement in the maximize the benefits of having During the regulatory development monitoring rule and no commenters collocated measurements at the same process, various governmental agencies expressed implementation concerns. site. and health scientists indicated that Accordingly, this final rule includes an archiving particulate matter filters for Based on review of the comments, effective date of January 1, 2007 for the FRM and FEM would be useful for later EPA is retaining the 2 to 7 meter vertical sample retention requirement. chemical speciation analyses, mass requirement for middle-scale PM ¥ In the proposal, rule requirements 10 2.5 analyses, or other analyses. sites. This requirement is consistent regarding sample retention were located with current requirements for Current sample retention in section 4.9 of appendix D, a section microscale PM monitors but would requirements apply specifically to PM2.5 devoted to network design criteria. The filters and require a minimum storage require modifications for existing PM2.5 EPA believes that sample retention requirement of 1 year. The EPA and PM10 monitors located between 8 requirements are more logically located and 15 meters above ground that were proposed that retention requirements be in subpart B of part 58, which contains expanded to require archival of PM2.5, provisions on data submittal. intended for middle-scale PM10¥2.5 measurement. The EPA does not expect PM10¥2.5, and PM10c (low volume) filters Accordingly, the title of 40 CFR 58.16 this requirement to have a major impact for a period of 1 year after collection. (‘‘Data submittal’’) has been renamed on monitoring networks since this final See 71 FR 2749. ‘‘Data submittal and archiving requirements’’ and corresponding rule rule requires PM10¥2.5 monitoring only Commenters were supportive of the at NCore sites, and these sites will proposed requirement. Some requirements on sample retention have typically represent neighborhood or commenters stated that the required been moved to 40 CFR 58.16(f) of this larger scales. This final rule retains the filter retention period should be longer final rule. existing rule language that has the than 1 year, with a range in suggested H. Deletion of Appendices B and F storage periods of between 3 to 7 years. option for the Regional Administrator to This final rule removes and reserves grant a waiver of siting criteria, States provided examples of how filters archived for longer than 1 year were appendix B of 40 CFR 58, Quality providing flexibility for States to Assurance Requirements for Prevention document situations where useful data subsequently analyzed to provide data useful in the support of health studies, of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air could still be produced by monitors not Monitoring, and appendix F of 40 CFR meeting applicable requirements. SIP work, or analysis of exceptional events. Several commenters, while part 58, Annual SLAMS Air Quality 2. Ozone Monitor Setback Requirement supportive of the rationale for filter Information, because both are obsolete. The preamble to the proposed rule From Roads archival, preferred that the requirement explicitly proposed to remove appendix not be included in the regulation and The EPA proposed an increase to the B because the quality assurance instead left for voluntary monitoring minimum permitted distance between requirements for PSD monitoring were agency compliance. One commenter roadways and the inlet probes of proposed to be moved to appendix A, neighborhood and urban scale ozone suggested that the requirement be which this final rule does. See 71 FR and oxides of nitrogen sites to reduce clarified to explicitly include retention 2725. (The amendatory language at the the scavenging effects of motor vehicle- of blank filters in addition to exposed end of the January 17, 2006 proposal related nitric oxide emissions. See 71 filters. notice inadvertently did not list this FR 2748. The EPA notes the support for the change.) No adverse comments were Many commenters believed that the proposed sample retention requirement received on this change. scavenging effects of oxides of nitrogen and did not change that requirement in The January 17, 2006 notice did not on O3 levels in urban, populated areas this final rule. As stated in this final explicitly address the preservation or was more of an area-wide phenomena rule, States have the discretion to retain removal of appendix F, but its effective and would not be changed by moving a their samples for longer than one year. removal was inherent in the proposed site a few meters farther from the The EPA supports such procedures, rule because no section of the proposed nearest roadway. The relative value of recognizing that States will have part 58 would continue to refer to the proposed change on the basis of the different logistical constraints that appendix F. Similarly, the final part 58 resource requirements necessary to control the maximum length of time for does not refer to appendix F. Appendix relocate sites not meeting the increased which filters can be stored. The EPA has F previously was referenced by 40 CFR road setback requirements was also clarified that the requirement applies to 58.26 in subpart C, Annual state air questioned. Some support was noted for all such filters referenced in 40 CFR monitoring report, now deleted. the application of the increased 58.16(f), including exposed filters and Appendix F specified the required roadway setback requirement to new blanks. content, which was extensive, of the sites as long as existing ozone sites were The EPA acknowledges the concern annual report of summarized ‘‘grandfathered.’’ among some commenters that States monitoring data. An extensive annual The EPA acknowledges the logistical retain the right to determine the best use report of summarized monitoring data is difficulty and expense of moving of archived filters. These commenters no longer required in this final rule. existing sites to meet the increased stated that national considerations for New section, 40 CFR 58.16, Data setback requirement. To achieve a filter analysis should be considered a submittal, instead requires submission balance between the goal of minimizing secondary priority to State needs. The of individual data values. Summary the interference of roadway emissions EPA is respectful of this issue, and information on monitoring data is still on O3 and oxides of nitrogen monitor expects to negotiate with States on the required by 40 CFR 58.15, Annual air data and to reduce the burden on scope of any request for archived filters monitoring data certification, for the affected monitoring organizations, EPA intended for potentially destructive sole purpose of making it clear what has modified the increased roadway analyses so that the request if data is within the scope of the required setback requirement to apply only to compatible with other State uses for the certification letter. This final rule does newly established sites. same type of filters. not specify the exact content of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61269

summary information required by 40 streamline EPA administrative unless it displays a currently valid OMB CFR 58.15 in order to provide more requirements. control number. The OMB control flexibility and to accommodate possible The incremental annual reporting and numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 evolution of the standardized AQS recordkeeping burden for this collection CFR parts 53 and 58 are listed in 40 CFR reports which are the most convenient of information under 40 CFR part 53 part 9. When these ICR are approved by way for monitoring organizations to (averaged over the first 3 years of this OMB, EPA will publish a technical provide this information. ICR) for one additional respondent per amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the year is estimated to increase by a total Federal Register to display the OMB VI. Statutory and Executive Order of 2,774 labor hours per year with an control number for the approved Reviews increase in costs of $32,000/year. The information collection requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory capital/startup costs for test equipment contained in this final rule. Planning and Review and qualifying tests are estimated at $3,832 with operation and maintenance C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR costs of $27,772. The EPA has determined that it is not 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a The information collected and necessary to prepare a regulatory ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because reported under 40 CFR part 58 is needed flexibility analysis in connection with it may raise novel legal policy issues to determine compliance with the these final rule amendments. arising out of legal mandates, the NAAQS, to characterize air quality and For the purposes of assessing the President’s priorities, or the principles associated health and ecosystems impacts of the final amendments on set forth in the Executive Order. impacts, to develop emission control small entities, small entity is defined as: Accordingly, EPA submitted this action strategies, and to measure progress for (1) A small business as defined by the to the Office of Management and Budget the air pollution program. The Small Business Administration’s (OMB) for review under Executive amendments revise the technical regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a Order 12866 and any changes made in requirements for certain types of sites, government jurisdiction that is a response to OMB recommendations add provisions for monitoring of government of a city, county, town, have been documented in the docket for PM1010¥2.5, and reduce certain school district or special district with a this action. monitoring requirements for criteria population of less than 50,000; and (3) B. Paperwork Reduction Act pollutants. Monitoring agencies are a small organization that is any not-for- required to submit annual monitoring profit enterprise which is independently The information collection network plans, conduct network owned and operated and that is not requirements in this rule have been assessments every 5 years, perform dominant in its field. submitted for approval to the Office of quality assurance activities, and, in After considering the economic Management and Budget (OMB) under certain instances, establish NCore sites impacts of this final rule amendments the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. by January 1, 2011. on small entities, EPA has concluded 3501 et seq., OMB control number The annual average reporting burden that this action will not have a 2060–0084. The information collection for the collection under 40 CFR part 58 significant economic impact on a requirements are not enforceable until (averaged over the first 3 years of this substantial number of small entities. OMB approves them. ICR) for 168 respondents is estimated to The final requirements in 40 CFR part The monitoring, recordkeeping, and decrease by a total of 48,546 labor hours 53 for an FEM application are voluntary reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts per year with a decrease in costs of actions on the part of equipment 53 and 58 are specifically authorized by $6,151,494. State, local, and Tribal manufacturers to seek EPA approval for sections 110, 301(a), and 319 of the entities are eligible for State assistance their candidate sampling methods. The Clean Air Act (CAA). All information grants provided by the Federal applications are evaluated according to submitted to EPA pursuant to the government under the CAA which can the requirements in 40 CFR part 53 and monitoring, recordkeeping, and be used for monitors and related test data submitted by the reporting requirements for which a activities. manufacturers to EPA to ensure that the claim of confidentiality is made is Burden means the total time, effort, or candidate equivalent methods meet the safeguarded according to Agency financial resources expended by persons same technical standards as the FRM. policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose The final amendments to 40 CFR part 58 The information collected under 40 or provide information to or for a will reduce annual ambient air CFR part 53 (e.g., test results, Federal agency. This includes the time monitoring costs for State and local monitoring records, instruction manual, needed to review instructions; develop, agencies by approximately $6.2 million and other associated information) is acquire, install, and utilize technology and 48,546 labor hours from present needed to determine whether a and systems for the purposes of levels. State and Tribal assistance grant candidate method intended for use in collecting, validating, and verifying funding provided by the Federal determining attainment of the National information, processing and government can be used to defray the Ambient Air Quality Standards maintaining information, and disclosing costs of new or upgraded monitors for (NAAQS) in 40 CFR part 50 will meet and providing information; adjust the the NCore networks. the design, performance, and/or existing ways to comply with any comparability requirements for previously applicable instructions and D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act designation as a Federal reference requirements; train personnel to be able Title II of the Unfunded Mandates method (FRM) or Federal equivalent to respond to a collection of Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public method (FEM). The final amendments information; search data sources; Law 104–4, establishes requirements for add requirements for PM10¥2.5 FEM and complete and review the collection of Federal agencies to assess the effects of FRM determinations, Class II equivalent information; and transmit or otherwise their regulatory actions on State, local, methods for PM10¥2.5 and Class III disclose the information. and Tribal governments and the private equivalent methods for PM2.5 and An agency may not conduct or sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, PM10¥2.5; reduce certain monitoring and sponsor, and a person is not required to EPA generally must prepare a written data collection requirements; and respond to a collection of information statement, including a cost-benefit

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61270 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

analysis, for proposed and final rules E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may and Coordination With Indian Tribal result in expenditures to State, local, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Governments and Tribal governments, in the August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to Executive Order 13175, entitled aggregate, or to the private sector, of ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with $100 million or more in any one year. ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Before promulgating an EPA rule for 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA which a written statement is needed, development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies to develop an accountable process to section 205 of the UMRA generally ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by requires EPA to identify and consider a that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to tribal officials in the development of reasonable number of regulatory regulatory policies that have tribal alternatives and adopt the least costly, include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, implications.’’ This final rule does not most cost-effective or least burdensome on the relationship between the national have tribal implications, as specified in alternative that achieves the objectives government and the States, or on the Executive Order 13175. The final of the rule. The provisions of section distribution of power and amendments will not directly apply to 205 do not apply when they are responsibilities among the various Tribal governments. However, a Tribal inconsistent with applicable law. levels of government.’’ government may elect to conduct Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to ambient air monitoring and report the adopt an alternative other than the least This final rule does not have data to AQS. Since it is possible that costly, most cost-effective or least federalism implications because it will tribal governments may choose to burdensome alternative if the not have substantial direct effects on the establish and operate NCore sites as part Administrator publishes with this final States, on the relationship between the of the national monitoring program, rule an explanation why that alternative national government and the States, or EPA consulted with Tribal officials was not adopted. Before EPA establishes on the distribution of power and early in the process of developing the any regulatory requirements that may responsibilities among the various proposed rule to permit them to have significantly or uniquely affect small levels of government, as specified in meaningful and timely input into its governments, including Tribal Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive development and after proposal to governments, it must have developed Order 13132 does not apply to this final discuss their comments and concerns. under section 203 of the UMRA a small rule. As discussed in section VI.E of this government agency plan. The plan must Although section 6 of the Executive preamble, tribal agencies were provide for notifying potentially Order does not apply to this final rule, represented on both the NMSSC and the affected small governments, enabling EPA did consult with representatives of workgroups that developed the NAAMS officials of affected small governments State and local governments early in the document and proposed monitoring to have meaningful and timely input in process of developing this proposed requirements. Tribal monitoring the development of EPA regulatory rule. In 2001, EPA organized a National programs were represented on both the proposals with significant Federal Monitoring Steering Committee (NMSC) Quality Assurance and Technology intergovernmental mandates, and to provide oversight and guidance in work groups. Participation was also informing, educating, and advising reviewing the existing air pollution open to tribal monitoring programs on small governments on compliance with monitoring program and in developing the regulatory review workgroup. the regulatory requirements. a comprehensive national ambient air monitoring strategy. The NMSC G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of The EPA has determined that this membership includes representatives Children From Environmental Health final rule does not contain a Federal from EPA, State and local agencies, and Safety Risks mandate that may result in expenditures State and Territorial Air Pollution Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, of $100 million or more for State, local, Program Administrators/Association of April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: and Tribal governments, in the Local Air Pollution Control Officials (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically aggregate, or the private sector in any (STAPPA/ALAPCO), and Tribal significant’’ as defined under Executive one year. The final amendments to 40 governments to reflect the partnership Order 12866, and (2) concerns an CFR part 58 will reduce annual ambient between EPA and governmental environmental health or safety risk that air monitoring costs for State and local agencies that collect and use ambient air EPA has reason to believe may have a agencies by approximately $6.2 million data. The NMSC formed workgroups to disproportionate effect on children. If and 48,546 labor hours from present address quality assurance, technology, the regulatory action meets both criteria, levels. Thus, these final amendments and regulatory review of the draft EPA must evaluate the environmental are not subject to the requirements of ambient air monitoring strategy health or safety effects of the planned sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. (NAAMS). These workgroups met rule on children, and explain why the The EPA has determined that this several times by phone and at least once planned regulation is preferable to other final rule contains no regulatory in a face-to-face workshop to develop potentially effective and reasonably requirements that might significantly or specific recommendations for improving feasible alternatives considered by EPA. uniquely affect small governments. the ambient air monitoring program. A The EPA interprets Executive Order Small governments that may be affected record of the Steering Committee 13045 as applying only to those by the final amendments are already members, workgroup members, and regulatory actions that are based on meeting similar requirements under the workshop are available on the Web at: health or safety risks, such that the existing rules, and the final http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ analysis required under section 5–501 of amendments will substantially reduce monitor.html. The EPA also met with the Order has the potential to influence the costs of the existing rules. Therefore, State, local, and Tribal government the regulation. This final rule is not this final rule is not subject to the representatives to discuss their subject to Executive Order 13045 requirements of section 203 of the comments on the proposed amendments because, while it is based on the need UMRA. and suggestions for resolving issues. for monitoring data to characterize risk,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61271

this final monitoring rule itself does not concentrations of PM2.5 are currently amendments will be effective on establish an environmental standard measured by the Federal reference December 18, 2006. The final intended to mitigate health or safety method in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L amendments will be effective 60 days risks. (Reference Method for the after publication in the Federal Register Determination of Fine Particulate as to be consistent with the effective date H. Executive Order 12898: Federal PM in the Atmosphere) or by FRM or Actions To Address Environmental 2.5 of the revised NAAQS for PM published FEM that meet the requirements in 40 Justice in Minority Populations and elsewhere in this Federal Register. CFR part 53. Ambient air concentrations Low-Income Populations Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring of PM10¥2.5 will be measured by the Regulations. Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, final FRM in 40 CFR part 50, appendix February 11, 1994) requires that each O (Reference Method for the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 53 and Federal agency make achieving Determination of Coarse Particulate 58 environmental justice part of its mission Matter as PM10¥2.5 in the Atmosphere) Environmental protection, by identifying and addressing, as published elsewhere in this Federal Administrative practice and procedure, appropriate, disproportionately high Register or by an FRM or FEM that Air pollution control, Intergovernmental and adverse human health or meets the requirements in 40 CFR part relations, Reporting and recordkeeping environmental effects of its programs, 53. As discussed in section IV.B of this requirements. policies, and activities on minorities preamble, the final FRM for PM10¥2.5 is Dated: September 27, 2006. and low-income populations. These similar to the existing methods for PM 2.5 Stephen L. Johnson, requirements have been addressed to and PM10. the extent practicable in the Regulatory Procedures are included in this final Administrator. Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final rule that allow for approval of an FEM For the reasons set out in the revisions to the NAAQS for particulate for PM10¥2.5 that is similar to the final preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 53 matter. FRM. Any method that meets the and 58 of the Code of Federal performance criteria for a candidate Regulations are amended as follows: I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That equivalent method may be approved for Significantly Affect Energy Supply, use as an FRM or FEM. PART 53—[AMENDED] Distribution, or Use This approach is consistent with 1. The authority citation for part 53 This final rule is not a ‘‘significant EPA’s Performance-Based Measurement continues to read as follows: energy action’’ as defined in Executive System (PBMS). The PBMS approach is Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning intended to be more flexible and cost Authority: Section 301(a) of the Clean Air Regulations That Significantly Affect effective for the regulated community; it Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 1857g(a)), as amended by Energy Supply, Distribution or Use’’ (66 is also intended to encourage innovation sec. 15(c)(2) of Pub. L. 91–604, 84 Stat. 1713, unless otherwise noted. FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is in analytical technology and improved not likely to have a significant adverse data quality. The EPA is not precluding Subpart A—[Amended] effect on the supply, distribution, or use the use of any method, whether it of energy. No significant change in the constitutes a voluntary consensus 2. Sections 53.1 through 53.5 are use of energy is expected because the standard or not, as long as it meets the revised to read as follows: total number of monitors for ambient air specified performance criteria. quality measurements will not increase § 53.1 Definitions. K. Congressional Review Act above present levels. Further, EPA has Terms used but not defined in this concluded that this final rule is not The Congressional Review Act, 5 part shall have the meaning given them likely to have any adverse energy U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the by the Act. effects. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act means the Clean Air Act (42 Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides U.S.C. 1857–1857l), as amended. J. National Technology Transfer that before a rule may take effect, the Additive and multiplicative bias Advancement Act agency promulgating the rule must means the linear regression intercept Section 12(d) of the National submit a rule report, which includes a and slope of a linear plot fitted to Technology Transfer Advancement Act copy of the rule, to each House of corresponding candidate and reference of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, Congress and to the Comptroller General method mean measurement data pairs. section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of the United States. The EPA will Administrator means the directs EPA to use voluntary consensus submit a report containing the final Administrator of the Environmental standards in its regulatory activities amendments and other required Protection Agency (EPA) or his or her unless to do so would be inconsistent information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. authorized representative. with applicable law or otherwise House of Representatives, and the Agency means the Environmental impractical. Voluntary consensus Comptroller General of the United Protection Agency. standards are technical standards (e.g., States prior to publication of the final Applicant means a person or entity materials specifications, test methods, amendments in the Federal Register. A who submits an application for a sampling procedures, and business major rule cannot take effect until 60 Federal reference method or Federal practices) that are developed or adopted days after it is published in the Federal equivalent method determination under by voluntary consensus standards Register. This action is not a ‘‘major § 53.4, or a person or entity who bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This assumes the rights and obligations of an provide Congress, through OMB, final rule will not have an annual effect applicant under § 53.7. Applicant may explanations when EPA decides not to on the economy of $100 million or include a manufacturer, distributor, use available and applicable voluntary more, will not result in a major increase supplier, or vendor. consensus standards. in costs or prices for State or local Automated method or analyzer means The final amendments involve agencies, and will not affect competition a method for measuring concentrations environmental monitoring and with foreign-based enterprises in of an ambient air pollutant in which measurement. Ambient air domestic and export markets. The final sample collection (if necessary),

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

analysis, and measurement are designation has been canceled in start time, stop time, and duration of the performed automatically by an accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16. sampling or measurement period. instrument. Federal reference method (FRM) Pb means lead. Candidate method means a method means a method of sampling and PM means PM10, PM10C, PM2.5, for measuring the concentration of an analyzing the ambient air for an air PM10¥2.5, or particulate matter of air pollutant in the ambient air for pollutant that is specified as a reference unspecified size range. which an application for a Federal method in an appendix to part 50 of this PM2.5 means particulate matter with reference method determination or a chapter, or a method that has been an aerodynamic diameter less than or Federal equivalent method designated as a reference method in equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as determination is submitted in accordance with this part; it does not measured by a reference method based accordance with § 53.4, or a method include a method for which a reference on appendix L of part 50 of this chapter tested at the initiative of the method designation has been canceled and designated in accordance with part Administrator in accordance with in accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16. 53 of this chapter, by an equivalent § 53.7. ISO 9001-registered facility means a method designated in accordance with Class I equivalent method means an manufacturing facility that is either: part 53 of this chapter, or by an equivalent method for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 (1) An International Organization for approved regional method designated in which is based on a sampler that is very Standardization (ISO) 9001-registered accordance with appendix C to this part. similar to the sampler specified for manufacturing facility, registered to the PM10 means particulate matter with reference methods in appendix L or ISO 9001 standard (by the Registrar an aerodynamic diameter less than or appendix O (as applicable) of part 50 of Accreditation Board (RAB) of the equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as this chapter, with only minor deviations American Society for Quality Control measured by a reference method based or modifications, as determined by EPA. (ASQC) in the United States), with on appendix J of part 50 of this chapter Class II equivalent method means an registration maintained continuously; or and designated in accordance with this equivalent method for PM or PM ¥ 2.5 10 2.5 (2) A facility that can be part or by an equivalent method that utilizes a PM sampler or PM ¥ 2.5 10 2.5 demonstrated, on the basis of designated in accordance with this part. sampler in which integrated PM2.5 information submitted to the EPA, to be PM10C means particulate matter with samples or PM10¥2.5 samples are obtained from the atmosphere by operated according to an EPA-approved an aerodynamic diameter less than or filtration and subjected to a subsequent and periodically audited quality system equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as filter conditioning process followed by which meets, to the extent appropriate, measured by a reference method based a gravimetric mass determination, but the same general requirements as an ISO on appendix O of part 50 of this chapter which is not a Class I equivalent method 9001-registered facility for the design and designated in accordance with this because of substantial deviations from and manufacture of designated Federal part or by an equivalent method the design specifications of the sampler reference method and Federal designated in accordance with this part. specified for reference methods in equivalent method samplers and PM10¥2.5 means particulate matter appendix L or appendix O (as monitors. with an aerodynamic diameter less than applicable) of part 50 of this chapter, as ISO-certified auditor means an or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers determined by EPA. auditor who is either certified by the and greater than a nominal 2.5 Class III equivalent method means an Registrar Accreditation Board (in the micrometers as measured by a reference United States) as being qualified to method based on appendix O to part 50 equivalent method for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 that is an analyzer capable of providing audit quality systems using the of this chapter and designated in requirements of recognized standards accordance with this part or by an PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 ambient air measurements representative of one- such as ISO 9001, or who, based on equivalent method designated in information submitted to the EPA, accordance with this part. hour or less integrated PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 concentrations as well as 24-hour meets the same general requirements as PM2.5 sampler means a device, measurements determined as, or provided for ISO-certified auditors. associated with a manual method for equivalent to, the mean of 24 one-hour Manual method means a method for measuring PM2.5, designed to collect consecutive measurements. measuring concentrations of an ambient PM2.5 from an ambient air sample, but CO means carbon monoxide. air pollutant in which sample lacking the ability to automatically Collocated means two or more air collection, analysis, or measurement, or analyze or measure the collected sample samplers, analyzers, or other some combination thereof, is performed to determine the mass concentrations of instruments that are operated manually. A method for PM10 or PM2.5 PM2.5 in the sampled air. simultaneously while located side by which utilizes a sampler that requires PM10 sampler means a device, side, separated by a distance that is manual preparation, loading, and associated with a manual method for large enough to preclude the air weighing of filter samples is considered measuring PM10, designed to collect sampled by any of the devices from a manual method even though the PM10 from an ambient air sample, but being affected by any of the other sampler may be capable of lacking the ability to automatically devices, but small enough so that all automatically collecting a series of analyze or measure the collected sample devices obtain identical or uniform sequential samples. to determine the mass concentrations of ambient air samples that are equally NO means nitrogen oxide. PM10 in the sampled air. representative of the general area in NO2 means nitrogen dioxide. PM10C sampler means a PM10 sampler which the group of devices is located. NOX means oxides of nitrogen and is that meets the special requirements for Federal equivalent method (FEM) defined as the sum of the concentrations a PM10C sampler that is part of a means a method for measuring the of NO2 and NO. PM10¥2.5 reference method sampler, as concentration of an air pollutant in the O3 means ozone. specified in appendix O to part 50 of ambient air that has been designated as Operated simultaneously means that this chapter, or a PM10 sampler that is an equivalent method in accordance two or more collocated samplers or part of a PM10¥2.5 sampler that has been with this part; it does not include a analyzers are operated concurrently designated as an equivalent method for method for which an equivalent method with no significant difference in the PM10¥2.5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61273

PM10¥2.5 sampler means a sampler, or facility, as defined in § 53.1 and as set (4) PM10¥2.5 Class I. A PM10¥2.5 Class a collocated pair of samplers, associated forth in § 53.51. I FEM sampler must also satisfy the with a manual method for measuring (4) PM10¥2.5. A FRM for measuring applicable requirements of subpart E of PM10¥2.5 and designed to collect either PM10¥2.5 must be a manual method that this part (there are no additional PM10¥2.5 directly or PM10C and PM2.5 meets all requirements specified in requirements specifically for Class I separately and simultaneously from appendix O of part 50 of this chapter PM10¥2.5 methods in subpart C of this concurrent ambient air samples, but and must include PM10C and PM2.5 part). lacking the ability to automatically samplers that have been shown in (5) PM10¥2.5 Class II. (i) A PM10¥2.5 analyze or measure the collected accordance with this part to meet the Class II FEM sampler must also satisfy sample(s) to determine the mass applicable requirements specified in the applicable requirements of subpart C concentrations of PM10¥2.5 in the this subpart A and subpart E of this part. of this part and also the applicable sampled air. Further, PM10¥2.5 FRM samplers must requirements and provisions of Sequential samples for PM samplers be manufactured in an ISO 9001- paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this means two or more PM samples for registered facility, as defined in § 53.1 section, or the alternative requirements sequential (but not necessarily and as set forth in § 53.51. in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. contiguous) time periods that are (b) Automated methods. An (ii) In lieu of the applicable collected automatically by the same automated FRM for measuring CO, O3, requirements specified for Class II sampler without the need for or NO2 must utilize the measurement PM10¥2.5 methods in subpart C of this intervening operator service. principle and calibration procedure part and in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this ¥ SO2 means sulfur dioxide. specified in the appropriate appendix to section, a Class II PM10 2.5 FEM sampler Test analyzer means an analyzer part 50 of this chapter and must have may alternatively meet the applicable subjected to testing as part of a been shown in accordance with this part requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and candidate method in accordance with to meet the requirements specified in (ii) of this section and the testing, subparts B, C, D, E, or F of this part, as this subpart A and subpart B of this performance, and comparability applicable. part. requirements specified for Class III Test sampler means a PM10 sampler, FEMs for PM10¥2.5 in subpart C of this § 53.3 General requirements for an PM2.5 sampler, or PM10¥2.5 sampler part. subjected to testing as part of a equivalent method determination. (6) ISO 9001. All designated FEMs for candidate method in accordance with (a) Manual methods. A manual PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 must be manufactured subparts C, D, E, or F of this part. Federal equivalent method (FEM) must in an ISO 9001-registered facility, as Ultimate purchaser means the first have been shown in accordance with defined in § 53.1 and as set forth in person or entity who purchases a this part to satisfy the applicable § 53.51. Federal reference method or a Federal requirements specified in this subpart A (b) Automated methods. All types of equivalent method for purposes other and subpart C of this part. In addition, automated FEMs must have been shown than resale. a PM sampler associated with a manual in accordance with this part to satisfy method for PM10, PM2.5, or PM10¥2.5 the applicable requirements specified in § 53.2 General requirements for a must have been shown in accordance this subpart A and subpart C of this reference method determination. with this part to satisfy the following part. In addition, an automated FEM The following general requirements additional requirements, as applicable: must have been shown in accordance for a Federal reference method (FRM) (1) PM10. A PM10 sampler associated with this part to satisfy the following determination are summarized in table with a manual method for PM10 must additional requirements, as applicable: A–1 of this subpart. satisfy the requirements of subpart D of (1) An automated FEM for pollutants (a) Manual methods—(1) Sulfur this part. other than PM must be shown in dioxide (SO2) and lead. For measuring (2) PM2.5 Class I. A PM2.5 Class I FEM accordance with this part to satisfy the SO2 and lead, appendices A and G of sampler must also satisfy all applicable requirements specified in part 50 of this chapter specify unique requirements of subpart E of this part, subpart B of this part. manual FRM for measuring these which shall include appropriate (2) An automated FEM for PM10 must pollutants. Except as provided in demonstration that each and every be shown in accordance with this part § 53.16, other manual methods for SO2 deviation or modification from the FRM to satisfy the applicable requirements of and lead will not be considered for FRM sampler specifications does not subpart D of this part. determinations under this part. significantly alter the performance of (3) A Class III automated FEM for (2) PM10. A FRM for measuring PM10 the sampler. PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 must be shown in must be a manual method that meets all (3) PM2.5 Class II. (i) A PM2.5 Class II accordance with this part to satisfy the requirements specified in appendix J of FEM sampler must also satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) part 50 of this chapter and must include applicable requirements of subparts E through (iii) of this section, as a PM10 sampler that has been shown in and F of this part or the alternative applicable. accordance with this part to meet all requirements in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of (i) All pertinent requirements of 40 requirements specified in this subpart A this section. CFR part 50, appendix L, including and subpart D of this part. (ii) In lieu of the applicable sampling height, range of operational (3) PM2.5. A FRM for measuring PM2.5 requirements specified for Class II PM2.5 conditions, ambient temperature and must be a manual method that meets all methods in subparts C and F of this pressure sensors, outdoor enclosure, requirements specified in appendix L of part, a Class II PM2.5 FEM sampler may electrical power supply, control devices part 50 of this chapter and must include alternatively meet the applicable and operator interfaces, data output a PM2.5 sampler that has been shown in requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) port, operation/instruction manual, data accordance with this part to meet the through (iii) of this section and the output and reporting requirements, and applicable requirements specified in testing, performance, and comparability any other requirements that would be this subpart A and subpart E of this part. requirements specified for Class III reasonably applicable to the method, Further, FRM samplers must be equivalent methods for PM2.5 in subpart unless adequate (as determined by the manufactured in an ISO 9001-registered C of this part. Administrator) rationale can be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61274 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

provided to support the contention that the specific type of measurement or (A) Description of the method and a particular requirement does not or operation of the candidate method. associated instruments. should not be applicable to the (4) All designated FEM for PM2.5 or (B) Explanation of all indicators, particular candidate method. PM10¥2.5 must be manufactured in an information displays, and controls. (ii) All pertinent tests and ISO 9001-registered facility, as defined (C) Complete setup and installation requirements of subpart E of this part, in § 53.1 and as set forth in § 53.51. instructions, including any additional such as instrument manufacturing materials or supplies required. quality control; final assembly and § 53.4 Applications for reference or (D) Details of all initial or startup equivalent method determinations. inspection; manufacturer’s audit checks or acceptance tests and any checklists; leak checks; flow rate (a) Applications for FRM or FEM auxiliary equipment required. accuracy, measurement accuracy, and determinations shall be submitted in (E) Complete operational instructions. flow rate cut-off; operation following duplicate to: Director, National (F) Calibration procedures and power interruptions; effect of variations Exposure Research Laboratory, descriptions of required calibration in power line voltage, ambient Reference and Equivalent Method equipment and standards. temperature and ambient pressure; and Program (MD–D205–03), U.S. (G) Instructions for verification of aerosol transport; unless adequate (as Environmental Protection Agency, correct or proper operation. determined by the Administrator) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (H) Trouble-shooting guidance and rationale can be provided to support the 27711 (Commercial delivery address: suggested corrective actions for contention that a particular test or 4930 Old Page Road, Durham, North abnormal operation. requirement does not or should not be Carolina 27703). (I) Required or recommended routine, applicable to the particular candidate (b) Each application shall be signed periodic, and preventative maintenance method. by an authorized representative of the and maintenance schedules. (iii) Candidate methods shall be tested applicant, shall be marked in (J) Any calculations required to derive for and meet any performance accordance with § 53.15 (if applicable), final concentration measurements. requirements, such as inlet aspiration, and shall contain the following: (K) Appropriate references to any particle size separation or selection (1) A clear identification of the applicable appendix of part 50 of this characteristics, change in particle candidate method, which will chapter; reference 6 of appendix A of separation or selection characteristics distinguish it from all other methods this subpart; and any other pertinent due to loading or other operational such that the method may be referred to guidelines. conditions, or effects of surface unambiguously. This identification (ii) The manual shall also include exposure and particle volatility, must consist of a unique series of adequate warning of potential safety determined by the Administrator to be descriptors such as title, identification hazards that may result from normal use necessary based on the nature, design, number, analyte, measurement and/or malfunction of the method and and specifics of the candidate method principle, manufacturer, brand, model, a description of necessary safety and the extent to which it deviates from etc., as necessary to distinguish the precautions. (See § 53.9(b).) However, the design and performance method from all other methods or the previous requirement shall not be characteristics of the reference method. method variations, both within and interpreted to constitute or imply any These performance requirements and outside the applicant’s organization. warranty of safety of the method by the specific test(s) for them will be (2) A detailed description of the EPA. For samplers and automated determined by Administrator for each candidate method, including but not methods, the manual shall include a specific candidate method or type of limited to the following: The clear description of all procedures candidate method and may be similar to measurement principle, manufacturer, pertaining to installation, operation, or based on corresponding tests and name, model number and other forms of preventive maintenance, and requirements set forth in subpart F of identification, a list of the significant troubleshooting and shall also include this part or may be special requirements components, schematic diagrams, parts identification diagrams. The and tests tailored by the Administrator design drawings, and a detailed manual may be used to satisfy the to the specific nature, design, and description of the apparatus and requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and operational characteristics of the measurement procedures. Drawings and (2) of this section to the extent that it candidate method. For example, a descriptions pertaining to candidate includes information necessary to meet candidate method with an inlet design methods or samplers for PM2.5 or those requirements. deviating substantially from the design PM10¥2.5 must meet all applicable (4) A statement that the candidate of the reference method inlet would requirements in reference 1 of appendix method has been tested in accordance likely be subject to an inlet aspiration A of this subpart, using appropriate with the procedures described in test similar to that set forth in § 53.63. graphical, nomenclature, and subparts B, C, D, E, and/or F of this part, Similarly, a candidate method having an mathematical conventions such as those as applicable. inertial fractionation system specified in references 3 and 4 of (5) Descriptions of test facilities and substantially different from that of the appendix A of this subpart. test configurations, test data, records, reference method would likely be (3) A copy of a comprehensive calculations, and test results as subject to a static fractionation test and operation or instruction manual specified in subparts B, C, D, E, and/or a loading test similar to those set forth providing a complete and detailed F of this part, as applicable. Data must in §§ 53.64 and 53.65, respectively. A description of the operational, be sufficiently detailed to meet candidate method with more extensive maintenance, and calibration appropriate principles described in part or profound deviations from the design procedures prescribed for field use of B, sections 3.3.1 (paragraph 1) and 3.5.1 and function of the reference method the candidate method and all and part C, section 4.6 of reference 2 of may be subject to other tests, full wind- instruments utilized as part of that appendix A of this subpart; and in tunnel tests similar to those described in method (under § 53.9(a)). paragraphs 1 through 3 of section 4.8 § 53.62, or to special tests adapted or (i) As a minimum this manual shall (Records) of reference 5 of appendix A developed individually to accommodate include: of this subpart. Salient requirements

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61275

from these references include the provided in the following sections of II or Class III equivalent methods for following: reference 2 of appendix A of this PM10¥2.5, the applicant, if requested by (i) The applicant shall maintain and subpart: part A (Management Systems), EPA, shall provide to EPA for test include records of all relevant sections 2.2 (Quality System and purposes one sampler or analyzer that is measuring equipment, including the Description), 2.3 (Personnel representative of the sampler or make, type, and serial number or other Qualification and Training), 2.4 analyzer associated with the candidate identification, and most recent (Procurement of Items and Services), 2.5 method. The sampler or analyzer shall calibration with identification of the (Documents and Records), and 2.7 be shipped FOB destination to Director, measurement standard or standards (Planning); part B (Collection and National Exposure Research Laboratory, used and their National Institute of Evaluation of Environmental Data), Reference and Equivalent Method Standards and Technology (NIST) sections 3.1 (Planning and Scoping), 3.2 Program (MD-D205–03), U.S. traceability. These records shall (Design of Data Collection Operations), Environmental Protection Agency, 4930 demonstrate the measurement capability and 3.5 (Assessment and Verification of Old Page Road, Durham, North Carolina of each item of measuring equipment Data Usability); and part C (Operation of 27703, scheduled to arrive concurrent used for the application and include a Environmental Technology), sections with or within 30 days of the arrival of description and justification (if needed) 4.1 (Planning), 4.2 (Design of Systems), the other application materials. This of the measurement setup or and 4.4 (Operation of Systems). analyzer or sampler may be subjected to configuration in which it was used for (2) A description of the durability various tests that EPA determines to be the tests. The calibration results shall be characteristics of such analyzers or necessary or appropriate under § 53.5(f), recorded and identified in sufficient samplers (see § 53.9(c)). For methods for and such tests may include special tests detail so that the traceability of all PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 the warranty not described in this part. If the measurements can be determined and program must ensure that the required instrument submitted under this any measurement could be reproduced specifications (see Table A–1 to this paragraph malfunctions, becomes under conditions close to the original subpart) will be met throughout the inoperative, or fails to perform as conditions, if necessary, to resolve any warranty period and that the applicant represented in the application before the anomalies. accepts responsibility and liability for necessary EPA testing is completed, the (ii) Test data shall be collected ensuring this conformance or for applicant shall be afforded an according to the standards of good resolving any nonconformities, opportunity to repair or replace the practice and by qualified personnel. including all necessary components of device at no cost to EPA. Upon Test anomalies or irregularities shall be the system, regardless of the original completion of EPA testing, the analyzer documented and explained or justified. manufacturer. The warranty program or sampler submitted under this The impact and significance of the must be described in sufficient detail to paragraph shall be repacked by EPA for deviation on test results and meet appropriate provisions of the return shipment to the applicant, using conclusions shall be determined. Data ANSI/ASQC and ISO 9001 standards the same packing materials used for collected shall correspond directly to (references 1 and 2 in appendix A of shipping the instrument to EPA unless the specified test requirement and be this subpart) for controlling alternative packing is provided by the labeled and identified clearly so that conformance and resolving applicant. Arrangements for, and the results can be verified and evaluated nonconformance, particularly sections cost of, return shipment shall be the against the test requirement. 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 of reference 1 in responsibility of the applicant. The EPA Calculations or data manipulations must appendix A of this subpart. does not warrant or assume any liability be explained in detail so that they can (i) Section 4.12 in reference 1 of for the condition of the analyzer or be verified. appendix A of this subpart requires the sampler upon return to the applicant. (6) A statement that the method, manufacturer to establish and maintain analyzer, or sampler tested in a system of procedures for identifying § 53.5 Processing of applications. accordance with this part is and maintaining the identification of After receiving an application for a representative of the candidate method inspection and test status throughout all FRM or FEM determination, the described in the application. phases of manufacturing to ensure that Administrator will, within 120 calendar (c) For candidate automated methods only instruments that have passed the days after receipt of the application, and candidate manual methods for required inspections and tests are take one or more of the following PM10, PM2.5, and PM10¥2.5 the released for sale. actions: application shall also contain the (ii) Section 4.13 in reference 1 of (a) Send notice to the applicant, in following: appendix A of this subpart requires accordance with § 53.8, that the (1) A detailed description of the documented procedures for control of candidate method has been determined quality system that will be utilized, if nonconforming product, including to be a reference or equivalent method. the candidate method is designated as a review and acceptable alternatives for (b) Send notice to the applicant that reference or equivalent method, to disposition; section 4.14 in reference 1 the application has been rejected, ensure that all analyzers or samplers of appendix A of this subpart requires including a statement of reasons for offered for sale under that designation documented procedures for rejection. will have essentially the same implementing corrective (4.14.2) and (c) Send notice to the applicant that performance characteristics as the preventive (4.14.3) action to eliminate additional information must be analyzer(s) or samplers tested in the causes of actual or potential submitted before a determination can be accordance with this part. In addition, nonconformities. In particular, section made and specify the additional the quality system requirements for 4.14.3 requires that potential causes of information that is needed (in such candidate methods for PM2.5 and nonconformities be eliminated by using cases, the 120-day period shall PM10¥2.5 must be described in sufficient information such as service reports and commence upon receipt of the detail, based on the elements described customer complaints to eliminate additional information). in section 4 of reference 1 (Quality potential causes of nonconformities. (d) Send notice to the applicant that System Requirements) of appendix A of (d) For candidate reference or additional test data must be submitted this subpart. Further clarification is equivalent methods for PM2.5 and Class and specify what tests are necessary and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

how the tests shall be interpreted (in ultimate purchaser, and an electronic or PM10¥2.5 sampler that has been such cases, the 120-day period shall copy of the manual suitable for designated as a FRM or FEM, the commence upon receipt of the incorporating into user-specific applicant shall not sell the modified additional test data). standard operating procedure analyzer or sampler as a reference or (e) Send notice to the applicant that documents shall be readily available to equivalent method nor attach a label or the application has been found to be any users. sticker to the modified analyzer or substantially deficient or incomplete (b) Any method offered for sale as a sampler under paragraph (d) or (e) of and cannot be processed until FRM or FEM shall generate no this section until the applicant has additional information is submitted to unreasonable hazard to operators or to received notice under § 53.14(c) that the complete the application and specify the environment during normal use or existing designation or a new the general areas of substantial when malfunctioning. designation will apply to the modified deficiency. (c) Any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5 analyzer or sampler or has applied for (f) Send notice to the applicant that sampler, or PM10¥2.5 sampler offered for and received notice under § 53.8(b) of a additional tests will be conducted by sale as part of a FRM or FEM shall new FRM or FEM determination for the the Administrator, specifying the nature function within the limits of the modified analyzer or sampler. of and reasons for the additional tests performance specifications referred to in (h) An applicant who has offered § 53.20(a), § 53.30(a), § 53.50, or § 53.60, and the estimated time required (in such PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 samplers or analyzers cases, the 120-day period shall as applicable, for at least 1 year after for sale as part of a FRM or FEM may commence 1 calendar day after the delivery and acceptance when continue to do so only so long as the additional tests have been completed). maintained and operated in accordance facility in which the samplers or 3. Sections 53.8 and 53.9 are revised with the manual referred to in analyzers are manufactured continues to to read as follows: § 53.4(b)(3). be an ISO 9001-registered facility, as set

(d) Any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5 forth in subpart E of this part. In the § 53.8 Designation of reference and sampler, or PM10¥2.5 sampler offered for equivalent methods. event that the ISO 9001 registration for sale as a FRM or FEM shall bear a the facility is withdrawn, suspended, or (a) A candidate method determined prominent, permanently affixed label or otherwise becomes inapplicable, either by the Administrator to satisfy the sticker indicating that the analyzer or permanently or for some specified time applicable requirements of this part sampler has been designated by EPA as interval, such that the facility is no shall be designated as a FRM or FEM (as a FRM or FEM (as applicable) in longer an ISO 9001-registered facility, applicable) by and upon publication of accordance with this part and the applicant shall notify EPA within 30 a notice of the designation in the displaying any designated method days of the date the facility becomes Federal Register. identification number that may be other than an ISO 9001-registered (b) Upon designation, a notice assigned by EPA. facility, and upon such notification, indicating that the method has been (e) If an analyzer is offered for sale as EPA shall issue a preliminary finding designated as a FRM or FEM shall be a FRM or FEM and has one or more and notification of possible cancellation sent to the applicant. selectable ranges, the label or sticker of the FRM or FEM designation under (c) The Administrator will maintain a required by paragraph (d) of this section § 53.11. current list of methods designated as shall be placed in close proximity to the FRM or FEM in accordance with this range selector and shall indicate clearly (i) An applicant who has offered PM2.5 part and will send a copy of the list to which range or ranges have been or PM10¥2.5 samplers or analyzers for any person or group upon request. A designated as parts of the FRM or FEM. sale as part of a FRM or FEM may copy of the list will be available for (f) An applicant who offers analyzers, continue to do so only so long as updates of the Product Manufacturing inspection or copying at EPA Regional PM10 samplers, PM2.5 samplers, or Checklist set forth in subpart E of this Offices and may be available via the PM10¥2.5 samplers for sale as FRM or Internet or other sources. FEMs shall maintain an accurate and part are submitted annually. In the current list of the names and mailing event that an annual Checklist update is § 53.9 Conditions of designation. addresses of all ultimate purchasers of not received by EPA within 12 months Designation of a candidate method as such analyzers or samplers. For a period of the date of the last such submitted a FRM or FEM shall be conditioned to of 7 years after publication of the FRM Checklist or Checklist update, EPA shall the applicant’s compliance with the or FEM designation applicable to such notify the applicant within 30 days that following requirements. Failure to an analyzer or sampler, the applicant the Checklist update has not been comply with any of the requirements shall notify all ultimate purchasers of received and shall, within 30 days from shall constitute a ground for the analyzer or sampler within 30 days the issuance of such notification, issue cancellation of the designation in if the designation has been canceled in a preliminary finding and notification of accordance with § 53.11. accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16 or if possible cancellation of the reference or (a) Any method offered for sale as a adjustment of the analyzer or sampler is equivalent method designation under FRM or FEM shall be accompanied by necessary under § 53.11(b). § 53.11. a copy of the manual referred to in (g) If an applicant modifies an 4. Table A–1 to subpart A of part 53 § 53.4(b)(3) when delivered to any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5 sampler, is revised to read as follows:

TABLE A–1 TO SUBPART A OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR AIR MONITORING OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.

Applicable Applicable subparts of part 53 Pollutant Ref. or equivalent Manual or automated part 50 ap- pendix A B C D E F

SO2 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... A ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61277

TABLE A–1 TO SUBPART A OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR AIR MONITORING OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.—Continued

Applicable Applicable subparts of part 53 Pollutant Ref. or equivalent Manual or automated part 50 ap- pendix A B C D E F

Automated ...... CO ...... Reference ...... Automated ...... C ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... O3 ...... Reference ...... Automated ...... D ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... NO2 ...... Reference ...... Automated ...... F ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... Pb ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... G ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... PM10 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... J ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... PM2.5 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... L ...... Equivalent Class I ...... Manual ...... L ...... Equivalent Class II ...... Manual ...... L1 ...... 2 1,2 Equivalent Class III ...... Automated ...... L1 ...... 1 1 2 PM10–2.5 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... O ...... Equivalent Class I ...... Manual ...... O2 ...... Equivalent Class II ...... Manual ...... O2 ...... 2 1 1, 2 Equivalent Class III ...... Automated ...... L1,O1, 2 ...... 1 1 1 Some requirements may apply, based on the nature of each particular candidate method, as determined by the Administrator. 2 Alternative Class III requirements may be substituted.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

5. Paragraphs (1), (2), and (6) of Tables to Subpart C of Part 53 site with suitable supporting evidence such as a description of the surrounding appendix A to subpart A of part 53 are Table C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test area, characterization of the sources and revised to read as follows: Concentration Ranges, Number of pollutants typical in the area, maps, Measurements Required, and Maximum Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 53— population density data, vehicular Discrepancy Specification References traffic data, emission inventories, (1) American National Standard Quality Table C–2 to Subpart C of Part 53— pollutant measurements from previous Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in Sequence of Test Measurements years, concurrent pollutant Design, Development, Production, Table C–3 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test measurements, meteorological data, and Installation, and Servicing, ANSI/ISO/ASQC Specifications for Pb Methods other information useful in supporting the suitability of the site for the Q9001–1994. Available from American Table C–4 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test Society for Quality, P.O. Box 3005, comparison test or tests. Specifications for PM , PM , and Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// 10 2.5 (2) If approval of one or more PM ¥ Candidate Equivalent Methods qualitypress.asq.org). 10 2.5 proposed test sites is desired prior to (2) American National Standard Quality Table C–5 to Subpart C of Part 53— conducting the tests, a written request Systems for Environmental Data and Summary of Comparability Field for approval of the test site or sites must Technology Programs—Requirements with Testing Campaign Site and Seasonal be submitted to the address given in guidance for use, ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. Requirements for Class II and III FEMs § 53.4. The request should include Available from American Society for Quality for PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 information identifying the type of candidate method and one or more P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// Figures to Subpart C of Part 53 qualitypress.asq.org). specific proposed test sites along with a justification for each proposed specific * * * * * Figure C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53— site as described in paragraph (b)(1) of (6) Quality Assurance Guidance Document Suggested Format for Reporting Test this section. The EPA will evaluate each 2.12. Monitoring PM in Ambient Air Using Results for Methods for SO2, CO, O3, 2.5 proposed site and approve the site, Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent NO2 disapprove the site, or request more Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure Figure C–2 to Subpart C of Part 53— information about the site. Any such Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, Illustration of the Slope and Intercept pre-test approval of a test site by the NC, November 1998 or later edition. Limits for Class II and Class III PM 2.5 EPA shall indicate only that the site Currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ Candidate Equivalent Methods ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. meets the applicable test site Figure C–3 to Subpart C of Part 53— requirements for the candidate method 6. Subpart C is revised to read as Illustration of the Slope and Intercept type; it shall not indicate, suggest, or follows: Limits for Class II and Class III PM10¥2.5 imply that test data obtained at the site Candidate Equivalent Methods Sec. will necessarily meet any of the Figure C–4 to Subpart C of Part 53— applicable data acceptance Subpart C—Procedures for Determining Illustration of the Minimum Limits for requirements. The Administrator may Comparability Between Candidate Methods exercise discretion in selecting a Correlation Coefficient for PM2.5 and and Reference Methods different site (or sites) for any additional PM10¥2.5 Class II and III Methods 53.30 General provisions. tests the Administrator decides to 53.31 [Reserved] Appendix to Subpart C of Part 53 conduct. 53.32 Test procedures for methods for SO2, Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 53— (c) Test atmosphere. Ambient air CO, O3, and NO2. References sampled at an appropriate test site or 53.33 Test procedure for methods for Pb. sites shall be used for these tests. 53.34 Test procedures for methods for PM10 Subpart C—Procedures for Simultaneous concentration and Class I methods for PM2.5. Determining Comparability Between measurements shall be made in each of 53.35 Test procedures for Class II and Class Candidate Methods and Reference the concentration ranges specified in III methods for PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. Methods tables C–1, C–3, or C–4 of this subpart, as appropriate. § 53.30 General provisions. (d) Sampling or sample collection. All (a) Determination of comparability. test concentration measurements or The test procedures prescribed in this samples shall be taken in such a way subpart shall be used to determine if a that both the candidate method and the candidate method is comparable to a reference method obtain air samples reference method when both methods that are alike or as nearly identical as measure pollutant concentrations in practical. ambient air. Minor deviations in testing (e) Operation. Set-up and start-up of requirements and acceptance the test analyzer(s), test sampler(s), and requirements set forth in this subpart, in reference method analyzers or samplers connection with any documented shall be in strict accordance with the extenuating circumstances, may be applicable operation manual(s). determined by the Administrator to be (f) Calibration. The reference method acceptable, at the discretion of the shall be calibrated according to the Administrator. appropriate appendix to part 50 of this (b) Selection of test sites. (1) Each test chapter (if it is a manual method) or site shall be in an area which can be according to the applicable operation shown to have at least moderate manual(s) (if it is an automated concentrations of various pollutants. method). A candidate method (or Each site shall be clearly identified and portion thereof) shall be calibrated shall be justified as an appropriate test according to the applicable operation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61279

manual(s), if such calibration is a part appropriate time intervals such that (2) All test measurements shall be of the method. trend plots similar to a strip chart made with the same test analyzer; use (g) Submission of test data and other recording may be constructed with a of multiple test analyzers is not information. All recorder charts, similar or suitable level of detail. permitted. The test analyzer shall be calibration data, records, test results, (2) Other data acquisition components operated continuously during the entire procedural descriptions and details, and may be used along with the chart series of test measurements. other documentation obtained from (or recorder during the conduct of these (3) If a test analyzer should pertinent to) these tests shall be tests. Use of the chart recorder is malfunction during any of these tests, identified, dated, signed by the analyst intended only to facilitate visual the entire set of measurements shall be performing the test, and submitted. For evaluation of data submitted. repeated, and a detailed explanation of candidate methods for PM2.5 and (3) Allow adequate warmup or the malfunction, remedial action taken, PM10¥2.5, all submitted information stabilization time as indicated in the and whether recalibration was necessary must meet the requirements of the applicable operation manual(s) before (along with all pertinent records and ANSI/ASQC E4 Standard, sections 6 beginning the tests. charts) shall be submitted. (reference 1 of appendix A of this (e) Range. (1) Except as provided in (4) Ambient air shall be sampled from subpart). paragraph (e)(2) of this section, each a common intake and distribution § 53.31 [Reserved] method shall be operated in the range manifold designed to deliver specified for the reference method in the homogenous air samples to both § 53.32 Test procedures for methods for appropriate appendix to part 50 of this methods. Precautions shall be taken in SO2, CO, O3, and NO2. chapter (for manual reference methods), the design and construction of this (a) Comparability. Comparability is or specified in table B–1 of subpart B of manifold to minimize the removal of shown for SO2, CO, O3, and NO2 this part (for automated reference particulate matter and trace gases, and methods when the differences between: methods). to insure that identical samples reach (1) Measurements made by a (2) For a candidate method having the two methods. If necessary, the candidate manual method or by a test more than one selectable range, one concentration of pollutant in the analyzer representative of a candidate range must be that specified in table B– sampled ambient air may be augmented automated method, and; 1 of subpart B of this part, and a test with artificially generated pollutant. (2) Measurements made analyzer representative of the method However, at all times the air sample simultaneously by a reference method must pass the tests required by this measured by the candidate and are less than or equal to the values for subpart while operated on that range. reference methods under test shall maximum discrepancy specified in table The tests may be repeated for a broader consist of not less than 80 percent C–1 of this subpart. range (i.e., one extending to higher ambient air by volume. Schematic (b) Test measurements. All test concentrations) than the one specified drawings, physical illustrations, measurements are to be made at the in table B–1 of subpart B of this part, descriptions, and complete details of the same test site. If necessary, the provided that the range does not extend manifold system and the augmentation concentration of pollutant in the to concentrations more than two times system (if used) shall be submitted. sampled ambient air may be augmented the upper range limit specified in table (g) Tests. (1) Conduct the first set of with artificially generated pollutant to B–1 of subpart B of this part and that the simultaneous measurements with the facilitate measurements in the specified test analyzer has passed the tests candidate and reference methods: ranges, as described under paragraph required by subpart B of this part (if (i) Table C–1 of this subpart specifies (f)(4) of this section. applicable) for the broader range. If the the type (1-or 24-hour) and number of (c) Requirements for measurements or tests required by this subpart are measurements to be made in each of the samples. All test measurements made or conducted or passed only for the range three test concentration ranges. test samples collected by means of a specified in table B–1 of subpart B of (ii) The pollutant concentration must sample manifold as specified in this part, any equivalent method fall within the specified range as paragraph (f)(4) of this section shall be determination with respect to the measured by the reference method. at a room temperature between 20° and method will be limited to that range. If 30° C, and at a line voltage between 105 the tests are passed for both the (iii) The measurements shall be made and 125 volts. All methods shall be specified range and a broader range (or in the sequence specified in table C–2 calibrated as specified in § 53.30(f) prior ranges), any such determination will of this subpart, except for the 1-hour to initiation of the tests. include the broader range(s) as well as SO2 measurements, which are all in the (d) Set-up and start-up. (1) Set-up and the specified range. Appropriate test high range. start-up of the test analyzer, test data shall be submitted for each range (2) For each pair of measurements, sampler(s), and reference method shall sought to be included in such a determine the difference (discrepancy) be in strict accordance with the determination. between the candidate method applicable operation manual(s). If the (f) Operation of automated methods. measurement and reference method test analyzer does not have an integral (1) Once the test analyzer has been set measurement. A discrepancy which strip chart or digital data recorder, up and calibrated and tests started, exceeds the discrepancy specified in connect the analyzer output to a suitable manual adjustment or normal periodic table C–1 of this subpart constitutes a strip chart or digital data recorder. This maintenance, as specified in the manual failure. Figure C–1 of this subpart recorder shall have a chart width of at referred to in § 53.4(b)(3), is permitted contains a suggested format for least 25 centimeters, a response time of only every 3 days. Automatic reporting the test results. 1 second or less, a deadband of not more adjustments which the test analyzer (3) The results of the first set of than 0.25 percent of full scale, and performs by itself are permitted at any measurements shall be interpreted as capability of either reading time. The submitted records shall show follows: measurements at least 5 percent below clearly when manual adjustments were (i) Zero failures: The candidate zero or offsetting the zero by at least 5 made and describe the operations method passes the test for percent. Digital data shall be recorded at performed. comparability.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61280 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Three or more failures: The correction procedure shall become a performed sequentially, i.e., a single candidate method fails the test for part of the method. sample should not be analyzed three comparability. times in sequence. Calculate the (iii) One or two failures: Conduct a § 53.33 Test procedure for methods for Pb. indicated Pb concentrations for the second set of simultaneous (a) Comparability. Comparability is reference method samples in measurements as specified in table C–1 shown for Pb methods when the micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for of this subpart. The results of the differences between: each analysis of each filter. Calculate combined total of first-set and second- (1) Measurements made by a the indicated total Pb amount for the set measurements shall be interpreted as candidate method, and audit samples in µg/strip for each (2) Measurements made by the follows: analysis of each strip. Label these test reference method on simultaneously (A) One or two failures: The candidate results as R1A, R1B, R1C, R2A, R2B, * * *, collected Pb samples (or the same method passes the test for Q1A, Q1B, Q1C, * * *, where R denotes sample, if applicable), are less than or comparability. results from the reference method equal to the value specified in table C– (B) Three or more failures: The samples; Q denotes results from the 3 of this subpart. audit samples; 1, 2, 3 indicate the filter candidate method fails the test for (b) Test measurements. Test number, and A, B, C indicate the first, comparability. measurements may be made at any second, and third analysis of each filter, (iv) For SO2, the 1-hour and 24-hour number of test sites. Augmentation of respectively. measurements shall be interpreted pollutant concentrations is not (2) For the candidate method samples, separately, and the candidate method permitted, hence an appropriate test site analyze each sample filter or filter must pass the tests for both 1- and 24- or sites must be selected to provide Pb extract three times and calculate, in hour measurements to pass the test for concentrations in the specified range. accordance with the candidate method, comparability. (c) Collocated samplers. The ambient the indicated Pb concentration in µg/m3 (4) A 1-hour measurement consists of air intake points of all the candidate and for each analysis of each filter. Label the integral of the instantaneous reference method collocated samplers these test results as C , C , C , * * *, concentration over a 60-minute shall be positioned at the same height 1A 1B 2C where C denotes results from the continuous period divided by the time above the ground level, and between 2 candidate method. For candidate period. Integration of the instantaneous meters (1 meter for samplers with flow methods which provide a direct concentration may be performed by any rates less than 200 liters per minute (L/ measurement of Pb concentrations appropriate means such as chemical, min)) and 4 meters apart. The samplers without a separable procedure, electronic, mechanical, visual judgment, shall be oriented in a manner that will C =C =C , C =C =C , etc. or by calculating the mean of not less minimize spatial and wind directional 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C (g) Average Pb concentration. For the than 12 equally-spaced instantaneous effects on sample collection. reference method, calculate the average readings. Appropriate allowances or (d) Sample collection. Collect Pb concentration for each filter by corrections shall be made in cases simultaneous 24-hour samples (filters) averaging the concentrations calculated where significant errors could occur due of Pb at the test site or sites with both from the three analyses using equation to characteristic lag time or rise/fall time the reference and candidate methods 1 of this section: differences between the candidate and until at least 10 filter pairs have been reference methods. Details of the means obtained. A candidate method which Equation 1 of integration and any corrections shall employs a sampler and sample be submitted. RRR++ collection procedure that are identical = iA iB iC (5) A 24-hour measurement consists Ri ave to the sampler and sample collection 3 of the integral of the instantaneous procedure specified in the reference concentration over a 24-hour method, but uses a different analytical Where, i is the filter number. continuous period divided by the time procedure, may be tested by analyzing (h) Accuracy. (1)(i) For the audit period. This integration may be common samples. The common samples samples, calculate the average Pb performed by any appropriate means shall be collected according to the concentration for each strip by such as chemical, electronic, sample collection procedure specified averaging the concentrations calculated mechanical, or by calculating the mean by the reference method and each shall from the three analyses using equation of twenty-four (24) sequential 1-hour be divided for respective analysis in 2 of this section: measurements. accordance with the analytical (6) For O3 and CO, no more than six procedures of the candidate method and Equation 2 1-hour measurements shall be made per the reference method. QQQ++ = iA iB iC day. For SO2, no more than four 1-hour (e) Audit samples. Three audit Qi ave measurements or one 24-hour samples must be obtained from the 3 measurement shall be made per day. address given in § 53.4(a). The audit Where, i is audit sample number. 3 × One-hour measurements may be made samples are ⁄4 8-inch glass fiber strips (ii) Calculate the percent difference concurrently with 24-hour containing known amounts of Pb at the (Dq) between the indicated Pb measurements if appropriate. following nominal levels: 100 concentration for each audit sample and µ µ (7) For applicable methods, control or micrograms per strip ( g/strip); 300 g/ the true Pb concentration (T ) using µ q calibration checks may be performed strip; 750 g/strip. The true amount of equation 3 of this section: once per day without adjusting the test Pb, in total µg/strip, will be provided analyzer or method. These checks may with each audit sample. Equation 3 be used as a basis for a linear (f) Filter analysis. (1) For both the − interpolation-type correction to be reference method samples and the audit QTiqi ave D = ×100% applied to the measurements to correct samples, analyze each filter extract three qi T for drift. If such a correction is used, it times in accordance with the reference qi shall be applied to all measurements method analytical procedure. The (2) If any difference value (Dqi) made with the method, and the analysis of replicates should not be exceeds ±5 percent, the accuracy of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.015 ER17OC06.016 ER17OC06.017 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61281

reference method analytical procedure determinations (A, B, and C) for each to the sampler and sample collection is out-of-control. Corrective action must method using equation 6 of this section: procedure specified in the reference be taken to determine the source of the method, but use a different analytical error(s) (e.g., calibration standard Equation 6 procedure, may be tested by analyzing discrepancies, extraction problems, etc.) CR− common samples. The common samples and the reference method and audit = ij ik × shall be collected according to the Din 100% sample determinations must be repeated Rik sample collection procedure specified according to paragraph (f) of this by the reference method and shall be where, i is the filter number, and n numbers section, or the entire test procedure from 1 to 9 for the nine possible analyzed in accordance with the (starting with paragraph (d) of this difference combinations for the three analytical procedures of both the section) must be repeated. determinations for each method (j = A, candidate method and the reference (i) Acceptable filter pairs. Disregard B, C, candidate; k = A, B, C, reference). method. all filter pairs for which the Pb (2) If none of the percent differences (d) Methods for PM2.5. Augmentation concentration, as determined in (D) exceeds ±20 percent, the candidate of pollutant concentrations is not paragraph (g) of this section by the method passes the test for permitted, hence appropriate test sites average of the three reference method comparability. must be selected to provide the determinations, falls outside the range (3) If one or more of the percent minimum number of test measurement µ 3 of 0.5 to 4.0 g/m . All remaining filter differences (D) exceed ±20 percent, the sets to meet the requirements for PM2.5 pairs must be subjected to the tests for candidate method fails the test for concentrations in the ranges specified in precision and comparability in comparability. table C–4 of this subpart. Only one test paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section. At (4) The candidate method must pass site is required, and the site need only least five filter pairs must be within the both the precision test (paragraph (j) of meet the PM2.5 ambient concentration µ 3 0.5 to 4.0 g/m range for the tests to be this section) and the comparability test levels required by table C–4 of this valid. (paragraph (k) of this section) to qualify subpart and the requirements of (j) Test for precision. (1) Calculate the for designation as an equivalent method. § 53.30(b) of this subpart. A total of 10 precision (P) of the analysis (in percent) valid measurement sets is required. for each filter and for each method, as § 53.34 Test procedure for methods for (e) Collocated measurements. (1) Set the maximum minus the minimum PM10 and Class I methods for PM2.5. up three reference method samplers divided by the average of the three (a) Comparability. Comparability is collocated with three candidate method concentration values, using equation 4 shown for PM10 methods and for Class samplers or analyzers at each of the or equation 5 of this section: I methods for PM2.5 when the number of test sites specified in table C– relationship between: 4 of this subpart. Equation 4 (1) Measurements made by a (2) The ambient air intake points of all RR− candidate method, and the candidate and reference method = ii max min × (2) Measurements made by a collocated samplers or analyzers shall PRi 100% Ri ave corresponding reference method on be positioned at the same height above simultaneously collected samples (or the ground level, and between 2 meters or the same sample, if applicable) at each (1 meter for samplers or analyzers with Equation 5 of one or more test sites (as required) is flow rates less than 200 L/min) and 4 such that the linear regression meters apart. The samplers shall be CC− parameters (slope, intercept, and oriented in a manner that will minimize P = ii max min ×100% Ci C correlation coefficient) describing the spatial and wind directional effects on i ave relationship meet the requirements sample collection. where, i indicates the filter number. specified in table C–4 of this subpart. (3) At each site, obtain as many sets (2) If any reference method precision (b) Methods for PM10. Test of simultaneous PM10 or PM2.5 value (PRi) exceeds 15 percent, the measurements must be made, or derived measurements as necessary (see table C– precision of the reference method from particulate samples collected, at 4 of this subpart), each set consisting of analytical procedure is out-of-control. not less than two test sites, each of three reference method and three Corrective action must be taken to which must be located in a geographical candidate method measurements, all determine the source(s) of imprecision, area characterized by ambient obtained simultaneously. and the reference method particulate matter that is significantly (4) Candidate PM10 method determinations must be repeated different in nature and composition measurements shall be nominal 24-hour according to paragraph (f) of this from that at the other test site(s). (±1 hour) integrated measurements or section, or the entire test procedure Augmentation of pollutant shall be averaged to obtain the mean (starting with paragraph (d) of this concentrations is not permitted, hence concentration for a nominal 24-hour section) must be repeated. appropriate test sites must be selected to period. PM2.5 measurements may be (3) If any candidate method precision provide the minimum number of test either nominal 24-or 48-hour integrated value (PCi) exceeds 15 percent, the PM10 concentrations in the ranges measurements. All collocated candidate method fails the precision specified in table C–4 of this subpart. measurements in a measurement set test. The tests at the two sites may be must cover the same nominal 24-or 48- (4) The candidate method passes this conducted in different calendar seasons, hour time period. test if all precision values (i.e., all PRi’s if appropriate, to provide PM10 (5) For samplers, retrieve the samples and all PCi’s) are less than 15 percent. concentrations in the specified ranges. promptly after sample collection and (k) Test for comparability. (1) For each (c) PM10 methods employing the same analyze each sample according to the filter or analytical sample pair, calculate sampling procedure as the reference reference method or candidate method, all nine possible percent differences (D) method but a different analytical as appropriate, and determine the PM10 3 between the reference and candidate method. Candidate methods for PM10 or PM2.5 concentration in µg/m . If the methods, using all nine possible which employ a sampler and sample conditions of paragraph (c) of this combinations of the three collection procedure that are identical section apply, collect sample sets only

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.018 ER17OC06.019 ER17OC06.020 61282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

with the three reference method site, table C–4 of this subpart specifies (b) Test sites and seasons. A summary samplers. Guidance for quality the minimum number of measurement of the test site and seasonal testing assurance procedures for PM2.5 methods sets required having R¯ j above and below requirements is presented in table C–5 is found in ‘‘Quality Assurance specified concentrations for 24- or 48- of this subpart. Document 2.12’’ (reference (2) in hour samples. Additional measurement (1) Test sites. Comparability testing is appendix A to this subpart). sets shall be obtained, as necessary, to required at each of the applicable U.S. (f) Sequential samplers. For provide the minimum number of test sites required by this paragraph (b). sequential samplers, the sampler shall acceptable measurement sets for each Each test site must also meet the general be configured for the maximum number category and the minimum total number test site requirements specified in of sequential samples and shall be set of acceptable measurement sets for each § 53.30(b). for automatic collection of all samples test site. If more than the minimum (i) PM2.5 Class II and Class III sequentially such that the test samples number of measurement sets are candidate methods. Test sites should be are collected equally, to the extent collected that meet the acceptability chosen to provide representative possible, among all available sequential criteria, all such measurement sets shall chemical and meteorological channels or utilizing the full available be used to demonstrate comparability. characteristics with respect to nitrates, sulfates, organic compounds, and sequential capability. (i) Candidate method average various levels of temperature, humidity, (g) Calculation of reference method concentration measurement. For each of wind, and elevation. For Class III averages and precisions. (1) For each of the acceptable measurement sets, methods, one test site shall be selected the measurement sets, calculate the calculate the average PM or PM 10 2.5 in each of the following four general average PM10 or PM2.5 concentration concentration measurements obtained locations (A, B, C, and D). For Class II obtained with the reference method with the candidate method samplers, methods, two test sites, one western site samplers, using equation 7 of this using equation 10 of this section: section: (A or B) and one midwestern or eastern Equation 10 site (C or D), shall be selected from these Equation 7 locations. 3 (A) Test site A shall be in the Los 3 ∑Cij, Angeles basin or California Central ∑ R = ij, C = i 1 Valley area in a location that is = i=1 j R j 3 characterized by relatively high PM2.5, 3 Where: nitrates, and semi-volatile organic Where: C = The concentration measurements from pollutants. R = The concentration measurements from the candidate methods; (B) Test site B shall be in a western the reference methods; i = The measurement number in the set; and city such as Denver, Salt Lake City, or i = The sampler number; and j = The measurement set number. Albuquerque in an area characterized by j = The measurement set number. cold weather, higher elevation, winds, (j) Test for comparability. (1) For each (2) For each of the measurement sets, and dust. calculate the precision of the reference site, plot all of the average PM10 or PM2.5 (C) Test site C shall be in a measurements obtained with the method PM10 or PM2.5 measurements as midwestern city characterized by candidate method (C¯ j) against the the standard deviation, PRj, using substantial temperature variation, high equation 8 of this section: corresponding average PM10 or PM2.5 nitrates, and wintertime conditions. measurements obtained with the (D) Test site D shall be in a ¯ Equation 8 reference method (Rj. For each site, northeastern or mid-Atlantic city that is calculate and record the linear seasonally characterized by high sulfate 3  3 2 regression slope and intercept, and the 2 − 1 concentrations and high relative ∑ RRij,, ∑ ij correlation coefficient. humidity. i=1 3  i=1  = (2) To pass the test for comparability, (ii) PM10¥2.5 Class II and Class III PRj 2 the slope, intercept, and correlation candidate methods. Test sites shall be (3) For each measurement set, also coefficient calculated under paragraph chosen to provide modest to high levels calculate the precision of the reference (j)(1) of this section must be within the of PM10¥2.5 representative of locations method PM10 or PM2.5 measurements as limits specified in table C–4 of this in proximity to urban sources of ¥ the relative standard deviation, RPRj, in subpart for all test sites. PM10 2.5 such as high-density traffic on percent, using equation 9 of this section: paved roads, industrial sources, and § 53.35 Test procedure for Class II and construction activities. For Class III Class III methods for PM and PM ¥ Equation 9 2.5 10 2.5. methods, one test site shall be selected (a) Overview. Class II and Class III in each of the four following general P Rj × candidate equivalent methods shall be locations (A, B, C, and D), and at least RPRj 100% tested for comparability of PM2.5 or one of the test sites shall have R j PM10¥2.5 measurements to characteristic wintertime temperatures (h) Acceptability of measurement sets. corresponding collocated PM2.5 or of 0° C or lower. For Class II methods, Each measurement set is acceptable and PM10¥2.5 reference method two test sites, one western site (A or B) valid only if the three reference method measurements at each of multiple field and one midwestern or eastern site (C or measurements and the three candidate sites, as required. Comparability is D), shall be selected from these method measurements are obtained and shown for the candidate method when locations. are valid, R¯ j falls within the acceptable simultaneous collocated measurements (A) Test site A shall be in the Los concentration range specified in table made by candidate and reference Angeles basin or the California Central C–4 of this subpart, and either PRj or methods meet the comparability Valley area in a location that is RPRj is within the corresponding limit requirements specified in this section characterized by relatively high PM2.5, for reference method precision specified § 53.35 and in table C–4 of this subpart nitrates, and semi-volatile organic in table C–4 of this subpart. For each at each of the required test sites. pollutants.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.021 ER17OC06.022 ER17OC06.023 ER17OC06.024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61283

(B) Test site B shall be in a western (2) in appendix A to this subpart). All averaged as appropriate to determine an city characterized by a high ratio of samplers or analyzers shall be placed so equivalent mean concentration PM10¥2.5 to PM2.5, with exposure to that they sample or measure air representative of the same time period windblown dust, such as Las Vegas or representative of the surrounding area as that of the concurrent integrated- Phoenix. (within one kilometer) and are not sample reference method (C) Test site C shall be in a unduly affected by adjacent buildings, measurements, such that all midwestern city characterized by air handling equipment, industrial measurements in a measurement set substantial temperature variation, high operations, traffic, or other local shall be representative of the same time nitrates, and wintertime conditions. influences. The ambient air inlet points period. In addition, hourly average (D) Test site D shall be in a large city of all samplers and analyzers shall be concentration measurements shall be east of the Mississippi River, having positioned at the same height above the obtained from each of the Class III characteristically high sulfate ground level and between 2 meters (1 candidate method analyzers for each concentrations and high humidity meter for instruments having sample valid measurement set and submitted as levels. inlet flow rates less than 200 L/min) and part of the application records. (2) Test seasons. (i) For PM2.5 and 4 meters apart. (6) In the following tests, all PM10¥2.5 Class III candidate methods, (2) A minimum of 23 valid and measurement sets obtained at a test campaigns are required in both acceptable measurement sets of PM2.5 or particular test site, from both seasonal summer and winter seasons at test site PM10¥2.5 24-hour (nominal) concurrent campaigns if applicable, shall be A, in the winter season only at test sites concentration measurements shall be combined and included in the test data B and C, and in the summer season only obtained during each test campaign at analysis for the site. Data obtained at at test site D. (A total of five test each test site. To be considered different test sites shall be analyzed campaigns is required.) The summer acceptable for the test, each separately. All measurements should be season shall be defined as the typically measurement set shall consist of at least reported as normally obtained, and no warmest three or four months of the two valid reference method measurement values should be rounded year at the site; the winter season shall measurements and at least two valid or truncated prior to data analysis. In be defined as the typically coolest three candidate method measurements, and particular, no negative measurement or four months of the year at the site. the PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 measured value, if otherwise apparently valid, (ii) For Class II PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 concentration, as determined by the should be modified, adjusted, replaced, candidate methods, one test campaign is average of the reference method or eliminated merely because its value required at test site A or B and a second measurements, must fall within the is negative. Calculated mean test campaign at test site C or D (total acceptable concentration range specified concentrations or calculated of two test campaigns). in table C–4 of this subpart. Each intermediate quantities should retain at (3) Test concentrations. The test sites measurement set shall include all valid least one order-of-magnitude greater should be selected to provide ambient measurements obtained. For each resolution than the input values. All concentrations within the concentration measurement set containing fewer than measurement data and calculations limits specified in table C–4 of this three reference method measurements shall be recorded and submitted in subpart, and also to provide a wide or fewer than three candidate method accordance with § 53.30(g), including range of test concentrations. A narrow measurements, an explanation and hourly test measurements obtained from range of test concentrations may result appropriate justification shall be Class III candidate methods. in a low concentration coefficient of provided to account for the missing (d) Calculation of mean variation statistic for the test measurement or measurements. concentrations—(1) Reference method measurements, making the test for (3) More than 23 valid measurement outlier test. For each of the correlation coefficient more difficult to sets may be obtained during a particular measurement sets for each test site, pass (see paragraph (h) of this section, test campaign to provide a more check each reference method test for comparison correlation). advantageous range of concentrations, measurement to see if it might be an (4) Pre-approval of test sites. The EPA more representative conditions, anomalous value (outlier) as follows, recommends that the applicant seek additional higher or lower where Ri,j is the measurement of EPA approval of each proposed test site measurements, or to otherwise improve reference method sampler i on test day prior to conducting test measurements the comparison of the methods. All j. In the event that one of the reference at the site. To do so, the applicant valid data sets obtained during each test method measurements is missing or should submit a request for approval as campaign shall be submitted and shall invalid due to a specific, positively- described in § 53.30(b)(2). be included in the analysis of the data. identified physical cause (e.g., sampler (c) Collocated measurements. (1) For (4) The integrated-sample reference malfunction, operator error, accidental each test campaign, three reference method measurements shall be of at damage to the filter, etc.; see paragraph method samplers and three candidate least 22 hours and not more than 25 (c)(2) of this section), then substitute method samplers or analyzers shall be hours duration. Each reference method zero for the missing measurement, for installed and operated concurrently at sample shall be retrieved promptly after the purposes of this outlier test only. each test site within each required sample collection and analyzed (i) Calculate the quantities 2 × R1,j/(R1,j season (if applicable), as specified in according to the reference method to + R2,j) and 2 × R1,j/(R1,j + R3,j). If both paragraph (b) of this section. All determine the PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 quantities fall outside of the interval, µ 3 reference method samplers shall be of measured concentration in g/m . (0.93, 1.07), then R1,j is an outlier. single-filter design (not multi-filter, Guidance and quality assurance (ii) Calculate the quantities 2 × R2,j/ sequential sample design). Each procedures applicable to PM2.5 or (R2,j + R1,j) and 2 × R2,j/(R2,j + R3,j). If candidate method shall be setup and PM10¥2.5 reference methods are found in both quantities fall outside of the operated in accordance with its ‘‘Quality Assurance Document 2.12’’ interval, (0.93, 1.07), then R2,j is an associated manual referred to in (reference (2) in appendix A to this outlier. § 53.4(b)(3) and in accordance with subpart). (iii) Calculate the quantities 2 × R3,j/ applicable guidance in ‘‘Quality (5) Candidate method measurements (R3,j + R1,j) and 2 × R3,j/(R3,j + R2,j). If Assurance Document 2.12’’ (reference shall be timed or processed and both quantities fall outside of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

interval, (0.93, 1.07), then R3,j is an the reference method measurements, (g) Test for additive and outlier. RPj, using equation 13 of this section: multiplicative bias (comparative slope (iv) If this test indicates that one of and intercept). (1) For each test site, the reference method measurements in Equation 13 calculate the mean concentration ¯ the measurement set is an outlier, the 2 measured by the reference method, R, outlier measurement shall be eliminated n 1  n  using equation 17 of this section: ∑ R 2 − ∑ R from the measurement set, and the other ij,, ij 1 = n  =  two measurements considered valid. If RP = i 1 i 1 ×100% Equation 17 j R n −1 the test indicates that more than one j 1 J reference method measurement in the = (2) For each site, calculate an estimate R jj∑ R measurement set is an outlier, the entire J j=1 of reference method relative precision measurement set (both reference and for the site, RP, using the root mean candidate method measurements) shall (2) For each test site, calculate the square calculation of equation 14 of this be excluded from further data analysis mean concentration measured by the section: ¯ for the tests of this section. candidate method, C, using equation 18 of this section: (2) For each of the measurement sets Equation 14 for each test site, calculate the mean J Equation 18 concentration for the reference method 1 2 = () J measurements, using equation 11 of this RP ∑ RPj 1 J = = section: j 1 C ∑C j J j=1 Where, J is the total number of valid Equation 11 measurement sets for the site. (3) For each test site, calculate the n linear regression slope and intercept of = 1 (3) Verify that the estimate for R jij∑ R , reference method relative precision for the mean candidate method n i=1 ¯ the site, RP, is not greater than the value measurements (Cj) against the mean ¯ Where: specified for reference method precision reference method measurements (Rj), ¯ Rj = The mean concentration measured by in table C–4 of this subpart. A reference using equations 19 and 20 of this the reference method for the method relative precision greater than section, respectively: measurement set; the value specified in table C–4 of this Ri,j = The measurement of reference method subpart indicates that quality control for Equation 19 sampler i on test day j; and the reference method is inadequate, and J n = The number of valid reference method ()− ()− measurements in the measurement set corrective measures must be ∑ RRCCjj (normally 3). implemented before proceeding with = j=1 Slope J the test. 2 (3) Any measurement set for which R¯ j ()− (f) Test for candidate method ∑ RRj does not fall in the acceptable precision. (1) For each of the j=1 concentration range specified in table measurement sets, for each site, C–4 of this subpart is not valid, and the calculate an estimate for the relative entire measurement set (both reference precision of the candidate method Equation 20 /MATH> ER17OC06.032 ER17OC06.033 ER17OC06.034 ER17OC06.035 and candidate method measurements) measurements, CPj, using equation 15 of −× must be eliminated from further data this section: Intercept = C slope R analysis. (4) For each of the valid measurement Equation 15 (4) To pass this test, at each test site: sets at each test site, calculate the mean (i) The slope (calculated to at least 2 concentration for the candidate method m  m 2 decimal places) must be in the interval 2 − 1 measurements, using equation 12 of this ∑Cij,, ∑C ij specified for regression slope in table C– 1 = m  =  section. (The outlier test in paragraph CP = i 1 i 1 ×100% 4 of this subpart; and (d)(1) of this section shall not be applied j − C j m 1 (ii) The intercept (calculated to at to the candidate method measurements.) least 2 decimal places) must be in the (2) For each site, calculate an estimate interval specified for regression Equation 12 of candidate method relative precision intercept in table C–4 of this subpart. 1 n for the site, CP, using the root mean (iii) The slope and intercept limits are = square calculation of equation 16 of this C jij∑C , illustrated in figures C–2 and C–3 of this m i=1 section: subpart. Where: (h) Tests for comparison correlation. ¯ Equation 16 Cj = The mean concentration measured by (1) For each test site, calculate the the candidate method for the J 1 2 (Pearson) correlation coefficient, r (not measurement set; CP = ∑()CP the coefficient of determination, r2), C = The measurement of the candidate j i,j J j=1 using equation 21 of this section: method sampler or analyzer i on test day j; and Where, J is the total number of valid m = The number of valid candidate method measurement sets for the site. Equation 21 measurements in the measurement set (3) To pass the test for precision, the J (normally 3). ()RRCC− ()− mean candidate method relative ∑ jj = (e) Test for reference method precision at each site must not be r = j 1 J J precision. (1) For each of the greater than the value for candidate ()− 2 ()− 2 measurement sets for each site, calculate method precision specified in table C– ∑∑RRj CCj == an estimate for the relative precision of 4 of this subpart. j 1 j 1

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.025 ER17OC06.026 ER17OC06.027 ER17OC06.028 ER17OC06.029 ER17OC06.030 ER17OC06.031< Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61285

(2) For each test site, calculate the (3) To pass the test, the correlation concentration coefficient of variation, coefficient, r, for each test site must not CCV, using equation 22 of this section: be less than the values, for various values of CCV, specified for correlation Equation 22 in table C–4 of this subpart. These limits J are illustrated in figure C–4 of this − 2 ∑()RRj subpart. 1 j=1 CCV = Tables to Subpart C of Part 53 R J −1

TABLE C–1 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—TEST CONCENTRATION RANGES, NUMBER OF MEASUREMENTS REQUIRED, AND MAXIMUM DISCREPANCY SPECIFICATION

Simultaneous measurements required Maximum discrepancy Pollutant Concentration range, parts per million 1-hr 24-hr specification, First Second First Second parts per set set set set million

Ozone ...... Low 0.06 to 0.10 ...... 5 6 ...... 0.02 Med 0.15 to 0.25 ...... 5 6 ...... 03 High 0.35 to 0.45 ...... 4 6 ...... 04

Total ...... 14 ...... 18

Carbon monoxide ...... Low 7 to 11 ...... 5 6 ...... 1.5 Med 20 to 30 ...... 5 6 ...... 2.0 High 35 to 45 ...... 4 6 ...... 3.0 Total ...... 14 ...... 18

Sulfur dioxide ...... Low 0.02 to 0.05 ...... 3 3 0.02 Med 0.10 to 0.15 ...... 2 3 .03 High 0.30 to 0.50 ...... 7 8 2 2 .04 Total ...... 7 8 7 8 ......

Nitrogen dioxide ...... Low 0.02 to 0.08 ...... 3 3 0.02 Med 0.10 to 0.20 ...... 2 3 .03 High 0.25 to 0.35 ...... 2 2 .03 Total ...... 7 8 ......

TABLE C–2 TO SUBPART C OF PART TABLE C–2 TO SUBPART C OF PART TABLE C–3 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—SEQUENCE OF TEST MEASURE- 53.—SEQUENCE OF TEST MEASURE- 53.—TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR PB MENTS MENTS—Continued METHODS

Concentration range Concentration range Concentration range, µg/m3 ..... 0.5–4.0 Measurement Measurement Minimum number of 24-hr First set Second set First set Second set measurements ...... 5 1 ...... Low ...... Medium. 10 ...... Medium ...... Low. Maximum analytical precision, percent ...... 15 2 ...... High ...... High. 11 ...... High ...... Medium. 3 ...... Medium ...... Low. 12 ...... Low ...... High. Maximum analytical accuracy, percent ...... ± 5 4 ...... High ...... High. 13 ...... Medium ...... Medium. 5 ...... Low ...... Medium. 14 ...... Low ...... High. Maximum difference, percent of reference method ...... ± 20 6 ...... Medium ...... Low. 15 ...... Low. 16 ...... Medium. 7 ...... Low ...... Medium. 17 ...... Low. 8 ...... Medium ...... Low. 18 ...... High. 9 ...... High ...... High.

TABLE C–4 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR PM10, PM2.5 AND PMR10¥2.5 CANDIDATE EQUIVALENT METHODS

PM2.5 PM10¥2.5 Specification PM10 Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III

Acceptable concentration range 15–300 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 3 (Rj), µg/m . Minimum number of test sites .... 2 ...... 1 ...... 2 ...... 4 ...... 2 ...... 4 Minimum number of candidate 3 ...... 3 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 method samplers or analyzers per site.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.036 61286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE C–4 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR PM10, PM2.5 AND PMR10¥2.5 CANDIDATE EQUIVALENT METHODS—Continued

PM2.5 PM10¥2.5 Specification PM10 Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III

Number of reference method 3 ...... 3 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 samplers per site. Minimum number of acceptable sample sets per site for PM10 methods: 3 Rj < 60 µg/m ...... 3 3 Rj > 60 µg/m ...... 3

Total ...... 10 Minimum number of acceptable sample sets per site for PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 candidate equiv- alent methods: 3 Rj < 30 µg/m for 24-hr or ...... 3 3 Rj < 20 µg/m for 48-hr samples. 3 Rj > 30 µg/m for 24-hr or ...... 3 3 Rj > 20 µg/m for 48-hr samples. Each season ...... 10 ...... 23 ...... 23 ...... 23 ...... 23 Total, each site ...... 10 ...... 23 ...... 23 (46 for two- 23 ...... 23 (46 for two- season sites). season sites) Precision of replicate reference 5 µg/m3 or 7% .. 2 µg/m3 or 5% 10%2 ...... 10%2 ...... 10%2 ...... 10%2 method measurements, PRj or RPRj′, respectively; RP for Class II or III PM2.5 or PM10–2.5′, maximum. 2 2 2 2 Precision of PM2.5 or PM10–2.5 ...... 10% ...... 15% ...... 15% ...... 15% candidate method, CP, each site. Slope of regression relationship 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.05 ...... 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.12 Intercept of regression relation- 0±5 ...... 0±1 ...... Between: Between: Between: Between: ship, µg/m3. 13.55–(15.05 15.05–(17.32 62.05–(70.5 × 70.50–(82.93 × slope), but × slope), but slope), but × slope), but not less than not less than not less than not less than ¥1.5; and ¥2.0; and ¥3.5; and ¥7.0; and 16.56–(15.05 15.05–(13.20 78.95–(70.5 × 70.50–(61.16 × slope), but × slope), but slope), but × slope), but not more than not more than not more than not more than + 1.5. + 2.0. + 3.5. + 7.0 Correlation of reference method ≥0.97 ...... ≥0.97. and candidate method meas- urements. 1 Some missing daily measurement values may be permitted; see test procedure. 2 Calculated as the root mean square over all measurement sets

TABLE C–5 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53—SUMMARY OF COMPARABILITY FIELD TESTING CAMPAIGN SITE AND SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS II AND III FEMS FOR PM10¥2.5 AND PM2.5

Candidate method Test site A B C D

PM2.5 ...... Test site location Los Angeles basin or Western city such as Midwestern city ...... Northeastern or mid- area. California Central Denver, Salt Lake Atlantic city. Valley. City, or Albu- querque. Test site characteris- Relatively high PM2.5, Cold weather, higher Substantial tempera- High sulfate and high tics. nitrates, and semi- elevation, winds, ture variation, high relative humidity. volatile organic pol- and dust. nitrates, wintertime lutants. conditions. Class III Field test Winter and summer .. Winter only ...... Winter only ...... Summer only. campaigns (Total: 5).

Class II Field test Site A or B, any season Site C or D, any season. campaigns (Total: 2).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61287

TABLE C–5 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53—SUMMARY OF COMPARABILITY FIELD TESTING CAMPAIGN SITE AND SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS II AND III FEMS FOR PM10¥2.5 AND PM2.5—Continued

Candidate method Test site A B C D

PM10¥2.5 ...... Test site location Los Angeles basin or Western city such as Midwestern city ...... Large city east of the area. California Central Las Vegas or Mississippi River. Valley. Phoenix.

Test site characteris- Relatively high PM2.5, High PM10¥2.5 to Substantial tempera- High sulfate and high tics. nitrates, and semi- PM2.5 ratio, wind- ture variation, high relative humidity. volatile organic pol- blown dust. nitrates, wintertime lutants. conditions. Class III Field test Winter and summer .. Winter only ...... Winter only ...... Summer only. campaigns (Total: 5).

Class II Field test Site A or B, any season Site C or D, any season. campaigns (Total: 2).

Figures to Subpart C of Part 53 Reference Method llllllllllll llllllllllllllll Figure C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53— Applicant Suggested Format for Reporting Test b First Set b Second Set b Type b b Results for Methods for SO2, CO, O3, 1 Hour 24 Hour NO2 Candidate Method llllllllllll

Concentration, ppm Concentration Date Time Difference Table C–1 Pass or fail range Candidate Reference spec.

Low 1

llll ppm 2

to llll ppm 3

4

5

6

Medium 1

llll ppm 2

to llll ppm 3

4

5

6

High 1

llll ppm 2

to llll ppm 3

4

5

6

7

8

Total Failures:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.057 ER17OC06.058 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61289

Appendix to Subpart C of Part 53 to demonstrate that a PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 part 53 as a FRM for PM2.5, or shown to Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 53— sampler associated with a candidate meet all requirements for designation as References reference method or Class I or Class II a FRM for PM2.5, in accordance with this equivalent method meets all design and part 53. (1) American National Standard Quality performance specifications set forth in (ii) The PM10C sampler of the Systems for Environmental Data and appendix L or O, respectively, of part 50 PM10¥2.5 sampler pair shall be verified Technology Programs—Requirements with of this chapter as well as additional to be of like manufacturer, design, guidance for use, ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. Available from American Society for Quality, requirements specified in this subpart E. configuration, and fabrication to the P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// Some or all of these tests may also be PM2.5 sampler of the PM10¥2.5 sampler qualitypress.asq.org). applicable to a candidate Class III pair, except for replacement of the (2) Quality Assurance Guidance Document equivalent method or analyzer, as may particle size separator specified in 2.12. Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using be determined under § 53.3(b)(3). section 7.3.4 of appendix L to part 50 of Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent (b) PM2.5 methods—(1) Reference this chapter with the downtube Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure method. A sampler associated with a extension as specified in Figure O–1 of Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, candidate reference method for PM2.5 appendix O to part 50 of this chapter. NC, November 1998 or later edition. shall be subject to the provisions, (iii) For samplers that meet the Currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ provisions of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. specifications, and test procedures prescribed in §§ 53.51 through 53.58. of this section, the candidate PM10¥2.5 Subpart E—Procedures for Testing (2) Class I method. A sampler reference method may be determined to Physical (Design) and Performance associated with a candidate Class I be a FRM without further testing. Characteristics of Reference Methods equivalent method for PM2.5 shall be (2) Class I method. A sampler and Class I and Class II Equivalent subject to the provisions, specifications, associated with a Class I candidate equivalent method for PM10¥2.5 shall Methods for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 and test procedures prescribed in all sections of this subpart. meet the requirements in this paragraph 7. The heading for subpart E is revised (3) Class II method. A sampler (c)(2). as set out above. associated with a candidate Class II (i) The PM2.5 sampler of the PM10¥2.5 8. Section 53.50 is revised to read as equivalent method for PM2.5 shall be sampler pair shall be verified to be follows: subject to the provisions, specifications, either currently designated under this and test procedures prescribed in all part 53 as a FRM or Class I FEM for § 53.50 General provisions. applicable sections of this subpart, as PM2.5, or shown to meet all (a) A candidate method for PM2.5 or specified in subpart F of this part or as requirements for designation as a FRM PM10¥2.5 described in an application for specified in § 53.3(a)(3). or Class I FEM for PM2.5, in accordance a FRM or FEM determination submitted (c) PM10¥2.5 methods—(1) Reference with this part 53. under § 53.4 shall be determined by the method. A sampler associated with a (ii) The PM10c sampler of the PM10¥2.5 EPA to be a FRM or a Class I, II, or III reference method for PM10¥2.5, as sampler pair shall be verified to be of FEM on the basis of the definitions for specified in appendix O to part 50 of similar design to the PM10¥2.5 sampler such methods given in § 53.1. This this chapter, shall be subject to the and to meet all requirements for subpart sets forth the specific tests that requirements in this paragraph (c)(1). designation as a FRM or Class I FRM for must be carried out and the test results, (i) The PM2.5 sampler of the PM10¥2.5 PM2.5, in accordance with this part 53, evidence, documentation, and other sampler pair shall be verified to be except for replacement of the particle materials that must be provided to EPA either currently designated under this size separator specified in section 7.3.4

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.059 61290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

of appendix L to part 50 of this chapter test site. For candidate FEM samplers, facility and ISO-certified auditor are with the downtube extension as this test may be combined and carried found in § 53.1. An exception to the specified in Figure O–1 of appendix O out concurrently with the test for reliance by EPA on ISO-certified to part 50 of this chapter. comparability to the FRM specified auditors is the requirement for the (iii) For samplers that meet the under § 53.34, which requires collocated submission of the operation or provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) operation of three FRM samplers and instruction manual associated with the of this section, the candidate PM10¥2.5 three candidate FEM samplers. candidate method to EPA as part of the method may be determined to be a Class (g) All tests and collection of test data application. This manual is required I FEM without further testing. shall be performed in accordance with under § 53.4(b)(3). The EPA has (3) Class II method. A sampler the requirements of reference 1, section determined that acceptable technical associated with a Class II candidate 4.10.5 (ISO 9001) and reference 2, part judgment for review of this manual may equivalent method for PM10¥2.5 shall be B, (section 6) and Part C, (section 7) in not be assured by ISO-certified auditors, subject to the applicable requirements of appendix A of this subpart. All test data and approval of this manual will this subpart E, as described in and other documentation obtained therefore be performed by EPA. § 53.3(a)(5). specifically from or pertinent to these (b) ISO registration of manufacturing (d) The provisions of § 53.51 pertain tests shall be identified, dated, signed facility. The applicant must submit to test results and documentation by the analyst performing the test, and documentation verifying that the required to demonstrate compliance of a submitted to EPA in accordance with samplers identified and sold as part of candidate method sampler with the subpart A of this part. a designated PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 FRM or design specifications set forth in 40 CFR 9. Section 53.51 is revised to read as FEM will be manufactured in an ISO part 50, appendix L or O, as applicable. follows: 9001-registered facility and that the The test procedures prescribed in manufacturing facility is maintained in §§ 53.52 through 53.59 pertain to § 53.51 Demonstration of compliance with compliance with all applicable ISO performance tests required to design specifications and manufacturing 9001 requirements (reference 1 in and test requirements. demonstrate compliance of a candidate appendix A of this subpart). The method sampler with the performance (a) Overview. (1) Paragraphs (a) documentation shall indicate the date of specifications set forth in 40 CFR part through (f) of this section specify certain the original ISO 9001 registration for the 50, appendix L or O, as applicable, as documentation that must be submitted facility and shall include a copy of the well as additional requirements and tests that are required to most recent certification of continued specified in this subpart E. These latter demonstrate that samplers associated ISO 9001 facility registration. If the test procedures shall be used to test the with a designated FRM or FEM for PM2.5 manufacturer does not wish to initiate performance of candidate samplers or PM10¥2.5 are properly manufactured or complete ISO 9001 registration for against the performance specifications to meet all applicable design and the manufacturing facility, and requirements specified in each performance specifications and have documentation must be included in the procedure and summarized in been properly tested according to all application to EPA describing an table E–1 of this subpart. applicable test requirements for such alternative method to demonstrate that (e) Test procedures prescribed in designation. Documentation is required the facility meets the same general § 53.59 do not apply to candidate to show that instruments and requirements as required for registration reference method samplers. These components of a PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 to ISO–9001. In this case, the applicant procedures apply primarily to candidate sampler are manufactured in an ISO must provide documentation in the Class I or Class II equivalent method 9001-registered facility under a quality application to demonstrate, by required samplers for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 that have system that meets ISO–9001 ISO-certified auditor’s inspections, that a sample air flow path configuration requirements for manufacturing quality a quality system is in place which is upstream of the sample filter that is control and testing. adequate to document and monitor that modified from that specified for the (2) In addition, specific tests are the sampler system components and FRM sampler, as set forth in 40 CFR part required by paragraph (d) of this section final assembled samplers all conform to 50, appendix L, Figures L–1 to L–29 or to verify that critical features of FRM the design, performance and other 40 CFR part 50 appendix O, Figure samplers—the particle size separator requirements specified in this part and O–1, if applicable, such as might be and the surface finish of surfaces in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. necessary to provide for sequential specified to be anodized—meet the (c) Sampler manufacturing quality sample capability. The additional tests specifications of 40 CFR part 50, control. The manufacturer must ensure determine the adequacy of aerosol appendix L or appendix O, as that all components used in the transport through any altered applicable. A checklist is required to manufacture of PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 components or supplemental devices provide certification by an ISO-certified samplers to be sold as part of a FRM or that are used in a candidate sampler auditor that all performance and other FEM and that are specified by design in upstream of the filter. In addition to the required tests have been properly and 40 CFR part 50, appendix L or O (as other test procedures in this subpart, appropriately conducted, based on a applicable), are fabricated or these test procedures shall be used to reasonable and appropriate sample of manufactured exactly as specified. If the further test the performance of such an the actual operations or their manufacturer’s quality records show equivalent method sampler against the documented records. Following that its quality control (QC) and quality performance specifications given in the designation of the method, another assurance (QA) system of standard procedure and summarized in table E– checklist is required initially to provide process control inspections (of a set 1 of this subpart. an ISO-certified auditor’s certification number and frequency of testing that is (f) A 10-day operational field test of that the sampler manufacturing process less than 100 percent) complies with the measurement precision is required is being implemented under an applicable QA provisions of section 4 of under § 53.58 for both FRM and Class I adequate and appropriate quality reference 4 in appendix A of this FEM samplers for PM2.5. This test system. subpart and prevents nonconformances, requires collocated operation of three (3) For the purposes of this section, 100 percent testing shall not be required candidate method samplers at a field the definitions of ISO 9001-registered until that conclusion is disproved by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61291

customer return or other independent Type II, Class I (reference 4 in appendix collecting PM samples, except that the manufacturer or customer test records. If A of this subpart) in the same way the sample air inlet shall be removed and problems are uncovered, inspection to sampler surfaces are finished, and the flow rate measurement adaptor shall verify conformance to the drawings, tested, prior to sealing, as specified in be installed on the sampler’s downtube. specifications, and tolerances shall be section 4.5.2 of reference 4 in appendix * * * * * performed. Refer also to paragraph (e) of A of this subpart. 11. Section 53.53 is amended by this section—final assembly and (e) Final assembly and inspection revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as inspection requirements. requirements. Each sampler shall be follows: (d) Specific tests and supporting tested after manufacture and before documentation required to verify delivery to the final user. Each § 53.53 Test for flow rate accuracy, conformance to critical component manufacturer shall document its post- regulation, measurement accuracy, and cut- specifications— (1) Verification of PM2.5 manufacturing test procedures. As a off. (WINS) impactor jet diameter. For minimum, each test shall consist of the * * * * * samplers utilizing the WINS impactor following: Tests of the overall integrity (e) Test setup. (1) Setup of the particle size separator specified in of the sampler, including leak tests; sampler shall be as required in this paragraphs 7.3.4.1, 7.3.4.2, and 7.3.4.3 calibration or verification of the paragraph (e) and otherwise as of appendix L to part 50 of this chapter, calibration of the flow measurement described in the sampler’s operation or the diameter of the jet of each impactor device, barometric pressure sensor, and instruction manual referred to in manufactured for a PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 temperature sensors; and operation of § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be sampler under the impactor design the sampler with a filter in place over installed upright and set up in its specifications set forth in 40 CFR part a period of at least 48 hours. The results normal configuration for collecting PM 50, appendix L, shall be verified against of each test shall be suitably samples. A sample filter and (or) the the tolerance specified on the drawing, documented and shall be subject to device for creating an additional 55 mm using standard, NIST-traceable ZZ go/no review by an ISO-certified auditor. Hg pressure drop shall be installed for go plug gages. This test shall be a final (f) Manufacturer’s audit checklists. the duration of these tests. The check of the jet diameter following all Manufacturers shall require an ISO- sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient fabrication operations, and a record certified auditor to sign and date a pressure, and flow rate measurement shall be kept of this final check. The statement indicating that the auditor is systems shall all be calibrated per the manufacturer shall submit evidence that aware of the appropriate manufacturing sampler’s operation or instruction this procedure is incorporated into the specifications contained in 40 CFR part manual within 7 days prior to this test. manufacturing procedure, that the test is 50, appendix L or O (as applicable), and * * * * * the test or verification requirements in or will be routinely implemented, and 12. Section 53.54 is amended by this subpart. Manufacturers shall also that an appropriate procedure is in revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as place for the disposition of units that require an ISO-certified auditor to follows: fail this tolerance test. complete the checklists, shown in (2) VSCC separator. For samplers figures E–1 and E–2 of this subpart, § 53.54 Test for proper sampler operation utilizing the BGI VSCCTM Very Sharp which describe the manufacturer’s following power interruptions. Cut Cyclone particle size separator ability to meet the requirements of the * * * * * specified in paragraph 7.3.4.4 of standard for both designation testing (d) Test setup. (1) Setup of the appendix L to part 50 of this chapter, and product manufacture. sampler shall be performed as required the VSCC manufacturer shall identify (1) Designation testing checklist. The in this paragraph (d) and otherwise as the critical dimensions and completed statement and checklist as described in the sampler’s operation or manufacturing tolerances for the device, shown in figure E–1 of this subpart shall instruction manual referred to in develop appropriate test procedures to be submitted with the application for § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be verify that the critical dimensions and FRM or FEM determination. installed upright and set up in its tolerances are maintained during the (2) Product manufacturing checklist. normal configuration for collecting PM manufacturing process, and carry out Manufacturers shall require an ISO- samples. A sample filter and (or) the those procedures on each VSCC certified auditor to complete a Product device for creating an additional 55 mm manufactured to verify conformance of Manufacturing Checklist (figure E–2 of Hg pressure drop shall be installed for the manufactured products. The this subpart), which evaluates the the duration of these tests. The manufacturer shall also maintain manufacturer on its ability to meet the sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient records of these tests and their results requirements of the standard in pressure, and flow measurement and submit evidence that this procedure maintaining quality control in the systems shall all be calibrated per the is incorporated into the manufacturing production of FRM or FEM devices. The sampler’s operating manual within 7 procedure, that the test is or will be completed checklist shall be submitted days prior to this test. routinely implemented, and that an with the application for FRM or FEM * * * * * appropriate procedure is in place for the determination. 13. Section 53.33 is amended by: disposition of units that fail this 10. Section 53.52 is amended by a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) tolerance test. revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as (3) Verification of surface finish. The introductory text and (a)(2). follows: anodization process used to treat b. Revising paragraph (e)(1). c. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(i) to read surfaces specified to be anodized shall § 53.52 Leak check test. as follows. be verified by testing treated specimen * * * * * surfaces for weight and corrosion (e) Test setup. (1) The test sampler § 53.55 Test for effect of variations in resistance to ensure that the coating shall be set up for testing as described power line voltage and ambient obtained conforms to the coating in the sampler’s operation or instruction temperature. specification. The specimen surfaces manual referred to in § 53.4(b)(3). The (a) Overview. (1) This test procedure shall be finished in accordance with sampler shall be installed upright and is a combined procedure to test various military standard specification 8625F, set up in its normal configuration for performance parameters under

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

variations in power line voltage and § 53.56 Test for effect of variations in 1 of this subpart. Each performance ambient temperature. Tests shall be ambient pressure. parameter tested, as described or conducted in a temperature-controlled (a) * * * determined in the test procedure, must environment over four 6-hour time (2) The performance parameters tested meet or exceed the associated periods during which reference under this procedure, the corresponding performance specification to temperature and flow rate minimum performance specifications, successfully pass this test. measurements shall be made at intervals and the applicable test conditions are (b) Technical definition. Filter not to exceed 5 minutes. Specific summarized in table E–1 of this subpart. temperature control during sampling is parameters to be evaluated at line Each performance parameter tested, as the ability of a sampler to maintain the voltages of 105 and 125 volts and described or determined in the test temperature of the particulate matter temperatures of ¥20 °C and +40 °C are procedure, must meet or exceed the sample filter within the specified as follows: associated performance specification deviation (5 °C) from ambient * * * * * given. The candidate sampler must meet temperature during any active sampling (2) The performance parameters tested all specifications for the associated period. Post-sampling temperature under this procedure, the corresponding PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 method (as control is the ability of a sampler to minimum performance specifications, applicable) to pass this test procedure. maintain the temperature of the and the applicable test conditions are * * * * * particulate matter sample filter within summarized in table E–1 of this subpart. (e) * * * (1) Setup of the sampler the specified deviation from ambient Each performance parameter tested, as shall be performed as required in this temperature during the period from the described or determined in the test paragraph (e) and otherwise as end of active sample collection by the procedure, must meet or exceed the described in the sampler’s operation or sampler until the filter is retrieved from associated performance specification instruction manual referred to in the sampler for laboratory analysis. given. The candidate sampler must meet § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be * * * * * all specifications for the associated installed upright and set up in the (e) * * * (1) Setup of the sampler PM2.5 or PM10–2.5 method (as applicable) pressure-controlled chamber in its shall be performed as required in this to pass this test procedure. normal configuration for collecting PM paragraph (e) and otherwise as * * * * * samples. A sample filter and (or) the described in the sampler’s operation or (e) * * * (1) Setup of the sampler device for creating an additional 55 mm instruction manual referred to in shall be performed as required in this Hg pressure drop shall be installed for § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be paragraph (e) and otherwise as the duration of these tests. The installed upright and set up in the solar described in the sampler’s operation or sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient radiation environmental chamber in its instruction manual referred to in pressure, and flow measurement normal configuration for collecting PM § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be systems shall all be calibrated per the samples (with the inlet installed). The installed upright and set up in the sampler’s operating manual within 7 sampler’s ambient and filter temperature-controlled chamber in its days prior to this test. temperature measurement systems shall normal configuration for collecting PM * * * * * be calibrated per the sampler’s operating manual within 7 days prior to this test. samples. A sample filter and (or) the 15. Section 53.57 is amended by A sample filter shall be installed for the device for creating an additional 55 mm revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e)(1) to duration of this test. For sequential Hg pressure drop shall be installed for read as follows: the duration of these tests. The samplers, a sample filter shall also be sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient § 53.57 Test for filter temperature control installed in each available sequential pressure, and flow measurement during sampling and post-sampling channel or station intended for systems shall all be calibrated per the periods. collection of a sequential sample (or at sampler’s operating manual within 7 (a) Overview. This test is intended to least five additional filters for magazine- days prior to this test. measure the candidate sampler’s ability type sequential samplers) as directed by * * * * * to prevent excessive overheating of the the sampler’s operation or instruction (g) * * * PM sample collection filter (or filters) manual. (5) * * * (i) Calculate the absolute under conditions of elevated solar * * * * * value of the difference between the insolation. The test evaluates radiative 16. Section 53.58 is revised to read as mean ambient air temperature indicated effects on filter temperature during a 4- follows: by the test sampler and the mean hour period of active sampling as well ambient (chamber) air temperature as during a subsequent 4-hour non- § 53.58 Operational field precision and measured with the ambient air sampling time period prior to filter blank test. temperature recorder as: retrieval. Tests shall be conducted in an (a) Overview. This test is intended to environmental chamber which provides determine the operational precision of Equation 16 the proper radiant wavelengths and the candidate sampler during a =− energies to adequately simulate the minimum of 10 days of field operation, TTdiff ind,, ave T ref ave sun’s radiant effects under clear using three collocated test samplers. Where: conditions at sea level. For additional Measurements of PM are made at a test Tind,ave = The mean ambient air temperature guidance on conducting solar radiative site with all of the samplers and then indicated by the test sampler, °C; and tests under controlled conditions, compared to determine replicate Tref,ave = The mean ambient air temperature consult military standard specification precision. Candidate sequential measured by the reference temperature 810–E (reference 6 in appendix A of this samplers are also subject to a test for ° instrument, C. subpart). The performance parameters possible deposition of particulate matter * * * * * tested under this procedure, the on inactive filters during a period of 14. Section 53.56 is amended by corresponding minimum performance storage in the sampler. This procedure revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e)(1) to specifications, and the applicable test is applicable to both reference and read as follows: conditions are summarized in table E– equivalent methods. In the case of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.037 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61293

equivalent methods, this test may be sampler for normal sample collection. unacceptable, and an additional sample combined and conducted concurrently Set identical sample collection start and collection set must be obtained to with the comparability test for stop times for each sampler. For replace the unacceptable data. equivalent methods (described in sequential samplers, install a (3)(i) Calculate and record the subpart C of this part), using three conditioned, preweighed specified filter precision for each of the 10 test periods, reference method samplers collocated in each available channel or station as the standard deviation, using with three candidate equivalent method intended for automatic sequential equation 27 of this section: samplers and meeting the applicable sample filter collection (or at least five site and other requirements of subpart C additional filters for magazine-type Equation 27

of this part. sequential samplers), as directed by the 2 (b) Technical definition. (1) Field 3  3  sampler’s operation or instruction 2 − 1 precision is defined as the standard manual. Since the inactive sequential ∑∑CCij,, ij ==3   deviation or relative standard deviation = i 1 i 1 channels are used for the storage Pj of a set of PM measurements obtained deposition part of the test, they may not 2 concurrently with three or more be used to collect the active PM test (ii) For each of the 10 test periods, collocated samplers in actual ambient samples. also calculate and record the precision air field operation. (2) Collect either a nominal 24-hour or as the relative standard deviation, in (2) Storage deposition is defined as 48-hour atmospheric PM sample percent, using equation 28 of this the mass of material inadvertently simultaneously with each of the three section: deposited on a sample filter that is test samplers. stored in a sequential sampler either (3) Following sample collection, Equation 28 prior to or subsequent to the active retrieve the collected sample from each sampler. For sequential samplers, Pj sample collection period. RP =×100% (c) Test site. Any outdoor test site retrieve the additional stored (blank, j Cave, j having PM2.5 (or PM10¥2.5, as unsampled) filters after at least 5 days applicable) concentrations that are (120 hours) storage in the sampler if the (h) Test results. (1) The candidate reasonably uniform over the test area active samples are 24-hour samples, or method passes the precision test if and that meet the minimum level after at least 10 days (240 hours) if the either Pj or RPj is less than or equal to requirement of paragraph (g)(2) of this active samples are 48-hour samples. the corresponding specification in table section is acceptable for this test. (4) Determine the measured PM mass E–1 of this subpart for all 10 test (d) Required facilities and equipment. concentration for each sample in periods. (1) An appropriate test site and suitable accordance with the applicable (2) The candidate sequential sampler electrical power to accommodate three procedures prescribed for the candidate passes the blank filter storage deposition test samplers are required. method in appendix L or appendix O, test if the average net storage deposition (2) Teflon sample filters, as specified as applicable, of part 50 of this chapter, weight gain of each set of blank filters in section 6 of 40 CFR part 50, appendix and in accordance with the associated (total of the net weight gain of each L, conditioned and preweighed as manual referred to in § 53.4(b)(3) and blank filter divided by the number of required by section 8 of 40 CFR part 50, supplemental guidance in reference 2 in filters in the set) from each test sampler appendix L, as needed for the test appendix A of this subpart. For (six sets in all) is less than 50 µg. samples. sequential samplers, also similarly 17. Section 53.59 is amended by (e) Test setup. (1) Three identical test determine the storage deposition as the revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(5) to read samplers shall be installed at the test net weight gain of each blank, as follows: site in their normal configuration for unsampled filter after the 5-day (or 10- collecting PM samples in accordance day) period of storage in the sampler. § 53.59 Aerosol transport test for Class I with the instructions in the associated (5) Repeat this procedure to obtain a equivalent method samplers. manual referred to in § 53.4(b)(3) and total of 10 sets of any combination of (a) Overview. This test is intended to also in accordance with applicable (nominal) 24-hour or 48-hour PM verify adequate aerosol transport supplemental guidance provided in measurements over 10 test periods. For through any modified or air flow reference 3 in appendix A of this sequential samplers, repeat the 5-day (or splitting components that may be used subpart. The test samplers’ inlet 10-day) storage test of additional blank in a Class I candidate equivalent method openings shall be located at the same filters once for a total of two sets of sampler such as may be necessary to height above ground and between 2 (1 blank filters. achieve sequential sampling capability. for samplers with flow rates less than (g) Calculations. (1) Record the PM This test is applicable to all Class I 200 L/min.) and 4 meters apart concentration for each test sampler for candidate samplers in which the aerosol horizontally. The samplers shall be each test period as Ci,j, where i is the flow path (the flow path through which arranged or oriented in a manner that sampler number (i = 1,2,3) and j is the sample air passes upstream of sample will minimize the spatial and wind test period (j = 1,2, * * * 10). collection filter) differs significantly directional effects on sample collection (2)(i) For each test period, calculate from that specified for reference method of one sampler on any other sampler. and record the average of the three samplers as specified in 40 CFR part 50, (2) Each test sampler shall be measured PM concentrations as Cave,j appendix L or appendix O, as successfully leak checked, calibrated, where j is the test period using equation applicable. The test requirements and and set up for normal operation in 26 of this section: performance specifications for this test accordance with the instruction manual are summarized in table E–1 of this and with any applicable supplemental Equation 26 subpart. guidance provided in reference 3 in 3 (b) * * * =×1 appendix A of this subpart. CCave,, j∑ 1 j (5) An added component is any (f) Test procedure. (1) Install a 3 i=1 physical part of the sampler which is 3 conditioned, preweighed filter in each (ii) If Cave,j < 3 µg/m for any test different in some way from that test sampler and otherwise prepare each period, data from that test period are specified for a reference method

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.038 ER17OC06.039 ER17OC06.040 61294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

sampler in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L aerosol to be routed to one of several 18. Table E–1 to subpart E is revised or appendix O, as applicable, such as a channels. to read as follows: device or means to allow or cause the * * * * *

TABLE E–1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND CLASS I EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR PM2.5 AND PM10–2.5

Part 50, appendix L ref- Subpart E procedure Performance test Performance specification Test conditions erence

§ 53.52 Sample leak check Sampler leak check facility External leakage: 80 mL/ Controlled leak flow rate of Sec. 7.4.6. test. min, max. 80 mL/min. Internal leakage: 80 mL/ min, max. § 53.53 Base flow rate test Sample flow rate ...... 1. 16.67 ? 5% L/min ...... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test plus flow Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... rate cut-off test. Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas accuracy ...... 4. 0.3%, max ...... (b) Normal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.4 4. CV accuracy ...... 5. Flow rate cut-off if flow (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5. 5. Cut-off ...... rate deviates more than pressure drop to simu- 10% from design flow late loaded filter. rate for >60 ± ?30 sec- (d) Variable flow restriction onds. used for cut-off test. § 53.54 Power interruption Sample flow rate: ...... 1. 16.67 ?± 5% L/Min ...... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, test. 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test. Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (b) Nominal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas. accuracy ...... 4. 0.3% max ...... (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5 4. CV accuracy ...... 5. ? ± 2 min if >60 seconds pressure drop to simu- Sec. 7.4.12 5. Occurrence time of 6. ? ± 20 seconds ...... late loaded filter. Sec. 7.4.13 power interruptions. 7. ± ?2%, max ...... (d) 6 power interruptions of Sec. 7.4.15.4 6. Elapsed sample time .... various durations. Sec. 7.4.15.5. 7. Sample volume ...... § 53.55 Temperature and Sample flow rate ...... 1. 16.6 ±? 5% L/min ...... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, line voltage test. 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test. Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (b) Normal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas. accuracy ...... 4. 0.3% max ...... (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5 4. CV accuracy ...... 5. 2 °C ...... pressure drop to simu- Sec. 7.4.8 5. Temperature meas. ac- late loaded filter. Sec. 7.4.15.1. curacy. (d) Ambient temperature at 6. Proper operation ...... ¥20 and +40 °C. (e) Line voltage: 105 Vac to 125 Vac. § 53.56 Barometric pres- Sample flow rate ...... 1. 16.67 ?± ? 5% L/min .... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, sure effect test. 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test. Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (b) Normal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas. accuracy ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5 4. CV accuracy ...... 4. 0.3%, max ...... pressure drop to simu- Sec. 7.4.9. 5. Pressure meas. accu- 5. 10 mm Hg ...... late loaded filter. racy. (d) Barometric pressure at 6. Proper operation ...... 600 and 800 mm Hg. § 53.57 Filter tempera- 1. Filter temp meas. accu- 1. 2 °C ...... (a) 4-hour simulated solar Sec. 7.4.8 ture control test. racy. 2. 2 °C ...... radiation, sampling. Sec. 7.4.10 2. Ambient temp. meas. 3. Not more than 5 °C (b) 4-hour simulated solar Sec. 7.4.11. accuracy. above ambient temp. for radiation, non-sampling. 3. Filter temp. control ac- more than 30 min.. (c) Solar flux of 1000 ?50 curacy, sampling and W/m2. non-sampling. 3 § 53.58 Field precision test 1. Measurement precision 1. Pj < 2 µg/m or RPj < (a) 3 collocated samplers Sec. 5.1 2. Storage deposition test 5%. at 1 site for at least 10 Sec. 7.3.5 for sequential samplers. 2. 50 µg max. average days;. Sec. 8 3 weight gain/blank filter. (b) PM2.5 conc. > 3 µg/m Sec. 9 (c) 24- or 48-hour samples Sec. 10. (d) 5- or 10-day storage period for inactive stored filters.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61295

TABLE E–1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND CLASS I EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR PM2.5 AND PM10–2.5—Continued

Part 50, appendix L ref- Subpart E procedure Performance test Performance specification Test conditions erence

The Following Requirement Is Applicable to Class I Candidate Equivalent Methods Only

§ 53.59 Aerosol transport Aerosol transport ...... 97%, min. for all channels Determine aerosol trans- test. port through any new or modified components with respect to the ref- erence method sampler before the filter for each channel.

19. References (1), (2), (3), and (5) in § 53.60 General provisions. loaded by sampling a test environment appendix A to subpart E of part 53 are * * * * * containing aerosolized, standard test revised to read as follows: (b) A candidate method described in dust. The duration of the loading phase is dependent on both the time between Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 53— an application for a FRM or FEM cleaning as specified by the candidate References determination submitted under § 53.4 shall be determined by the EPA to be a method and the aerosol mass (1) American National Standard Quality Class II candidate equivalent method on concentration in the test environment. Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in the basis of the definition of a Class II After loading, the candidate’s Design, Development, Production, FEM in § 53.1. performance must then be evaluated by Installation, and Servicing, ANSI/ISO/ASQC (c) Any sampler associated with a § 53.62 (full wind tunnel evaluation), Q9001–1994. Available from American Society for Quality, P.O. Box 3005, Class II candidate equivalent method § 53.63 (wind tunnel inlet aspiration Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// (Class II sampler) must meet all test), or § 53.64 (static fractionator test). qualitypress.asq.org). applicable requirements for FRM If the results of the appropriate test meet (2) American National Standard Quality samplers or Class I FEM samplers the criteria presented in table F–1 of this Systems for Environmental Data and specified in subpart E of this part, as subpart, then the candidate sampler Technology Programs—Requirements with appropriate. Except as provided in passes the loading test under the guidance for use, ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. § 53.3(a)(3), a Class II PM2.5 sampler condition that it be cleaned at least as Available from American Society for Quality, must meet the additional requirements often as the cleaning frequency P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// as specified in paragraph (d) of this proposed by the candidate method and qualitypress.asq.org). (3) Quality Assurance Guidance Document section. that has been demonstrated to be (d) Except as provided in paragraphs acceptable by this test. 2.12. Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, all * * * * * Class II samplers are subject to the Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure 21. The section heading of § 53.61 is Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, additional tests and performance revised to read as follows: NC, November 1998 or later edition. requirements specified in § 53.62 (full Currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ wind tunnel test), § 53.65 (loading test), § 53.61 Test conditions. ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. and § 53.66 (volatility test). Alternative * * * * * * * * * * tests and performance requirements, as (5) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air described in paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and 22. Section 53.66 is amended by Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV: (3) of this section, are optionally revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii) to read as Meteorological Measurements. Revised available for certain Class II samplers follows: March, 1995. EPA–600/R–94–038d. Available from National Technical Information Service, which meet the requirements for § 53.66 Test procedure: Volatility test. Springfield, VA 22161, (800–553–6847, reference method or Class I equivalent * * * * * method samplers given in 40 CFR part http://www.ntis.gov). NTIS number PB95– (e) * * * 199782INZ. 50, appendix L, and in subpart E of this (2) * * * * * * * * part, except for specific deviations of the inlet, fractionator, or filter. (iii) Operate the candidate and the reference samplers such that they Subpart F—[Amended] * * * * * simultaneously sample the test aerosol (f) * * * for 2 hours for a candidate sampler 20. Section 53.60 is amended by: (4) Loading test. The loading test is operating at 16.7 L/min or higher, or a. Revising paragraph (b); conducted to ensure that the proportionately longer for a candidate b. Revising paragraph (c); performance of a candidate sampler is sampler operating at a lower flow rate. c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory not significantly affected by the amount text; and of particulate deposited on its interior * * * * * d. Revising paragraph (f)(4) to read as surfaces between periodic cleanings. 23. Table F–1 to subpart F is revised follows: The candidate sampler is artificially to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE F–1 TO SUBPART F OF PART 53.—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PM2.5 CLASS II EQUIVALENT SAMPLERS

Performance test Specifications Acceptance criteria

§ 53.62 Full Tunnel Evaluation ...... Solid VOAG produced aerosol at 2 km/hr and Dp50 2.5 µm ± 0.2 µm Numerical Analysis Re- 24 km/hr. sults: 95% ≤ ? Rc ≤ ? 105% § 53.63 Wind Tunnel Inlet Aspriation Test ...... Liquid VOAG produced aerosol at 2 km/hr Relative Aspiration: 95% ≤ ? A ≤ ? 105% and 24 km/hr. § 53.64 Static Fractionator Test ...... Evaluation of the fractionator under static con- Dp50 = 2.5 µm ? 0.2 µm Numerical Analysis ditions. Results: 95% ? ≤ Rc ? ≤ 105% § 53.65 Loading Test ...... Loading of the clean candidate under labora- Acceptance criteria as specified in the post- tory conditions. loading evaluation test (§ 53.62, § 53.63, or § 53.64) § 53.66 Volatility Test ...... Polydisperse liquid aerosol produced by air Regression Parameters Slope = 1 ± 0.1, Inter- nebulization of A.C.S. reagent grade glyc- cept = 0 ± ? 0.15mg r ≥ 0.97. erol, 99.5% minimum purity.

24. In Figure E–1 to subpart F, the geographical area consisting of two or When the pollutant concentration figure number ‘‘E–1’’ is revised to read more adjacent Core Based Statistical measured by the analyzer in such a test ‘‘F–1.’’ Areas (CBSA) with employment includes both the pollutant interchange of at least 15 percent. concentration in the test cell and the PART 58—[AMENDED] Combination is automatic if the concentration in the atmosphere, the employment interchange is 25 percent atmospheric pollutant concentration 25. The authority citation for part 58 and determined by local opinion if more must be subtracted from the test is revised to read as follows: than 15 but less than 25 percent (http:// measurement to obtain the corrected Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, 7601(a), www.census.gov/population/estimates/ concentration test result. The corrected 7611, and 7619. metro-city/List6.txt). concentration is equal to the measured Community monitoring zone (CMZ) concentration minus the average of the 26. Subpart A is revised to read as means an optional averaging area with atmospheric pollutant concentrations follows: established, well defined boundaries, measured (without the test cell) Subpart A—General Provisions such as county or census block, within immediately before and immediately Sec. an MPA that has relatively uniform after the test. 58.1 Definitions. concentrations of annual PM2.5 as Design value means the calculated 58.2 Purpose. defined by appendix N of part 50 of this concentration according to the 58.3 Applicability. chapter. Two or more community- applicable appendix of part 50 of this oriented SLAMS monitors within a chapter for the highest site in an Subpart A—General Provisions CMZ that meet certain requirements as attainment or nonattainment area. § 58.1 Definitions. set forth in appendix N of part 50 of this EDO means environmental data chapter may be averaged for making operations. As used in this part, all terms not comparisons to the annual PM2.5 Effective concentration pertains to defined herein have the meaning given NAAQS. testing an open path analyzer with a them in the Act. Core-based statistical area (CBSA) is high-concentration calibration or audit Act means the Clean Air Act as defined by the U.S. Office of standard gas contained in a short test amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) Management and Budget, as a statistical cell inserted into the optical Additive and multiplicative bias geographic entity consisting of the measurement beam of the instrument. means the linear regression intercept county or counties associated with at Effective concentration is the equivalent and slope of a linear plot fitted to least one urbanized area/urban cluster ambient-level concentration that would corresponding candidate and reference of at least 10,000 population, plus produce the same spectral absorbance method mean measurement data pairs. adjacent counties having a high degree over the actual atmospheric monitoring Administrator means the of social and economic integration. path length as produced by the high- Administrator of the Environmental Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) concentration gas in the short test cell. Protection Agency (EPA) or his or her and micropolitan statistical areas are the Quantitatively, effective concentration authorized representative. two categories of CBSA (metropolitan is equal to the actual concentration of Air Quality System (AQS) means areas have populations greater than the gas standard in the test cell EPA’s computerized system for storing 50,000; and micropolitan areas have multiplied by the ratio of the path and reporting of information relating to populations between 10,000 and length of the test cell to the actual ambient air quality data. 50,000). In the case of very large cities atmospheric monitoring path length. Approved regional method (ARM) where two or more CBSAs are Federal equivalent method (FEM) means a continuous PM2.5 method that combined, these larger areas are referred means a method for measuring the has been approved specifically within a to as combined statistical areas (CSAs) concentration of an air pollutant in the State or local air monitoring network for (http://www.census.gov/population/ ambient air that has been designated as purposes of comparison to the NAAQS estimates/metro-city/List1.txt). an equivalent method in accordance and to meet other monitoring objectives. Corrected concentration pertains to with part 53 of this chapter; it does not AQCR means air quality control the result of an accuracy or precision include a method for which an region. assessment test of an open path analyzer equivalent method designation has been CO means carbon monoxide. in which a high-concentration test or canceled in accordance with § 53.11 or Combined statistical area (CSA) is audit standard gas contained in a short § 53.16 of this chapter. defined by the U.S. Office of test cell is inserted into the optical Federal reference method (FRM) Management and Budget as a measurement beam of the instrument. means a method of sampling and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61297

analyzing the ambient air for an air convenience, those portions of a State equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as pollutant that is specified as a reference that are not associated with CBSAs can measured by a reference method based method in an appendix to part 50 of this be considered as a single MPA. on appendix L of part 50 of this chapter chapter, or a method that has been NATTS means the national air toxics and designated in accordance with part designated as a reference method in trends stations. This network provides 53 of this chapter, by an equivalent accordance with this part; it does not hazardous air pollution ambient data. method designated in accordance with include a method for which a reference NCore means the National Core part 53 of this chapter, or by an method designation has been canceled multipollutant monitoring stations. approved regional method designated in in accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16 of Monitors at these sites are required to accordance with appendix C to this part. this chapter. measure particles (PM2.5, speciated PM10 means particulate matter with HNO3 means nitric acid. PM2.5, PM10–2.5), O3, SO2, CO, nitrogen an aerodynamic diameter less than or Local agency means any local oxides (NO/NO2/NOy), Pb, and basic equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as government agency, other than the State meteorology. measured by a reference method based agency, which is charged by a State with Network means all stations of a given on appendix J of part 50 of this chapter the responsibility for carrying out a type or types. and designated in accordance with part portion of the plan. NH3 means ammonia. 53 of this chapter or by an equivalent Meteorological measurements means NO2 means nitrogen dioxide. NO method designated in accordance with measurements of wind speed, wind means nitrogen oxide. NOX means part 53 of this chapter. direction, barometric pressure, oxides of nitrogen and is defined as the PM10C means particulate matter with temperature, relative humidity, solar sum of the concentrations of NO2 and an aerodynamic diameter less than or radiation, ultraviolet radiation, and/or NO. equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as precipitation. NOy means the sum of all total measured by a reference method based Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) reactive nitrogen oxides, including NO, on appendix O of part 50 of this chapter means a CBSA associated with at least NO2, and other nitrogen oxides referred and designated in accordance with part one urbanized area of 50,000 population to as NOZ. 53 of this chapter or by an equivalent or greater. The central county plus O3 means ozone. method designated in accordance with Open path analyzer means an adjacent counties with a high degree of part 53 of this chapter. automated analytical method that integration comprise the area. PM10¥2.5 means particulate matter Monitor means an instrument, measures the average atmospheric with an aerodynamic diameter less than sampler, analyzer, or other device that pollutant concentration in situ along or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers one or more monitoring paths having a measures or assists in the measurement and greater than a nominal 2.5 monitoring path length of 5 meters or of atmospheric air pollutants and which micrometers as measured by a reference more and that has been designated as a is acceptable for use in ambient air method based on appendix O to part 50 reference or equivalent method under surveillance under the applicable of this chapter and designated in the provisions of part 53 of this chapter. accordance with part 53 of this chapter provisions of appendix C to this part. Optical measurement path length Monitoring agency means a State or or by an equivalent method designated means the actual length of the optical local agency responsible for meeting the in accordance with part 53 of this beam over which measurement of the requirements of this part. chapter. Monitoring organization means a pollutant is determined. The path- Point analyzer means an automated integrated pollutant concentration State, local, or other monitoring analytical method that measures measured by the analyzer is divided by organization responsible for operating a pollutant concentration in an ambient the optical measurement path length to monitoring site for which the quality air sample extracted from the determine the path-averaged assurance regulations apply. atmosphere at a specific inlet probe concentration. Generally, the optical Monitoring path for an open path point and that has been designated as a analyzer means the actual path in space measurement path length is: (1) Equal to the monitoring path reference or equivalent method in between two geographical locations over length for a (bistatic) system having a accordance with part 53 of this chapter. which the pollutant concentration is Population-oriented monitoring (or transmitter and a receiver at opposite measured and averaged. sites) means residential areas, ends of the monitoring path; Monitoring path length of an open (2) Equal to twice the monitoring path commercial areas, recreational areas, path analyzer means the length of the length for a (monostatic) system having industrial areas where workers from monitoring path in the atmosphere over a transmitter and receiver at one end of more than one company are located, and which the average pollutant the monitoring path and a mirror or other areas where a substantial number concentration measurement (path- retroreflector at the other end; or of people may spend a significant averaged concentration) is determined. (3) Equal to some multiple of the fraction of their day. See also, optical measurement path monitoring path length for more Primary quality assurance length. complex systems having multiple passes organization means a monitoring Monitoring planning area (MPA) of the measurement beam through the organization or other organization that means a contiguous geographic area monitoring path. is responsible for a set of stations that with established, well defined PAMS means photochemical monitor the same pollutant and for boundaries, such as a CBSA, county or assessment monitoring stations. which data quality assessments can be State, having a common area that is Pb means lead. pooled. Each criteria pollutant sampler/ used for planning monitoring locations Plan means an implementation plan monitor at a monitoring station in the for PM2.5. An MPA may cross State approved or promulgated pursuant to SLAMS and SPM networks must be boundaries, such as the Philadelphia section 110 of the Act. associated with one, and only one, PA–NJ MSA, and be further subdivided PM means PM10, PM110C, PM2.5, primary quality assurance organization. into community monitoring zones. PM10¥2.5, or particulate matter of Probe means the actual inlet where an MPAs are generally oriented toward unspecified size range. air sample is extracted from the CBSAs or CSAs with populations PM2.5 means particulate matter with atmosphere for delivery to a sampler or greater than 200,000, but for an aerodynamic diameter less than or point analyzer for pollutant analysis.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61298 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

PSD station means any station by the method described in appendix B 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan and operated for the purpose of establishing of part 50 of this chapter. periodic network assessment. the effect on air quality of the emissions Urbanized area means an area with a 58.11 Network technical requirements. from a proposed source for purposes of minimum residential population of at 58.12 Operating schedules. 58.13 Monitoring network completion. prevention of significant deterioration least 50,000 people and which generally 58.14 System modification. as required by § 51.24(n) of this chapter. includes core census block groups or 58.15 Annual air monitoring data Regional Administrator means the blocks that have a population density of certification. Administrator of one of the ten EPA at least 1,000 people per square mile 58.16 Data submittal and archiving Regional Offices or his or her authorized and surrounding census blocks that requirements. representative. have an overall density of at least 500 Reporting organization means an people per square mile. The Census Subpart B—Monitoring Network entity, such as a State, local, or Tribal Bureau notes that under certain § 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan monitoring agency, that collects and conditions, less densely settled territory and periodic network assessment. reports air quality data to EPA. may be part of each Urbanized Area. Site means a geographic location. One VOC means volatile organic (a)(1) Beginning July 1, 2007, the or more stations may be at the same site. compounds. State, or where applicable local, agency shall adopt and submit to the Regional SLAMS means State or local air § 58.2 Purpose. Administrator an annual monitoring monitoring stations. The SLAMS make network plan which shall provide for up the ambient air quality monitoring (a) This part contains requirements for the establishment and maintenance of sites that are primarily needed for measuring ambient air quality and for an air quality surveillance system that NAAQS comparisons, but may serve reporting ambient air quality data and consists of a network of SLAMS other data purposes. SLAMS exclude related information. The monitoring monitoring stations including FRM, special purpose monitor (SPM) stations criteria pertain to the following areas: FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of and include NCore, PAMS, and all other (1) Quality assurance procedures for SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, State or locally operated stations that monitor operation and data handling. State speciation stations, SPM stations, have not been designated as SPM (2) Methodology used in monitoring and/or, in serious, severe and extreme stations. stations. ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS SO means sulfur dioxide. (3) Operating schedule. 2 stations, and SPM monitoring stations. Special purpose monitor (SPM) (4) Siting parameters for instruments The plan shall include a statement of station means a monitor included in an or instrument probes. purposes for each monitor and evidence agency’s monitoring network that the (5) Minimum ambient air quality that siting and operation of each agency has designated as a special monitoring network requirements used monitor meets the requirements of purpose monitor station in its to provide support to the State appendices A, C, D, and E of this part, monitoring network plan and in the Air implementation plans (SIP), national air where applicable. The annual Quality System, and which the agency quality assessments, and policy monitoring network plan must be made does not count when showing decisions. These minimums are available for public inspection for at compliance with the minimum described as part of the network design least 30 days prior to submission to requirements of this subpart for the requirements, including minimum EPA. number and siting of monitors of numbers and placement of monitors of various types. each type. (2) Any annual monitoring network (6) Air quality data reporting, and State agency means the air pollution plan that proposes SLAMS network requirements for the daily reporting of control agency primarily responsible for modifications including new monitoring an index of ambient air quality. development and implementation of a sites is subject to the approval of the (b) The requirements pertaining to plan under the Act. EPA Regional Administrator, who shall provisions for an air quality surveillance State speciation site means a provide opportunity for public comment system in the SIP are contained in this supplemental PM speciation station and shall approve or disapprove the 2.5 part. that is not part of the speciation trends plan and schedule within 120 days. If (c) This part also acts to establish a network. the State or local agency has already national ambient air quality monitoring Station means a single monitor, or a provided a public comment opportunity network for the purpose of providing group of monitors with a shared on its plan and has made no changes timely air quality data upon which to objective, located at a particular site. subsequent to that comment base national assessments and policy STN station means a PM speciation opportunity, the Regional Administrator 2.5 decisions. station designated to be part of the is not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment. speciation trends network. This network § 58.3 Applicability. provides chemical species data of fine (3) The plan for establishing required This part applies to: NCore multipollutant stations shall be particulate. (a) State air pollution control Traceable means that a local standard submitted to the Administrator not later agencies. than July 1, 2009. The plan shall has been compared and certified, either (b) Any local air pollution control directly or via not more than one provide for all required stations to be agency to which the State has delegated operational by January 1, 2011. intermediate standard, to a National authority to operate a portion of the Institute of Standards and Technology State’s SLAMS network. (b) The annual monitoring network (NIST)-certified primary standard such (c) Owners or operators of proposed plan must contain the following as a NIST-traceable Reference Material sources. information for each existing and proposed site: (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas 27. Subpart B is revised to read as (1) The AQS site identification Manufacturer’s Internal Standard follows: (GMIS). number. TSP (total suspended particulates) Subpart B—Monitoring Network (2) The location, including street means particulate matter as measured Sec. address and geographical coordinates.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61299

(3) The sampling and analysis annual monitoring network plans and SLAMS station on the following method(s) for each measured parameter. periodic network assessments are operational schedules: (4) The operating schedules for each subject to approval according to § 58.14. (a) For continuous analyzers, monitor. consecutive hourly averages must be (5) Any proposals to remove or move § 58.11 Network technical requirements. collected except during: a monitoring station within a period of (a)(1) State and local governments (1) Periods of routine maintenance, 18 months following plan submittal. shall follow the applicable quality (2) Periods of instrument calibration, (6) The monitoring objective and assurance criteria contained in or spatial scale of representativeness for appendix A to this part when operating (3) Periods or monitoring seasons each monitor as defined in appendix D the SLAMS networks. exempted by the Regional to this part. (2) Beginning January 1, 2009, State Administrator. (7) The identification of any sites that and local governments shall follow the (b) For Pb manual methods, at least are suitable and sites that are not quality assurance criteria contained in one 24-hour sample must be collected suitable for comparison against the appendix A to this part that apply to every 6 days except during periods or annual PM2.5 NAAQS as described in SPM sites when operating any SPM site seasons exempted by the Regional § 58.30. which uses a FRM, FEM, or ARM and Administrator. (8) The MSA, CBSA, CSA or other meets the requirements of appendix E to (c) For PAMS VOC samplers, samples area represented by the monitor. this part, unless the Regional must be collected as specified in section (c) The annual monitoring network Administrator approves an alternative to 5 of appendix D to this part. Area- plan must document how States and the requirements of appendix A with specific PAMS operating schedules local agencies provide for the review of respect to such SPM sites because must be included as part of the PAMS changes to a PM2.5 monitoring network meeting those requirements would be network description and must be that impact the location of a violating physically and/or financially approved by the Regional PM2.5 monitor or the creation/change to impractical due to physical conditions Administrator. a community monitoring zone, at the monitoring site and the (d) For manual PM2.5 samplers: including a description of the proposed requirements are not essential to (1) Manual PM2.5 samplers at SLAMS use of spatial averaging for purposes of achieving the intended data objectives stations other than NCore stations must making comparisons to the annual PM2.5 of the SPM site. Alternatives to the operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule NAAQS as set forth in appendix N to requirements of appendix A may be at sites without a collocated part 50 of this chapter. The affected approved for an SPM site as part of the continuously operating PM2.5 monitor. State or local agency must document the approval of the annual monitoring plan, For SLAMS PM2.5 sites with both process for obtaining public comment or separately. manual and continuous PM2.5 monitors and include any comments received (3) The owner or operator of an operating, the monitoring agency may through the public notification process existing or a proposed source shall request approval for a reduction to 1-in- within their submitted plan. follow the quality assurance criteria in 6 day PM2.5 sampling at SLAMS stations (d) The State, or where applicable appendix A to this part that apply to or for seasonal sampling from the EPA local, agency shall perform and submit PSD monitoring when operating a PSD Regional Administrator. The EPA to the EPA Regional Administrator an site. Regional Administrator may grant assessment of the air quality (b) State and local governments must sampling frequency reductions after surveillance system every 5 years to follow the criteria in appendix C to this consideration of factors, including but determine, at a minimum, if the network part to determine acceptable monitoring not limited to the historical PM2.5 data meets the monitoring objectives defined methods or instruments for use in quality assessments, the location of in appendix D to this part, whether new SLAMS networks. Appendix C criteria current PM2.5 design value sites, and sites are needed, whether existing sites are optional at SPM stations. their regulatory data needs. Sites that are no longer needed and can be (c) State and local governments must have design values that are within plus terminated, and whether new follow the network design criteria or minus 10 percent of the NAAQS; and technologies are appropriate for contained in appendix D to this part in sites where the 24-hour values exceed incorporation into the ambient air designing and maintaining the SLAMS the NAAQS for a period of 3 years are monitoring network. The network stations. The final network design and required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day assessment must consider the ability of all changes in design are subject to sampling frequency. Sites that have a existing and proposed sites to support approval of the Regional Administrator. design value within plus or minus 5 air quality characterization for areas NCore, STN, and PAMS network design percent of the daily PM2.5 NAAQS must with relatively high populations of and changes are also subject to approval have an FRM or FEM operate on a daily susceptible individuals (e.g., children of the Administrator. Changes in SPM schedule. with asthma), and, for any sites that are stations do not require approvals, but a (2) Manual PM2.5 samplers at NCore being proposed for discontinuance, the change in the designation of a stations and required regional effect on data users other than the monitoring site from SLAMS to SPM background and regional transport sites agency itself, such as nearby States and requires approval of the Regional must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day Tribes or health effects studies. For Administrator. sampling frequency. PM2.5, the assessment also must identify (d) State and local governments must (3) Manual PM2.5 speciation samplers needed changes to population-oriented follow the criteria contained in at STN stations must operate on a 1-in- sites. The State, or where applicable appendix E to this part for siting 3 day sampling frequency. local, agency must submit a copy of this monitor inlets, paths or probes at (e) For PM10 samplers’a 24-hour 5-year assessment, along with a revised SLAMS stations. Appendix E adherence sample must be taken from midnight to annual network plan, to the Regional is optional for SPM stations. midnight (local time) to ensure national Administrator. The first assessment is consistency. The minimum monitoring due July 1, 2010. § 58.12 Operating schedules. schedule for the site in the area of (e) All proposed additions and State and local governments shall expected maximum concentration shall discontinuations of SLAMS monitors in collect ambient air quality data at any be based on the relative level of that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61300 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring site concentration with described in ‘‘Guideline for the from which to estimate current air respect to the 24-hour standard as Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality quality status and to provide stability to illustrated in Figure 1. If the operating Standards,’’ EPA–450/479–003, U.S. the network. This multiyear agency demonstrates by monitoring data Environmental Protection Agency, consideration reduces the possibility of that during certain periods of the year Research Triangle Park, NC, January an anomalous year biasing a site conditions preclude violation of the 1979, should be used. Adjustments to selected for accelerated sampling. If the PM10 24-hour standard, the increased the monitoring schedule must be made maximum concentration site based on sampling frequency for those periods or on the basis of the 5-year network the most current year is not selected for seasons may be exempted by the assessment. The site having the highest the more frequent operating schedule, Regional Administrator and permitted concentration in the most current year documentation of the justification for to revert back to once in six days. The must be given first consideration when selection of an alternative site must be minimum sampling schedule for all selecting the site for the more frequent other sites in the area remains once sampling schedule. Other factors such submitted to the Regional Office for approval during the 5-year network every six days. No less frequently than as major change in sources of PM10 as part of each 5-year network emissions or in sampling site assessment process. Minimum data assessment, the most recent year of data characteristics could influence the completeness criteria, number of years must be considered to estimate the air location of the expected maximum of data and sampling frequency for quality status at the site near the area of concentration site. Also, the use of the judging attainment of the NAAQS are maximum concentration. Statistical most recent 3 years of data might, in discussed in appendix K of part 50 of models such as analysis of some cases, be justified in order to this chapter. concentration frequency distributions as provide a more representative database

(f) For manual PM10–2.5 samplers: appendices A, C, D, E, and G to this available to the public for 30 days prior

(1) Manual PM10–2.5 samplers at NCore part. to submission to the EPA Regional stations must operate on at least a 1-in- (b) Where existing networks are not in Administrator. The final plan and 3 day schedule at sites without a conformance with required numbers of schedule with respect to the SLAMS collocated continuously operating monitors specified in this part, network are subject to the approval of additional required monitors must be federal equivalent PM10–2.5 method that the EPA Regional Administrator. Plans has been designated in accordance with operated by January 1, 2008. containing modifications to NCore part 53 of this chapter. § 58.14 System modification. Stations or PAMS Stations shall be submitted to the Administrator. The (2) Manual PM10–2.5 speciation (a) The State, or where appropriate samplers at NCore stations must operate local, agency shall develop and Regional Administrator shall provide on at least a 1-in-3 day sampling implement a plan and schedule to opportunity for public comment and frequency. modify the ambient air quality shall approve or disapprove submitted monitoring network that complies with plans and schedules within 120 days. § 58.13 Monitoring network completion. the findings of the network assessments (b) Nothing in this section shall (a) The network of NCore required every 5 years by § 58.10(e). The preclude the State, or where appropriate multipollutant sites must be physically State or local agency shall consult with local, agency from making modifications established no later than January 1, the EPA Regional Administrator during to the SLAMS network for reasons other 2011, and at that time, operating under the development of the schedule to than those resulting from the periodic all of the requirements of this part, modify the monitoring program, and network assessments. These including the requirements of shall make the plan and schedule modifications must be reviewed and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.060 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61301

approved by the Regional higher reading of the two monitors collected at all SLAMS and at SPM Administrator. Each monitoring being compared. stations using FRM, FEM, or ARMs. The network may make or be required to (3) For any pollutant, any SLAMS annual report(s) shall be submitted for make changes between the 5-year monitor in a county (or portion of a data collected from January 1 to assessment periods, including for county within a distinct attainment, December 31 of the previous year. The example, site relocations or the addition nonattainment, or maintenance area, as annual summary report(s) must contain of PAMS networks in bumped-up ozone applicable) provided the monitor has all information and data required by the nonattainment areas. These not measured violations of the State’s approved plan and must be modifications must address changes applicable NAAQS in the previous five submitted on the same schedule as the invoked by a new census and changes years, and the approved SIP provides for certification letter, unless an approved due to changing air quality levels. The a specific, reproducible approach to alternative date is included in the plan. State, or where appropriate local, representing the air quality of the The annual summary serves as the agency shall provide written affected county in the absence of actual record of the specific data that is the communication describing the network monitoring data. object of the certification letter. changes to the Regional Administrator (4) A PM2.5 SLAMS monitor which (c) Along with each certification for review and approval as these EPA has determined cannot be letter, the State shall submit to the changes are identified. compared to the relevant NAAQS Administrator (through the appropriate (c) State, or where appropriate, local because of the siting of the monitor, in Regional Office) a summary of the agency requests for SLAMS monitor accordance with § 58.30. precision and accuracy data for all station discontinuation, subject to the (5) A SLAMS monitor that is designed ambient air quality data collected at all review of the Regional Administrator, to measure concentrations upwind of an SLAMS and at SPM stations using FRM, will be approved if any of the following urban area for purposes of FEM, or ARMs. The summary of criteria are met and if the requirements characterizing transport into the area precision and accuracy shall be of appendix D to this part, if any, and that has not recorded violations of submitted for data collected from continue to be met. Other requests for the relevant NAAQS in the previous five January 1 to December 31 of the discontinuation may also be approved years, if discontinuation of the monitor previous year. The summary of on a case-by-case basis if is tied to start-up of another station also precision and accuracy must be discontinuance does not compromise characterizing transport. submitted on the same schedule as the data collection needed for (6) A SLAMS monitor not eligible for certification letter, unless an approved implementation of a NAAQS and if the removal under any of the criteria in alternative date is included in the plan. requirements of appendix D to this part, paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this if any, continue to be met. § 58.16 Data submittal and archiving section may be moved to a nearby requirements. (1) Any PM2.5, O3, CO, PM10, SO2, Pb, location with the same scale of (a) The State, or where appropriate, or NO2 SLAMS monitor which has representation if logistical problems local agency, shall report to the shown attainment during the previous beyond the State’s control make it Administrator, via AQS all ambient air five years, that has a probability of less impossible to continue operation at its quality data and associated quality than 10 percent of exceeding 80 percent current site. of the applicable NAAQS during the assurance data for SO2; CO; O3; NO2; next three years based on the levels, § 58.15 Annual air monitoring data NO; NOY; NOX; Pb; PM10 mass trends, and variability observed in the certification. concentration; PM2.5 mass past, and which is not specifically (a) The State, or where appropriate concentration; for filter-based PM2.5 required by an attainment plan or local, agency shall submit to the EPA FRM/FEM the field blank mass, maintenance plan. In a nonattainment Regional Administrator an annual air sampler-generated average daily or maintenance area, if the most recent monitoring data certification letter to temperature, and sampler-generated attainment or maintenance plan adopted certify data collected at all SLAMS and average daily pressure; chemically by the State and approved by EPA at all FRM, FEM, and ARM SPM speciated PM2.5 mass concentration contains a contingency measure to be stations that meet criteria in appendix A data; PM10–2.5 mass concentration; triggered by an air quality concentration to this part from January 1 to December chemically speciated PM10–2.5 mass and the monitor to be discontinued is 31 of the previous year. The senior air concentration data; meteorological data the only SLAMS monitor operating in pollution control officer in each agency, from NCore and PAMS sites; and the nonattainment or maintenance area, or his or her designee, shall certify that metadata records and information the monitor may not be discontinued. the previous year of ambient specified by the AQS Data Coding (2) Any SLAMS monitor for CO, PM10, concentration and quality assurance Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/ SO2, or NO2 which has consistently data are completely submitted to AQS airsaqs/manuals/manuals.htm). Such measured lower concentrations than and that the ambient concentration data air quality data and information must be another monitor for the same pollutant are accurate to the best of her or his submitted directly to the AQS via in the same county (or portion of a knowledge, taking into consideration electronic transmission on the specified county within a distinct attainment the quality assurance findings. quarterly schedule described in area, nonattainment area, or (1) Through 2009, the annual data paragraph (b) of this section. maintenance area, as applicable) during certification letter is due by July 1 of (b) The specific quarterly reporting the previous five years, and which is not each year. periods are January 1–March 31, April specifically required by an attainment (2) Beginning in 2010, the annual data 1–June 30, July 1–September 30, and plan or maintenance plan, if control certification letter is due by May 1 of October 1–December 31. The data and measures scheduled to be implemented each year. information reported for each reporting or discontinued during the next five (b) Along with each certification period must contain all data and years would apply to the areas around letter, the State shall submit to the information gathered during the both monitors and have similar effects Administrator (through the appropriate reporting period, and be received in the on measured concentrations, such that Regional Office) an annual summary AQS within 90 days after the end of the the retained monitor would remain the report of all the ambient air quality data quarterly reporting period. For example,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61302 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the data for the reporting period January plan shall include a statement of 29. Subpart D is revised to read as 1–March 31 are due on or before June purposes for each SPM monitor and follows: 30 of that year. evidence that operation of each monitor (c) Air quality data submitted for each meets the requirements of appendix A Subpart D—Comparability of Ambient reporting period must be edited, or an approved alternative as provided Data to NAAQS validated, and entered into the AQS by § 58.11(a)(2) where applicable. The § 58.30 Special considerations for data (within the time limits specified in monitoring agency may designate a comparisons to the NAAQS. paragraph (b) of this section) pursuant monitor as an SPM after January 1, 2007 to appropriate AQS procedures. The only if it is a new monitor, i.e., a (a) Comparability of PM2.5 data. (1) procedures for editing and validating SLAMS monitor that is not included in There are two forms of the PM2.5 data are described in the AQS Data the currently applicable monitoring NAAQS described in part 50 of this Coding Manual and in each monitoring plan or, for a monitor included in the chapter. The PM2.5 monitoring site agency’s quality assurance project plan. monitoring plan prior to January 1, characteristics (see appendix D to this (d) The State shall report VOC and if 2007, if the Regional Administrator has part, section 4.7.1) impact how the collected, carbonyl, NH3, and HNO3 approved the discontinuation of the resulting PM2.5 data can be compared to data, from PAMS sites to AQS within 6 monitor as a SLAMS site. the annual PM2.5 NAAQS form. PM2.5 months following the end of each (b) Any SPM data collected by an air data that are representative, not of quarterly reporting period listed in monitoring agency using a Federal areawide but rather, of relatively unique paragraph (b) of this section. reference method (FRM), Federal population-oriented microscale, or (e) The State shall also submit any equivalent method (FEM), or approved localized hot spot, or unique portion or all of the SLAMS and SPM regional method (ARM) must meet the population-oriented middle-scale data to the appropriate Regional requirements of § 58.11, § 58.12, and impact sites are only eligible for Administrator upon request. appendix A to this part or an approved comparison to the 24-hour PM2.5 (f) The State, or where applicable, alternative to appendix A to this part. NAAQS. For example, if the PM2.5 local agency shall archive all PM2.5, Compliance with appendix E to this part monitoring site is adjacent to a unique PM10, and PM10¥2.5 filters from manual is optional but encouraged except when dominating local PM2.5 source or can be low-volume samplers (samplers having the monitoring agency’s data objectives shown to have average 24-hour flow rates less than 200 liters/minute) are inconsistent with those concentrations representative of a from all SLAMS sites for a minimum requirements. Data collected at an SPM smaller than neighborhood spatial scale, period of 1 year after collection. These using a FRM, FEM, or ARM meeting the then data from a monitor at the site filters shall be made available during requirements of appendix A must be would only be eligible for comparison to the course of that year for supplemental submitted to AQS according to the the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. analyses at the request of EPA or to requirements of § 58.16. Data collected (2) There are cases where certain provide information to State and local by other SPMs may be submitted. The population-oriented microscale or agencies on particulate matter monitoring agency must also submit to middle scale PM2.5 monitoring sites are composition. Other Federal agencies AQS an indication of whether each SPM determined by the Regional may request access to filters for reporting data to AQS monitor meets the Administrator to collectively identify a purposes of supporting air quality requirements of appendices A and E to larger region of localized high ambient management or community health— this part. PM2.5 concentrations. In those cases, such as biological assay—through the (c) All data from an SPM using an data from these population-oriented applicable EPA Regional Administrator. FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated sites would be eligible for comparison to The filters shall be archived according for more than 24 months is eligible for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. to procedures approved by the comparison to the relevant NAAQS, Administrator. The EPA recommends (b) [Reserved] subject to the conditions of § 58.30, that particulate matter filters be unless the air monitoring agency Subpart E—[Removed and Reserved] archived for longer periods, especially demonstrates that the data came from a for key sites in making NAAQS related particular period during which the 30. Subpart E of part 58 is removed decisions or for supporting health- requirements of appendix A or an and reserved. related air pollution studies. approved alternative, appendix C, or 28. Subpart C is revised to read as appendix E were not met in practice. Subpart F—[Amended] follows: (d) If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or 31. Section 58.50 is revised to read as Subpart C—Special Purpose Monitors ARM is discontinued within 24 months of start-up, the Administrator will not follows: § 58.20 Special purpose monitors (SPM). base a NAAQS violation determination § 58.50 Index reporting. (a) An SPM is defined as any monitor for the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS solely on included in an agency’s monitoring data from the SPM. (a) The State or where applicable, network that the agency has designated (e) If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or local agency shall report to the general as a special purpose monitor in its ARM is discontinued within 24 months public on a daily basis through annual monitoring network plan and in of start-up, the Administrator will not prominent notice an air quality index AQS, and which the agency does not designate an area as nonattainment for that complies with the requirements of appendix G to this part. count when showing compliance with the CO, SO2, NO2, Pb, or 24-hour PM10 the minimum requirements of this NAAQS solely on the basis of data from (b) Reporting is required for all subpart for the number and siting of the SPM. Such data are eligible for use individual MSA with a population monitors of various types. Any SPM in determinations of whether a exceeding 350,000. operated by an air monitoring agency nonattainment area has attained one of (c) The population of a MSA for must be included in the periodic these NAAQS. purposes of index reporting is the most assessments and annual monitoring (f) Prior approval from EPA is not recent decennial U.S. census network plan required by § 58.10. The required for discontinuance of an SPM. population.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61303

Subpart G—[Amended] similarities and differences of the objective is sometimes referred to the Data requirements for SLAMS and PSD. Both Quality Objectives Process. Data quality 32. Sections 58.60 and 58.61 are programs require: indicators associated with measurement revised to read as follows: (a) The development, documentation, and uncertainty include: implementation of an approved quality (a) Precision. A measurement of mutual § 58.60 Federal monitoring. system; agreement among individual measurements The Administrator may locate and (b) The assessment of data quality; of the same property usually under operate an ambient air monitoring site if (c) The use of reference, equivalent, or prescribed similar conditions, expressed approved methods. The requirements of this generally in terms of the standard deviation. the State or local agency fails to locate, appendix do not apply to a SPM that does (b) Bias. The systematic or persistent or schedule to be located, during the not use a FRM, FEM, or ARM; distortion of a measurement process which initial network design process, or as a (d) The use of calibration standards causes errors in one direction. result of the 5-year network assessments traceable to NIST or other primary standard; (c) Accuracy. The degree of agreement required in § 58.10, a SLAMS station at (e) Performance evaluations and systems. between an observed value and an accepted a site which is necessary in the 1.1.1 The monitoring and quality reference value. Accuracy includes a judgment of the Regional Administrator assurance responsibilities for SLAMS are combination of random error (imprecision) to meet the objectives defined in with the State or local agency, hereafter and systematic error (bias) components called the monitoring organization, whereas appendix D to this part. which are due to sampling and analytical for PSD they are with the owner/operator operations. § 58.61 Monitoring other pollutants. seeking the permit. The monitoring duration (d) Completeness. A measure of the for SLAMS is indefinite, whereas for PSD the The Administrator may promulgate amount of valid data obtained from a duration is usually 12 months. Whereas the measurement system compared to the criteria similar to that referenced in reporting period for precision and accuracy amount that was expected to be obtained subpart B of this part for monitoring a data is on an annual or calendar quarter basis under correct, normal conditions. pollutant for which an NAAQS does not for SLAMS, it is on a continuing sampler (e) Detectability. The low critical range exist. Such an action would be taken quarter basis for PSD, since the monitoring value of a characteristic that a method whenever the Administrator determines may not commence at the beginning of a specific procedure can reliably discern. that a nationwide monitoring program is calendar quarter. 1.3 Measurement Quality Checks. The necessary to monitor such a pollutant. 1.1.2 The annual performance SLAMS measurement quality checks evaluations (described in section 3.2.2 of this 33. Appendix A to part 58 is revised described in sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this appendix) for PSD must be conducted by appendix shall be reported to AQS and are to read as follows: personnel different from those who perform included in the data required for Appendix A to Part 58—Quality routine span checks and calibrations, certification. The PSD network is required to Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, whereas for SLAMS, it is the preferred but implement the measurement quality checks not the required condition. For PSD, the SPMs and PSD Air Monitoring and submit this information quarterly along evaluation rate is 100 percent of the sites per with assessment information to the permit- 1. General Information reporting quarter whereas for SLAMS it is 25 granting authority. 2. Quality System Requirements percent of the sites or instruments quarterly. 1.4 Assessments and Reports. Periodic 3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements Monitoring for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and assessments and documentation of data 4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for PSD must be done quality are required to be reported to EPA or 5. Reporting Requirements with automated analyzers—the manual to the permit granting authority (PSD). To 6. References bubbler methods are not permitted. provide national uniformity in this 1.1.3 The requirements for precision assessment and reporting of data quality for 1. General Information assessment for the automated methods are all networks, specific assessment and This appendix specifies the minimum the same for both SLAMS and PSD. However, reporting procedures are prescribed in detail quality system requirements applicable to for manual methods, only one collocated site in sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix. On SLAMS air monitoring data and PSD data for is required for PSD. the other hand, the selection and extent of the pollutants SO2, NO2, O3, CO, PM2.5, PM10 1.1.4 The precision, accuracy and bias the quality assurance and quality control and PM10¥2.5 submitted to EPA. This data for PSD are reported separately for each activities used by a monitoring organization appendix also applies to all SPM stations sampler (site), whereas for SLAMS, the report depend on a number of local factors such as using FRM, FEM, or ARM methods which may be by sampler (site), by primary quality field and laboratory conditions, the also meet the requirements of Appendix E of assurance organization, or nationally, objectives for monitoring, the level of data this part. Monitoring organizations are depending on the pollutant. SLAMS data are quality needed, the expertise of assigned encouraged to develop and maintain quality required to be reported to the AQS, PSD data personnel, the cost of control procedures, systems more extensive than the required are required to be reported to the permit- pollutant concentration levels, etc. Therefore, minimums. The permit-granting authority for granting authority. Requirements in this quality system requirements in section 2 of PSD may require more frequent or more appendix, with the exception of the this appendix are specified in general terms stringent requirements. Monitoring differences discussed in this section, and in to allow each monitoring organization to organizations may, based on their quality Table A–1 of this appendix will be expected develop a quality system that is most objectives, develop and maintain quality to be followed by both SLAMS and PSD efficient and effective for its own systems beyond the required minimum. networks unless directly specified in a circumstances while achieving the data Additional guidance for the requirements particular section. quality objectives required for the SLAMS reflected in this appendix can be found in the 1.2 Measurement Uncertainty. sites. ‘‘Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Measurement uncertainty is a term used to Pollution Measurement Systems’’, volume II, describe deviations from a true concentration 2. Quality System Requirements part 1 (see reference 10 of this appendix) and or estimate that are related to the A quality system is the means by which an at a national level in references 1, 2, and 3 measurement process and not to spatial or organization manages the quality of the of this appendix. temporal population attributes of the air monitoring information it produces in a 1.1 Similarities and Differences Between being measured. Monitoring organizations systematic, organized manner. It provides a SLAMS and PSD Monitoring. In most cases, must develop quality assurance project plans framework for planning, implementing, the quality assurance requirements for (QAPP) which describe how the organization assessing and reporting work performed by SLAMS, SPMs if applicable, and PSD are the intends to control measurement uncertainty an organization and for carrying out required same. Affected SPMs are subject to all the to an appropriate level in order to achieve the quality assurance and quality control SLAMS requirements, even where not objectives for which the data are collected. activities. specifically stated in each section. Table A– The process by which one determines the 2.1 Quality Management Plans and 1 of this appendix summarizes the major quality of data needed to meet the monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plans. All

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring organizations must develop a allocation of resources and other systematic award to the monitoring organization for quality system that is described and planning activities (e.g., planning, monitoring activities, will be deemed by EPA approved in quality management plans implementation, assessing and reporting) to meet this requirement. For clarification (QMP) and quality assurance project plans pertaining to the quality system. The quality and to participate, monitoring organizations (QAPP) to ensure that the monitoring results: assurance management function must have should contact either the appropriate EPA (a) Meet a well-defined need, use, or sufficient technical expertise and Regional Quality Assurance (QA) purpose; management authority to conduct Coordinator at the appropriate EPA Regional (b) Provide data of adequate quality for the independent oversight and assure the Office location, or the NPAP Coordinator, intended monitoring objectives; implementation of the organization’s quality Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division (c) Satisfy stakeholder expectations; system relative to the ambient air quality (D205–02), U.S. Environmental Protection (d) Comply with applicable standards monitoring program and should be Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. specifications; organizationally independent of 2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. (e) Comply with statutory (and other) environmental data generation activities. Technical systems audits of each ambient air requirements of society; and 2.3. Data Quality Performance monitoring organization shall be conducted (f) Reflect consideration of cost and Requirements. at least every 3 years by the appropriate EPA economics. 2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives. Data Regional Office and reported to the AQS. 2.1.1 The QMP describes the quality quality objectives (DQO) or the results of Systems audit programs are described in system in terms of the organizational other systematic planning processes are reference 10 of this appendix. For further structure, functional responsibilities of statements that define the appropriate type of instructions, monitoring organizations management and staff, lines of authority, and data to collect and specify the tolerable levels should contact the appropriate EPA Regional required interfaces for those planning, of potential decision errors that will be used QA Coordinator. implementing, assessing and reporting as a basis for establishing the quality and 2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit activities involving environmental data quantity of data needed to support the Standards. operations (EDO). The QMP must be suitably objectives of the SLAMS stations. DQO will 2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration documented in accordance with EPA be developed by EPA to support the primary standards (permeation devices or cylinders of requirements (reference 2 of this appendix), SLAMS objectives for each criteria pollutant. compressed gas) used to obtain test and approved by the appropriate Regional As they are developed they will be added to concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), Administrator, or his or her representative. the regulation. DQO or the results of other sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen oxide (NO), The quality system will be reviewed during systematic planning processes for PSD or 2 and nitrogen dioxide (NO ) must be traceable the systems audits described in section 2.5 of other monitoring will be the responsibility of 2 to either a National Institute of Standards and this appendix. Organizations that implement the monitoring organizations. The quality of Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference long-term monitoring programs with EPA the conclusions made from data funds should have a separate QMP interpretation can be affected by population Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas document. Smaller organizations or uncertainty (spatial or temporal uncertainty) Manufacturer’s Internal Standard (GMIS), organizations that do infrequent work with and measurement uncertainty (uncertainty certified in accordance with one of the EPA funds may combine the QMP with the associated with collecting, analyzing, procedures given in reference 4 of this QAPP based on negotiations with the funding reducing and reporting concentration data). appendix. Vendors advertising certification agency. Additional guidance on this process This appendix focuses on assessing and with the procedures provided in reference 4 can be found in reference 10 of this controlling measurement uncertainty. of this appendix and distributing gasses as appendix. Approval of the recipient’s QMP 2.3.1.1 Measurement Uncertainty for ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not by the appropriate Regional Administrator or Automated and Manual PM2.5 Methods. The his or her representative, may allow goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of advertising. delegation of the authority to review and is defined as 10 percent coefficient of 2.6.2 Test concentrations for ozone (O3) approve the QAPP to the recipient, based on variation (CV) for total precision and plus or must be obtained in accordance with the adequacy of quality assurance procedures minus 10 percent for total bias. ultra violet photometric calibration described and documented in the QMP. The 2.3.1.2 Measurement Uncertainty for procedure specified in appendix D to part 50 QAPP will be reviewed by EPA during Automated Ozone Methods. The goal for of this chapter, or by means of a certified O3 systems audits or circumstances related to acceptable measurement uncertainty is transfer standard. Consult references 7 and 8 data quality. defined for precision as an upper 90 percent of this appendix for guidance on primary and 2.1.2 The QAPP is a formal document confidence limit for the coefficient variation transfer standards for O3. describing, in sufficient detail, the quality (CV) of 7 percent and for bias as an upper 95 2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be system that must be implemented to ensure percent confidence limit for the absolute bias made by a flow measuring instrument that is that the results of work performed will satisfy of 7 percent. traceable to an authoritative volume or other the stated objectives. The quality assurance 2.3.1.3 Measurement Uncertainty for applicable standard. Guidance for certifying policy of the EPA requires every PM10–2.5 Methods. The goal for acceptable some types of flowmeters is provided in environmental data operation (EDO) to have measurement uncertainty is defined for reference 10 of this appendix. a written and approved QAPP prior to the precision as an upper 90 percent confidence 2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. start of the EDO. It is the responsibility of the limit for the coefficient variation (CV) of 15 Requirements and guidance documents for monitoring organization to adhere to this percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent developing the quality system are contained policy. The QAPP must be suitably confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15 in references 1 through 10 of this appendix, documented in accordance with EPA percent. which also contain many suggested requirements (reference 3 of this appendix). 2.4 National Performance Evaluation procedures, checks, and control 2.1.3 The monitoring organization’s Programs. Monitoring plans or the QAPP specifications. Reference 10 of this appendix quality system must have adequate resources shall provide for the implementation of a describes specific guidance for the both in personnel and funding to plan, program of independent and adequate audits development of a quality system for SLAMS. implement, assess and report on the of all monitors providing data for SLAMS Many specific quality control checks and achievement of the requirements of this and PSD including the provision of adequate specifications for methods are included in appendix and its approved QAPP. resources for such audit programs. A the respective reference methods described 2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance. monitoring plan (or QAPP) which provides in part 50 of this chapter or in the respective The monitoring organization must provide for monitoring organization participation in equivalent method descriptions available for a quality assurance management function- EPA’s National Performance Audit Program from EPA (reference 6 of this appendix). that aspect of the overall management system (NPAP) and the PM Performance Evaluation Similarly, quality control procedures related of the organization that determines and Program (PEP) program and which indicates to specifically designated reference and implements the quality policy defined in a the consent of the monitoring organization equivalent method analyzers are contained in monitoring organization’s QMP. Quality for EPA to apply an appropriate portion of the respective operation or instruction management includes strategic planning, the grant funds, which EPA would otherwise manuals associated with those analyzers.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61305

3. Measurement Quality Check 3.2 Measurement Quality Checks of appropriate, reflecting devices should be Requirements Automated Methods. Table A–2 of this used during the test and the normal This section provides the requirements for appendix provides a summary of the types monitoring configuration of the instrument primary quality assurance organizations and frequency of the measurement quality should be altered as little as possible to (PQAOs) to perform the measurement quality checks that will be described in this section. accommodate the test cell for the test. checks that can be used to assess data 3.2.1 One-Point Quality Control Check for However, if permitted by the associated quality. With the exception of the flow rate SO2, NO2, O3, and CO. A one-point quality operation or instruction manual, an alternate verifications (sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2 of this control (QC) check must be performed at local light source or an alternate optical path appendix), data from these checks are least once every 2 weeks on each automated that does not include the normal atmospheric analyzer used to measure SO , NO , O and required to be submitted to the AQS within 2 2 3 monitoring path may be used. The actual CO. The frequency of QC checks may be the same time frame as routine ambient concentration of the QC check gas in the test reduced based upon review, assessment and concentration data. Section 3.2 of this cell must be selected to produce an effective approval of the EPA Regional Administrator. appendix describes checks of automated or concentration in the range specified earlier in However, with the advent of automated continuous instruments while section 3.3 calibration systems more frequent checking is this section. Generally, the QC test describe checks associated with manual encouraged. See Reference 10 of this concentration measurement will be the sum sampling instruments. Other quality control appendix for guidance on the review of the atmospheric pollutant concentration samples are identified in the various procedure. The QC check is made by and the QC test concentration. If so, the references described earlier and can be used challenging the analyzer with a QC check gas result must be corrected to remove the to control certain aspects of the measurement of known concentration (effective atmospheric concentration contribution. The system. concentration for open path analyzers) corrected concentration is obtained by 3.1 Primary Quality Assurance between 0.01 and 0.10 parts per million subtracting the average of the atmospheric Organization. A primary quality assurance (ppm) for SO , NO , and O , and between 1 concentrations measured by the open path organization is defined as a monitoring 2 2 3 and 10 ppm for CO analyzers. The ranges instrument under test immediately before organization or a coordinated aggregation of allow for appropriate check gas selection for and immediately after the QC test from the such organizations that is responsible for a SLAMS sites that may be sampling for QC check gas concentration measurement. If set of stations that monitors the same different objectives, i.e., trace gas monitoring the difference between these before and after pollutant and for which data quality vs. comparison to National Ambient Air measurements is greater than 20 percent of assessments can logically be pooled. Each Quality Standards (NAAQS). The QC check the effective concentration of the test gas, criteria pollutant sampler/monitor at a gas concentration selected should be related discard the test result and repeat the test. If monitoring station in the SLAMS network to the routine concentrations normally possible, open path analyzers should be must be associated with one, and only one, measured at sites within the monitoring primary quality assurance organization. tested during periods when the atmospheric network in order to appropriately reflect the pollutant concentrations are relatively low 3.1.1 Each primary quality assurance precision and bias at these routine organization shall be defined such that and steady. concentration ranges. To check the precision 3.2.1.3 Report the audit concentration measurement uncertainty among all stations and bias of SLAMS analyzers operating at in the organization can be expected to be (effective concentration for open path ranges either above or below the levels analyzers) of the QC gas and the reasonably homogeneous, as a result of identified, use check gases of appropriate common factors. Common factors that should corresponding measured concentration concentrations as approved by the (corrected concentration, if applicable, for be considered by monitoring organizations in appropriate EPA Regional Administrator or defining primary quality assurance open path analyzers) indicated by the their designee. The standards from which analyzer. The percent differences between organizations include: check concentrations are obtained must meet (a) Operation by a common team of field these concentrations are used to assess the the specifications of section 2.6 of this precision and bias of the monitoring data as operators according to a common set of appendix. described in sections 4.1.2 (precision) and procedures; 3.2.1.1 Except for certain CO analyzers 4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix. (b) Use of a common QAPP or standard described below, point analyzers must 3.2.2 Annual performance evaluation for operating procedures; operate in their normal sampling mode SO , NO , O , or CO. Each calendar quarter (c) Common calibration facilities and during the QC check, and the test atmosphere 2 2 3 standards; must pass through all filters, scrubbers, (during which analyzers are operated), (d) Oversight by a common quality conditioners and other components used evaluate at least 25 percent of the SLAMS assurance organization; and during normal ambient sampling and as analyzers that monitor for SO2, NO2, O3, or (e) Support by a common management, much of the ambient air inlet system as is CO such that each analyzer is evaluated at laboratory or headquarters. practicable. If permitted by the associated least once per year. If there are fewer than 3.1.2 Primary quality assurance operation or instruction manual, a CO point four analyzers for a pollutant within a organizations are not necessarily related to analyzer may be temporarily modified during primary quality assurance organization, it is the organization reporting data to the AQS. the QC check to reduce vent or purge flows, suggested to randomly evaluate one or more Monitoring organizations having difficulty in or the test atmosphere may enter the analyzer analyzers so that at least one analyzer for that defining the primary quality assurance at a point other than the normal sample inlet, pollutant is evaluated each calendar quarter. organizations or in assigning specific sites to provided that the analyzer’s response is not The evaluation should be conducted by a primary quality assurance organizations likely to be altered by these deviations from trained experienced technician other than the should consult with the appropriate EPA the normal operational mode. If a QC check routine site operator. Regional Office. All definitions of primary is made in conjunction with a zero or span 3.2.2.1 (a) The evaluation is made by quality assurance organizations shall be adjustment, it must be made prior to such challenging the analyzer with audit gas subject to final approval by the appropriate zero or span adjustments. standard of known concentration (effective EPA Regional Office during scheduled 3.2.1.2 Open path analyzers are tested by concentration for open path analyzers) from network reviews or systems audits. inserting a test cell containing a QC check gas at least three consecutive audit levels. The 3.1.3 Data quality assessment results shall concentration into the optical measurement audit levels selected should represent or be reported as specified in section 5 of this beam of the instrument. If possible, the bracket 80 percent of ambient concentrations appendix. normally used transmitter, receiver, and as measured by the analyzer being evaluated:

Concentration range, ppm Audit level O3 SO2 NO2 CO

1 ...... 0.02–0.05 0.0003–0.005 0.0002–0.002 0.08–0.10 2 ...... 0.06–0.10 0.006–0.01 0.003–0.005 0.50–1.00

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Concentration range, ppm Audit level O3 SO2 NO2 CO

3 ...... 0.11–0.20 0.02–0.10 0.006–0.10 1.50–4.00 4 ...... 0.21–0.30 0.11–0.40 0.11–0.30 5–15 5 ...... 0.31–0.90 0.41–0.90 0.31–0.60 20–50

(b) An additional 4th level is encouraged not include the normal atmospheric transfer standard and the corresponding flow for those monitors that have the potential for monitoring path may be used. The actual rate measured (indicated) by the analyzer. exceeding the concentration ranges described concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell The percent differences between the audit by the initial three selected. must be selected to produce effective and measured flow rates are used to assess 3.2.2.2 (a) NO2 audit gas for concentrations in the evaluation level ranges the bias of the monitoring data as described chemiluminescence-type NO2 analyzers must specified in this section of this appendix. in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow also contain at least 0.08 ppm NO. NO Generally, each evaluation concentration rates in lieu of concentrations). concentrations substantially higher than 0.08 measurement result will be the sum of the 3.2.4 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for ppm, as may occur when using some gas atmospheric pollutant concentration and the Particulate Matter. Every 6 months, audit the phase titration (GPT) techniques, may lead to evaluation test concentration. If so, the result flow rate of the PM10, PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 evaluation errors in chemiluminescence must be corrected to remove the atmospheric particulate analyzers. Where possible, EPA analyzers due to inevitable minor NO–NOX concentration contribution. The corrected strongly encourages more frequent auditing. channel imbalance. Such errors may be concentration is obtained by subtracting the The audit should (preferably) be conducted atypical of routine monitoring errors to the average of the atmospheric concentrations by a trained experienced technician other extent that such NO concentrations exceed measured by the open path instrument under than the routine site operator. The audit is typical ambient NO concentrations at the test immediately before and immediately made by measuring the analyzer’s normal site. These errors may be minimized by after the evaluation test (or preferably before operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer modifying the GPT technique to lower the and after each evaluation concentration level) standard certified in accordance with section NO concentrations remaining in the NO2 from the evaluation concentration 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard audit gas to levels closer to typical ambient measurement. If the difference between the used for auditing must not be the same flow NO concentrations at the site. before and after measurements is greater than rate standard used to calibrate the analyzer. (b) To evaluate SLAMS analyzers operating 20 percent of the effective concentration of However, both the calibration standard and on ranges higher than 0 to 1.0 ppm for SO2, the test gas standard, discard the test result the audit standard may be referenced to the NO2, and O3 or 0 to 50 ppm for CO, use audit for that concentration level and repeat the same primary flow rate or volume standard. gases of appropriately higher concentration test for that level. If possible, open path Great care must be used in auditing the flow as approved by the appropriate EPA Regional analyzers should be evaluated during periods rate to be certain that the flow measurement Administrator or the Administrator’s when the atmospheric pollutant device does not alter the normal operating designee. concentrations are relatively low and steady. flow rate of the analyzer. Report the audit 3.2.2.3 The standards from which audit Also, if the open path instrument is not flow rate of the transfer standard and the gas test concentrations are obtained must installed in a permanent manner, the corresponding flow rate measured (indicated) meet the specifications of section 2.6 of this monitoring path length must be reverified to by the analyzer. The percent differences appendix. The gas standards and equipment within plus or minus 3 percent to validate between these flow rates are used to validate used for evaluations must not be the same as the evaluation, since the monitoring path the one-point flow rate verification checks the standards and equipment used for length is critical to the determination of the used to estimate bias as described in section calibration or calibration span adjustments. effective concentration. 4.2.3 of this appendix. For SLAMS sites, the auditor should not be 3.2.2.6 Report both the evaluation 3.2.5 Collocated Sampling Procedures for the operator or analyst who conducts the concentrations (effective concentrations for PM2.5. For each pair of collocated monitors, routine monitoring, calibration, and analysis. open path analyzers) of the audit gases and designate one sampler as the primary For PSD sites the auditor must not be the the corresponding measured concentration monitor whose concentrations will be used to operator or analyst who conducts the routine (corrected concentrations, if applicable, for report air quality for the site, and designate monitoring, calibration, and analysis. open path analyzers) indicated or produced the other as the audit monitor. 3.2.2.4 For point analyzers, the by the analyzer being tested. The percent 3.2.5.1 Each EPA designated Federal evaluation shall be carried out by allowing differences between these concentrations are reference method (FRM) or Federal the analyzer to analyze the audit gas test used to assess the quality of the monitoring equivalent method (FEM) within a primary atmosphere in its normal sampling mode data as described in section 4.1.4 of this quality assurance organization must: such that the test atmosphere passes through appendix. (a) Have 15 percent of the monitors all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other 3.2.3 Flow Rate Verification for collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round sample inlet components used during normal Particulate Matter. A one-point flow rate up); and ambient sampling and as much of the verification check must be performed at least (b) Have at least 1 collocated monitor (if ambient air inlet system as is practicable. The once every month on each automated the total number of monitors is less than 3). exception provided in section 3.2.1 of this analyzer used to measure PM10, PM10¥2.5 and The first collocated monitor must be a appendix for certain CO analyzers does not PM2.5. The verification is made by checking designated FRM monitor. apply for evaluations. the operational flow rate of the analyzer. If 3.2.5.2 In addition, monitors selected for 3.2.2.5 Open path analyzers are evaluated the verification is made in conjunction with collocation must also meet the following by inserting a test cell containing the various a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior requirements: audit gas concentrations into the optical to such flow rate adjustment. Randomization (a) A primary monitor designated as an measurement beam of the instrument. If of the flow rate verification with respect to EPA FRM shall be collocated with an audit possible, the normally used transmitter, time of day, day of week, and routine service monitor having the same EPA FRM method receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting and adjustments is encouraged where designation. devices should be used during the possible. For the standard procedure, use a (b) For each primary monitor model evaluation, and the normal monitoring flow rate transfer standard certified in designated as an EPA FEM used by the configuration of the instrument should be accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix PQAO, 50 percent of the monitors designated modified as little as possible to accommodate to check the analyzer’s normal flow rate. Care for collocation shall be collocated with an the test cell for the evaluation. However, if should be used in selecting and using the audit monitor having the same method permitted by the associated operation or flow rate measurement device such that it designation and 50 percent of the monitors instruction manual, an alternate local light does not alter the normal operating flow rate shall be collocated with an FRM audit source or an alternate optical path that does of the analyzer. Report the flow rate of the monitor. If the primary quality assurance

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61307

organization only has one FEM monitor it sampler as the primary monitor whose (1) Have each method designation shall be collocated with an FRM audit concentrations will be used to report air evaluated each year; and, monitor. If there are an odd number of quality for the site, and designate the other (2) Have all FRM or FEM samplers subject collocated monitors required, the additional as the audit monitor. to a PEP audit at least once every six years; monitor shall be an FRM audit monitor. An 3.2.6.1 The EPA shall ensure that each which equates to approximately 15 percent of example of this procedure is found in Table EPA designated FEM within the national the monitoring sites audited each year. A–3 of this appendix. PM10¥2.5 monitoring network must: (b) Additional information concerning the 3.2.5.3 The collocated monitors should be (a) Have 15 percent of the monitors Performance Evaluation Program is contained deployed according to the following protocol: collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round in reference 10 of this appendix. The (a) 80 percent of the collocated audit up); and calculations for evaluating bias between the monitors should be deployed at sites with (b) Have at least 2 collocated monitors (if primary monitor and the performance annual average or daily concentrations the total number of monitors is less than 10). evaluation monitor for PM2.5 are described in estimated to be within ±20 percent of the The first collocated monitor must be a section 4.3.2 of this appendix. applicable NAAQS and the remainder at designated FRM monitor and the second 3.2.8 PM10¥2.5 Performance Evaluation what the monitoring organizations designate must be a monitor of the same method Program. For the PM10¥2.5 network, all as high value sites; designation. Both collocated FRM and FEM automated methods will be designated as (b) If an organization has no sites with monitors can be located at the same site. federal equivalent methods (FEMs). One annual average or daily concentrations 3.2.6.2 The Regional Administrator for performance evaluation audit, as described in within ± 20 percent of the annual NAAQS (or the EPA Regions where the FEMs are section 3.2.7 must be performed at one 24-hour NAAQS if that is affecting the area), implemented will select the sites for PM10¥2.5 site in each primary quality 60 percent of the collocated audit monitors collocated monitoring. The site selection assurance organization each year. The should be deployed at those sites with the process shall consider giving priority to sites calculations for evaluating bias between the annual mean concentrations (or 24-hour at primary quality assurance organizations or primary monitor(s) and the performance NAAQS if that is affecting the area) among States with more than one PM10¥2.5 site, sites evaluation monitors for PM10¥2.5 are the highest 25 percent for all sites in the considered important from a regional described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix. network. perspective, and sites needed for an 3.3 Measurement Quality Checks of 3.2.5.4 In determining the number of appropriate distribution among rural and Manual Methods. Table A–2 of this appendix collocated sites required for PM2.5, urban NCore sites. Depending on the speed provides a summary of the types and monitoring networks for visibility at which the PM10¥2.5 network is deployed, frequency of the measurement quality checks assessments should not be treated the first sites implementing FEMs shall be that will be described in this section. independently from networks for particulate required to perform collocation until there is 3.3.1 Collocated Sampling Procedures for matter, as the separate networks may share a larger distribution of FEM monitors PM10. For each network of manual PM10 one or more common samplers. However, for implemented in the network. methods, select 15 percent (or at least one) Class I visibility areas, EPA will accept 3.2.6.3 The two collocated monitors must of the monitoring sites within the primary visibility aerosol mass measurement instead be within 4 meters of each other and at least quality assurance organization for collocated of a PM2.5 measurement if the latter 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 sampling. For purposes of precision measurement is unavailable. Any PM2.5 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for assessment, networks for measuring total monitoring site which does not have a samplers having flow rates less than 200 suspended particulate (TSP) and PM10 shall monitor which is an EPA FRM, FEM or ARM liters/min to preclude airflow interference. be considered separately from one another. is not required to be included in the number Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be However, PM10 samplers used in the PM10–2.5 of sites which are used to determine the the same for both collocated samplers and network, may be counted along with the number of collocated monitors. the same as for all other samplers in the PM10 samplers in the PM10 network as long 3.2.5.5 For each PSD monitoring network, network. as the PM10 samplers in both networks are one site must be collocated. A site with the 3.2.6.4 Sample the collocated audit the same method designation. PM10 and TSP predicted highest 24-hour pollutant monitor for SLAMS sites on a 12-day sites having annual mean particulate matter concentration must be selected. schedule. Report the measurements from concentrations among the highest 25 percent 3.2.5.6 The two collocated monitors must both primary and collocated audit monitors of the annual mean concentrations for all the be within 4 meters of each other and at least at each collocated sampling site. The sites in the network must be selected or, if 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 calculations for evaluating precision between such sites are impractical, alternative sites liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for the two collocated monitors are described in approved by the EPA Regional Administrator samplers having flow rates less than 200 section 4.3.1 of this appendix. may be selected. liters/min to preclude airflow interference. 3.2.7 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation 3.3.1.1 In determining the number of Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be Program (PEP) Procedures. The PEP is an collocated sites required for PM10, the same for both collocated samplers and independent assessment used to estimate monitoring networks for lead (Pb) should be the same as for all other samplers in the total measurement system bias. These treated independently from networks for network. evaluations will be performed under the PM particulate matter (PM), even though the 3.2.5.7 Sample the collocated audit Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) separate networks may share one or more monitor for SLAMS sites on a 12-day (section 2.4 of this appendix) or a comparable common samplers. However, a single pair of schedule; sample PSD sites on a 6-day program. Performance evaluations will be samplers collocated at a common-sampler schedule or every third day for PSD daily performed on the SLAMS monitors annually monitoring site that meets the requirements monitors. If a primary quality assurance within each primary quality assurance for both a collocated Pb site and a collocated organization has only one collocated organization. For primary quality assurance PM site may serve as a collocated site for monitor, higher sampling frequencies than organizations with less than or equal to five both networks. the 12-day schedule may be needed in order monitoring sites, five valid performance 3.3.1.2 The two collocated monitors must to produce about 25 valid sample pairs a evaluation audits must be collected and be within 4 meters of each other and at least year. Report the measurements from both reported each year. For primary quality 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 primary and collocated audit monitors at assurance organizations with greater than liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for each collocated sampling site. The five monitoring sites, eight valid performance samplers having flow rates less than 200 calculations for evaluating precision between evaluation audits must be collected and liters/min to preclude airflow interference. the two collocated monitors are described in reported each year. A valid performance Calibration, sampling, analysis and section 4.3.1 of this appendix. evaluation audit means that both the primary verification/validation procedures must be 3.2.6 Collocated Sampling Procedures for monitor and PEP audit concentrations are the same for both collocated samplers and 3 PM10¥2.5. For the PM10¥2.5 network, all valid and above 3 µg/m . Additionally, each the same as for all other samplers in the automated methods must be designated as year, every designated FRM or FEM within network. Federal equivalent methods (FEMs). For each a primary quality assurance organization 3.3.1.3 For each pair of collocated pair of collocated monitors, designate one must: samplers, designate one sampler as the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

primary sampler whose samples will be used percent differences between the audit and assure that flow patterns are not perturbed at to report air quality for the site, and designate measured flow rates are used to assess the the point of flow sensing. the other as the audit sampler. Sample bias of the monitoring data as described in 3.3.4 Pb Methods. SLAMS sites on a 12-day schedule; sample section 4.2.2 of this appendix. 3.3.4.1 Annual Flow Rate. For the Pb PSD sites on a 6-day schedule or every third 3.3.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Reference Method (40 CFR part 50, appendix day for PSD daily samplers. If a primary Particulate Matter. Follow the same G), the flow rates of the high-volume Pb quality assurance organization has only one procedure as described in section 3.2.4 of samplers shall be verified and audited using collocated monitor, higher sampling the same procedures described in sections this appendix for PM2.5, PM10, PM10¥2.5 and frequencies than the 12-day schedule may be TSP instruments. The percent differences 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of this appendix. needed in order to produce approximately 25 between these flow rates are used to validate 3.3.4.2 Pb Strips. Each calendar quarter or valid sample pairs a year. Report the sampling quarter (PSD), audit the Pb the one-point flow rate verification checks measurements from both samplers at each Reference Method analytical procedure using used to estimate bias as described in section collocated sampling site. The calculations for glass fiber filter strips containing a known 4.2.3 of this appendix. Great care must be evaluating precision between the two quantity of Pb. These audit sample strips are collocated samplers are described in section used in auditing high-volume particulate prepared by depositing a Pb solution on 4.2.1 of this appendix. matter samplers having flow regulators unexposed glass fiber filter strips of 3.3.2 Flow Rate Verification for because the introduction of resistance plates dimensions 1.9 centimeters (cm) by 20.3 cm Particulate Matter. Follow the same in the audit flow standard device can cause (3⁄4 inch by 8 inch) and allowing them to dry procedure as described in section 3.2.3 of abnormal flow patterns at the point of flow thoroughly. The audit samples must be this appendix for PM2.5, PM10 (low-volume sensing. For this reason, the flow audit prepared using batches of reagents different instruments), and PM10¥2.5. High-volume standard should be used with a normal filter from those used to calibrate the Pb analytical PM10 and TSP instruments can also follow in place and without resistance plates in equipment being audited. Prepare audit the procedure in section 3.2.3 but the audits auditing flow-regulated high-volume samples in the following concentration are required to be conducted quarterly. The samplers, or other steps should be taken to ranges:

Range Pb concentration, µg/strip Equivalent ambient Pb concentration, µg/m31

1 ...... 100–300 0.5–1.5 2 ...... 400–1,000 3.0–5.0 1 Equivalent ambient Pb concentration in µ/m3 is based on sampling at 1.7 m3/min for 24 hours on a 20.3 cm × 25.4 cm (8 inch × 10 inch) glass fiber filter.

(a) Audit samples must be extracted using (b) Have at least 2 collocated monitors (if the primary monitor(s) and the performance the same extraction procedure used for the total number of monitors is less than 10). evaluation monitors for PM10–2.5 are exposed filters. The first collocated monitor must be a described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix. (b) Analyze three audit samples in each of designated FRM monitor and the second 4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment the two ranges each quarter samples are must be a monitor of the same method analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be designation. Both collocated FRM and FEM (a) Calculations of measurement distributed as much as possible over the monitors can be located at the same site. uncertainty are carried out by EPA according entire calendar quarter. 3.3.6.2 The Regional Administrator for to the following procedures. Primary quality (c) Report the audit concentrations (in µg the EPA Region where the FRM or FEMs are assurance organizations should report the Pb/strip) and the corresponding measured implemented will select the sites for data for all appropriate measurement quality concentrations (in µg Pb/strip) using AQS collocated monitoring. The collocation site checks as specified in this appendix even though they may elect to perform some or all unit code 077. The relative percent selection process shall consider sites at of the calculations in this section on their differences between the concentrations are primary quality assurance organizations or own. used to calculate analytical accuracy as States with more than one PM10–2.5 site; primary quality assurance organizations (b) The EPA will provide annual described in section 4.4.2 of this appendix. already monitoring for PM and PM using assessments of data quality aggregated by site (d) The audits of an equivalent Pb method 10 2.5 FRMs or FEMs; and an appropriate and primary quality assurance organization are conducted and assessed in the same distribution among rural and urban NCore for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO and by primary manner as for the reference method. The flow sites. Monitoring organizations implementing quality assurance organization for PM10, auditing device and Pb analysis audit PM10 samplers and PM2.5 FRM samplers of PM2.5, PM10–2.5 and Pb. samples must be compatible with the specific the same method designation as the PM10–2.5 (c) At low concentrations, agreement requirements of the equivalent method. FRM can include the PM10–2.5 monitors in between the measurements of collocated 3.3.5 Collocated Sampling Procedures for their respective PM10 and PM2.5 count. samplers, expressed as relative percent PM2.5. Follow the same procedure as Follow the same procedures as described in difference or percent difference, may be described in section 3.2.5 of this appendix. sections 3.2.6.2 and 3.2.6.3 of this appendix. relatively poor. For this reason, collocated PM2.5 samplers used in the PM10–2.5 network, 3.3.7 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation measurement pairs are selected for use in the may be counted along with the PM2.5 Program (PEP) Procedures. Follow the same precision and bias calculations only when samplers in the PM2.5 network as long as the procedure as described in section 3.2.7 of both measurements are equal to or above the PM2.5 samplers in both networks are the same this appendix. following limits: µ 3 method designation. 3.3.8 PM10–2.5 Performance Evaluation (1) TSP: 20 g/m . 3.3.6 Collocated Sampling Procedures for Program (PEP) Procedures. One performance (2) Pb: 0.15 µg/m3. µ 3 PM10–2.5. All designated FRMs within the evaluation audit, as described in section 3.2.7 (3) PM10 (Hi-Vol): 15 g/m . µ 3 PM10–2.5 monitoring network must have 15 of this appendix must be performed at one (4) PM10 (Lo-Vol): 3 g/m . µ 3 percent of the monitors collocated (values of PM10–2.5 site in each primary quality (5) PM10–2.5 and PM2.5: 3 g/m . 0.5 and greater round up) at the PM10–2.5 assurance organization each year. Monitoring 4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC sites. All FRM method designations can be organizations implementing PM2.5 FRM Checks for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO. aggregated. samplers of the same method designation in 4.1.1 Percent Difference. All 3.3.6.1 The EPA shall ensure that each both the PM2.5 and the PM10–2.5 networks can measurement quality checks start with a designated FEM within the PM10–2.5 include the PM10–2.5 performance evaluation comparison of an audit concentration or monitoring network must: audit in their respective PM2.5 performance value (flowrate) to the concentration/value (a) Have 15 percent of the monitors evaluation count as long as the performance measured by the analyzer and use percent collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round evaluation is conducted at the PM10–2.5 site. difference as the comparison statistic as up); and The calculations for evaluating bias between described in equation 1 of this section. For

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61309

each single point check, calculate the percent the QC check samples from a given site for this appendix. For each collocated data pair, difference, di, as follows: a particular assessment interval. calculate the relative percent difference, di, 4.1.3.2 Calculate the 25th and 75th using equation 10 of this appendix: Equation 1 percentiles of the percent differences for each − site. The absolute bias upper bound should Equation 10 = meas audit × be flagged as positive if both percentiles are di 100 positive and negative if both percentiles are XY− audit d = ii⋅100 negative. The absolute bias upper bound i ()+ where, meas is the concentration indicated would not be flagged if the 25th and 75th XYii/2 by the monitoring organization’s instrument percentiles are of different signs. where, Xi is the concentration from the and audit is the audit concentration of the 4.1.4 Validation of Bias Using the one- primary sampler and Yi is the standard used in the QC check being point QC Checks. The annual performance measured. concentration value from the audit evaluations for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO sampler. The coefficient of variation 4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision described in section 3.2.2 of this appendix estimate is used to assess the one-point QC upper bound is calculated using the are used to verify the results obtained from equation 11 of this appendix: checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in the one-point QC checks and to validate section 3.2.1 of this appendix. The precision those results across a range of concentration Equation 11 estimator is the coefficient of variation upper levels. To quantify this annually at the site bound and is calculated using equation 2 of level and at the 3-year primary quality 2 this section: n  n  assurance organization level, probability nd⋅−2 d limits will be calculated from the one-point ∑∑i  i  ==  n −1 Equation 2 QC checks using equations 6 and 7 of this CV = i 11i ⋅ ()− 2 appendix: 21nn X01.,n− 1 n  n 2 ER17OC06.049 ⋅−2 where, n is the number of valid data pairs ˆ nd∑∑i  di  Equation 6 ==  n −1 being aggregated, and X 2 is the CV = i 11i ⋅ =+ ⋅ 0.1.n–1 nn()−1 X2 UpperPr obability Limit m196 . S 10th percentile of a chi-squared 01.,n− 1 distribution with n1 degrees of freedom. 2 where, X 0.1,n–1 is the 10th percentile of a chi- The factor of 2 in the denominator

adjusts for the fact that each di is ER17OC06.048 squared distribution with n–1 degrees of ˆ freedom. Equation 7 calculated from two values with error. 4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is Lower Probability Limit = m -1.96 S 4.2.2 Bias Estimate Using One-Point Flow calculated using the one-point QC checks for Rate Verifications. For each one-point SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section where, m is the mean (equation 8 of this flow rate verification described in 3.2.1 of this appendix and the performance appendix): sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2 of this appendix, ER17OC06.047 evaluation program for PM10–2.5 described in calculate the percent difference in ˆ sections 3.2.8 and 3.3.8 of this appendix. The Equation 8 volume using equation 1 of this bias estimator is an upper bound on the mean appendix where meas is the value 1 k absolute value of the percent differences as m =⋅∑d indicated by the sampler’s volume described in equation 3 of this section: i measurement and audit is the actual k = i 1 volume indicated by the auditing flow ER17OC06.046 Equation 3 where, k is the total number of one point QC meter. The absolute volume bias upper ˆ checks for the interval being evaluated bound is then calculated using equation =+ ⋅AS and S is the standard deviation of the 3, where n is the number of flow rate AB AB t 095.,n− 1 percent differences (equation 9 of this n audits being aggregated; t0.95,n–1 is the appendix) as follows: 95th quantile of a t-distribution with n- where, n is the number of single point checks 1 degrees of freedom, the quantity AB is being aggregated; t0.95,n–1 is the 95th quantile Equation 9 the mean of the absolute values of the of a t-distribution with n–1 degrees of 2 di’s and is calculated using equation 4 of freedom; the quantity AB is the mean of the k  k  this appendix , and the quantity AS in ⋅−2 absolute values of the di’s and is calculated kd∑∑i  di  equation 3 of this appendix is the using equation 4 of this section: i==11 i  standard deviation of the absolute values

= ER17OC06.064 ER17OC06.065 S ˆ kk()−1 if the di’s and is calculated using Equation 4 equation 5 of this n 4.1.5 Percent Difference. Percent 4.2.3 Assessment Semi-Annual Flow Rate =⋅1 differences for the performance evaluations, Audits. The flow rate audits described in AB ∑ di n i=1 calculated using equation 1 of this appendix sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.3 of this appendix are can be compared to the probability intervals used to assess the results obtained from the and the quantity AS is the standard deviation for the respective site or at the primary one-point flow rate verifications and to of the absolute value of the di’s and is quality assurance organization level. Ninety- provide an estimate of flow rate acceptability. calculated using equation 5 of this section: five percent of the individual percent For each flow rate audit, calculate the differences (all audit concentration levels) for percent difference in volume using equation Equation 5 the performance evaluations should be 1 of this appendix where meas is the value captured within the probability intervals for indicated by the sampler’s volume n 2  n 2 ⋅− the primary quality assurance organization. measurement and audit is the actual volume nd∑∑i  di  4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10. indicated by the auditing flow meter. To ==  AS = i 1 i 1 4.2.1 Precision Estimate from Collocated quantify this annually and at the 3-year nn()−1 Samplers. Precision is estimated via primary quality assurance organization level, duplicate measurements from collocated probability limits are calculated from the 4.1.3.1 Assigning a sign (positive/ samplers of the same type. It is recommended percent differences using equations 6 and 7 negative) to the bias estimate. Since the bias that the precision be aggregated at the of this appendix where m is the mean statistic as calculated in equation 3 of this primary quality assurance organization level described in equation 8 of this appendix and appendix uses absolute values, it does not quarterly, annually, and at the 3-year level. k is the total number of one-point flow rate have a tendency (negative or positive bias) The data pair would only be considered valid verifications for the year and S is the associated with it. A sign will be designated if both concentrations are greater than the standard deviation of the percent differences by rank ordering the percent differences of minimum values specified in section 4(c) of as described in equation 9 of this appendix.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.041 ER17OC06.042 ER17OC06.043 ER17OC06.044 ER17OC06.045 61310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

4.2.4 Percent Difference. Percent perform an estimate of bias when the primary sometimes aggregating over samplers, and differences for the annual flow rate audit monitor is an FEM and the collocated sometimes aggregating over both time and concentration, calculated using equation 1 of monitor is an FRM. Follow the procedure samplers. These various levels of aggregation this appendix, can be compared to the described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix in are achieved using the same basic statistic. probability intervals for the one-point flow order to provide an estimate of bias using the 4.3.2.1 This statistic averages the rate verifications for the respective primary collocated data. individual biases described in equation 1 of quality assurance organization. Ninety-five 4.3.2 Bias Estimate. Follow the procedure this appendix to the desired level of percent of the individual percent differences described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix aggregation using equation 12 of this (all audit concentration levels) for the for the bias estimate of PM10–2.5. The PM2.5 appendix: performance evaluations should be captured bias estimate is calculated using the paired within the probability intervals for primary routine and the PEP monitor data described Equation 12 quality assurance organization. in section 3.2.6 of this appendix. Calculate 1 n j 4.3 Statistics for the Assessment of PM2.5 the percent difference, di, using equation 1 of D =⋅∑d and PM this appendix, where meas is the measured i 10–2.5. n = 4.3.1 Precision Estimate. Precision for concentration from agency’s primary monitor j i 1 collocated instruments for PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 and audit is the concentration from the PEP where, nj is the number of pairs and d1, d2, may be estimated where both the primary monitor. The data pair would only be dnj are the biases for each of the pairs to be and collocated instruments are the same considered valid if both concentrations are averaged. method designation and when the method greater than the minimum values specified in 4.3.2.2 Confidence intervals can be designations are not similar. Follow the section 4(c) of this appendix. Estimates of constructed for these average bias estimates procedure described in section 4.2.1 of this bias are presented for various levels of in equation 12 of this appendix using appendix. In addition, one may want to aggregation, sometimes aggregating over time, equations 13 and 14 of this appendix:

Equation 13 =+ ⋅s Upper 90% Confidence Interval D t095.,df n j

Equation 14 =− ⋅s Lower90% Confidence Interval D t095.,df n j

Where, t0.95,df is the 95th quantile of a t- 4.4 Statistics for the Assessment of Pb. consistent with the formulas for the gases, distribution with degrees of freedom 4.4.1 Precision Estimate. Follow the same the recommended procedures are to work ¥ df = nj 1 and s is an estimate of the procedures as described for PM10 in section with relative errors of the lead variability of the average bias calculated 4.2.1 of this appendix using the data from the measurements. The relative error in the using equation 15 of this appendix: collocated instruments. The data pair would concentration is related to the relative error only be considered valid if both in the volume and the relative error in the concentrations are greater than the minimum Equation 15 mass measurements using equation 16 of this values specified in section 4(c) of this n appendix: j appendix. ()− 2 ∑ dDi 4.4.2 Bias Estimate. In order to estimate s = i=1 bias, the information from the flow rate n −1 audits and the Pb strip audits needs to be j combined as described below. To be

Equation 16 ()measured concentration− audit concentrattion rel. error = audit concentration  1  =  ()rel. mass error − rel. volumeerror 1.+ rel error 

As with the gases, an upper bound for the (concentration) error is bounded by equation absolute bias is desired. Using equation 16 17 of this appendix: above, the absolute value of the relative

Equation 17 relative mass error+ relative volumeerror rel. error ≤ 1− relative volumeerror

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.050 ER17OC06.051 ER17OC06.052 ER17OC06.053 ER17OC06.054 ER17OC06.055 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61311

The quality indicator data collected are is the mean of the absolute values of the di’s aggregated; t0.95,n–1 is the 95th quantile of a then used to bound each part of equation 17 and is calculated using equation 4, and the t-distribution with n–1 degrees of freedom; separately. quantity AS in equation 3 of this appendix the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute 4.4.2.1 Flow rate calculations. For each is the standard deviation of the absolute values of the di’s and is calculated using flow rate audit, calculate the percent values of the di’s and is calculated using equation 4 of this appendix and the quantity difference in volume by equation 1 of this equation 5 of this appendix. AS in equation 3 of this appendix is the appendix where meas is the value indicated 4.4.2.2 Lead strip calculations. Similarly standard deviation of the absolute values of by the sampler’s volume measurement and for each lead strip audit, calculate the audit is the actual volume indicated by the percent difference in mass by equation 1 the di’s and is calculated using equation 5 of auditing flow meter. The absolute volume where meas is the value indicated by the this appendix. bias upper bound is then calculated using mass measurement and audit is the actual 4.4.2.3 Final bias calculation. Finally, the equation 3 of this appendix where n is the lead mass on the audit strip. The absolute absolute bias upper bound is given by number of flow rate audits being aggregated; mass bias upper bound is then calculated combining the absolute bias estimates of the t0.95,n–1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution using equation 3 of this appendix where n is flow rate and Pb strips using equation 18 of with n–1 degrees of freedom; the quantity AB the number of lead strip audits being this appendix:

Equation 18 mass bias+ vol. bias bias = ⋅100 100 − vol. bias

where, the numerator and denominator have year, EPA will calculate and report the B–06/001. February, 2006. Office of been multiplied by 100 since everything is measurement uncertainty for the entire Environmental Information, Washington DC expressed as a percentage. calendar year. 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/ 4.5 Time Period for Audits. The statistics 5.2 PSD Reporting Requirements. At the g4-final.pdf. in this section assume that the mass and flow end of each sampling quarter, the (6) List of Designated Reference and rate audits represent the same time period. organization must report the appropriate Equivalent Methods. Available from U.S. Since the two types of audits are not statistical assessments in section 4 of this Environmental Protection Agency, National performed at the same time, the audits need appendix for the pollutants measured. All to be grouped by common time periods. data used to calculate reported estimates of Exposure Research Laboratory, Human Consequently, the absolute bias estimates precision and bias including span checks, Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences should be done on annual and 3-year levels. collocated sampler and audit results must be Division, MD-D205–03, Research Triangle The flow rate audits are site-specific, so the made available to the permit granting Park, NC 27711. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ absolute bias upper bound estimate can be authority upon request. amtic/criteria.html. done and treated as a site-level statistic. (7) McElroy, F.F. Transfer Standards for the 6.0 References Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring 5. Reporting Requirements (1) American National Standard— Analyzers for Ozone. EPA–600/4–79–056. 5.1 SLAMS Reporting Requirements. For Specifications and Guidelines for Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, each pollutant, prepare a list of all Systems for Environmental Data Collection Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, monitoring sites and their AQS site and Environmental Technology Programs. September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ identification codes in each primary quality ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. February 2004. amtic/cpreldoc.html. assurance organization and submit the list to Available from American Society for Quality the appropriate EPA Regional Office, with a Control, 611 East Wisconsin Avenue, (8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical copy to AQS. Whenever there is a change in Milwaukee, WI 53202. Assistance Document for the Calibration of this list of monitoring sites in a primary (2) EPA Requirements for Quality Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA–600/4–79– quality assurance organization, report this Management Plans. EPA QA/R–2. EPA/240/ 057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, change to the EPA Regional Office and to B–01/002. March 2001. Office of Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, AQS. Environmental Information, Washington DC September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 5.1.1 Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/ amtic/cpreldoc.html. each primary quality assurance organization r2-final.pdf. (9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air shall report to AQS directly (or via the (3) EPA Requirements for Quality Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 1— appropriate EPA Regional Office for Assurance Project Plans for Environmental A Field Guide to Environmental Quality organizations not direct users of AQS) the Data Operations. EPA QA/R–5. EPA/240/B– Assurance. EPA–600/R–94/038a. April 1994. results of all valid measurement quality 01/003. March 2001. Office of Environmental Available from U.S. Environmental checks it has carried out during the quarter. Information, Washington DC 20460. http:// Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, The quarterly reports must be submitted www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf. Center for Environmental Research consistent with the data reporting (4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and requirements specified for air quality data as Certification of Gaseous Calibration Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther set forth in § 58.16. The EPA strongly Standards. EPA–600/R–97/121. September King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. http:// encourages early submission of the quality 1997. Available from U.S. Environmental www.epa.gov/ ttn/amtic/qabook.html. assurance data in order to assist the Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, (10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air monitoring organizations control and Center for Environmental Research Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II: evaluate the quality of the ambient air data. Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther Part 1—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 5.1.2 Annual Reports. King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. Program Quality System Development. EPA– 5.1.2.1 When the monitoring organization (5) Guidance for the Data Quality 454/R–98–004. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ has certified relevant data for the calendar Objectives Process. EPA QA/G–4. EPA/240/ amtic/qabook.html.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.056 61312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE A–1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58. DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SLAMS AND PSD REQUIREMENTS

Topic SLAMS PSD

Requirements ...... 1. The development, documentation, and implementation of an approved quality system. 2. The assessment of data quality ...... 3. The use of reference, equivalent, or approved methods .. 4. The use of calibration standards traceable to NIST or other primary standard. 5. The participation in EPA performance evaluations and the permission for EPA to conduct system audits. Monitoring and QA Responsibility ...... State/local agency via the ‘‘primary quality assurance orga- Source owner/operator. nization’’. Monitoring Duration ...... Indefinitely ...... Usually up to 12 months. Annual Performance Evaluation (PE) ..... Standards and equipment different from those used for Personnel, standards and equipment spanning, calibration, and verifications. Prefer different different from those used for span- personnel. ning, calibration, and verifications. PE audit rate: —Automated ...... 100% per year ...... 100% per quarter. —Manual ...... Varies depending on pollutant. See Table A–2 of this ap- 100% per quarter. pendix. Precision Assessment: —Automated ...... One-point QC check biweekly but data quality dependent ... One point QC check biweekly. —Manual ...... Varies depending on pollutant. See Table A–2 of this ap- One site: 1 every 6 days or every third pendix. day for daily monitoring (TSP and Pb). Reporting —Automated ...... By site—EPA performs calculations annually ...... By site—source owner/operator per- forms calculations each sampling quarter. —Manual ...... By reporting organization—EPA performs calculations an- By site—source owner/operator per- nually. forms calculations each sampling quarter.

TABLE A–2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58. MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SLAMS SITES

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum frequency Parameters reported

Automated Methods

1 1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, Response check at con- Each analyzer ...... Once per 2 weeks ...... Audit concentration and O3, CO. centration 0.01–0.1 ppm measured concentra- 2 SO2, NO2, O3, and 1–10 tion . ppm CO. Annual performance eval- See section 3.2.2 of this Each analyzer ...... Once per year ...... Audit concentration 1 and uation for SO2, NO2, O3, appendix. measured concentra- CO. tion 2 for each level. Flow rate verification PM10, Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every month ...... Audit flow rate and meas- PM2.5, PM10–2.5. ured flow rate indicated by the sampler. Semi-annual flow rate audit Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every 6 ...... Audit flow rate and meas- PM10, PM2.5, PM10–2.5. using independent ured flow rate indicated standard. by the sampler. Collocated sampling PM2.5, Collocated samplers ...... 15% ...... Every 12 days ...... Primary sampler con- PM10–2.5. centration and duplicate sampler concentration. Performance evaluation Collocated samplers ...... 1. 5 valid audits for pri- Over all 4 quarters ...... Primary sampler con- program PM2.5, PM10–2.5. mary QA orgs, with ≤ 5 centration and perform- sites. ance evaluation sampler 2. 8 valid audits for pri- concentration. mary QA orgs, with > 5 sites. 3. All samplers in 6 years

Manual Methods

Collocated sampling PM10, Collocated samplers ...... 15% ...... Every 12 days PSD— Primary sampler con- TSP, PM10–2.5, PM2.5. every 6 days. centration and duplicate sampler concentration. Flow rate verification PM10 Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every month ...... Audit flow rate and meas- (low Vol), PM10–2.5, PM2.5. ured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61313

TABLE A–2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58. MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SLAMS SITES—Continued

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum frequency Parameters reported

Flow rate verification PM10 Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every quarter ...... Audit flow rate and meas- (High-Vol), TSP. ured flow rate indicated by the sampler. Semi-annual flow rate audit Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler, all locations Once every 6 months ...... Audit flow rate and meas- PM10, TSP, PM10–2.5, using independent ured flow rate indicated PM2.5. standard. by the sampler. Manual Methods Lead ...... 1. Check of sample flow 1. Each sampler ...... 1. Include with TSP ...... 1. Same as for TSP. rate as for TSP. 2. Analytical ...... 2. Each quarter ...... 2. Actual concentration. 2. Check of analytical sys- tem with Pb audit strips. Performance evaluation Collocated samplers ...... 1. 5 valid audits for pri- Over all 4 quarters ...... Primary sampler con- program PM2.5, PM10–2.5. mary QA orgs, with ≤ 5 centration and perform- sites. ance evaluation sampler 2. 8 valid audits for pri- concentration. mary QA orgs, with ≥ 5 sites. 3. All samplers in 6 years 1 Effective concentration for open path analyzers. 2 Corrected concentration, if applicable, for open path analyzers.

TABLE A–3 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58.—SUMMARY OF PM2.5 NUMBER AND TYPE OF COLLOCATION (15% COLLOCATION REQUIREMENT) NEEDED AS AN EXAMPLE OF A PRIMARY QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS 54 MON- ITORS AND PROCURED FRMS AND THREE OTHER EQUIVALENT METHOD TYPES

Primary sam- No. of collocated monitors of pler method Total no. of monitors Total no. collocated No. of collocated FRM same method designation as designation primary

FRM ...... 20 3 3 n/a FEM (A) ...... 20 3 2 1 FEM (C)...... 2 1 1 0 FEM (D) ...... 12 2 1 1

Appendix B—[Removed and Reserved] under § 53.11 or § 53.16 of this chapter may Statistical Area. There shall be no be used at a SLAMS site following requirement for tests at any other sites. 34. Appendix B to part 58 is removed cancellation for a reasonable period of time 2.4.1.2 For purposes of this section, a full and reserved to be determined by the Administrator. year of testing may begin and end in any 35. Appendix C to part 58 is revised to 2.4 Approval of Non-designated season, so long as all seasons are covered. read as follows: Continuous PM2.5 Methods as Approved 2.4.1.3 No PM10 samplers shall be Regional Methods (ARMs) Operated Within a required for the test, as determination of the Appendix C to Part 58—Ambient Air Network of Sites. A method for PM2.5 that has PM2.5/PM10 ratio at the test site shall not be Quality Monitoring Methodology not been designated as an FRM or FEM as required. 1.0 Purpose defined in § 50.1 of this chapter may be 2.4.1.4 The test specification for PM2.5 2.0 SLAMS Ambient Air Monitoring Stations approved as an ARM for purposes of section Class III equivalent method precision defined 3.0 NCore Ambient Air Monitoring Stations 2.1 of this appendix at a particular site or in subpart C of part 53 of this chapter 4.0 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring network of sites under the following applies; however, there is no specific Stations (PAMS) stipulations. requirement that collocated continuous 5.0 Particulate Matter Episode Monitoring 2.4.1 The candidate ARM must be monitors be operated for purposes of 6.0 References demonstrated to meet the requirements for generating a statistic for coefficient of PM2.5 Class III equivalent methods as defined variation (CV). To provide an estimate of 1.0 Purpose in subpart C of part 53 of this chapter. precision that meets the requirement This appendix specifies the criteria Specifically the requirements for precision, identified in subpart C of part 53 of this pollutant monitoring methods (manual correlation, and additive and multiplicative chapter, agencies may cite peer-reviewed methods or automated analyzers) which must bias apply. For purposes of this section 2.4, published data or data in AQS that can be be used in SLAMS and NCore stations that the following requirements shall apply: presented demonstrating the candidate ARM are a subset of SLAMS. 2.4.1.1 The candidate ARM shall be operated will produce data that meets the tested at the site(s) in which it is intended specification for precision of Class III PM2.5 2.0 SLAMS Ambient Air Monitoring to be used. For a network of sites operated methods. Network by one reporting agency or primary quality 2.4.1.5 A minimum of 90 valid sample 2.1 Except as otherwise provided in this assurance organization, the testing shall pairs per site for the year with no less than appendix, a criteria pollutant monitoring occur at a subset of sites to include one site 20 valid sample pairs per season must be method used for making NAAQS decisions at in each MSA/CSA, up to the first 2 highest generated for use in demonstrating that a SLAMS site must be a reference or population MSA/CSA and at least one rural additive bias, multiplicative bias and equivalent method as defined in § 50.1 of this area or Micropolitan Statistical Area site. If correlation meet the comparability chapter. the candidate ARM for a network is already requirements specified in subpart C of part 2.2 Reserved approved for purposes of this section in 53 of this chapter. A valid sample pair may 2.3 Any manual method or analyzer another agency’s network, subsequent testing be generated with as little as one valid FRM purchased prior to cancellation of its shall minimally occur at one site in a MSA/ and one valid candidate ARM measurement reference or equivalent method designation CSA and one rural area or Micropolitan per day.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61314 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

2.4.1.6 For purposes of determining bias, 2.4.4.2 All collocated FRM/FEM samplers 2.5 [Reserved] FRM data with concentrations less than 3 must maintain a sample frequency of at least 2.6 Use of Methods With Higher, micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) may be 1 in 6 sample days; Nonconforming Ranges in Certain excluded. Exclusion of data does not result 2.4.4.3 Collocated FRM/FEM samplers Geographical Areas. in failure of sample completeness specified shall be located at the design value site, with 2.6.1 [Reserved] in this section. the required FRM/FEM samplers deployed 2.6.2 An analyzer may be used 2.4.1.7 Data transformations are allowed among the largest MSA/CSA in the network, (indefinitely) on a range which extends to to be used to demonstrate meeting the until all required FRM/FEM are deployed; concentrations higher than two times the comparability requirements specified in and upper limit specified in table B–1 of part 53 subpart C of part 53 of this chapter. Data 2.4.4.4 Data from collocated FRM/FEM of this chapter if: transformation may be linear or non-linear, are to be substituted for any calendar quarter 2.6.2.1 The analyzer has more than one but must be applied in the same way to all that an ARM method has incomplete data. selectable range and has been designated as sites used in the testing. 2.4.4.5 Collocation with an ARM under a reference or equivalent method on at least 2.4.2 The monitoring agency wishing to this part for purposes of determining the one of its ranges, or has been approved for use an ARM must develop and implement coefficient of variation of the method shall be use under section 2.5 (which applies to appropriate quality assurance procedures for conducted at a minimum of 7.5 percent of the analyzers purchased before February 18, the method. Additionally, the following sites with a minimum of 1 per network. This 1975); procedures are required for the method: is consistent with the requirements in 2.6.2.2 The pollutant intended to be 2.4.2.1 The ARM must be consistently appendix A to this part for one-half of the measured with the analyzer is likely to occur operated throughout the network. Exceptions required collocation of FRM/FEM (15 in concentrations more than two times the to a consistent operation must be approved percent) to be collocated with the same upper range limit specified in table B–1 of according to section 2.8 of this appendix; method. part 53 of this chapter in the geographical 2.4.2.2 The ARM must be operated on an 2.4.4.6 Assessments of bias with an area in which use of the analyzer is hourly sampling frequency capable of independent audit of the total measurement proposed; and providing data suitable for aggregation into system shall be conducted with the same 2.6.2.3 The Administrator determines daily 24-hour average measurements; frequency as an FEM as identified in that the resolution of the range or ranges for 2.4.2.3 The ARM must use an inlet and appendix A to this part. which approval is sought is adequate for its separation device, as needed, that are already 2.4.5 Request for approval of a candidate intended use. For purposes of this section approved in either the reference method ARM, that is not already approved in another (2.6), ‘‘resolution’’ means the ability of the identified in appendix L to part 50 of this agency’s network under this section, must analyzer to detect small changes in meet the general submittal requirements of chapter or under part 53 of this chapter as concentration. section 2.7 of this appendix. Requests for approved for use on a PM reference or 2.6.3 Requests for approval under section 2.5 approval under this section when an ARM is equivalent method. The only exceptions to 2.6.2 of this appendix must meet the already approved in another agency’s this requirement are those methods that by submittal requirements of section 2.7. Except network are to be submitted to the EPA their inherent measurement principle may as provided in section 2.7.3 of this appendix, Regional Administrator. Requests for not need an inlet or separation device that each request must contain the information approval under section 2.4 of this appendix segregates the aerosol; and must include the following requirements: specified in section 2.7.2 in addition to the 2.4.2.4 The ARM must be capable of 2.4.5.1 A clear and unique description of following: providing for flow audits, unless by its the site(s) at which the candidate ARM will 2.6.3.1 The range or ranges proposed to inherent measurement principle, measured be used and tested, and a description of the be used; flow is not required. These flow audits are to nature or character of the site and the 2.6.3.2 Test data, records, calculations, be performed on the frequency identified in particulate matter that is expected to occur and test results as specified in section 2.7.2.2 appendix A to this part. there. of this appendix for each range proposed to 2.4.2.5 If data transformations are used, 2.4.5.2 A detailed description of the be used; they must be described in the monitoring method and the nature of the sampler or 2.6.3.3 An identification and description agencies Quality Assurance Project plan (or analyzer upon which it is based. of the geographical area in which use of the addendum to QAPP). The QAPP shall 2.4.5.3 A brief statement of the reason or analyzer is proposed; describe how often (e.g., quarterly, yearly) rationale for requesting the approval. 2.6.3.4 Data or other information and under what provisions the data 2.4.5.4 A detailed description of the demonstrating that the pollutant intended to transformation will be updated. For example, quality assurance procedures that have been be measured with the analyzer is likely to not meeting the data quality objectives for a developed and that will be implemented for occur in concentrations more than two times site over a season or year may be cause for the method. the upper range limit specified in table B–1 recalculating a data transformation, but by 2.4.5.5 A detailed description of the of part 53 of this chapter in the geographical itself would not be cause for invalidating the procedures for assessing the precision and area in which use of the analyzer is data. Data transformations must be applied accuracy of the method that will be proposed; and prospectively, i.e., in real-time or near real- implemented for reporting to AQS. 2.6.3.5 Test data or other information time, to the data output from the PM2.5 2.4.5.6 Test results from the demonstrating the resolution of each continuous method. See reference 7 of this comparability tests as required in section proposed range that is broader than that appendix. 2.4.1 through 2.4.1.4 of this appendix. permitted by section 2.5 of this appendix. 2.4.3 The monitoring agency wishing to 2.4.5.7 Such further supplemental 2.6.4 Any person who has obtained use the method must develop and implement information as may be necessary or helpful approval of a request under this section appropriate procedures for assessing and to support the required statements and test (2.6.2) shall assure that the analyzer for reporting the precision and accuracy of the results. which approval was obtained is used only in method comparable to the procedures set 2.4.6 Within 120 days after receiving a the geographical area identified in the forth in appendix A of this part for request for approval of the use of an ARM at request and only while operated in the range designated reference and equivalent a particular site or network of sites under or ranges specified in the request. methods. section 2.4 of this appendix, the 2.7 Requests for Approval; Withdrawal of 2.4.4 Assessments of data quality shall Administrator will approve or disapprove the Approval. follow the same frequencies and calculations method by letter to the person or agency 2.7.1 Requests for approval under as required under section 3 of appendix A to requesting such approval. When appropriate sections 2.4, 2.6.2, or 2.8 of this appendix this part with the following exceptions: for methods that are already approved in must be submitted to: Director, National 2.4.4.1 Collocation of ARM with FRM/ another SLAMS network, the EPA Regional Exposure Research Laboratory (MD–D205– FEM samplers must be maintained at a Administrator has approval/disapproval 03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, minimum of 30 percent of the required authority. In either instance, additional Research Triangle Park, North Carolina SLAMS sites with a minimum of 1 per information may be requested to assist with 27711. For ARM that are already approved in network; the decision. another agency’s network, subsequent

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61315

requests for approval under section 2.4 are to 2.8.3.1 A description, in such detail as monitors intended for comparison with be submitted to the applicable EPA Regional may be appropriate, of the desired applicable NAAQS. Administrator. modification; 3.2 If alternative SO2, CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, 2.7.2 Except as provided in section 2.7.3 2.8.3.2 A brief statement of the purpose(s) or PM10¥2.5 monitoring methodologies are of this appendix, each request must contain: of the modification, including any reasons for proposed for monitors not intended for 2.7.2.1 A statement identifying the considering it necessary or advantageous; NAAQS comparison, such techniques must analyzer (e.g., by serial number) and the 2.8.3.3 A brief statement of belief be detailed in the network description method of which the analyzer is concerning the extent to which the required by § 58.10 and subsequently representative (e.g., by manufacturer and modification will or may affect the approved by the Administrator. Examples of model number); and performance characteristics of the method; locations that are not intended to be 2.7.2.2 Test data, records, calculations, and compared to the NAAQS may be rural and test results for the analyzer (or the 2.8.3.4 Such further information as may background and transport sites or areas method of which the analyzer is be necessary to explain and support the where the concentration of the pollutant is so representative) as specified in subpart B, statements required by sections 2.8.3.2 and low that it would be more useful to operate subpart C, or both (as applicable) of part 53 2.8.3.3. a higher sensitivity method that is not an of this chapter. 2.8.4 The Administrator will approve or FRM or FEM. 2.7.3 A request may concern more than disapprove the modification by letter to the person or agency requesting such approval 4.0 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring one analyzer or geographical area and may Stations (PAMS) incorporate by reference any data or other within 75 days after receiving a request for information known to EPA from one or more approval under this section and any further 4.1 Methods used for O3 monitoring at of the following: information that the applicant may be asked PAMS must be automated reference or 2.7.3.1 An application for a reference or to provide. equivalent methods as defined in § 50.1 of equivalent method determination submitted 2.8.5 A temporary modification that this chapter. to EPA for the method of which the analyzer could alter the performance characteristics of 4.2 Methods used for NO, NO2 and NOX is representative, or testing conducted by the a reference, equivalent, or ARM may be made monitoring at PAMS should be automated applicant or by EPA in connection with such without prior approval under this section if reference or equivalent methods as defined an application; the method is not functioning or is for NO2 in § 50.1 of this chapter. If alternative 2.7.3.2 Testing of the method of which malfunctioning, provided that parts NO, NO2 or NOX monitoring methodologies the analyzer is representative at the initiative necessary for repair in accordance with the are proposed, such techniques must be of the Administrator under § 53.7 of this applicable operation manual cannot be detailed in the network description required by § 58.10 and subsequently approved by the chapter; or obtained within 45 days. Unless such temporary modification is later approved Administrator. 2.7.3.3 A previous or concurrent request under section 2.8.4 of this appendix, the 4.3 Methods for meteorological for approval submitted to EPA under this temporarily modified method shall be measurements and speciated VOC section (2.7). repaired in accordance with the applicable monitoring are included in the guidance 2.7.4 To the extent that such operation manual as quickly as practicable provided in references 2 and 3 of this incorporation by reference provides data or but in no event later than 4 months after the appendix. If alternative VOC monitoring information required by this section (2.7) or temporary modification was made, unless an methodology (including the use of new or by sections 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6 of this appendix, extension of time is granted by the innovative technologies), which is not independent data or duplicative information Administrator. Unless and until the included in the guidance, is proposed, it need not be submitted. temporary modification is approved, air must be detailed in the network description 2.7.5 After receiving a request under this quality data obtained with the method as required by § 58.10 and subsequently section (2.7), the Administrator may request temporarily modified must be clearly approved by the Administrator. such additional testing or information or identified as such when submitted in 5.0 Particulate Matter Episode Monitoring conduct such tests as may be necessary in his accordance with § 58.16 and must be judgment for a decision on the request. accompanied by a report containing the 5.1 For short-term measurements of PM10 2.7.6 If the Administrator determines, on information specified in section 2.8.3 of this during air pollution episodes (see § 51.152 of the basis of any available information, that appendix. A request that the Administrator this chapter) the measurement method must any of the determinations or statements on approve a temporary modification may be be: which approval of a request under this submitted in accordance with sections 2.8.1 5.1.1 Either the ‘‘Staggered PM10’’ method section was based are invalid or no longer through 2.8.4 of this appendix. In such cases or the ‘‘PM10 Sampling Over Short Sampling valid, or that the requirements of section 2.4, the request will be considered as if a request Times’’ method, both of which are based on 2.5, or 2.6, as applicable, have not been met, for prior approval had been made. the reference method for PM10 and are he/she may withdraw the approval after 2.9 Use of IMPROVE Samplers at a described in reference 1: or affording the person who obtained the SLAMS Site. ‘‘IMPROVE’’ samplers may be 5.1.2 Any other method for measuring approval an opportunity to submit used in SLAMS for monitoring of regional PM10: information and arguments opposing such background and regional transport 5.1.2.1 Which has a measurement range action. concentrations of fine particulate matter. The or ranges appropriate to accurately measure 2.8 Modifications of Methods by Users. IMPROVE samplers were developed for use air pollution episode concentration of PM10, 2.8.1 Except as otherwise provided in this in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected 5.1.2.2 Which has a sample period section, no reference method, equivalent Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network to appropriate for short-term PM10 method, or ARM may be used in a SLAMS characterize all of the major components and measurements, and network if it has been modified in a manner many trace constituents of the particulate 5.1.2.3 For which a quantitative that could significantly alter the performance matter that impair visibility in Federal Class relationship to a reference or equivalent characteristics of the method without prior I Areas. Descriptions of the IMPROVE method for PM10 has been established at the approval by the Administrator. For purposes samplers and the data they collect are use site. Procedures for establishing a of this section, ‘‘alternative method’’ means available in references 4, 5, and 6 of this quantitative site-specific relationship are an analyzer, the use of which has been appendix. contained in reference 1. approved under section 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6 of this 5.2 PM10 methods other than the appendix or some combination thereof. 3.0 NCore Ambient Air Monitoring Stations reference method are not covered under the 2.8.2 Requests for approval under this 3.1 Methods employed in NCore quality assessment requirements of appendix section (2.8) must meet the submittal multipollutant sites used to measure SO2, to this part. Therefore, States must develop requirements of sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2.1 of CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, or PM10¥2.5 must be and implement their own quality assessment this appendix. reference or equivalent methods as defined in procedures for those methods allowed under 2.8.3 Each request submitted under this § 50.1 of this chapter, or an ARM as defined this section 4. These quality assessment section (2.8) must include: in section 2.4 of this appendix, for any procedures should be similar or analogous to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61316 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

those described in section 3 of appendix A appendix also describes specific (f) Sites located to measure air pollution to this part for the PM10 reference method. requirements for the number and location of impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or FRM, FEM, and ARM sites for specific other welfare-based impacts. 6.0 References pollutants, NCore multipollutant sites, PM10 1.1.2 This appendix contains criteria for 1. Pelton, D. J. Guideline for Particulate mass sites, PM2.5 mass sites, chemically- the basic air monitoring requirements. The Episode Monitoring Methods, GEOMET speciated PM2.5 sites, and O3 precursor total number of monitoring sites that will Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared measurements sites (PAMS). These criteria serve the variety of data needs will be for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will be used by EPA in evaluating the substantially higher than these minimum Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract adequacy of the air pollutant monitoring requirements provide. The optimum size of No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–83–005. networks. a particular network involves trade-offs February 1983. 1.1 Monitoring Objectives. The ambient among data needs and available resources. 2. Technical Assistance Document For air monitoring networks must be designed to This regulation intends to provide for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. meet three basic monitoring objectives. These national air monitoring needs, and to lend Atmospheric Research and Exposure basic objectives are listed below. The support for the flexibility necessary to meet data collection needs of area air quality Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental appearance of any one objective in the order managers. The EPA, State, and local agencies Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, of this list is not based upon a prioritized will periodically collaborate on network NC 27711. EPA 600/8–91–215. October 1991. scheme. Each objective is important and 3. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air design issues through the network must be considered individually. assessment process outlined in § 58.10. Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. (a) Provide air pollution data to the general Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric 1.1.3 This appendix focuses on the public in a timely manner. Data can be relationship between monitoring objectives, Research and Exposure Assessment presented to the public in a number of Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection site types, and the geographic location of attractive ways including through air quality monitoring sites. Included are a rationale and Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. maps, newspapers, Internet sites, and as part EPA 600/4–90–0003. August 1989. set of general criteria for identifying of weather forecasts and public advisories. candidate site locations in terms of physical 4. Eldred, R.A., Cahill, T.A., Wilkenson, (b) Support compliance with ambient air L.K., et al., Measurements of fine particles characteristics which most closely match a quality standards and emissions strategy specific monitoring objective. The criteria for and their chemical components in the development. Data from FRM, FEM, and more specifically locating the monitoring IMPROVE/NPS networks, in Transactions of ARM monitors for NAAQS pollutants will be site, including spacing from roadways and the International Specialty Conference on used for comparing an area’s air pollution vertical and horizontal probe and path Visibility and Fine Particles, Air and Waste levels against the NAAQS. Data from placement, are described in appendix E to Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, monitors of various types can be used in the this part. 1990; pp. 187–196. development of attainment and maintenance 1.2 Spatial Scales. (a) To clarify the 5. Sisler, J.F., Huffman, D., and Latimer, plans. SLAMS, and especially NCore station nature of the link between general D.A.; Spatial and temporal patterns and the data, will be used to evaluate the regional air monitoring objectives, site types, and the chemical composition of the haze in the quality models used in developing emission physical location of a particular monitor, the United States: An analysis of data from the strategies, and to track trends in air pollution concept of spatial scale of representativeness IMPROVE network, 1988–1991, ISSN No. abatement control measures’ impact on is defined. The goal in locating monitors is 0737–5253–26, National Park Service, Ft. improving air quality. In monitoring to correctly match the spatial scale Collins, CO, 1993. locations near major air pollution sources, represented by the sample of monitored air 6. Eldred, R.A., Cahill, T.A., Pitchford, M., with the spatial scale most appropriate for and Malm, W.C.; IMPROVE—a new remote source-oriented monitoring data can provide insight into how well industrial sources are the monitoring site type, air pollutant to be area particulate monitoring system for measured, and the monitoring objective. visibility studies, Proceedings of the 81st controlling their pollutant emissions. (c) Support for air pollution research (b) Thus, spatial scale of representativeness Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control is described in terms of the physical Association, Dallas, Paper 88–54.3, 1988. studies. Air pollution data from the NCore network can be used to supplement data dimensions of the air parcel nearest to a 7. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for monitoring site throughout which actual Relating Federal Reference Method (FRM) collected by researchers working on health effects assessments and atmospheric pollutant concentrations are reasonably and Continuous PM2.5 Measurements to processes, or for monitoring methods similar. The scales of representativeness of Report an Air Quality Index (AQI). Office of most interest for the monitoring site types development work. Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. described above are as follows: 1.1.1 In order to support the air quality Environmental Protection Agency, Research (1) Microscale—Defines the concentrations management work indicated in the three Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 454/B–02– in air volumes associated with area basic air monitoring objectives, a network 2002. November 2002. dimensions ranging from several meters up to must be designed with a variety of types of about 100 meters. 36. Appendix D to part 58 is revised to monitoring sites. Monitoring sites must be read as follows: (2) Middle scale—Defines the capable of informing managers about many concentration typical of areas up to several Appendix D to Part 58—Network things including the peak air pollution levels, city blocks in size with dimensions ranging typical levels in populated areas, air from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality pollution transported into and outside of a Monitoring (3) Neighborhood scale—Defines city or region, and air pollution levels near concentrations within some extended area of 1. Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales specific sources. To summarize some of these the city that has relatively uniform land use 2. General Monitoring Requirements sites, here is a listing of six general site types: with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers 3. Design Criteria for NCore Sites (a) Sites located to determine the highest range. The neighborhood and urban scales 4. Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for concentrations expected to occur in the area listed below have the potential to overlap in SLAMS Sites covered by the network. applications that concern secondarily formed 5. Design Criteria for Photochemical (b) Sites located to measure typical or homogeneously distributed air pollutants. Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) concentrations in areas of high population (4) Urban scale—Defines concentrations 6. References density. within an area of city-like dimensions, on the (c) Sites located to determine the impact of order of 4 to 50 kilometers. Within a city, the 1. Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales significant sources or source categories on air geographic placement of sources may result The purpose of this appendix is to describe quality. in there being no single site that can be said monitoring objectives and general criteria to (d) Sites located to determine general to represent air quality on an urban scale. be applied in establishing the required background concentration levels. (5) Regional scale—Defines usually a rural SLAMS ambient air quality monitoring (e) Sites located to determine the extent of area of reasonably homogeneous geography stations and for choosing general locations regional pollutant transport among populated without large sources, and extends from tens for additional monitoring sites. This areas; and in support of secondary standards. to hundreds of kilometers.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61317

(6) National and global scales—These TABLE D–1 OF APPENDIX D TO PART Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). A CBSA measurement scales represent concentrations 58. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SITE associated with at least one urbanized cluster characterizing the nation and the globe as a of at least 10,000 population or greater is whole. TYPES AND SCALES OF REPRESENT- termed a Micropolitan Statistical Area. CSA (c) Proper siting of a monitor requires ATIVENESS—Continued consist of two or more adjacent CBSA. In this specification of the monitoring objective, the appendix, the term MSA is used to refer to types of sites necessary to meet the objective, Site type Appropriate siting a Metropolitan Statistical Area. By definition, and then the desired spatial scale of scales both MSA and CSA have a high degree of representativeness. For example, consider the integration; however, many such areas cross case where the objective is to determine 4. General/back- Urban, regional. State or other political boundaries. MSA and NAAQS compliance by understanding the ground & regional CSA may also cross more than one air shed. maximum ozone concentrations for an area. transport. The EPA recognizes that State or local Such areas would most likely be located 5. Welfare-related Urban, regional. agencies must consider MSA/CSA downwind of a metropolitan area, quite impacts. boundaries and their own political likely in a suburban residential area where boundaries and geographical characteristics children and other susceptible individuals 2. General Monitoring Requirements in designing their air monitoring networks. are likely to be outdoors. Sites located in (a) The National ambient air monitoring The EPA recognizes that there may be these areas are most likely to represent an system includes several types of monitoring situations where the EPA Regional urban scale of measurement. In this example, stations, each targeting a key data collection Administrator and the affected State or local physical location was determined by need and each varying in technical agencies may need to augment or to divide considering ozone precursor emission sophistication. the overall MSA/CSA monitoring patterns, public activity, and meteorological (b) Research grade sites are platforms for responsibilities and requirements among characteristics affecting ozone formation and scientific studies, either involved with health these various agencies to achieve an effective dispersion. Thus, spatial scale of or welfare impacts, measurement methods network design. Full monitoring representativeness was not used in the development, or other atmospheric studies. requirements apply separately to each selection process but was a result of site These sites may be collaborative efforts affected State or local agency in the absence location. between regulatory agencies and researchers of an agreement between the affected (d) In some cases, the physical location of with specific scientific objectives for each. agencies and the EPA Regional a site is determined from joint consideration Data from these sites might be collected with Administrator. of both the basic monitoring objective and both traditional and experimental 3. Design Criteria for NCore Sites the type of monitoring site desired, or techniques, and data collection might involve required by this appendix. For example, to specific laboratory analyses not common in (a) Each State (i.e. the fifty States, District determine PM2.5 concentrations which are routine measurement programs. The research of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin typical over a geographic area having grade sites are not required by regulation; Islands) is required to operate at least one relatively high PM2.5 concentrations, a however, they are included here due to their NCore site. States may delegate this neighborhood scale site is more appropriate. important role in supporting the air quality requirement to a local agency. States with Such a site would likely be located in a management program. many MSAs often also have multiple air residential or commercial area having a high (c) The NCore multipollutant sites are sites sheds with unique characteristics and, often, overall PM2.5 emission density but not in the that measure multiple pollutants in order to elevated air pollution. These States include, immediate vicinity of any single dominant provide support to integrated air quality at a minimum, California, Florida, Illinois, source. Note that in this example, the desired management data needs. NCore sites include Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, scale of representativeness was an important both neighborhood and urban scale Pennsylvania, and Texas. These States are factor in determining the physical location of measurements in general, in a selection of required to identify one to two additional the monitoring site. metropolitan areas and a limited number of NCore sites in order to account for their (e) In either case, classification of the more rural locations. Continuous monitoring unique situations. These additional sites monitor by its type and spatial scale of methods are to be used at the NCore sites shall be located to avoid proximity to large representativeness is necessary and will aid when available for a pollutant to be emission sources. Any State or local agency in interpretation of the monitoring data for a measured, as it is important to have data can propose additional candidate NCore sites particular monitoring objective (e.g., public collected over common time periods for or modifications to these requirements for reporting, NAAQS compliance, or research integrated analyses. NCore multipollutant approval by the Administrator. The NCore support). sites are intended to be long-term sites useful locations should be leveraged with other (f) Table D–1 of this appendix illustrates for a variety of applications including air multipollutant air monitoring sites including the relationship between the various site quality trends analyses, model evaluation, PAMS sites, National Air Toxics Trends types that can be used to support the three and tracking metropolitan area statistics. As Stations (NATTS) sites, CASTNET sites, and basic monitoring objectives, and the scales of such, the NCore sites should be placed away STN sites. Site leveraging includes using the representativeness that are generally most from direct emission sources that could same monitoring platform and equipment to appropriate for that type of site. substantially impact the ability to detect area- meet the objectives of the variety of programs wide concentrations. The Administrator must where possible and advantageous. TABLE D–1 OF APPENDIX D TO PART approve the NCore sites. (b) The NCore sites must measure, at a (d) Monitoring sites designated as SLAMS minimum, PM2.5 particle mass using 58. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SITE sites, but not as NCore sites, are intended to continuous and integrated/filter-based TYPES AND SCALES OF REPRESENT- address specific air quality management samplers, speciated PM2.5, PM10–2.5 particle ATIVENESS interests, and as such, are frequently single- mass, speciated PM10–2.5, O3, SO2, CO, NO/ pollutant measurement sites. The EPA NOy, wind speed, wind direction, relative Regional Administrator must approve the humidity, and ambient temperature. Site type Appropriate siting scales SLAMS sites. (1) Although the measurement of NOy is (e) This appendix uses the statistical-based required in support of a number of 1. Highest con- Micro, middle, neighbor- definitions for metropolitan areas provided monitoring objectives, available commercial centration. hood (sometimes by the Office of Management and Budget and instruments may indicate little difference in urban or regional for the Census Bureau. These areas are referred their measurement of NOy compared to the secondarily formed to as metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), conventional measurement of NOX, pollutants). micropolitan statistical areas, core-based particularly in areas with relatively fresh 2. Population ori- Neighborhood, urban. statistical areas (CBSA), and combined sources of nitrogen emissions. Therefore, in ented. statistical areas (CSA). A CBSA associated areas with negligible expected difference 3. Source impact .... Micro, middle, neighbor- with at least one urbanized area of 50,000 between NOy and NOX measured hood. population or greater is termed a concentrations, the Administrator may allow

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61318 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

for waivers that permit NOX monitoring to be suitable for collecting long-term lead trends 4. Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for substituted for the required NOy monitoring data for the broader area. SLAMS Sites at applicable NCore sites. (d) Siting criteria are provided for urban 4.1 Ozone (O3) Design Criteria. (a) State, (2) EPA recognizes that, in some cases, the and rural locations. Sites with significant and where appropriate, local agencies must physical location of the NCore site may not historical records that do not meet siting operate O3 sites for various locations be suitable for representative meteorological criteria may be approved as NCore by the depending upon area size (in terms of measurements due to the site’s physical Administrator. Sites with the suite of NCore population and geographic characteristics) surroundings. It is also possible that nearby measurements that are explicitly designed for and typical peak concentrations (expressed meteorological measurements may be able to other monitoring objectives are exempt from in percentages below, or near the O3 fulfill this data need. In these cases, the NAAQS). Specific SLAMS O site minimum these siting criteria (e.g., a near-roadway 3 requirement for meteorological monitoring requirements are included in Table D–2 of can be waived by the Administrator. site). this appendix. The NCore sites are expected (1) Urban NCore stations are to be generally (c) In addition to the continuous to complement the O3 data collection that measurements listed above, 10 of the NCore located at urban or neighborhood scale to takes place at single-pollutant SLAMS sites, locations must also measure lead (Pb) either provide representative concentrations of and both types of sites can be used to meet at the same sites or elsewhere within the exposure expected throughout the the network minimum requirements. The MSA/CSA boundary. These ten Pb sites are metropolitan area; however, a middle-scale total number of O3 sites needed to support included within the NCore networks because site may be acceptable in cases where the site the basic monitoring objectives of public data they are intended to be long-term in can represent many such locations reporting, air quality mapping, compliance, operation, and not impacted directly from a throughout a metropolitan area. and understanding O3-related atmospheric single Pb source. These locations for Pb (2) Rural NCore stations are to be located processes will include more sites than these monitoring must be located in the most minimum numbers required in Table D–2 of to the maximum extent practicable at a populated MSA/CSA in each of the 10 EPA this appendix. The EPA Regional regional or larger scale away from any large Regions. Alternatively, it is also acceptable to Administrator and the responsible State or use the Pb concentration data provided at local emission source, so that they represent local air monitoring agency must work urban air toxics sites. In approving any ambient concentrations over an extensive together to design and/or maintain the most substitutions, the Administrator must area. appropriate O3 network to service the variety consider whether these alternative sites are of data needs in an area.

TABLE D–2 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58.— SLAMS MINIMUM O3 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Most recent 3- Most recent 3- year design value year design value MSA population1, 2 concentrations concentrations ≥85% of any O3 <85% of any O3 NAAQS 3 NAAQS3, 4

>10 million ...... 4 2 4–10 million ...... 3 1 350,000–<4 million ...... 2 1 50,000–<350,000 5 ...... 1 0 1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). 2 Population based on latest available census figures. 3 The ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50. 4 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value. 5 Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population.

(b) Within an O3 network, at least one O3 over large volumes of air, and this reduces concentrations downwind of the area having site for each MSA, or CSA if multiple MSAs the importance of monitoring small scale the highest precursor emissions. are involved, must be designed to record the spatial variability. (3) Regional scale—This scale of maximum concentration for that particular (1) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in measurement will be used to typify metropolitan area. More than one maximum this category represent conditions throughout concentrations over large portions of a concentration site may be necessary in some some reasonably homogeneous urban sub- metropolitan area and even larger areas with areas. Table D–2 of this appendix does not region, with dimensions of a few kilometers. dimensions of as much as hundreds of account for the full breadth of additional Homogeneity refers to pollutant kilometers. Such measurements will be factors that would be considered in designing concentrations. Neighborhood scale data will useful for assessing the O3 that is transported a complete O3 monitoring program for an provide valuable information for developing, to and from a metropolitan area, as well as area. Some of these additional factors include testing, and revising concepts and models background concentrations. In some geographic size, population density, that describe urban/regional concentration situations, particularly when considering complexity of terrain and meteorology, patterns. These data will be useful to the very large metropolitan areas with complex adjacent O3 monitoring programs, air understanding and definition of processes source mixtures, regional scale sites can be pollution transport from neighboring areas, that take periods of hours to occur and hence the maximum concentration location. and measured air quality in comparison to all involve considerable mixing and transport. (d) EPA’s technical guidance documents on forms of the O3 NAAQS (i.e., 8-hour and 1- Under stagnation conditions, a site located in O3 monitoring network design should be hour forms). Networks must be designed to the neighborhood scale may also experience used to evaluate the adequacy of each account for all of these area characteristics. peak concentration levels within a existing O3 monitor, to relocate an existing Network designs must be re-examined in metropolitan area. site, or to locate any new O3 sites. periodic network assessments. Deviations (2) Urban scale—Measurement in this scale (e) For locating a neighborhood scale site from the above O3 requirements are allowed will be used to estimate concentrations over to measure typical city concentrations, a if approved by the EPA Regional large portions of an urban area with reasonably homogeneous geographical area Administrator. dimensions of several kilometers to 50 or near the center of the region should be (c) The appropriate spatial scales for O3 more kilometers. Such measurements will be selected which is also removed from the sites are neighborhood, urban, and regional. used for determining trends, and designing influence of major NOX sources. For an urban Since O3 requires appreciable formation time, area-wide control strategies. The urban scale scale site to measure the high concentration the mixing of reactants and products occurs sites would also be used to measure high areas, the emission inventories should be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61319

used to define the extent of the area of TABLE D–3 TO APPENDIX D OF PART existing SLAMS CO sites using FRM or FEM important nonmethane hydrocarbons and 58. OZONE MONITORING SEASON BY is required until discontinuation is approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. Where NOX emissions. The meteorological STATE conditions that occur during periods of SLAMS CO monitoring is ongoing, at least maximum photochemical activity should be one site must be a maximum concentration Begin site for that area under investigation. determined. These periods can be identified State End month month (b) Microscale and middle scale by examining the meteorological conditions measurements are useful site classifications that occur on the highest O3 air quality days. Alabama ...... March ...... October for SLAMS sites since most people have the Trajectory analyses, an evaluation of wind Alaska ...... April ...... October potential for exposure on these scales. Arizona ...... January .... December and emission patterns on high O3 days, can Carbon monoxide maxima occur primarily in Arkansas ...... March ...... November also be useful in evaluating an O monitoring areas near major roadways and intersections 3 California ...... January .... December with high traffic density and often poor network. In areas without any previous O3 air Colorado ...... March ...... September atmospheric ventilation. quality measurements, meteorological and O3 Connecticut ...... April ...... September (1) Microscale—This scale applies when air precursor emissions information would be Delaware ...... April ...... October quality measurements are to be used to useful. District of Colum- April ...... October represent distributions within street canyons, (f) Once the meteorological and air quality bia. over sidewalks, and near major roadways. In Florida ...... March ...... October data are reviewed, the prospective maximum the case with carbon monoxide, microscale Georgia ...... March ...... October concentration monitor site should be selected measurements in one location can often be Hawaii ...... January .... December in a direction from the city that is most likely considered as representative of other similar Idaho ...... May ...... September to observe the highest O concentrations, 3 Illinois ...... April ...... October locations in a city. more specifically, downwind during periods Indiana ...... April ...... September (2) Middle scale—Middle scale of photochemical activity. In many cases, Iowa ...... April ...... October measurements are intended to represent areas these maximum concentration O3 sites will Kansas ...... April ...... October with dimensions from 100 meters to 0.5 be located 10 to 30 miles or more downwind Kentucky ...... March ...... October kilometer. In certain cases, middle scale measurements may apply to areas that have from the urban area where maximum O3 Louisiana AQCR March ...... October precursor emissions originate. The 019,022. a total length of several kilometers, such as ‘‘line’’ emission source areas. This type of downwind direction and appropriate Louisiana AQCR January .... December 106. emission sources areas would include air distance should be determined from quality along a commercially developed historical meteorological data collected on Maine ...... April ...... September Maryland ...... April ...... October street or shopping plaza, freeway corridors, days which show the potential for producing Massachusetts .... April ...... September parking lots and feeder streets. high O3 levels. Monitoring agencies are to Michigan ...... April ...... September (c) After the spatial scale and type of site consult with their EPA Regional Office when Minnesota ...... April ...... October has been determined to meet the monitoring considering siting a maximum O3 Mississippi ...... March ...... October objective for each location, the technical concentration site. Missouri ...... April ...... October guidance in reference 2 of this appendix (g) In locating a neighborhood scale site Montana ...... June ...... September should be used to evaluate the adequacy of which is to measure high concentrations, the Nebraska ...... April ...... October each existing CO site and must be used to same procedures used for the urban scale are Nevada ...... January .... December relocate an existing site or to locate any new sites. followed except that the site should be New Hampshire ... April ...... September 4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) Design located closer to the areas bordering on the New Jersey ...... April ...... October 2 New Mexico ...... January .... December Criteria. (a) There are no minimum center city or slightly further downwind in New York ...... April ...... October requirements for the number of NO2 an area of high density population. North Carolina ..... April ...... October monitoring sites. Continued operation of (h) For regional scale background North Dakota ...... May ...... September existing SLAMS NO2 sites using FRM or FEM monitoring sites, similar meteorological Ohio ...... April ...... October is required until discontinuation is approved analysis as for the maximum concentration Oklahoma ...... March ...... November by the EPA Regional Administrator. Where sites may also inform the decisions for Oregon ...... May ...... September SLAMS NO2 monitoring is ongoing, at least locating regional scale sites. Regional scale Pennsylvania ...... April ...... October one NO2 site in the area must be located to measure the maximum concentration of NO2. sites may be located to provide data on O3 Puerto Rico ...... January .... December transport between cities, as background sites, Rhode Island ...... April ...... September (b) NO/NOy measurements are included within the NCore multipollutant site or for other data collection purposes. South Carolina .... April ...... October South Dakota ...... June ...... September requirements and the PAMS program. These Consideration of both area characteristics, Tennessee ...... March ...... October NO/NOy measurements will produce such as meteorology, and the data collection Texas AQCR January .... December conservative estimates for NO2 that can be objectives, such as transport, must be jointly 106,153, 213, used to ensure tracking continued considered for a regional scale site to be 214, 216. compliance with the NO2 NAAQS. NO/NOy useful. Texas AQCR 022, March ...... October monitors are used at these sites because it is (i) Since O3 levels decrease significantly in 210, 211, 212, important to collect data on total reactive the colder parts of the year in many areas, O3 215, 217, 218. nitrogen species for understanding O3 is required to be monitored at SLAMS Utah ...... May ...... September photochemistry. monitoring sites only during the ‘‘ozone Vermont ...... April ...... September 4.4 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria. season’’ as designated in the AQS files on a Virginia ...... April ...... October (a) There are no minimum requirements for Washington ...... May ...... September the number of SO monitoring sites. State-by-State basis and described below in 2 West Virginia ...... April ...... October Continued operation of existing SLAMS SO Table D–3 of this appendix. Deviations from 2 Wisconsin ...... April 15 ..... October 15 sites using FRM or FEM is required until the O3 monitoring season must be approved Wyoming ...... April ...... October discontinuation is approved by the EPA by the EPA Regional Administrator, American Samoa January .... December Regional Administrator. Where SLAMS SO2 documented within the annual monitoring Guam ...... January .... December monitoring is ongoing, at least one of the network plan, and updated in AQS. Virgin Islands ...... January .... December SLAMS SO2 sites must be a maximum Information on how to analyze O3 data to concentration site for that specific area. support a change to the O3 season in support 4.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design (b) The appropriate spatial scales for SO2 of the 8-hour standard for a specific State can Criteria. (a) There are no minimum SLAMS monitoring are the microscale, be found in reference 8 to this appendix. requirements for the number of CO middle, and possibly neighborhood scales. monitoring sites. Continued operation of The multi-pollutant NCore sites can provide

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

for metropolitan area trends analyses and exceeded the Pb NAAQS in the most recent children to exposures of elevated Pb general control strategy progress tracking. 2 years, and at least one of these two required concentrations (reference 3 of this appendix). Other SLAMS sites are expected to provide sites must be a maximum concentration site. Emissions from point sources frequently data that are useful in specific compliance Where the Pb air quality violations are impact on areas at which single sites may be actions, for maintenance plan agreements, or widespread or the emissions density, located to measure concentrations for measuring near specific stationary sources topography, or population locations are representing middle spatial scales. of SO2. complex and varied, the EPA Regional (3) Neighborhood scale—The (1) Micro and middle scale—Some data Administrator may require more than two Pb neighborhood scale would characterize air uses associated with microscale and middle ambient air monitoring sites. quality conditions throughout some scale measurements for SO2 include (b) The most important spatial scales to assessing the effects of control strategies to effectively characterize the emissions from relatively uniform land use areas with reduce concentrations (especially for the 3- point sources are the micro, middle, and dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometer range. hour and 24-hour averaging times) and neighborhood scales. Sites of this scale would provide monitoring monitoring air pollution episodes. (1) Microscale—This scale would typify data in areas representing conditions where (2) Neighborhood scale—This scale applies areas in close proximity to lead point children live and play. Monitoring in such where there is a need to collect air quality sources. Emissions from point sources such areas is important since this segment of the data as part of an ongoing SO2 stationary as primary and secondary lead smelters, and population is more susceptible to the effects source impact investigation. Typical primary copper smelters may under of Pb. Where a neighborhood site is located locations might include suburban areas fumigation conditions likewise result in high away from immediate Pb sources, the site adjacent to SO2 stationary sources for ground level concentrations at the may be very useful in representing typical air example, or for determining background microscale. In the latter case, the microscale quality values for a larger residential area, concentrations as part of these studies of would represent an area impacted by the and therefore suitable for population population responses to exposure to SO2. plume with dimensions extending up to exposure and trends analyses. (c) Technical guidance in reference 1 of approximately 100 meters. Data collected at (c) Technical guidance is found in this appendix should be used to evaluate the microscale sites provide information for references 4 and 5 of this appendix. These adequacy of each existing SO2 site, to evaluating and developing ‘‘hot-spot’’ control relocate an existing site, or to locate new measures. documents provide additional guidance on sites. (2) Middle scale—This scale generally locating sites to meet specific urban area 4.5 Lead (Pb) Design Criteria. (a) State, represents Pb air quality levels in areas up to monitoring objectives and should be used in and where appropriate, local agencies are several city blocks in size with dimensions locating new sites or evaluating the adequacy required to conduct Pb monitoring for all on the order of approximately 100 meters to of existing sites. areas where Pb levels have been shown or are 500 meters. The middle scale may for 4.6 Particulate Matter (PM10) Design expected to be of concern over the most example, include schools and playgrounds in Criteria. (a) State, and where applicable local, recent 2 years. As a minimum, there must be center city areas which are close to major Pb agencies must operate the minimum number two SLAMS sites in any area where Pb point sources. Pb monitors in such areas are of required PM10 SLAMS sites listed in Table concentrations currently exceed or have desirable because of the higher sensitivity of D–4 of this appendix.

TABLE D–4 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58. PM10 MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (NUMBER OF STATIONS PER MSA) 1

Population category High concentra- Medium con- Low concentra- tion 2 centration 3 tion 4,5

>1,000,000 ...... 6–10 4–8 2–4 500,000–1,000,000 ...... 4–8 2–4 1–2 250,000–500,000 ...... 3–4 1–2 0–1 100,000–250,000 ...... 1–2 0–1 0 1 Selection of urban areas and actual numbers of stations per area within the ranges shown in this table will be jointly determined by EPA and the State Agency. 2 High concentration areas are those for which ambient PM10 data show ambient concentrations exceeding the PM10 NAAQS by 20 percent or more. 3 Medium concentration areas are those for which ambient PM10 data show ambient concentrations exceeding 80 percent of the PM10 NAAQS. 4 Low concentration areas are those for which ambient PM10 data show ambient concentrations less than 80 percent of the PM10 NAAQS. 5 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value.

(b) Although microscale monitoring may be plume conditions, likewise result in high evaluation of possible short-term exposure appropriate in some circumstances, the most ground level concentrations at the public health effects. In many situations, important spatial scales to effectively microscale. In the latter case, the microscale monitoring sites that are representative of characterize the emissions of PM10 from both would represent an area impacted by the micro-scale or middle-scale impacts are not mobile and stationary sources are the middle plume with dimensions extending up to unique and are representative of many scales and neighborhood scales. approximately 100 meters. Data collected at similar situations. This can occur along (1) Microscale—This scale would typify microscale sites provide information for traffic corridors or other locations in a areas such as downtown street canyons, evaluating and developing hot spot control residential district. In this case, one location traffic corridors, and fence line stationary measures. is representative of a neighborhood of small source monitoring locations where the (2) Middle scale—Much of the short-term scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation general public could be exposed to maximum public exposure to coarse fraction particles of long-term or chronic effects. This scale PM10 concentrations. Microscale particulate (PM10) is on this scale and on the also includes the characteristic matter sites should be located near inhabited neighborhood scale. People moving through concentrations for other areas with buildings or locations where the general downtown areas or living near major dimensions of a few hundred meters such as public can be expected to be exposed to the roadways or stationary sources, may the parking lot and feeder streets associated concentration measured. Emissions from encounter particulate pollution that would be with shopping centers, stadia, and office stationary sources such as primary and adequately characterized by measurements of buildings. In the case of PM10, unpaved or secondary smelters, power plants, and other this spatial scale. Middle scale PM10 seldomly swept parking lots associated with large industrial processes may, under certain measurements can be appropriate for the these sources could be an important source

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61321

in addition to the vehicular emissions Neighborhood scale PM10 sites provide 4.7 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Design themselves. information about trends and compliance Criteria. (3) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in with standards because they often represent 4.7.1 General Requirements. (a) State, and this category represent conditions throughout conditions in areas where people commonly where applicable local, agencies must some reasonably homogeneous urban sub- live and work for extended periods. operate the minimum number of required region with dimensions of a few kilometers Neighborhood scale data could provide PM SLAMS sites listed in Table D–5 of this and of generally more regular shape than the 2.5 valuable information for developing, testing, appendix. The NCore sites are expected to middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as and revising models that describe the larger- complement the PM2.5 data collection that the land use and land surface characteristics. scale concentration patterns, especially those takes place at non-NCore SLAMS sites, and In some cases, a location carefully chosen to models relying on spatially smoothed both types of sites can be used to meet the provide neighborhood scale data would emission fields for inputs. The neighborhood minimum PM2.5 network requirements. represent not only the immediate scale measurements could also be used for Deviations from these PM2.5 monitoring neighborhood but also neighborhoods of the neighborhood comparisons within or requirements must be approved by the EPA same type in other parts of the city. between cities. Regional Administrator.

TABLE D–5 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58. PM2.5 MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Most recent 3- Most recent 3- 1,2 year design value year design value MSA population ≥85% of any <85% of any 3 3, 4 PM2.5 NAAQS PM2.5 NAAQS

>1,000,000 ...... 3 2 500,000–1,000,000 ...... 2 1 50,000–<500,000 5 ...... 1 0 1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). 2 Population based on latest available census figures. 3 The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50. 4 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value. 5 Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population.

(b) Specific Design Criteria for PM2.5. The human exposure and of many such (3) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in required monitoring stations or sites must be microenvironments in the area. In general, this category would represent conditions sited to represent community-wide air microscale particulate matter sites should be throughout some reasonably homogeneous quality. These sites can include sites located near inhabited buildings or locations urban sub-region with dimensions of a few collocated at PAMS. These monitoring where the general public can be expected to kilometers and of generally more regular stations will typically be at neighborhood or be exposed to the concentration measured. shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity urban-scale; however, in certain instances Emissions from stationary sources such as refers to the particulate matter where population-oriented micro-or middle- primary and secondary smelters, power concentrations, as well as the land use and scale PM2.5 monitoring are determined by the plants, and other large industrial processes land surface characteristics. Much of the Regional Administrator to represent many may, under certain plume conditions, PM2.5 exposures are expected to be associated such locations throughout a metropolitan likewise result in high ground level with this scale of measurement. In some area, these smaller scales can be considered concentrations at the microscale. In the latter cases, a location carefully chosen to provide to represent community-wide air quality. case, the microscale would represent an area neighborhood scale data would represent the (1) At least one monitoring station is to be impacted by the plume with dimensions immediate neighborhood as well as sited in a population-oriented area of neighborhoods of the same type in other extending up to approximately 100 meters. expected maximum concentration. parts of the city. PM sites of this kind Data collected at microscale sites provide 2.5 (2) For areas with more than one required provide good information about trends and SLAMS, a monitoring station is to be sited in information for evaluating and developing compliance with standards because they an area of poor air quality. hot spot control measures. Unless these sites often represent conditions in areas where (3) Additional technical guidance for siting are indicative of population-oriented people commonly live and work for periods monitoring, they may be more appropriately PM2.5 monitors is provided in references 6 comparable to those specified in the NAAQS. classified as SPM. and 7 of this appendix. In general, most PM2.5 monitoring in urban (c) The most important spatial scale to (2) Middle scale—People moving through areas should have this scale. effectively characterize the emissions of downtown areas, or living near major (4) Urban scale—This class of particulate matter from both mobile and roadways, encounter particle concentrations measurement would be used to characterize stationary sources is the neighborhood scale that would be adequately characterized by the particulate matter concentration over an for PM2.5. For purposes of establishing this spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this entire metropolitan or rural area ranging in monitoring sites to represent large type would be appropriate for the evaluation size from 4 to 50 kilometers. Such homogenous areas other than the above of possible short-term exposure public health measurements would be useful for assessing scales of representativeness and to effects of particulate matter pollution. In trends in area-wide air quality, and hence, characterize regional transport, urban or many situations, monitoring sites that are the effectiveness of large scale air pollution regional scale sites would also be needed. representative of microscale or middle-scale control strategies. Community-oriented PM2.5 Most PM2.5 monitoring in urban areas should impacts are not unique and are representative sites may have this scale. be representative of a neighborhood scale. of many similar situations. This can occur (5) Regional scale—These measurements (1) Microscale—This scale would typify along traffic corridors or other locations in a would characterize conditions over areas areas such as downtown street canyons and residential district. In this case, one location with dimensions of as much as hundreds of traffic corridors where the general public is representative of a number of small scale kilometers. As noted earlier, using would be exposed to maximum sites and is appropriate for evaluation of representative conditions for an area implies concentrations from mobile sources. In some long-term or chronic effects. This scale also some degree of homogeneity in that area. For circumstances, the microscale is appropriate includes the characteristic concentrations for this reason, regional scale measurements for particulate sites; community-oriented other areas with dimensions of a few would be most applicable to sparsely SLAMS sites measured at the microscale hundred meters such as the parking lot and populated areas. Data characteristics of this level should, however, be limited to urban feeder streets associated with shopping scale would provide information about larger sites that are representative of long-term centers, stadia, and office buildings. scale processes of particulate matter

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61322 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

emissions, losses and transport. PM2.5 design when they intend to spatially average shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity transport contributes to elevated particulate the data for compliance purposes. These refers to the particulate matter concentrations and may affect multiple urban State and local air monitoring agencies must concentrations, as well as the land use and and State entities with large populations define the area over which they intend to land surface characteristics. This category such as in the eastern United States. average PM2.5 air quality concentrations. This includes suburban neighborhoods dominated Development of effective pollution control area is defined as a Community Monitoring by residences that are somewhat distant from strategies requires an understanding at Zone (CMZ), which characterizes an area of major roadways and industrial districts but regional geographical scales of the emission relatively similar annual average air quality. still impacted by urban sources, and areas of sources and atmospheric processes that are State and local agencies can define a CMZ in diverse land use where residences are responsible for elevated PM2.5 levels and may a number of ways, including as part or all of interspersed with commercial and industrial also be associated with elevated O3 and a metropolitan area. These CMZ must be neighborhoods. In some cases, a location regional haze. defined within a State or local agencies carefully chosen to provide neighborhood 4.7.2 Requirement for Continuous PM2.5 network description, as required in § 58.10 of scale data would represent the immediate Monitoring. State, or where appropriate, local this part and approved by the EPA Regional neighborhood as well as neighborhoods of agencies must operate continuous fine Administrator. When more than one CMZ is the same type in other parts of the city. The particulate analyzers equal to at least one- described within an agency’s network design comparison of data from middle scale and half (round up) the minimum required sites plan, CMZs must not overlap in their neighborhood scale sites would provide listed in Table D–5 of this appendix. At least geographical coverage. The criteria that must valuable information for determining the one required FRM/FEM monitor in each be used for evaluating the acceptability of variation of PM10–2.5 levels across urban areas MSA must be collocated. State and local air spatial averaging are defined in appendix N and assessing the spatial extent of elevated monitoring agencies must use methodologies to 40 CFR part 50. concentrations caused by major industrial and quality assurance/quality control(QA/ 4.8 Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10¥2.5) point sources and heavily traveled roadways. QC) procedures approved by the EPA Design Criteria. Neighborhood scale sites would provide Regional Administrator for these sites. 4.8.1 General Monitoring Requirements. concentration data that are relevant to 4.7.3 Requirement for PM2.5 Background (a) The only required monitors for PM10¥2.5 informing a large segment of the population and Transport Sites. Each State shall install are those required at NCore Stations. of their exposure levels on a given day. and operate at least one PM2.5 site to monitor (b) Although microscale monitoring may be 4.8.2 PM10–2.5 Chemical Speciation Site for regional background and at least one appropriate in some circumstances, middle Requirements. PM10–2.5 chemical speciation PM2.5 site to monitor regional transport. and neighborhood scale measurements are monitoring and analyses is required at NCore These monitoring sites may be at community- the most important station classifications for sites. The selection and modification of these oriented sites and this requirement may be PM10¥2.5 to assess the variation in coarse sites must be approved by the Administrator. satisfied by a corresponding monitor in an particle concentrations that would be Samples must be collected using the area having similar air quality in another expected across populated areas that are in monitoring methods and the sampling State. State and local air monitoring agencies proximity to large emissions sources. schedules approved by the Administrator. must use methodologies and QA/QC (1) Microscale—This scale would typify procedures approved by the EPA Regional relatively small areas immediately adjacent 5. Network Design for Photochemical Administrator for these sites. Methods used to: Industrial sources; locations experiencing Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) at these sites may include non-federal ongoing construction, redevelopment, and The PAMS program provides more reference method samplers such as IMPROVE soil disturbance; and heavily traveled comprehensive data on O3 air pollution in or continuous PM2.5 monitors. roadways. Data collected at microscale areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme 4.7.4 PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Site stations would characterize exposure over nonattainment for O3 than would otherwise Requirements. Each State shall continue to areas of limited spatial extent and population be achieved through the NCore and SLAMS conduct chemical speciation monitoring and exposure, and may provide information sites. More specifically, the PAMS program analyses at sites designated to be part of the useful for evaluating and developing source- includes measurements for O3, oxides of PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN). The oriented control measures. nitrogen, VOC, and meteorology. selection and modification of these STN sites (2) Middle scale—People living or working 5.1 PAMS Monitoring Objectives. PAMS must be approved by the Administrator. The near major roadways or industrial districts design criteria are site specific. Concurrent PM2.5 chemical speciation urban trends sites encounter particle concentrations that would measurements of O3, oxides of nitrogen, shall include analysis for elements, selected be adequately characterized by this spatial speciated VOC, CO, and meteorology are anions and cations, and carbon. Samples scale. Thus, measurements of this type would obtained at PAMS sites. Design criteria for must be collected using the monitoring be appropriate for the evaluation of public the PAMS network are based on locations methods and the sampling schedules health effects of coarse particle exposure. relative to O3 precursor source areas and approved by the Administrator. Chemical Monitors located in populated areas that are predominant wind directions associated with speciation is encouraged at additional sites nearly adjacent to large industrial point high O3 events. Specific monitoring where the chemically resolved data would be sources of coarse particles provide suitable objectives are associated with each location. useful in developing State implementation locations for assessing maximum population The overall design should enable plans and supporting atmospheric or health exposure levels and identifying areas of characterization of precursor emission effects related studies. potentially poor air quality. Similarly, sources within the area, transport of O3 and 4.7.5 Special Network Considerations monitors located in populated areas that its precursors, and the photochemical Required When Using PM2.5 Spatial border dense networks of heavily-traveled processes related to O3 nonattainment. Averaging Approaches. (a) The PM2.5 traffic are appropriate for assessing the Specific objectives that must be addressed NAAQS, specified in 40 CFR part 50, impacts of resuspended road dust. This scale include assessing ambient trends in O3, provides State and local air monitoring also includes the characteristic oxides of nitrogen, VOC species, and agencies with an option for spatially concentrations for other areas with determining spatial and diurnal variability of averaging PM2.5 air quality data. More dimensions of a few hundred meters such as O3, oxides of nitrogen, and VOC species. specifically, two or more community- school grounds and parks that are nearly Specific monitoring objectives associated oriented (i.e., sites in populated areas) PM2.5 adjacent to major roadways and industrial with each of these sites may result in four monitors may be averaged for comparison point sources, locations exhibiting mixed distinct site types. Detailed guidance for the with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This residential and commercial development, locating of these sites may be found in averaging approach is directly related to and downtown areas featuring office reference 9 of this appendix. epidemiological studies used as the basis for buildings, shopping centers, and stadiums. (a) Type 1 sites are established to the PM2.5 annual NAAQS. Spatial averaging (3) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in characterize upwind background and does not apply to comparisons with the daily this category would represent conditions transported O3 and its precursor PM2.5 NAAQS. throughout some reasonably homogeneous concentrations entering the area and will (b) State and local agencies must carefully urban sub-region with dimensions of a few identify those areas which are subjected to consider their approach for PM2.5 network kilometers and of generally more regular transport.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61323

(b) Type 2 sites are established to monitor area and will identify those areas which are 5.3 Minimum Monitoring Network the magnitude and type of precursor potentially contributing to overwhelming Requirements. A Type 2 site is required for emissions in the area where maximum transport in other areas. each area. Overall, only two sites are required precursor emissions are expected to impact 5.2 Monitoring Period. PAMS precursor for each area, providing all chemical and are suited for the monitoring of urban air monitoring must be conducted annually measurements are made. For example, if a design includes two Type 2 sites, then a third toxic pollutants. throughout the months of June, July and (c) Type 3 sites are intended to monitor site will be necessary to capture the NOy August (as a minimum) when peak O3 values maximum O3 concentrations occurring measurement. The minimum required downwind from the area of maximum are expected in each area. Alternate number and type of monitoring sites and precursor emissions. precursor monitoring periods may be sampling requirements are listed in Table D– (d) Type 4 sites are established to submitted for approval to the Administrator 6 of this appendix. Any alternative plans may characterize the downwind transported O3 as a part of the annual monitoring network be put in place in lieu of these requirements, and its precursor concentrations exiting the plan required by § 58.10. if approved by the Administrator.

TABLE D–6 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58. MINIMUM REQUIRED PAMS MONITORING LOCATIONS AND FREQUENCIES

Measurement Where required Sampling frequency (all daily except for upper air meteor- ology) 1

Speciated VOC2 Two sites per area, one of which must be a Type 2 site ...... During the PAMS monitoring period: (1) Hourly auto GC, or (2) Eight 3-hour canisters, or (3) 1 morning and 1 after- noon canister with a 3-hour or less averaging time plus Continuous Total Non-methane Hydrocarbon measure- ment. Carbonyl sam- Type 2 site in areas classified as serious or above for the 8- 3-hour samples every day during the PAMS monitoring pe- pling. hour ozone standard. riod. 3 NOX ...... All Type 2 sites ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. NOy ...... One site per area at the Type 3 or Type 1 site ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. CO (ppb level) ... One site per area at a Type 2 site ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. Ozone ...... All sites ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. Surface met ...... All sites ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. Upper air mete- One representative location within PAMS area ...... Sampling frequency must be approved as part of the annual orology. monitoring network plan required in 40 CFR 58.10. 1 Daily or with an approved alternative plan. 2 Speciated VOC is defined in the ‘‘Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors’’, EPA/600–R–98/161, September 1998. 3 Approved ozone monitoring season as stipulated in Table D–3 of this appendix.

5.4 Transition Period. A transition period 3. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of 9. Photochemical Assessment Monitoring is allowed for phasing in the operation of Research and Development, U.S. Stations Implementation Manual. Office of newly required PAMS programs (due Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. generally to reclassification of an area into Washington D.C. EPA Publication No. 600/8– Environmental Protection Agency, Research serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment for 89–049F. August 1990. (NTIS document Triangle Park, NC. EPA–454/B–93–051. ozone). Following the date of redesignation numbers PB87–142378 and PB91–138420.) March 1994. or reclassification of any existing O3 4. Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for Lead 37. Appendix E to part 58 is revised to nonattainment area to serious, severe, or Monitoring. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. read as follows: extreme, or the designation of a new area and Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. classification to serious, severe, or extreme Environmental Protection Agency, Research Appendix E to Part 58—Probe and O3 nonattainment, a State is allowed 1 year Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 68–02– Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for to develop plans for its PAMS 3013. May 1981. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring implementation strategy. Subsequently, a 5. Guidance for Conducting Ambient Air minimum of one Type 2 site must be Monitoring for Lead Around Point Sources. 1. Introduction. operating by the first month of the following Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement. approved PAMS season. Operation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 3. Spacing from Minor Sources. remaining site(s) must, at a minimum, be Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA–454/R–92– 4. Spacing From Obstructions. phased in at the rate of one site per year 5. Spacing From Trees. 009. May 1997. during subsequent years as outlined in the 6. Spacing From Roadways. 6. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum approved PAMS network description 7. Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria provided by the State. Path. for Particulate Matter. GEOMET 8. Maximum Monitoring Path Length. 6. References Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared 9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample 1. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Residence Time. Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract 10. Waiver Provisions. The Center for the Environment and Man, No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–87–009. May 11. Summary. Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. 1987. 12. References. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 7. Watson et al. Guidance for Network Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Design and Optimum Site Exposure for PM2.5 1. Introduction 450/3–77–013. April 1977. and PM10. Prepared for U.S. Environmental (a) This appendix contains specific 2. Ludwig, F.F., J.H.S. Kealoha, and E. Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, location criteria applicable to SLAMS, Shelar. Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide NC. EPA–454/R–99–022, December 1997. NCore, and PAMS ambient air quality Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, 8. Guideline for Selecting and Modifying monitoring probes, inlets, and optical paths Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. the Ozone Monitoring Season Based on an 8- after the general location has been selected Environmental Protection Agency, Research Hour Ozone Standard. Prepared for U.S. based on the monitoring objectives and Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC. spatial scale of representation discussed in 450/3–75–077, September 1975. EPA–454/R–98–001, June 1998. appendix D to this part. Adherence to these

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

siting criteria is necessary to ensure the neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency path analyzer’s light transmission. If certain uniform collection of compatible and should avoid placing a monitor probe, path, compensating measures are not otherwise comparable air quality data. or inlet near local, minor sources. The plume implemented at the onset of monitoring (e.g., (b) The probe and monitoring path siting from the local minor sources should not be shorter path lengths, higher light source criteria discussed in this appendix must be allowed to inappropriately impact the air intensity), data recovery during periods of followed to the maximum extent possible. It quality data collected at a site. Particulate greatest primary pollutant potential could be is recognized that there may be situations matter sites should not be located in an compromised. For instance, if heavy fog or where some deviation from the siting criteria unpaved area unless there is vegetative high particulate levels are coincident with may be necessary. In any such case, the ground cover year round, so that the impact periods of projected NAAQS-threatening reasons must be thoroughly documented in a of wind blown dusts will be kept to a pollutant potential, the representativeness of written request for a waiver that describes minimum. the resulting data record in reflecting how and why the proposed siting deviates (b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide maximum pollutant concentrations may be from the criteria. This documentation should (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can substantially impaired despite the fact that help to avoid later questions about the have a scavenging effect causing the site may otherwise exhibit an acceptable, validity of the resulting monitoring data. unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 even exceedingly high overall valid data Conditions under which the EPA would in the vicinity of probes and monitoring capture rate. consider an application for waiver from these paths for O3. To minimize these potential 5. Spacing From Trees siting criteria are discussed in section 10 of interferences, the probe or at least 90 percent this appendix. of the monitoring path must be away from (a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, (c) The pollutant-specific probe and furnace or incineration flues or other minor or NO2 adsorption or reactions, and surfaces monitoring path siting criteria generally sources of SO2 or NO. The separation for particle deposition. Trees can also act as apply to all spatial scales except where noted distance should take into account the heights obstructions in cases where they are located otherwise. Specific siting criteria that are of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and between the air pollutant sources or source phrased with a ‘‘must’’ are defined as the sulfur content of the fuel. areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf requirements and exceptions must be 4. Spacing From Obstructions approved through the waiver provisions. canopy density to interfere with the normal However, siting criteria that are phrased with (a) Buildings and other obstacles may airflow around the probe, inlet, or monitoring a ‘‘should’’ are defined as goals to meet for possibly scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can path. To reduce this possible interference/ consistency but are not requirements. act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To obstruction, the probe, inlet, or at least 90 avoid this interference, the probe, inlet, or at percent of the monitoring path must be at 2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement least 90 percent of the monitoring path must least 10 meters or further from the drip line The probe or at least 80 percent of the have unrestricted airflow and be located of trees. monitoring path must be located between 2 away from obstacles. The distance from the (b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater and 15 meters above ground level for all obstacle to the probe, inlet, or monitoring for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. ozone, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide path must be at least twice the height that the Monitoring agencies must take steps to monitoring sites, and for neighborhood scale obstacle protrudes above the probe, inlet, or consider the impact of trees on ozone Pb, PM10, PM10–2.5, PM2.5, and carbon monitoring path. An exception to this monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this monoxide sites. Middle scale PM10–2.5 sites requirement can be made for measurements problem. are required to have sampler inlets between taken in street canyons or at source-oriented (c) For microscale sites of any air pollutant, 2 and 7 meters above ground level. sites where buildings and other structures are no trees or shrubs should be located between Microscale Pb, PM10, PM10–2.5 and PM2.5 sites unavoidable. the probe and the source under investigation, are required to have sampler inlets between (b) Generally, a probe or monitoring path such as a roadway or a stationary source. 2 and 7 meters above ground level. The inlet located near or along a vertical wall is probes for microscale carbon monoxide undesirable because air moving along the 6. Spacing From Roadways monitors that are being used to measure wall may be subject to possible removal 6.1 Spacing for Ozone and Oxide of concentrations near roadways must be 3±1⁄2 mechanisms. A probe, inlet, or monitoring Nitrogen Probes and Monitoring Paths. In meters above ground level. The probe or at path must have unrestricted airflow in an arc siting an O3 analyzer, it is important to least 90 percent of the monitoring path must of at least 180 degrees. This arc must include minimize destructive interferences from be at least 1 meter vertically or horizontally the predominant wind direction for the sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with away from any supporting structure, walls, season of greatest pollutant concentration O3. In siting NO2 analyzers for neighborhood parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from potential. For particle sampling, a minimum and urban scale monitoring, it is important dusty or dirty areas. If the probe or a of 2 meters of separation from walls, to minimize interferences from automotive significant portion of the monitoring path is parapets, and structures is required for sources. Table E–1 of this appendix provides located near the side of a building, then it rooftop site placement. the required minimum separation distances should be located on the windward side of (c) Special consideration must be given to between a roadway and a probe or, where the building relative to the prevailing wind the use of open path analyzers due to their applicable, at least 90 percent of a monitoring direction during the season of highest inherent potential sensitivity to certain types path for various ranges of daily roadway concentration potential for the pollutant of interferences, or optical obstructions. A traffic. A sampling site having a point being measured. monitoring path must be clear of all trees, analyzer probe located closer to a roadway brush, buildings, plumes, dust, or other than allowed by the Table E–1 requirements 3. Spacing From Minor Sources optical obstructions, including potential should be classified as middle scale rather (a) It is important to understand the obstructions that may move due to wind, than neighborhood or urban scale, since the monitoring objective for a particular location human activity, growth of vegetation, etc. measurements from such a site would more in order to interpret this particular Temporary optical obstructions, such as rain, closely represent the middle scale. If an open requirement. Local minor sources of a particles, fog, or snow, should be considered path analyzer is used at a site, the monitoring primary pollutant, such as SO2, lead, or when siting an open path analyzer. Any of path(s) must not cross over a roadway with particles, can cause high concentrations of these temporary obstructions that are of an average daily traffic count of 10,000 that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. sufficient density to obscure the light beam vehicles per day or more. For those situations If the objective for that monitoring site is to will affect the ability of the open path where a monitoring path crosses a roadway investigate these local primary pollutant analyzer to continuously measure pollutant with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, one emissions, then the site is likely to be concentrations. Transient, but significant must consider the entire segment of the properly located nearby. This type of obscuration of especially longer monitoring path in the area of potential monitoring site would in all likelihood be a measurement paths could occur as a result of atmospheric interference from automobile microscale type of monitoring site. If a certain meteorological conditions (e.g., heavy emissions. Therefore, this calculation must monitoring site is to be used to determine air fog, rain, snow) and/or aerosol levels that are include the length of the monitoring path quality over a much larger area, such as a of a sufficient density to prevent the open over the roadway plus any segments of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61325

monitoring path that lie in the area between distance, as determined from Table E–1 of must not be greater than 10 percent of the the roadway and the minimum separation this appendix. The sum of these distances total monitoring path length.

TABLE E–1 TO APPENDIX E OF PART 58. MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN ROADWAYS AND PROBES OR MONI- TORING PATHS FOR MONITORING NEIGHBORHOOD AND URBAN SCALE OZONE (O3) AND OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NO, NO2, NOX, NOy)

Roadway aver- age daily traffic, Minimum distance 1 (meters) Minimum distance 1, 2 (meters) vehicles per day

≤1,000 ...... 10 10 10,000 ...... 10 20 15,000 ...... 20 30 20,000 ...... 30 40 40,000 ...... 50 60 70,000 ...... 100 100 ≥110,000 ...... 250 250 1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count. 2 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.

6.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes scale, since the measurements from such a whether it be from mobile or multiple and Monitoring Paths. (a) Street canyon and site would closely represent the middle scale. stationary sources. If the area is primarily traffic corridor sites (microscale) are intended Therefore, sites not meeting this criterion affected by mobile sources and the maximum to provide a measurement of the influence of should be classified as middle scale. concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic the immediate source on the pollution corridor or street canyon location, then the exposure of the population. In order to TABLE E–2 TO APPENDIX E OF PART monitors should be located near roadways provide some reasonable consistency and 58. MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE with the highest traffic volume and at comparability in the air quality data from separation distances most likely to produce microscale sites, a minimum distance of 2 BETWEEN ROADWAYS AND PROBES meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters OR MONITORING PATHS FOR MONI- the highest concentrations. For the microscale traffic corridor site, the location from the edge of the nearest traffic lane must TORING EIGHBORHOOD CALE N S must be between 5 and 15 meters from the be maintained for these CO monitoring inlet CARBON MONOXIDE probes. This should give consistency to the major roadway. For the microscale street data, yet still allow flexibility of finding canyon site the location must be between 2 Roadway average daily traf- Minimum dis- and 10 meters from the roadway. For the suitable locations. tance 1 (me- (b) Street canyon/corridor (microscale) fic, vehicles per day ters) middle scale site, a range of acceptable inlet probes must be located at least 10 distances from the roadway is shown in meters from an intersection and preferably at ≤10,000 ...... 10 figure E–1 of this appendix. This figure also a midblock location. Midblock locations are 15,000 ...... 25 includes separation distances between a preferable to intersection locations because 20,000 ...... 45 roadway and neighborhood or larger scale intersections represent a much smaller 30,000 ...... 80 sites by default. Any site, 2 to 15 meters high, portion of downtown space than do the 40,000 ...... 115 and further back than the middle scale streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is 50,000 ...... 135 requirements will generally be neighborhood, probably also greater in street canyon/ ≥60,000 ...... 150 urban or regional scale. For example, corridors than at intersections. according to Figure E–1 of this appendix, if (c) In determining the minimum separation 1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traf- a PM sampler is primarily influenced by between a neighborhood scale monitoring fic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic roadway emissions and that sampler is set site and a specific roadway, the presumption counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count. is made that measurements should not be back 10 meters from a 30,000 ADT (average daily traffic) road, the site should be substantially influenced by any one roadway. 6.3 Spacing for Particulate Matter (PM2.5, classified as microscale, if the sampler height Computations were made to determine the PM10, Pb) Inlets. (a) Since emissions separation distance, and Table E–2 of this associated with the operation of motor is between 2 and 7 meters. If the sampler appendix provides the required minimum vehicles contribute to urban area particulate height is between 7 and 15 meters, the site separation distance between roadways and a matter ambient levels, spacing from roadway should be classified as middle scale. If the probe or 90 percent of a monitoring path. criteria are necessary for ensuring national sample is 20 meters from the same road, it Probes or monitoring paths that are located consistency in PM sampler siting. will be classified as middle scale; if 40 closer to roads than this criterion allows (b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot meters, neighborhood scale; and if 110 should not be classified as a neighborhood sites in areas of highest concentrations meters, an urban scale.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

7. Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Pyrex glass and Teflon have been found to of this appendix. However, some existing Path be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines sites may not meet these requirements and (This paragraph applies only to open path for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. still produce useful data for some purposes. Furthermore, the EPA25 has specified The EPA will consider a written request from analyzers.) The cumulative length or portion  of a monitoring path that is affected by minor borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon as the only the State agency to waive one or more siting sources, trees, or roadways must not exceed acceptable probe materials for delivering test criteria for some monitoring sites providing 10 percent of the total monitoring path atmospheres in the determination of that the State can adequately demonstrate the length. reference or equivalent methods. Therefore, need (purpose) for monitoring or establishing borosilicate glass, FEP Teflon or their a monitoring site at that location. 8. Maximum Monitoring Path Length equivalent must be the only material in the 10.1 For establishing a new site, a waiver (This paragraph applies only to open path sampling train (from inlet probe to the back may be granted only if both of the following analyzers.) The monitoring path length must of the analyzer) that can be in contact with criteria are met: not exceed 1 kilometer for analyzers in the ambient air sample for existing and new 10.1.1 The site can be demonstrated to be neighborhood, urban, or regional scale. For SLAMs. as representative of the monitoring area as it middle scale monitoring sites, the monitoring (b) For volatile organic compound (VOC) would be if the siting criteria were being met.  path length must not exceed 300 meters. In monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon is 10.1.2 The monitor or probe cannot areas subject to frequent periods of dust, fog, unacceptable as the probe material because of reasonably be located so as to meet the siting rain, or snow, consideration should be given VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on criteria because of physical constraints (e.g., to a shortened monitoring path length to the FEP Teflon. Borosilicate glass, stainless inability to locate the required type of site the minimize loss of monitoring data due to steel, or its equivalent are the acceptable necessary distance from roadways or these temporary optical obstructions. For probe materials for VOC and carbonyl obstructions). certain ambient air monitoring scenarios sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that 10.2 However, for an existing site, a using open path analyzers, shorter path the sample residence time is kept to 20 waiver may be granted if either of the criteria lengths may be needed in order to ensure that seconds or less. in sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of this appendix the monitoring site meets the objectives and (c) No matter how nonreactive the are met. spatial scales defined in appendix D to this sampling probe material is initially, after a 10.3 Cost benefits, historical trends, and part. The Regional Administrator may require period of use reactive particulate matter is other factors may be used to add support to shorter path lengths, as needed on an deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the the criteria in sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of individual basis, to ensure that the SLAMS time it takes the gas to transfer from the this appendix, however, they in themselves, sites meet the appendix D requirements. probe inlet to the sampling device is also will not be acceptable reasons for granting a Likewise, the Administrator may specify the critical. Ozone in the presence of nitrogen waiver. Written requests for waivers must be maximum path length used at NCore oxide (NO) will show significant losses even submitted to the Regional Administrator. monitoring sites. in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds.26 Other 11. Summary 9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample studies 27¥28 indicate that a 10-second or less Table E–4 of this appendix presents a Residence Time residence time is easily achievable. summary of the general requirements for (a) For the reactive gases, SO2, NO2, and Therefore, sampling probes for reactive gas probe and monitoring path siting criteria O3, special probe material must be used for monitors at NCore must have a sample with respect to distances and heights. It is point analyzers. Studies 20¥24 have been residence time less than 20 seconds. apparent from Table E–4 that different conducted to determine the suitability of elevation distances above the ground are materials such as polypropylene, 10. Waiver Provisions shown for the various pollutants. The polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, Tygon, Most sampling probes or monitors can be discussion in this appendix for each of the aluminum, brass, stainless steel, copper, located so that they meet the requirements of pollutants describes reasons for elevating the Pyrex glass and Teflon for use as intake this appendix. New sites with rare monitor, probe, or monitoring path. The sampling lines. Of the above materials, only exceptions, can be located within the limits differences in the specified range of heights

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.061 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61327

are based on the vertical concentration microscale, so a small range of heights are and to allow the use of a single manifold or gradients. For CO, the gradients in the used. The upper limit of 15 meters is monitoring path for monitoring more than vertical direction are very large for the specified for consistency between pollutants one pollutant.

TABLE E–4 OF APPENDIX E TO PART 58. SUMMARY OF PROBE AND MONITORING PATH SITING CRITERIA

Horizontal and vertical distance Distance Height from from sup- from trees ground to porting to probe, Distance from roadways to probe, Scale (maximum monitoring path probe, inlet Pollutant structures 2 inlet or 90% inlet or monitoring path 1 length, meters) or 80% of to probe, of moni- (meters) monitoring 1 1 inlet or 90% toring path path of moni- (meters) toring path 1 (meters)

3,4,5,6 SO2 ...... Middle (300 m) Neighborhood 2–15 ...... > 1 ...... > 10 ...... N/A Urban, and Regional (1 km). CO 4,5,7 ...... Micro, middle (300 m), Neighbor- 3±1⁄2: 2–15 > 1 ...... > 10 ...... 2–10; see Table E–2 of this ap- hood (1 km). pendix for middle and neighbor- hood scales. 3,4,5 NO2, O3 ...... Middle (300 m) Neighborhood, 2–15 ...... > 1 ...... > 10 ...... See Table E–1 of this appendix Urban, and Regional (1 km). for all scales. Ozone precursors (for Neighborhood and Urban (1 km) 2–15 ...... > 1 ...... > 10 ...... See Table E–4 of this appendix PAMS) 3,4,5. for all scales. PM,Pb 3,4,5,6,8 ...... Micro: Middle, Neighborhood, 2–7 (micro); > 2 (all > 10 (all 2–10 (micro); see Figure E–1 of Urban and Regional. 2–7 (mid- scales, scales). this appendix for all other dle horizontal scales. PM10–2.5); distance 2–15 (all only). other scales). N/A—Not applicable. 1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring and all applicable scales for moni- toring SO2,O3, O3 precursors, and NO2. 2 When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof. 3 Should be >20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstruction. 4 Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle pro- trudes above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text). 5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building. 6 The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source’s emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources. 7 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location. 8 Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference.

12. References Toronto, Canada. June 20–24, 1977. APCA Rationale for Siting Hi-Vols in the Vicinity of 1. Bryan, R.J., R.J. Gordon, and H. Menck. 77–13.4.) Roadways. OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Comparison of High Volume Air Filter 5. Harrison, P.R. Considerations for Siting Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Samples at Varying Distances from Los Air Quality Monitors in Urban Areas. City of NC. April 1978. Chicago, Department of Environmental 10. Ludwig, F.L., J.H. Kealoha, and E. Angeles Freeway. University of Southern Control, Chicago, IL. (Presented at 66th Shelar. Selecting Sites for Monitoring Total California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Suspended Particulates. Stanford Research CA. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Association, Chicago, IL. June 24–28, 1973. Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Pollution Control Association. Chicago, IL. APCA 73–161.) Environmental Protection Agency, Research June 24–28, 1973. APCA 73–158.) 6. Study of Suspended Particulate Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– 2. Teer, E.H. Atmospheric Lead Measurements at Varying Heights Above 450/3–77–018. June 1977, revised December Concentration Above an Urban Street. Master Ground. Texas State Department of Health, 1977. of Science Thesis, Washington University, St. Air Control Section, Austin, TX. 1970. p.7. 11. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum Louis, MO. January 1971. 7. Rodes, C.E. and G.F. Evans. Summary of Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. 3. Bradway, R.M., F.A. Record, and W.E. LACS Integrated Pollutant Data. In: Los The Center for the Environment and Man, Belanger. Monitoring and Modeling of Angeles Catalyst Study Symposium. U.S. Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. Resuspended Roadway Dust Near Urban Environmental Protection Agency, Research Environmental Protection Agency, Research Arterials. GCA Technology Division, Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Bedford, MA. (Presented at 1978 Annual 600/4–77–034. June 1977. 450/3–77–013. April 1977. Meeting of Transportation Research Board, 8. Lynn, D.A. et al. National Assessment of 12. Ludwig, F.L. and J.H.S. Kealoha. Washington, DC. January 1978.) the Urban Particulate Problem: Volume 1, Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide 4. Pace, T.G., W.P. Freas, and E.M. Afify. National Assessment. GCA Technology Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, Quantification of Relationship Between Division, Bedford, MA. U.S. Environmental Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Monitor Height and Measured Particulate Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Levels in Seven U.S. Urban Areas. U.S. NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–75– Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Environmental Protection Agency, Research 024. June 1976. 450/3–75–077. September 1975. Triangle Park, NC. (Presented at 70th Annual 9. Pace, T.G. Impact of Vehicle-Related 13. Ludwig, F.L. and E. Shelar. Site Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Particulates on TSP Concentrations and Selection for the Monitoring of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Photochemical Air Pollutants. Stanford 20. Wechter, S.G. Preparation of Stable Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared Pollutant Gas Standards Using Treated for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aluminum Cylinders. ASTM STP. 598:40– Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication 54, 1976. No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–87–009. May No. EPA–450/3–78–013. April 1978. 21. Wohlers, H.C., H. Newstein and D. 1987. 14. Lead Analysis for Kansas City and Daunis. Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur 30. Burton, R.M. and J.C. Suggs. Cincinnati, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Dioxide Adsorption On and Description Philadelphia Roadway Study. Environmental Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. From Glass, Plastic and Metal Tubings. J. Air Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Poll. Con. Assoc. 17:753, 1976. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 66–02– 22. Elfers, L.A. Field Operating Guide for Triangle Park, N.C. EPA–600/4–84–070 2515, June 1977. Automated Air Monitoring Equipment. U.S. September 1984. 15. Barltrap, D. and C.D. Strelow. Westway NTIS. p. 202, 249, 1971. 31. Technical Assistance Document For Nursery Testing Project. Report to the Greater 23. Hughes, E.E. Development of Standard Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. London Council. August 1976. Reference Material for Air Quality Atmospheric Research and Exposure Measurement. ISA Transactions, 14:281–291, 16. Daines, R. H., H. Moto, and D. M. Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental 1975. Chilko. Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 24. Altshuller, A.D. and A.G. Wartburg. Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways. NC 27711. EPA 600/8–91–215. October 1991. The Interaction of Ozone with Plastic and Environ. Sci. and Technol., 4:318, 1970. 32. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Metallic Materials in a Dynamic Flow Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. 17. Johnson, D. E., et al. Epidemiologic System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll., Study of the Effects of Automobile Traffic on Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric 4:70–78, 1961. Research and Exposure Assessment Blood Lead Levels, Southwest Research 25. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 Institute, Houston, TX. Prepared for U.S. Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection part 53.22, July 1976. Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 26. Butcher, S.S. and R.E. Ruff. Effect of EPA 600/4–90–0003. August 1989. Triangle Park, NC. EPA–600/1–78–055, Inlet Residence Time on Analysis of 33. On-Site Meteorological Program August 1978. Atmospheric Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone, Guidance for Regulatory Modeling 18. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of Anal. Chem., 43:1890, 1971. Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning Research and Development, U.S. 27. Slowik, A.A. and E.B. Sansone. and Standards, U.S. Environmental Environmental Protection Agency, Diffusion Losses of Sulfur Dioxide in Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Washington, DC EPA–600/8–83–028 aF–dF, Sampling Manifolds. J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc., NC 27711. EPA 450/4–87–013. June 1987F. 1986, and supplements EPA–600/8–89/049F, 24:245, 1974. August 1990. (NTIS document numbers 28. Yamada, V.M. and R.J. Charlson. Proper Appendix F—[Removed and Reserved] PB87–142378 and PB91–138420.) Sizing of the Sampling Inlet Line for a 19. Lyman, D. R. The Atmospheric Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Environ. 38. Appendix F to part 58 is removed Diffusion of Carbon Monoxide and Lead from Sci. and Technol., 3:483, 1969. and reserved. an Expressway, Ph.D. Dissertation, 29. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria [FR Doc. 06–8478 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 1972. for Particulate Matter, GEOMET BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Part IV

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 51 and 52 Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Supplemental Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

NUCLEAR REGULATORY may also be submitted via the Federal III. Section-by-Section Analysis COMMISSION eRulemaking portal http:// IV. Specific Request for Comments www.regulations.gov. V. Availability of Documents 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, 51 and 52 Hand deliver comments to: 11555 VI. Plain Language Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland VII. Agreement State Compatibility RIN 3150–AG24 VIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. IX. Environmental Impact—Categorical Licenses, Certifications, and Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) Exclusion Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; 415–1966). X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Supplemental Proposed Rule Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. XI. Regulatory Analysis Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 415–1101. XIII. Backfit Analysis Publicly available documents related Commission. I. Background ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. to this rulemaking may be examined and copied for a fee at the NRC’s Public A. History of the Part 52 Rulemaking SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Document Room (PDR), Public File Area Proceeding Commission (NRC) is proposing to O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 The NRC issued 10 CFR part 52 on supplement its proposed rule entitled Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. April 18, 1989 (54 FR 15372), to reform ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals Selected documents, including its licensing process for future nuclear for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ which was comments, can be viewed and power plants. The rule added published on March 13, 2006 (71 FR downloaded electronically via the NRC alternative licensing processes in 10 12782). The NRC is proposing to rulemaking Web site at http:// CFR part 52 for early site permits, supplement that proposed rule by ruleforum.llnl.gov. standard design certifications, and Publicly available documents created amending the regulations applicable to combined licenses. These were or received at the NRC after November limited work authorizations (LWA), additions to the two-step licensing 1, 1999, are available electronically at which allow limited construction process that already existed in 10 CFR the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at activities on nuclear power plants to part 50. The processes in 10 CFR part http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/ commence before a construction permit 52 allow for resolving safety and index.html. From this site, the public or combined license is issued. This environmental issues early in the can gain entry into the NRC’s supplemental proposed rule would licensing proceedings and were Agencywide Document Access and modify the scope of activities that are intended to enhance the safety and Management System (ADAMS), which considered construction requiring a reliability of nuclear power plants provides text and image files of NRC’s LWA and would also make changes to through standardization. public documents. If you do not have the review and approval process for The NRC had planned to update 10 access to ADAMS or if there are LWA requests. The NRC is proposing CFR part 52 after using the standard problems in accessing the documents these changes to enhance the efficiency design certification process. The located in ADAMS, contact the NRC of its licensing and approval process for proposed rulemaking action began with Public Document Room (PDR) Reference new nuclear reactors. the issuance of SECY–98–282, ‘‘Part 52 staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 DATES: Submit comments by November Rulemaking Plan,’’ on December 4, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 16, 2006. Comments received after this 1998. The Commission issued a staff date will be considered if it is practical FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. requirements memorandum on January to do so, but the Commission is able to Geary Mizuno, Office of the General 14, 1999 (SRM on SECY–98–282), ensure consideration only for comments Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory approving the NRC staff’s plan for received on or before this date. Commission, Washington, DC 20555– revising 10 CFR part 52. Subsequently, ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 0001; telephone (301) 415–1639; e-mail: the NRC obtained considerable by any one of the following methods. [email protected]. stakeholder comment on its planned Please include the following number SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: action, conducted three public meetings RIN 3150–AG24 in the subject line of I.. Background on the proposed rulemaking, and twice A. History of the Part 52 Rulemaking your comments. Comments on Proceeding posted draft rule language on the NRC’s rulemakings submitted in writing or in II. Discussion rulemaking Web site before issuance of electronic form will be made available A. History of the NRC’s Concept of the initial proposed rule on July 3, 2003 to the public in their entirety on the Construction and the LWA (68 FR 40026). However, a number of NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal B. NRC’s Proposed Concept of factors led the NRC to question whether information will not be removed from Construction and the LWA (PRM–50–82) the July 2003 proposed rule would meet your comments. C. NRC’s Proposed Concept of the NRC’s objective of improving the Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Construction and the AEA effectiveness of its processes for D. Proposed Supplement Complies With Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NEPA licensing future nuclear power plants Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn: 1. NRC’s Proposed Concept of Construction (71 FR 12782). As a result, the NRC Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Is Consistent With the Legal Effect of decided that a substantial rewrite and E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If NEPA expansion of the original proposed you do not receive a reply e-mail 2. NRC’s Proposed Concept of the ‘‘Major rulemaking was desirable so that the confirming that we have received your Federal Action’’ Is Consistent With agency may more effectively and comments, contact us directly at (301) NEPA Law efficiently implement the licensing and 415–1966. You may also submit 3. NRC’s Phased Approval Approach Is not approval processes for future nuclear Illegal Segmentation Under NEPA comments via the NRC’s rulemaking E. Inclusion of Additional Activities as power plants under part 52. Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. ‘‘Construction’’ under § 50.10(b) Accordingly, the Commission decided Address questions about our rulemaking F. Phased Application and Approval Process to revise the July 2003 proposed rule Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415– G. EIS Prepared, but Facility Never and published the revised proposed rule 5905; e-mail [email protected]. Comments Constructed for public comment on March 13, 2006

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61331

(71 FR 12782). The public comment the driving of piles was specifically that, to the fullest extent possible, the period on the March 2006 proposed rule excluded from the definition (33 FR policies, regulations and public laws of the ended on May 30, 2006. 2381; January 31, 1968). This change United States shall be interpreted and was implemented by amending administered in accordance with the policies II. Discussion set forth in that Act. Since site preparation § 50.10(b)(1) to read: ‘‘Site exploration, constitutes a key point from the standpoint A. History of the NRC’s Concept of site excavation, preparation of the site of environmental impact, in connection with Construction and the LWA for construction of the reactor, including the licensing of nuclear facilities and Section 101 of the Atomic Energy Act the driving of piles, and construction of materials, these amendments will facilitate roadways, railroad spurs, and consideration and balancing of a broader of 1954, as amended (AEA) prohibits the range of realistic alternatives and provide a manufacture, production, or use of a transmission lines.’’ The rationale for this change, as articulated in the more significant mechanism for protecting commercial nuclear power reactor, the environment during the earlier stages of except where the manufacture, proposed rule (32 FR 11278; August 3, a project for which a facility or materials production or use is conducted under a 1967), seems to have been that the license is being sought. (37 FR 5746) driving of piles was closely related to license issued by the Commission. Thus, the Commission’s interpretation ‘‘preparation of the site for While construction of a nuclear power of its responsibilities under NEPA, not construction’’ and that the performance reactor is not mentioned in section 101, the AEA, was the driving factor leading of this type of site preparation activity section 185 of the AEA requires that the to its adoption of § 50.10(c).1 Commission grant construction permits would not affect the NRC’s subsequent Two years after the expansion of the to applicants for licenses to construct or decision to grant or deny the Commission’s permitting authority modify production or utilization construction permit. With the exception resulting from the promulgation of facilities, if the applications for such of the exclusion of the driving of piles § 50.10(c), the NRC promulgated permits are acceptable to the from the definition of construction in § 50.10(e) (39 FR 14506; April 24, 1974). Commission. However, the term 1968, the NRC’s interpretation of the This provision created the current LWA construction is not defined anywhere in scope of activities requiring a process, which was added to allow site the AEA or in the legislative history of construction permit under the AEA has preparation, excavation and certain the Act. remained largely unchanged. other on-site activities to proceed before To prevent the construction of However, following the enactment of issuance of a construction permit. Prior production or utilization facilities the National Environmental Policy Act to the promulgation of § 50.10(e), NRC before a construction permit is issued, of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the permission to engage in site preparation the NRC proposed a regulatory Commission adopted a major activities before a construction permit definition of construction in 1960 (25 amendment to the definition of was issued could only be obtained via FR 1224; February 11, 1960). The construction in § 50.10 (37 FR 5745; an exemption issued under § 50.12. The definition of construction was adopted March 21, 1972). In that rulemaking, the provisions of § 50.10(e) allowed the in a final rule that same year and Commission adopted a much more NRC to authorize the commencement of codified in 10 CFR 50.10(b) (25 FR 8712; expansive concept of construction. both safety-related (known as ‘‘LWA–II’’ September 9, 1960). As promulgated, Specifically, a new § 50.10(c) was activities) and non safety-related § 50.10(b) stated that no person shall adopted stating that no person shall (known as ‘‘LWA–I’’ activities) on-site begin the construction of a production effect ‘‘commencement of construction’’ construction activities before issuance or utilization facility on a site on which of a production or utilization facility on of a construction permit if the NRC had the facility is to be operated until a the site on which such facility will be completed a final environmental impact construction permit had been issued. constructed until a construction permit statement (FEIS) on the issuance of the Construction was defined in § 50.10(b) has been issued. ‘‘Commencement of construction permit and the presiding as including: construction’’ was defined as officer in the construction permit pouring the foundation for, or the installation any clearing of land, excavation or other proceeding had made the requisite of, any portion of the permanent facility on substantial action that would adversely affect environmental and, in the case of an the site; but [not to] include: (1) Site the natural environment of a site and LWA–II, safety-related findings. exploration, site excavation, preparation of construction of nonnuclear facilities (such as the site for construction of the facility and turbogenerators and turbine buildings) for B. NRC’s Proposed Concept of construction of roadways, railroad spurs and use in connection with the facility, but does Construction and the LWA (PRM–50–82) not mean: (1) Changes desirable for the transmission lines; (2) Procurement or The NRC received several comments manufacture of components of the facility; (3) temporary use of the land for public recreational uses, necessary boring to in response to its Part 52 proposed rule Construction of non-nuclear facilities (such revision published on March 13, 2006 as turbo-generators and turbine buildings) determine foundation conditions or other and temporary buildings (such as preconstruction monitoring to establish (71 FR 12782), including comments construction equipment storage sheds) for background information related to the submitted by the Nuclear Energy use in connection with the construction of suitability of the site or to the protection of Institute (NEI) dated May 25, 2006.2 the facility; and (4) with respect to environmental values; (2) Procurement or production or utilization facilities, other than manufacture of components of the facility; 1 See The Carolina Power and Light Company testing facilities, required to be licensed and (3) With respect to production or (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 pursuant to section 104a. or section 104c. of utilization facilities, other than testing and 4), 7 AEC 939, 943 (June 11, 1974) (hereinafter the Act, the construction of buildings which facilities, required to be licensed pursuant to Shearon Harris) (‘‘The regulations were revised in 1972, not because of any requirements of the will be used for activities other than section 104a or section 104c of the Act, the construction of buildings which will be used Atomic Energy Act, but rather to implement the operation of a facility and which may also be precepts of NEPA which had then recently been used to house a facility. (For example, the for activities other than operation of a facility and which may also be used to house a enacted.’’); Kansas Gas and Electric Company (Wolf construction of a college laboratory building Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1), 5 with space for installation of a training facility * * * . (37 FR 5748) NRC 1, 5 (Jan. 12, 1977) (explaining that NEPA led reactor is not affected by this paragraph). (25 The Commission explained that expansion the AEC to amend its regulations in several FR 8712; September 9, 1960) of the NRC’s permitting authority was: respects, including the changes to 50.10(c)). [C]onsistent with the direction of the 2 See Letter from Adrian P. Heymer, Nuclear The definition of construction Congress, as expressed in section 102 of the Energy Institute to Annette L. Vietti-Cook, remained unchanged until 1968, when National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

NEI’s comments suggested proposed rule.3 This supplemental power plant, and for which a modifications to the NRC’s LWA proposed rule would narrow the scope construction permit was issued, but process including: (1) That non-safety of activities requiring permission from construction of the plant was never related ‘‘LWA–I’’ activities, currently the NRC in the form of limited work completed. authorizations (LWA) by eliminating the reflected in § 50.10(c) and § 50.10(e)(1), C. NRC’s Proposed Concept of concept of ‘‘commencement of be allowed to proceed without prior Construction and the AEA authorization from the NRC, and (2) that construction’’ currently described in the approval process for safety-related § 50.10(c) and the authorization This change is fully consistent with ‘‘LWA–II’’ activities be accelerated. described in § 50.10(e)(1). Instead, the Commission’s radiological health NEI’s comment also stated that the under the supplemental proposed rule, and safety and common defense and current definition of construction in NRC authorization would only be security responsibilities under the 4 § 50.10(b) reflects the correct required before undertaking activities AEA. Specifically, the Commission has interpretation of the Commission’s that have a reasonable nexus to determined that the site-preparation licensing authority under the AEA. radiological health and safety and/or activities that would no longer be common defense and security (i.e. considered construction under this Further, NEI’s comment letter stated excavation, subsurface preparation, proposed rule do not have a reasonable that ‘‘[t]o the extent the NRC determines installation of the foundation, and on- nexus to radiological health and safety, that these LWA issues cannot be site, in-place fabrication, erection, or the common defense and security. addressed in the current rulemaking, we integration or testing, for any structure, Further, as previously mentioned, the ask that the Commission initiate an system or component of a facility term ‘‘construction’’ is not defined in expedited rulemaking.’’ The NRC has required by the Commission’s rules and the AEA or in the Act’s legislative determined that the changes suggested regulations to be described in the site history. Instead of expressly defining in the NEI comment could not be safety analysis report or preliminary or the term in the AEA, Congress entrusted incorporated into the final Part 52 rule final safety analysis report). While this the agency with the responsibility of without re-noticing. Therefore, the redefinition of ‘‘construction’’ would determining what activities constitute Commission has decided that the NEI result in fewer activities requiring NRC construction.5 The Commission believes letter meets the sufficiency permission in the form of a LWA, it also that its proposed definition of the term requirements described in 10 CFR redefines certain activities (such as the ‘‘construction’’ is reasonable. 2.802(c) and is docketing the letter as a driving of piles), that are currently petition for rulemaking (PRM–50–82). D. Proposed Supplement Complies With excluded from the regulatory definition NEPA Furthermore, the NRC has determined of construction given in § 50.10(b), as that it is appropriate to seek public construction requiring a LWA. 1. NRC’s Proposed Concept of comment on the action requested by Further, this proposed rule would Construction is Consistent with the petitioner within the context of this provide an optional, phased application Legal Effect of NEPA supplemental proposed rule, which has and approval procedure for construction The proposed change in the definition been developed in response to NEI’s permit and combined license applicants of construction is also consistent with request, as allowed under 10 CFR to obtain limited work authorizations. the legal effect of NEPA. Section 2.802(e). Specifically, the proposed rule would 50.10(c) was originally added to part 50 NEI supported its suggested changes provide an environmental review and due to the interpretation that the to the LWA process, stating that the approval process for LWA requests that enactment of NEPA, not a change in the business environment requires that new would allow the NRC to grant an powers delegated to the agency in the plant applicants seek to minimize the applicant permission to engage in LWA AEA, required the NRC to expand its time interval between a decision to activities after completion of a limited permitting/licensing authority. proceed with a combined license environmental impact statement However, subsequent judicial decisions application and the start of commercial addressing those activities, but before have made it clear that NEPA is a operation. In order to achieve this goal, completion of the comprehensive procedural statute and does not expand NEI states that non safety-related environmental impact statement the jurisdiction delegated to an agency ‘‘LWA–I’’ activities would need to be addressing the underlying request for a by its organic statute.6 Therefore, while initiated up to two years before the construction permit or combined NEPA may require the NRC to consider activities currently defined as license. Finally, this proposed rule the environmental effects caused by the ‘‘construction’’ in § 50.10(b). In NEI’s would specifically address the exercise of its permitting/licensing view, the current LWA approval process environmental review required in authority, the statute cannot be the would constrain the industry’s ability to situations where the LWA activities are source of the expansion of the NRC’s use modern construction practices and to be conducted at sites for which the authority to require construction needlessly add eighteen (18) months to Commission has previously prepared an permits, combined licenses, or other estimated construction schedules for environmental impact statement for the forms of permission for activities that new plants that did not reference an construction and operation of a nuclear are not reasonably related to early site permit (ESP) with LWA radiological health and safety or authority. 3 Industry stakeholders did not raise issues protection of the common defense and relating to perceived problems either with the LWA security. Since NEPA cannot expand the The NRC agrees, in part, with NEI’s process or, more generally, with the definition of comments and is now issuing this construction during the period leading to the March 4 See State of New Hampshire v. Atomic Energy supplement to the March 13, 2006 2006 proposed rule and no such changes were suggested in the proposed rule. Therefore, the NRC Commission, 406 F.2d 170, 174–75 (1st Cir. 1969). is providing notice and an opportunity for public 5 Shearon Harris, 7 AEC 939. Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, comment on the changes proposed in this 6 See, e.g., Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Pre-Licensing Construction Activity and Limited supplement. The Commission may adopt this Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350–52 (1989); Natural Work Authorization Issues relating to NRC supplemental proposed rule either as part of the Resources Defense Counsel v. U.S. Environmental Proposed Rule, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications and final rule promulgating the changes to Part 52 (see Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 129 (D.C. Cir Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 71 FR 12, 782 71 FR 12782; March 13, 2006), or in a separate final 1987); Kitchen v. Federal Communications (March 13, 2006) (RIN 3150–AG24) (May 25, 2006). rule. Commission, 464 F.2d 801, 802 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61333

Commission’s permitting/licensing determination of the existence of an This comprehensive consideration of authority under the AEA, the ‘‘obviously superior’’ site would not be environmental impacts would take elimination of the blanket inclusion of affected by the changes to those place before the NRC is committed to site preparation activities in the physical properties. For example, issuing any construction permit or definition of construction under meteorology and seismology would not combined license. The fact that the NRC § 50.10(c) does not violate NEPA. be affected in any significant way by the will not have prejudged the ultimate non-Federal site preparation activities. decision of whether to grant a 2. NRC’s Proposed Concept of the However, while the effects caused by construction permit or a combined ‘‘Major Federal Action’’ is Consistent the non-Federal, site preparation license by issuing the LWA, coupled with NEPA Law activities would not be considered with the requirement that the site Because the AEA does not authorize effects of the Commission’s licensing redress plan be implemented in the NRC to require an applicant to obtain action, the effects of the non-Federal event that the permit or license is permission before undertaking site activities would be considered during ultimately not issued, also ensures that preparation activities that do not any subsequent ‘‘cumulative impacts’’ issuance of the LWA would not implicate radiological health and safety analysis. Specifically, the effects of the foreclose reasonable alternatives. or common defense and security, as a non-Federal activities would be In addition, the proposed application general matter the Commission considered in order to establish a and approval process is consistent with considers these activities ‘‘non-Federal baseline against which the incremental the Commission’s previously expressed action’’ for the purposes of effect of the Commission’s major position that NEPA does not, as a implementing its NEPA responsibilities. Federal action (i.e. issuing a LWA, general matter, prohibit an agency from Generally, non-Federal actions are not construction permit or combined undertaking part of a project without a subject to the requirements of NEPA.7 license) would be measured. These complete environmental analysis of the Further, the Commission believes that incremental impacts may be additive or whole project.10 The key factors used to these non-Federal site preparation synergistic. support the Commission’s position in activities would not generally be 3. NRC’s Phased Approval Approach is Clinch River were; (1) That the site ‘‘federalized’’ if the Commission were to not Illegal Segmentation Under NEPA preparation activities in that case would ultimately grant a combined license or not result in irreversible or irretrievable construction permit. The grant of a The phased application and approval commitments to the remaining portions construction permit or combined license of LWAs does not raise the concerns of the project and (2) the environmental by the Commission is not a legal underlying the prohibition of impacts of the site preparation activities condition precedent to these non- segmentation under NEPA law. allowed in that case were substantially Federal, site preparation activities. Generally, the NEPA segmentation redressable.11 While the Commission recognizes that problem arises when the environmental These considerations are reflected in there may be a ‘‘but for’’ causal impacts of projects are evaluated in a the provisions of the supplemental relationship between certain non- piecemeal fashion and, as a result, the proposed rule. Specifically, § 50.10(c)(6) Federal site preparation activities and comprehensive environmental impacts of the proposed rule states that any the major Federal action of issuing a of the entire Federal action are never activity undertaken pursuant to a LWA construction permit or combined considered or are only considered after are entirely at the risk of the applicant, license, such a ‘‘but for’’ causal the agency has committed itself to that the issuance of the LWA has no relationship is not sufficient to require continuation of the project. Another bearing on whether the construction non-Federal site preparation activities to associated segmentation problem arises permit or combined license should be be treated as Federal action for the when pieces of a Federal action are issued, and that the environmental purposes of NEPA.8 evaluated separately and, as a result, impact statement associated with the In addition, under the proposed none of the individual pieces are underlying request will not consider the definition of construction, the considered ‘‘major federal actions’’ sunk costs associated with the LWA Commission does not believe that it has requiring an EIS.9 activities. In addition, § 50.10(c)(3) sufficient ability or discretion to Neither of these segmentation would require an applicant requesting a influence or control the non-Federal, concerns are presented by the approach LWA to submit a plan for redress of the site preparation activities to the extent proposed here. First, under both LWA site to be implemented in the event that that its influence or control would application options, the environmental the LWA holder is ultimately not issued constitute practical or factual veto effects associated with the LWA a construction permit or combined power over the non-Federal action. activities and the project as a whole (i.e. license. This site redress plan must Further, the Commission does not issuance of a construction permit or ‘‘achieve an environmentally stable and believe that allowing the non-Federal, combined license) would be evaluated aesthetically acceptable site suitable for site preparation activities to be in an EIS. Therefore, the segmentation whatever non-nuclear use may conform undertaken would restrict its problem of considering a project in with local zoning laws’’ in the event consideration of alternative sites or the phases, thereby avoiding completion of that the LWA holder is not ultimately need to assess whether there is an an EIS, is not an issue. In addition, all issued a construction permit or ‘‘obviously superior’’ site. Specifically, of the environmental impacts associated combined license. The redress plan while the Commission recognizes that with the construction and operation of would achieve this objective by narrowing the definition of construction the proposed plant, including the addressing site impacts resulting from may result in substantial changes to the impacts associated with the LWA LWA activities. Impacts associated with physical properties of a site, many of the activities, would be considered together, pre-LWA activities would not be fundamental elements that enter into a through incorporation by reference, in addressed in the redress plan. Further, the EIS prepared on the construction 7 Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of permit or combined license application. 10 See Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River Engineers, 610 F.2d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1980). Breeder Reactor Plant), 16 NRC 412, 424 (Aug. 17, 8 See Landmark West! v. U.S. Postal Service, 840 9 Daniel R. Mandelker, NEPA Law and Litigation, 1982) (hereinafter Clinch River). F.Supp. 994, 1006 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (citing cases). 9–25 (2nd ed. 2004). 11 Id.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

§ 50.10(c)(7) would require that the site entirely at the applicant’s risk (32 FR efficiencies to the licensing/ redress plan be implemented within a 11278). construction process by preventing reasonable time and that the redress of The NRC does not currently believe unnecessary delay in construction the site occur within eighteen (18) that the exclusion of a site preparation schedules, which would result if months of the Commission’s final activity from the definition of issuance of an LWA for safety-related decision denying a construction permit construction should hinge on this factor. activities were delayed until the final or combined license. The Commission believes that the site environmental impact statement and preparation activities described in adjudicatory hearing on the entire It should be noted that while redress § 50.10(b) of this supplement, including underlying license application were of site impacts may have the practical the driving of piles and excavation of complete. In addition, the proposed effect of mitigating some environmental foundations in certain situations, have a application/approval process would impacts, the redress plan is not a reasonable nexus to radiological health result in the timely resolution of substitute for a thorough evaluation of and safety, and/or common defense and relevant safety and environmental environmental impacts, or development security and, therefore, are properly issues at an earlier stage in the licensing of mitigation measures that may be considered ‘‘construction’’ as that term process. As previously discussed, the necessary to provide relief from is used in § 185 of the AEA. In addition, NRC believes that these efficiencies can environmental impacts associated with the inclusion of these activities in the be gained without compromising the the proposed LWA activities. The definition of construction (i.e. requiring agency’s NEPA responsibilities, as the primary purpose of the site redress plan an LWA before they are undertaken), phased approach presented in this is to ensure that impacts associated with coupled with the phased approval supplemental proposed rule does not any LWA activities performed at the site process suggested in this supplemental constitute illegal segmentation. will not prevent the site from being proposed rule, would allow for early utilized for a permissible, non-nuclear resolution of the safety issues associated G. EIS Prepared, but Facility Never alternative use. In this way, the redress with these activities. Early resolution of Constructed plan helps to preserve the Commission’s safety issues is consistent with the The supplemental proposed rule also ability to objectively evaluate an general rationale underlying the specifically addresses the situation application for a construction permit or licensing and permitting processes where a request is made to perform combined license, despite the fact that provided in 10 CFR part 52. LWA activities at a site for which an EIS LWA activities have been undertaken at has previously been prepared for the the site. F. Phased Application and Approval construction and operation of a nuclear Process power plant, and a construction permit E. Inclusion of Additional Activities as Another significant change suggested has been issued, but construction of the ‘‘Construction’’ Under § 50.10(b) in this supplemental proposed rule is plant was never completed. In this the modification of the procedure for A significant change proposed in this special situation, the proposed obtaining LWA approval by supplemental proposed rule is the supplement would allow an applicant to implementing an optional phased inclusion of activities—such as the reference the previous EIS in its application and approval process. environmental report, but requires that driving of piles and excavation of Specifically, as proposed, § 2.101(a)(9) the applicant identify any new and foundations for safety-related would allow applicants for construction significant information material to the structures—in the definition of permits and combined licenses the matters required to be addressed in the construction that are not currently option of submitting either: (1) A proposed § 51.49(a). Further, in these defined as construction in § 50.10(b). complete application or (2) a two part special cases the proposed supplement Although the driving of piles was not application with part one including would allow the NRC to incorporate the expressly included in the definition of information required for the NRC to previous EIS by reference when ‘‘construction’’ contained in § 50.10(b) make a decision on the applicant’s preparing its draft EIS on the LWA before the amendment of § 50.10(b)(1) in request to undertake LWA activities and activities. The draft EIS on the LWA 1968, this activity was generally part two containing all other request would be limited to the considered to be encompassed in the information required to obtain the consideration of any significant new existing definition of construction at underlying license or permit. The information dealing with the that time (See 33 FR 2381; January 31, proposed rule would allow the NRC to environmental impacts of construction, 1968). The proposed rule suggesting that consider the environmental impacts relevant to the activities to be carried the driving of piles be expressly attributable to the requested LWA out under the LWA. Further, in a excluded from the definition of activities separately, either as part of a hearing on issuance of an LWA at such construction simply states that the comprehensive environmental impact sites, the presiding officer would be ‘‘activity is closely related to, and may statement (EIS) in the case where a limited to determining whether there is be appropriately included in’’ site complete application is submitted, or in significant new information pertaining preparation activities, which were not a separate EIS addressing only the LWA to the environmental impacts of the considered construction (32 FR 11278; activities in the case of a two-part construction activities encompassed by August 3, 1967).12 The rationale for not application. After consideration of the the previous EIS that are analogous to including the driving of piles, and site environmental impacts and the relevant the activities to be conducted under the preparation activities generally, in the safety-related issues associated with the LWA. The presiding officer would definition of construction seems to have LWA activities, the NRC would be evaluate significant new information been that these activities would have no permitted to allow the applicant to indetermining whether an LWA should effect on the NRC’s ultimate decision to undertake the LWA activities, even if be issued as proposed by the Director of grant or deny a construction permit and the EIS on the underlying request (i.e. Nuclear Reactor Regulation. that these activities were undertaken construction permit or combined This provision is designed to gain license) is not complete. efficiency by using existing 12 The proposed rule language was promulgated The NRC believes that this phased environmental impact statements to without modification in the final rule. 33 FR 2381. application/approval process would add evaluate the environmental impacts of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61335

activities to be performed under an (4). However, the applicant would have Section 2.643 Acceptance and LWA. The Commission believes that the further option of submitting part two Docketing of Application for Limited this practice is appropriate because the in additional subparts in accordance Work Authorization referenced environmental review will with § 2.101(a–1). The second part (or Section 2.643, which is comparable to come in the form of a FEIS prepared by the first subpart of multiple subparts current § 2.603, describes the NRC staff for sites on which permission under § 2.101(a–1)) must be filed no acceptance and docketing requirements to construct a nuclear power plant was later than twelve (12) months after the for phased LWA applications, and the ultimately granted by the Commission. filing of part one. Part two of the requirement for publication in the The Commission understands that the application (or the first subpart of any Federal Register of a notice of docketing. activities proposed in a current LWA additional subparts submitted in Paragraph (a) provides that each part of request may be different from the accordance with § 2.101(a–1)) must be the application, when first received, activities proposed and analyzed in the submitted no later that twelve (12) will be treated as a tendered application previous FEIS referenced by an months after submission of part one of and assessed for sufficiency. If the applicant and relied upon by NRC staff. the application. submitted part of the application is However, it is the Commission’s intent An applicant for an early site permit determined to be incomplete, the that if such differences will likely result may not submit its LWA application in Director of NRR (Director) will inform in significant changes to the advance of the underlying early site the applicant. The determination of environmental impacts caused by the permit application, and therefore is not completeness will generally be made in LWA activities currently proposed by permitted to use the procedures of 30 days, barring unusual circumstances. the applicant, then the differences Subpart F. Under paragraph (b), the Director will should be considered ‘‘new and docket part one of the application only significant information’’ material to the Section 2.104 Notice of Hearing if that part is ‘‘complete.’’ The NRC environmental impacts that may would use the existing guidelines and reasonably be expected to result from Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of § 2.104 would the LWA activities and, therefore, be modified to more clearly refer to the practices for determining the should be addressed in the applicant’s authority requested under § 52.17(c) as completeness of applications under this environmental report, analyzed by the the limited work authorization under section, as are used in determining staff in a supplement to the existing § 50.10. completeness under § 2.101. Upon docketing, the Director will assign a FEIS, and considered by the presiding Subpart F officer. docket number that will be used Further, for the reasons previously The title of Subpart F would be throughout the entire proceeding discussed in section D.3, the revised to reflect the broader scope of (including that part of the proceeding on Commission does not believe that matters covered under this section, as part two of the application). Under authorizing LWA activities before described under § 2.600. paragraph (c), the Director would make completion of the FEIS on the combined the designated distributions to the Section 2.600 Scope of Subpart license or construction permit would Governor of the state in which the have the effect of prejudging the license/ The statement of scope in § 2.600 nuclear power plant will be located, and permit, or foreclosing reasonable would be revised to reflect the new set publish a notice of docketing in the alternatives. of procedures for phased LWA Federal Register. Often in practice, the notice of hearing required by the AEA III. Section-by-Section Analysis applications in proposed §§ 2.641 through 2.649. is included in the notice of docketing, Part 2 but as with existing applications, this Section 2.601 Applicability of Other will remain a matter of discretion by the Section 2.101 Filing of Application Sections NRC, who will determine what is the Section 2.101 would be revised to add most efficient course of action in this a new paragraph (a)(9), which would Section 2.601 would be corrected to regard. state that an applicant for a construction add references to subparts C, L and N of Paragraph (d) provides that part two permit or combined license may submit part 2, in order to make clear that these of the application will be docketed, as a request for an LWA either as part of subparts (in addition to subparts A and with part one, when it is determined to a complete application under G) apply to applications and be complete. The Commission reiterates paragraphs (a)(1) through (4), or in two proceedings under subpart F, except as that ‘‘part two’’ could be submitted in parts under this paragraph (i.e., a specifically provided in subpart F. several subparts, if the applicant chose ‘‘phased LWA application’’). If the LWA Section 2.606 Partial Decision on Site to take advantage of the provisions of application is submitted as part of a Suitability Issues § 2.101(a–1), which provides for complete construction permit or submission of applications in three operating license application, the Paragraph (a) of § 2.606, which parts. application must include the provides that a LWA may not be issued Finally, under paragraph (e), the information required by § 50.10(c). without completion of the ‘‘full review’’ Director will publish a second notice of If the application is a phased LWA required by NEPA, would be revised to docketing in the Federal Register, in application, the first part must contain remove the reference to a LWA, this case for part two of the application. the information required by § 50.10(c) inasmuch as LWAs would now be As with the notice of docketing for part on the LWA, as well as the general covered in §§ 2.641 through 2.649. one, the notice of docketing for part two information required of all production Section 2.641 Filing Fees may also include a notice of hearing on and utilization facility applicants under the second part of the application. § 50.33(a) through (f). The second part of Section 2.641, which is comparable to The Commission notes that nothing in the application would contain the current § 2.602, provides that a phased § 2.101(a)(9), or any part of subpart F, remaining information otherwise LWA application shall be accompanied requires that the hearing on part one of required to be filed in a complete by the applicable filing fees in § 50.30(e) the application be completed and an application under § 2.101(a)(1) thorough and part 170 of this chapter. initial decision issued by the presiding

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

officer, before part two of the Section 2.647 [Reserved] considered construction would be the application is filed. This section is reserved for future use excavation, subsurface preparation, and on-site, in-place fabrication, erection, Section 2.645 Notice of Hearing by the Commission. integration or testing (including the Section 2.645, which is comparable to Section 2.649 Partial Decisions on installation of foundations) of any current § 2.604, sets forth the content of Limited Work Authorization structure, system or component required the notice of hearing for each of the two Section 2.649, which is comparable to by the Commission’s rules and parts of the proceeding. Paragraph (a) § 2.606, denotes the provisions in regulations to be described in the site provides that the notice of hearing for subparts C and G relative to issues such safety analysis report, preliminary safety part one specify that the hearing will as oral arguments, immediate analysis report, or final safety analysis relate only to consideration of the effectiveness of the presiding officer’s report. The term, ‘‘on-site, in place, matters related to § 50.33(a) through (f), initial decision, and petitions for fabrication, erection, integration or and the limited work authorization Commission review, that apply to testing’’ is intended to describe the issues under review. Although not partial initial decisions on a LWA historical process of constructing a explicitly stated in this paragraph, rendered in accordance with this nuclear power plant in its final, on-site interested persons who seek to subpart. This section also states that the location, where components or modules intervene in the hearing on part one of LWA may not be issued without are integrated into the final, in-plant the application must file a petition to completion of the environmental review location and elevation. The definition is intervene in accordance with the notice required for LWAs under subpart A of intended to exclude persons from of hearing, and § 2.309. part 51. Finally, this section provides having to obtain a LWA, construction Under paragraph (b), a supplementary that the time periods for the permit, or combined license, in order to notice of hearing will be published in Commission to exercise its review and fabricate, assemble and test components the Federal Register when part two of sua sponte authority are the same time and modules in a shop building, the application is docketed. This warehouse, or laydown area located on- provides a second opportunity for periods provided for in part 2 with respect to a final decision on issuance site. interested persons to file petitions to Thus, the proposed redefinition of intervene with respect to the matters of a construction permit or combined license. construction for the most part returns to relevant to part two of the application. the pre-1972 definition of These petitions must be filed within the Part 50 ‘‘construction’’ in § 50.10(b), and time period specified in the notice of removes the need for NRC approval to hearing, and must meet the applicable Section 50.10 License Required; Limited Work Authorization conduct the activities currently requirements of subpart C of part 2, described in § 50.10(e)(1), except in two including the contention requirements Paragraph (a). This paragraph, which important respects. First, whereas in § 2.309. is unchanged from the current rule, existing § 50.10(b) allows the driving of Paragraph (c) of the proposed rule prohibits any person within the United piles for the facility, proposed § 50.10(b) differs somewhat from § 2.604, in that States from transferring or receiving in would not permit driving of piles for the Commission proposes not to allow interstate commerce, manufacturing, any structure, system or component a party admitted in part one of the producing, transferring, acquiring, required to be described in an SSAR, proceeding, who did not withdraw or possessing, or using any production or PSAR, or FSAR unless NRC permission was not otherwise dismissed, to utilization facility except as authorized is obtained in the form of a LWA, automatically continue as a party in by a license issued by the Commission, construction permit, or combined phase two of the proceeding. Instead, or as provided in § 50.11. license. Second, existing § 50.10(e)(1) each party who wishes to participate in Paragraph (b). This paragraph, which allows a person, with NRC permission the second phase must submit a second is substantially modified from the in the form of a LWA, to excavate and petition to intervene in accordance with current rule, prohibits any person from install the structural foundations for any § 2.309, but the petition need not beginning the ‘‘construction’’ of a structure, systems and components address the interest and standing production or utilization facility on a ‘‘which do not prevent or mitigate the requirements in § 2.309(d). The petition site on which the facility is to be consequences of postulated accidents must be filed within the time period operated until that person has been that could cause undue risk to the provided by the supplementary notice issued a construction permit, a health and safety of the public.’’ The of hearing published in the Federal combined license under part 52, or a proposed redefinition would not remove Register for part two of the application. limited work authorization under the need for NRC approval, but As noted in the section-by-section paragraph (c) of this section. substitutes a slightly different scope of analysis for § 2.643, nothing in The remainder of this paragraph is structures, systems and components § 2.101(a)(9) or subpart F requires that devoted to specifying what activities whose excavation and foundation the hearing on part one of the are, and are not, deemed to constitute installation may be allowed under an application be completed and an initial ‘‘construction’’ for purposes of this LWA, viz., those which are required to decision issued by the presiding officer, paragraph’s prohibition. Activities, such be described in the FSAR. before part two of the application is as site clearing, grading, site ‘‘Excavation,’’ as used in paragraph filed. Thus, there may be simultaneous exploration, test boring, erection of (b), excludes initial site grading to attain hearings on parts one and two of the temporary buildings and erection of the final ground elevation, and erosion application. However, as reflected in permanent structures which are not control measures to preclude run-off, at paragraph (e), the Commission’s intent required to be described in the site the location where further excavation is that the membership of the Atomic safety analysis report, preliminary safety will be required for a structure, systems Safety and Licensing Board designated analysis report, or final safety analysis or component required by the for hearings under part one be the same report, would not be regarded as Commission’s regulations to be as for the hearings under part two, to the ‘‘construction,’’ and no NRC approval described in the FSAR. By contrast, the extent practical and consistent with would be needed to conduct those removal of any soil, rock, gravel or other timely completion of each hearing. activities. The only work that would be material below the final ground

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61337

elevation, in preparation for the facility is to be operated;’’ which is not for alternative, non-nuclear uses that placement of the foundation and within the scope of a ‘‘manufacturing conform with local zoning laws. This associated retaining walls, is excavation license’’ under subpart F of part 52. will be accomplished through redress of that may not be performed without an Accordingly, manufacturing is not site impacts resulting from LWA LWA, construction permit, or combined covered by paragraph (b). activities performed at the site. Redress license under part 52. The ‘‘driving of Paragraph (c). This paragraph, which of site impacts resulting from pre-LWA piles’’ not related to ensuring the is substantially modified from the activities will not be required under the structural stability or integrity of any current rule, addresses the need for, redress plan. In addition, while redress structure, systems or component nature and contents of an application of site impacts may have the practical required by the Commission’s for a LWA. Paragraph (c)(1) allows the effect of mitigating some environmental regulations to be described in the FSAR Commission to issue an LWA in impacts, the redress plan is not a does not fall within the definition of advance of a construction permit or substitute for a thorough evaluation of construction in this paragraph. combined license, authorizing the environmental impacts, or development Therefore, piles driven to support the holder to perform certain delineated of mitigation measures that may be erection of a bridge for a temporary or construction requirements. necessary to provide relief from permanent access road would not be Paragraph (c)(2) provides that an LWA environmental impacts associated with considered ‘‘construction’’ under this application may be submitted as: the proposed LWA activities. section and may be performed without —Part of a complete application for a Paragraph (d). This paragraph, which a LWA, construction permit, or construction permit or combined is substantially modified from the combined license. ‘‘Installation of the license under § 2.101(a)(1) through current rule, generally addresses the foundation,’’ means soil compaction; (4). requirements associated with issuance the installation of drainage systems and —Part one of a phased application of a LWA. Paragraph (d)(1) sets forth the geofabric; the placement of concrete under § 2.101(a)(9). requirements for the appropriate (e.g., ‘‘mudmats’’) or other materials —Part of a complete application for an Director to issue an LWA under this which will not be removed prior to early site permit under § 2.101(a)(1) section. The Director may issue an LWA placement of the foundation of a through (4). only after making the appropriate structure; the placement and —An amendment to an already-issued findings on: (i) Necessary technical compaction of a subbase; the early site permit qualifications, and the matter of foreign ownership or control relevant to the installation of reinforcing bars to be Paragraph (c)(3) establishes the incorporated into the foundation of the information required by § 50.33(a) requirements for the content of an LWA through (f), as mandated by sections structure; the erection of concrete forms application. The application must for the foundations that will remain in- 103.d. and 182.a. of the AEA; (ii) include a safety analysis report, an making the necessary findings on public place permanently (even if non- environmental report, and a redress structural); and placement of concrete or health and safety and common defense plan. The safety analysis report, which and security with respect to the other material constituting the may be a stand-alone document or foundation of any structure, systems or activities to be carried out under the incorporated into the construction LWA; (iii) NRC staff issuance of a final component required by the permit or combined license Commission’s regulations to be EIS on the LWA in accordance with the application’s preliminary or final safety applicable requirements of part 51; and described in the FSAR. Foundation analysis report, as applicable, must (iv) the presiding officer finding on the installation activities will require a describe the LWA activities that the environmental issues relevant to the LWA, construction permit, or combined applicant seeks to perform, provide the LWA in accordance with the applicable license. final design for the structures to be requirements of part 51, and a finding Construction is deemed to also constructed under the LWA and a safety on the safety issues relevant to the include the ‘‘on-site, in-place,’’ analysis for those portions of the LWA. fabrication, erection, integration or structure, and provide a safety analysis Paragraph (d)(2) requires that the testing activities for any structure, of the design demonstrating that the LWA specify the activities that the system or component required by the activities will be conducted in holder is authorized to perform, Commission’s regulations to be accordance with applicable Commission consistent with the LWA application described in the FSAR. The use of the safety requirements. and as modified based upon the NRC’s term, ‘‘on-site, in place,’’ is intended to The environmental report must meet review. In addition, each LWA will be allow such structures, systems and the requirements of 10 CFR 51.49, issued with a condition requiring components, including any ‘‘modules’’ which is discussed in more detail in the implementation of the redress plan if and subassemblies, to be fabricated, section by section analysis for that the LWA holder terminates assembled and tested in a shop provision. construction, the LWA is revoked, or building, warehouse, or laydown area The redress plan must describe the upon effectiveness of the Commission’s located on-site without a LWA, activities that would be implemented by final decision denying the associated construction permit, or combined the LWA holder, should construction be operating license application or the license. However, the installation or terminated by the holder, the LWA is underlying combined license integration of that structure, system, or revoked by the NRC, or upon application, as applicable. As discussed component into its final location in the effectiveness of the Commission’s final in the analysis of paragraph (e), this reactor would require either a decision denying the associated condition survives the merging of the construction permit or combined operating license application or the LWA into the underlying construction license. The Commission notes that this underlying combined license permit, early site permit, or combined paragraph does not apply to application, as applicable. The primary license. manufacturing, inasmuch as purpose of the redress plan is to return Paragraph (e). This paragraph, which ‘‘manufacturing’’ is not ‘‘construction.’’ the site to an environmentally stable is substantially modified from the Moreover, paragraph (b) refers to and aesthetically acceptable condition current rule, addresses the legal effect of construction ‘‘on a site on which the that would allow the site to be utilized an issued LWA. Paragraph (e)(1)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

provides that any activities undertaken new information collection requirement, There is no opportunity for an early site under a limited work authorization shall it is not expected to result in a net permit holder to submit its application be entirely at the risk of the applicant increase in the burden placed on LWA in two parts, with the LWA information and, with exception of the matters applicants because the information submitted in advance of the main early determined under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) required under this new section was site permit application. and (iii), the issuance of the limited formerly required to be submitted by Paragraph (d) describes the contents work authorization shall have no such applicants as part of a complete of the environmental report when the bearing on the issuance of a environmental report for the underlying LWA request is submitted by an early construction permit or combined license construction permit or combined license site permit holder. In this situation, the with respect to the requirements of the under § 51.50, or for the ESP application environmental report need only contain Act, and rules, regulations, or orders (or amendment) under Part 52. The information on the LWA activities and promulgated pursuant thereto. Thus, primary effect of this supplementary their environmental impact, and would this paragraph states that the proposed rule would be to delay not include the general information environmental impact statement for a submission of most of the required by § 51.50(b). construction permit or combined license environmental information to the time Paragraph (e) establishes a limited application for which a limited work that the underlying construction permit exception from the information required authorization was previously issued or combined license application and by paragraphs (a) and (b) to be will not address, and the presiding environmental report is submitted. submitted in an environmental report. officer will not consider, the sunk costs Thus, the environmental report For those situations where the LWA is of the holder of limited work submitted under § 51.49 at the LWA to be conducted at a site: (i) For which authorization in determining the stage would be limited in scope to the Commission previously prepared an proposed action (i.e., issuance of the address environmental impacts of LWA environmental impact statement for the construction permit or combined activities. construction and operation of a nuclear license). power plant, (ii) the construction permit Section 51.20 Criteria for and was issued, but (iii) the construction of Paragraph (f). This new paragraph identification of licensing and would require the LWA holder to begin the plant was never completed, then the regulatory actions requiring applicant’s environmental report may implementation of the redress plan in a environmental impact statements reasonable time, and complete the reference the earlier environmental redress no later than eighteen (18) Section 51.20 would be revised by impact statement. However, in the event months after termination of construction adding a new paragraph (b)(6), of such referencing, the environmental by the holder, revocation of the LWA, or explicitly stating that issuance of a LWA report must identify whether there is upon effectiveness of the Commission’s under § 50.10 is one of the actions new and significant information relative requiring the preparation of an final decision denying the associated to the matters required to be addressed environmental impact statement (or a operating license application or the in the environmental report with respect supplement to environmental impact underlying combined license to the environmental impacts of the statement). requested LWA activities, as specified application, as applicable. in paragraphs (a) or (b). Section 51.49 Environmental report- Part 51 Paragraph (f) would require, for any limited work authorization application containing a LWA request, Section 51.4 Definitions Section 51.49 is a new section that the that the environmental report must Section 51.4 would be revised by Commission proposes to add to part 51, separately evaluate the environmental adding a new definition of to require the applicant for an LWA to impacts and proposed alternatives to the ‘‘construction,’’ which would make submit an environmental report activities proposed to be conducted applicable throughout part 51 the containing certain specified under the limited work authorization. definition of construction in proposed information. Both paragraph (a), which However, at the option of the applicant, § 50.10(b). This would have the effect of applies to an applicant requesting a the environmental report may also excluding from an EIS for any early site LWA as part of a complete application, include the information required by permit, construction permit, combined and paragraph (b), which applies to an § 51.50 to be submitted in the license, or LWA issued under § 50.10(c), applicant submitting its application in environmental report for the any discussion, evaluation or two parts under § 2.101(a)(9), must construction permit or combined license consideration of the environmental submit an environmental report which application. In those situations, the impacts or benefits associated with non- describes the activities proposed to be ‘‘integrated’’ environmental report construction activities as effectively conducted under the LWA, the need to would separately address the total defined in § 50.10(b). This would also conduct those activities in advance of impacts of constructing (including the remove the need for the NRC decision the main action, a description of the LWA activities) and operating the maker, including a presiding officer, to environmental impacts that may proposed facility. This will allow the make a NEPA finding with respect to reasonably be expected to result from NRC to prepare in parallel the EIS for the environmental impacts or benefits the conduct of the requested activities, the LWA activities and a supplemental associated with those non-construction the mitigation measures to be EIS for the underlying construction activities. implemented in order to achieve the permit or operating license, or a level of environmental impacts complete EIS at the LWA stage. Section 51.17 Information collection described, and a discussion of the requirements; OMB approval reasons for rejecting other mitigation Section 51.50 Environmental report- Paragraph (b) of § 51.17 of the March measures that could be utilized to construction permit, early site permit, or 2006 proposed rule would be further further reduce environmental impacts. combined license stage modified by adding a reference to a new Paragraph (c) describes the contents of Section 51.50 of the March 2006 § 51.49, which requires submission of the environmental report when the proposed rule would be modified by an environmental report by LWA request for the LWA is submitted as part deleting in its entirety, proposed applicants. While § 51.49 contains a of an early site permit application. paragraph (c)(4), and revising paragraph

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61339

(b), to eliminate the requirements for single, complete EIS for the construction combined license proceeding, where an submission of a redress plan by an early permit or combined license in LWA was previously issued, the site permit applicant. The redress plan accordance with § 51.71, and § 51.75(a) Commission’s decision on the would be required under or (c), as applicable. construction permit or combined license § 50.10(c)(3)(iii). Paragraph (c) applies to an EIS application will not address or consider prepared for issuance of an early site the sunk costs associated with the LWA. Section 51.71 Draft environmental permit which will also include an LWA. impact statement-contents This provision, which is consistent with The EIS will address the scope of §§ 50.10(c)(6) and 51.71(e), is intended Section 51.71 would be modified by matters required to be addressed under to ensure that the Commission’s redesignating the current paragraph (e) § 51.75(d), which depends upon the decision whether to issue the as paragraph (f), and a new paragraph matters which the applicant chooses to construction permit or combined license (e) would be added to re-emphasize that address in its environmental report, as is not biased in favor of issuance in the draft environmental impact well as the environmental impacts of evaluating the environmental impacts statement for the underlying conducting the LWA activities and benefits of the construction permit construction permit or combined license requested. or combined license. will not address or consider the sunk Paragraph (d) addresses the situation costs associated with the LWA. where an early site permit holder (as Section 51.104 NRC proceedings using Paragraph (e) is consistent with opposed to an applicant) requests a public hearings, consideration of §§ 50.10(c)(6) and 51.71(e). limited work authorization. In this environmental impact statements or situation, siting and many of the environmental assessment Section 51.76 Draft environmental environmental issues have been impact statement-limited work Section 51.104 would be revised by addressed and resolved in the EIS authorization adding a new paragraph (c) specifying supporting issuance of the ESP. This that in an LWA proceeding, a party may Section 51.76 is a new section that the paragraph provides for the NRC to only take a position and offer evidence Commission proposes to add to part 51, prepare a supplemental EIS, addressing on the aspects of the proposed action governing the NRC’s preparation of a the impacts of conducting LWA within the scope of NEPA and this draft environmental impact statement to activities (including any new and subpart which are within the scope of support a decision on a LWA. The significant information that would that party’s admitted contention. This internal organization of § 51.76 parallels change the NRC’s prior conclusion with paragraph would also specify that the that of § 51.49. Paragraph (a) addresses respect to those construction activities presiding officer will decide the matters the EIS to be prepared in connection which would actually be conducted in controversy among the parties, viz., with a complete application for a earlier under the LWA instead of a the contentions related to the adequacy construction permit or combined referencing construction permit or of the environmental impact statement license. This section allows the NRC to combined license), and the adequacy of prepared for the LWA. prepare either an EIS limited to LWA the proposed redress plan. Other than activities (to be followed by a this updating, the supplemental EIS will Section 51.105 Public hearings in supplemental EIS on the underlying not present any updated information on proceedings for issuance of construction construction permit or combined the matters resolved in the ESP EIS. permits or early site permits; limited license), or a single, complete EIS for Paragraph (e) addresses the nature of work authorizations the construction permit or combined the EIS prepared for an LWA requested license. The Commission notes that this for a site that was approved by the NRC Section 51.105 of the March 2006 paragraph addresses the situation where for a plant which was never built. In proposed rule would be modified in two the application for the construction such cases, the EIS will incorporate by respects. The title of this section would permit or combined license is complete reference the earlier EIS, address be modified to add a reference to LWAs, and includes the request and necessary whether there is any significant new reflecting the expanded scope of matters information for a LWA. Paragraph (b), information with respect to the addressed in this section. Second, a new by contrast, addresses the situation environmental impacts of construction paragraph (c) would be added to specify where the LWA request is submitted in relevant to the scope of activities to be the determinations which must be made advance of the complete application for performed under the LWA, and evaluate by the presiding officer in an LWA the construction permit or combined any such information in accordance hearing associated with either a license. with § 51.71 in determining if the LWA construction permit or early site permit. Paragraph (b) applies to an EIS should be issued, or issued with Under this new paragraph, the presiding prepared in support of a phased LWA appropriate conditions. officer would: under § 2.101(a)(9). In this situation, if Paragraph (f) indicates that in all —Determine whether the requirements the environmental report submitted in cases, the EIS must separately address of section 102(2)(A), (C) and (E) of part one is limited to the LWA the impacts of and proposed alternatives NEPA have been met with respect to activities, then the NRC will prepare an to the activities to be conducted under the activities to be conducted under EIS limited to the LWA activities. Once the LWA, in order to ensure that there the LWA. part two of the application is received, are specific environmental findings —Independently consider the balance which includes the environmental addressing LWA activities for purposes report required by § 51.50, the NRC will among conflicting factors with respect of transparency of the final NRC NEPA to the LWA. prepare a supplemental EIS for the findings and decision on the LWA construction permit or combined license request. —In an uncontested proceeding, in accordance with § 51.71, and ‘‘ determine whether the NRC’s NEPA 51.75(a) or (c), as applicable. By Section 51.103 Record of decision— review has been adequate. contrast, if the environmental report general —In a contested proceeding, determine submitted in part one is a complete Section 51.103 would be revised by whether in accordance with the environmental report required by adding a new paragraph (a)(6), which regulations in subpart 51 the LWA § 51.50, then the NRC will prepare a specifies that in a construction permit or should be issued.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Section 51.107 Public hearings in § 50.10(c)(2) must be included in the chapter if a limited work authorization proceedings for issuance of combined site safety analysis report. is requested in conjunction with the licenses; limited work authorizations combined license application. Section 52.24 Issuance of early site Section 51.107 of the March 2006 permit IV. Specific Request for Comments proposed rule would be modified in two This section would be removed from As explained above, this respects. The title of this section would the March 2006 proposed rule. The be modified to add a reference to LWAs, supplemental proposed rule would requirements applicable to the holder of impact the types of activities that could reflecting the expanded scope of matters an early site permit with respect to addressed in this section. A new be undertaken without prior approval limited work authorization activities are from the NRC, with NRC approval in the paragraph (d) would also be added to set forth in proposed § 50.10(f). specify the determinations which must form of a LWA, and with NRC approval be made by the presiding officer in an Section 52.25 Limited Work in the form of a construction permit or LWA hearing associated with a Authorization After Issuance of Early combined license. combined license. This paragraph is Site Permit Therefore, in addition to the general essentially the same as § 51.105(c). Section 52.25 is a new section that invitation to submit comments on the allows an early site permit holder to proposed rule, the NRC also requests Part 52 request a LWA in accordance with comments on the following questions: Section 52.1 Definitions § 50.10. 1. What types of activities should be permitted without prior NRC approval? A new definition of limited work Section 52.79 Contents of Application; 2. What types of activities should be authorization would be added to § 52.1 Technical Information in Final Safety permitted under a LWA? of the March 2006 proposed rule, which Analysis Report 3. What types of activities should only would be defined as the authorization Section 52.79 of the March 2006 be permitted after issuance of a provided under § 50.10(c). The proposed rule would be modified by construction permit or combined Commission wishes to clarify that an removing the proposed language in license? applicant of an early site permit who paragraph (a)(23) with respect to limited requests authority to perform the work authorizations. Instead, this V. Availability of Documents activities permitted by § 50.10(c), would paragraph would specify that if the The NRC is making the documents not, if the request were granted, receive applicant wishes to obtain a LWA, then identified below available to interested a limited work authorization separate the applicant must include the persons through one or more of the from its early site permit. Instead, the information required by § 50.10, either following methods as indicated. early site permit itself would authorize as part of a complete application under the activities permitted by § 50.10(c). Public Document Room (PDR). The § 2.101(a)(1) through (4), or as a phased NRC Public Document Room is located This regulatory approach is consistent application under § 2.101(a)(9). with the current language of § 52.17(c) at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, and 52.25(b). However, once an ESP is Section 52.80 Content of Applications; Maryland. issued, the holder could apply for, and Additional Technical Information Rulemaking Web site (Web). The would be issued an LWA directly under Paragraph (c) of § 52.80(c) of the NRC’s interactive rulemaking Web site § 50.10(c). March 2006 proposed rule would be is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. modified to require that a combined These documents may be viewed and Section 52.17 Contents of applications; license application containing a request downloaded electronically via this Web technical information for a LWA must contain an site. Paragraph (c) of § 52.17 of the March environmental report, either: (i) In NRC’s Public Electronic Reading 2006 proposed rule would be modified accordance with 10 CFR 51.50(c) if a Room (EPDR). The NRC’s electronic by removing the proposed language limited work authorization under 10 public reading room is located at with respect to limited work CFR 50.10 is not requested in http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. authorizations, and instead specify that conjunction with the combined license The NRC staff contact. Geary Mizuno, if the applicant wishes to obtain an application; or (ii) in accordance with Mail Stop O–15D21, Washington, DC LWA, then the information required by §§ 51.49 and 51.50(c) of part 51 of this 20555, 301–415–1639.

NRC Document PDR Web EPDR Staff

2006/5/25—Comment (4) submitted by Nuclear Energy Institute, Adrian P. Heymer on Proposed Rules ...... X X ML061510471 ...... SECY–98–282, Part 52 Rulemaking Plan ...... ML032801416 ...... Staff Requirements—SECY–98–282—Part 52 Rulemaking Plan ...... ML032801439 ...... Regulatory Analysis ...... X X ML062750434 X

VI. Plain Language directive, the NRC made editorial used. Comments should be submitted changes to improve the organization and using one of the methods described The Presidential memorandum dated readability of the existing language of under the ADDRESSES heading of the June 1, 1998, entitled ‘‘Plain Language the paragraphs being revised. These preamble to this proposed rule. in Government Writing’’ directed that types of changes are not discussed VII. Agreement State Compatibility the Government’s writing be in plain further in this document. The NRC language. This memorandum was requests comments on this proposed Under the ‘‘Policy Statement on published on June 10, 1998 (63 FR rule specifically with respect to the Adequacy and Compatibility of 31883). In complying with this clarity and effectiveness of the language Agreement States Programs,’’ approved

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61341

by the Commission on June 20, 1997, § 51.22(c)(3)(i). All other changes would This supplement also contains a new and published in the Federal Register qualify for the categorical exemption information collection requirement in (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997), this described in § 51.22(c)(3)(iv).13 § 51.49, however this new information rule is classified as compatibility ‘‘NRC’’ Therefore, neither an environmental collection is not expected to result in a regulations. The NRC program elements impact statement nor an environmental net increase in the burden for LWA in this category are those that relate assessment has been prepared for this applicants because the information to be directly to areas of regulation reserved regulation. submitted under this new requirement to the NRC by the AEA or provisions of was formerly submitted by such X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Title 10 of the Code of Federal applicants as part of a complete Regulations, and although an Agreement The proposed rule published on environmental report for the underlying State may not adopt program elements March 13, 2006 imposed new or construction permit or combined license reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform amended information collection under § 51.50, or for the ESP application its licensees of certain requirements via requirements contained in 10 CFR parts (or amendment) under part 52. The a mechanism that is consistent with the 21, 25, 50, 52, and 54 that are subject primary effect of the new information particular State’s administrative to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 collection requirement in part 51 of the procedure laws, but does not confer (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These new and supplemental proposed rule would be to regulatory authority on the State. amended information collection delay submission of most of the VIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards requirements were submitted to the environmental information to the time (Public Law 104) Office of Management and Budget for that the underlying construction permit review and approval. The existing or combined license application and The National Technology Transfer requirements were approved by the environmental report is submitted. and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Office of Management and Budget, Thus, changes in burden for information Law 104–113, requires that Federal approval numbers 3150–0044, 3150– collections contained in 10 CFR part 51 agencies use technical standards that are 0014, 3150–0146, 3150–0018, 3150– (OMB approval number 3150–0021) are developed or adopted by voluntary 0132, 3150–0002, 3150–0055, 3150– expected to be minimal. consensus standards bodies unless 0047, and 3150–0039. using such a standard is inconsistent The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory This supplement would reduce the with applicable law or is otherwise Commission is seeking public comment proposed rule burden by eliminating the impractical. In this rule, the NRC is on the potential impact of the proposing to: (i) Redefine the scope of requirement to obtain NRC permission information collections contained in the activities constituting ‘‘construction’’ for to engage in site preparation activities proposed rule supplement and on the which NRC approval is required; (ii) that do not have a direct impact on following issues: redefine the scope of activities radiological health and safety or 1. Is the proposed information constituting construction which the common defense and security at sites collection necessary for the proper NRC may approve in a limited work where new nuclear power plants are to performance of the functions of the authorization granted in advance of the be constructed. Specifically, the burden NRC, including whether the information issuance of a construction permit or associated with the preparation of will have practical utility? applications for permission to engage in combined license, or which may be 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? these activities, as well as the burden of conducted by a holder of an early site 3. Is there a way to enhance the permit; and (iii) revise the NRC’s responding to requests for additional information associated with these quality, utility, and clarity of the procedures for granting limited work information to be collected? authorizations. This rulemaking does applications, would be eliminated by not establish standards or substantive the supplement. The burden reduction 4. How can the burden of the requirements with which all applicants for information collections contained in information collection be minimized, and licensees must comply. For the 10 CFR part 52 (OMB approval number including the use of automated reasons set forth in the preamble and 3150–0151), is estimated to be 50 hours collection techniques? under the authority of the Atomic per application. The burden reduction Send comments on any aspect of this Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the associated with this proposed rule proposed information collection, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as supplement will be included in the including suggestions for reducing the amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the revised OMB clearance package burden and on the above issues, by NRC is adopting the following prepared for the final rule. December 18, 2006 to the Records and amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51 FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T–5 and 52. 13 Although the industry’s request came in the F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory form of a comment on the proposed Part 52 rule (71 Commission, Washington, DC 20555– IX. Environmental Impact—Categorical FR 12782; March 13, 2006), the comment letter 0001, or by Internet electronic mail to Exclusion stated; ‘‘To the extent the NRC determines that these LWA issues cannot be addressed in the [email protected] and to the The NRC has determined that the current rulemaking, we ask that the Commission Desk Officer, John A. Asalone, Office of changes made in this rule fall within the initiate an expedited rulemaking.’’ The NRC has Information and Regulatory Affairs, determined that the changes suggested by the types of actions described in categorical industry in Comment 4 (docketed on May 30, 2006, NEOB–10202, (3150–0021, 3150–0151), exclusions described in 10 CFR 4:50 PM) could not be incorporated into the final Office of Management and Budget, 51.22(c)(1) and (c)(3). Specifically, the Part 52 rule without re-noticing. Therefore, the Washington, DC 20503. Comments conforming changes made to 10 CFR Commission has decided to treat the comments received after this date will be submitted by the industry as a petition for part 2 would qualify for the categorical expedited rulemaking and is publishing this considered if it is practical to do so, but exclusion described in § 51.22(c)(1). The supplemental proposed rule for public comment. assurance of consideration cannot be changes to parts 50, 51 and 52 that The NRC has determined that Comment 4 meets the given to comments received after this describe procedures for filing and sufficiency requirements described in 10 CFR date. You may also e-mail comments to 2.802(c) and that it is appropriate to seek public _ _ reviewing applications for limited work comment on the petition by publishing this John A. [email protected] or authorizations would qualify for the proposed rule developed in response to the comment by telephone at (202) 395– categorical exclusion described in petition, as allowed under 10 CFR 2.802(e). 4650.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Public Protection Notification List of Subjects 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 10 CFR Part 2 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, and a person is not required to respond Administrative practice and 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Sections 2.105 also to, a request for information or an procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 information collection requirement (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also material, Classified information, issued under secs. 161 b, I, o, 182, 186, 234, unless the requesting document Environmental protection, Nuclear 68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as displays a currently valid OMB control materials, Nuclear power plants and amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (I), (o), 2236, number. reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. Source material, Special nuclear 5846). Section 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. XI. Regulatory Analysis material, Waste treatment and disposal. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. The commission has prepared a draft 10 CFR Part 50 1321–373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections regulatory analysis on this proposed Antitrust, Classified information, 2.600–2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. regulation. The analysis examines the L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 Criminal penalties, Emergency costs and benefits of the alternatives U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also Planning, Fire protection, considered by the Commission. The issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear Commission requests public comment 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. power plants and reactors, Radiation 557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs. on the draft regulatory analysis. protection, Reactor siting criteria, 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 Availability of the regulatory analysis is Reporting and recordkeeping (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also provided in Section V. Comments on requirements. issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as the draft analysis may be submitted to amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 5 U.S.C. 552. the NRC as indicated under the 10 CFR Part 51 Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under ADDRESSES heading. 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under Administrative practice and 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85–256, 71 XII. Regulatory Flexibility Act procedure, Environmental impact Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Certification statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. power plants and reactors, Reporting 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97– In accordance with the Regulatory and recordkeeping requirements. 425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 10 CFR Part 52 Commission certifies that this rule will U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under Administrative practice and sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) and sec. 189, 68 not, if promulgated, have a significant Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also economic impact on a substantial procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Combined license, Early site permit, issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91–560, 84 Stat. number of small entities. This proposed 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). rule affects only the licensing of nuclear Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, 2. In § 2.101, paragraphs (a)(1) and power plants. The companies that will Limited work authorization, Nuclear (a)(2) are revised, the introductory text apply for an approval, certification, power plants and reactors, Probabilistic of paragraph (a)(3) is revised, paragraph permit, site report, or license in risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor (a)(3)(ii) is revised, paragraph (a)(4) is accordance with the regulations affected siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting revised, paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(8) by this proposed rule do not fall within and recordkeeping requirements, are added and reserved, and a paragraph the scope of the definition of ‘‘small Standard design, Standard design (a)(9) is added to read as follows: entities’’ set forth in the Regulatory certification. Flexibility Act or the size standards For the reasons set forth in the § 2.101 Filing of application. established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). preamble and under the authority of the (a)(1) An application for a permit, a Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, license, a license transfer, a license XIII. Backfit Analysis the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, amendment, a license renewal, and a as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC standard design approval, shall be filed The NRC has determined that the is proposing to adopt the following with the Director of Nuclear Reactor backfit rule does not apply to this amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 50, 51 Regulation or Director of Nuclear proposed rule and, therefore, a backfit and 52. Material Safety and Safeguards, as analysis is not required, because the prescribed by the applicable provisions proposed rule does not contain any PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR of this chapter. A prospective applicant provisions that would impose DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS may confer informally with the NRC backfitting as defined in the backfit rule, AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS staff before filing an application. 10 CFR 50.109. 1. The authority citation for part 2 (2) Each application for a license for There are no current holders of early continues to read as follows: a facility or for receipt of waste site permits, construction permits, or radioactive material from other persons combined licenses for nuclear power Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, for the purpose of commercial disposal 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. plants that would be protected by the 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409 by the waste disposal licensee will be backfitting restrictions in § 50.109. To (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as assigned a docket number. However, to the extent that the proposed rule would amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. allow a determination as to whether an revise the requirements for future early 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). application for a construction permit, site permits, construction permits, or Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, operating license, early site permit, combined licenses for nuclear power 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, standard design approval, combined plants, these revisions would not 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. license, or manufacturing license for a constitute backfits because they are 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); production or utilization facility is sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2213, as prospective in nature and the backfit amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)), sec. 102, Pub. complete and acceptable for docketing, rule was not intended to apply to every L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 it will be initially treated as a tendered NRC action which substantially changes U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 application. A copy of the tendered the expectations of future applicants. U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, application will be available for public

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61343

inspection at the NRC Web site, draft environmental impact statement the tendered application and/or http://www.nrc.gov, and/or at the NRC will be issued by the Commission and environmental report is incomplete and Public Document Room. Generally, the will be made available upon request to therefore not acceptable for processing, determination on acceptability for the Commission; and notification that if the applicant will be informed of this docketing will be made within a period a request is received from the determination, and the respects in of 30 days. However, in selected appropriate chief executive, the which the document is deficient. applications, the Commission may applicant will transmit a copy of the * * * * * decide to determine acceptability based application and environmental report, (6)–(8) Reserved. on the technical adequacy of the and any changes to these documents (9) Limited work authorization. An application as well as its completeness. which affect the alternative site applicant for a construction permit for In these cases, the Commission, under location, to the executive who makes a utilization facility which is subject to § 2.104(a), will direct that the notice of the request. In complying with the § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the hearing be issued as soon as practicable requirements of this paragraph, the type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or after the application has been tendered, applicant should not make public § 50.22 of this chapter, an applicant for and the determination of acceptability distribution of those parts of the or holder of an early site permit under will be made generally within a period application subject to § 2.390(d). The part 52 of this chapter, or an applicant of 60 days. For docketing and other applicant shall submit to the Director of for a combined license under part 52 of requirements for applications under part Nuclear Reactor Regulation an affidavit this chapter, who seeks to conduct the 61 of this chapter, see paragraph (g) of that service of the notice of availability activities authorized under § 50.10(c) of this section. of the application or environmental this chapter may submit a complete (3) If the Director of Nuclear Reactor report has been completed along with a application under paragraphs (a)(1)–(4) Regulation or Director of Nuclear list of names and addresses of those of this section which includes the Material Safety and Safeguards, as executives upon whom the notice was information required by § 50.10(c) of appropriate, determines that a tendered served; and this chapter. Alternatively, the applicant application for a construction permit, * * * * * (other than a holder of an early site operating license, early site permit, (4) The tendered application for a permit) may submit its application in standard design approval, combined construction permit, operating license, two parts: license, or manufacturing license for a early site permit, standard design (i) Part one must include the production or utilization facility, and/or approval, combined license, or information required by § 50.33(a) any environmental report required manufacturing license will be formally through (f) of this chapter, and the under subpart A of part 51 of this docketed upon receipt by the Director of information required by § 50.10(c)(2) chapter, or part thereof as provided in Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director and (3) of this chapter. paragraphs (a)(5) or (a–1) of this section of Nuclear Material Safety and (ii) Part two must include the are complete and acceptable for Safeguards, as appropriate, of the remaining information required by the docketing, a docket number will be required additional copies. Distribution Commission’s regulations in this assigned to the application or part of the additional copies shall be deemed chapter which was not submitted in part thereof, and the applicant will be to be complete as of the time the copies one, provided, however, that this notified of the determination. With are deposited in the mail or with a information may be submitted in respect to the tendered application and/ carrier prepaid for delivery to the accordance with the applicable or environmental report or part thereof designated addresses. The date of provisions of paragraph (a–1) of this that is acceptable for docketing, the docketing shall be the date when the section. applicant will be requested to: required copies are received by the (iii) Part two of the application must * * * * * Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation be submitted no later than twelve (12) (ii) Serve a copy on the chief or Director of Nuclear Material Safety months after submission of part one. executive of the municipality in which and Safeguards, as appropriate. Within * * * * * the facility or site which is the subject 10 days after docketing, the applicant 3. In § 2.104, the introductory text of of an early site permit is to be located shall submit to the Director of Nuclear paragraph (a) is revised, current or, if the facility or site which is the Reactor Regulation or Director of paragraphs (d) and (e) are redesignated subject of an early site permit is not to Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as paragraphs (l) and (m), respectively, be located within a municipality, on the as appropriate, an affidavit that and revised, new paragraphs (d), (e), chief executive of the county, and serve distribution of the additional copies to and (f) are added, and paragraphs (g) a notice of availability of the application Federal, State, and local officials has through (k) are added and reserved, and or environmental report on the chief been completed in accordance with the footnote 1 is revised to read as follows: executives of the municipalities or requirements of this chapter and written counties which have been identified in instructions furnished to the applicant § 2.104 Notice of hearing. the application or environmental report by the Director of Nuclear Reactor (a) In the case of an application on as the location of all or part of the Regulation or Director of Nuclear which a hearing is required by the Act alternative sites, containing the Material Safety and Safeguards, as or this chapter, or in which the following information, as applicable: appropriate. Amendments to the Commission finds that a hearing is Docket number of the application, a application and environmental report required in the public interest, the brief description of the proposed site shall be filed and distributed and an Secretary will issue a notice of hearing and facility; the location of the site and affidavit shall be furnished to the to be published in the Federal Register facility as primarily proposed and Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as required by law at least 15 days, and alternatively listed; the name, address, or Director of Nuclear Material Safety in the case of an application concerning telephone number, and e-mail address and Safeguards, as appropriate, in the a construction permit, early site permit, (if available) of the applicant’s same manner as for the initial or combined license for a facility of the representative who may be contacted for application and environmental report. If type described in § 50.21(b) or § 50.22 of further information; notification that a it is determined that all or any part of this chapter or a testing facility, at least

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

30 days, before the date set for hearing site permit to provide reasonable (1) If the proceeding is a contested in the notice.1 In addition, in the case assurance that the facility has been proceeding, the presiding officer will of an application for an early site constructed and will be operated in consider the following issues: permit, construction permit or conformity with the license, the (i) Whether applicable standards and combined license for a facility of the provisions of the Act, and the requirements of the Act and the type described in § 50.22 of this chapter, Commission’s regulations; Commission’s regulations have been or a testing facility, the notice (other (vii) Whether issuance of the early site met; than a notice under paragraph (d) of this permit will be inimical to the common (ii) Whether any required section) must be issued as soon as defense and security or to the health notifications to other agencies or bodies practicable after the application has and safety of the public; and have been duly made; been docketed. However, if the (viii) Whether, in accordance with the (iii) Whether there is reasonable Commission, under § 2.101(a)(2), requirements of subpart A of part 52 of assurance that the facility will be decides to determine the acceptability of this chapter and subpart A of part 51 of constructed and will operate in the application based on its technical this chapter, the early site permit should conformity with the license, the adequacy as well as completeness, the be issued as proposed. provisions of the Act, and the notice must be issued as soon as Commission’s regulations; (2) If the proceeding is not a contested (iv) Whether the applicant is practicable after the application has proceeding, the presiding officer will been tendered. The notice will state: technically and financially qualified to determine, without conducting a de engage in the activities authorized; * * * * * novo evaluation of the application, (v) Whether the proposed inspections, (d) In the case of an application for an whether: tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria, early site permit under subpart A of part (i) The application and the record of including those applicable to emergency 52 of this chapter, the notice of hearing the proceeding contain sufficient planning, are necessary and sufficient to will state, in implementation of information, and the review of the provide reasonable assurance that the paragraph (a)(3) of this section: application by the NRC staff has been facility has been constructed and will be (1) If the proceeding is a contested adequate to support affirmative findings proceeding, the presiding officer will operated in conformity with the license, on paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) and the provisions of the Act, and the consider the following issues: (viii) of this section, and a negative (i) Whether applicable standards and Commission’s regulations; finding on paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this (vi) Whether any inspections, tests, or requirements of the Act and the section; and Commission’s regulations have been analyses have been successfully met; (ii) The review conducted under part completed and the acceptance criteria in (ii) Whether any required 51 of this chapter under the National a referenced early site permit, standard notifications to other agencies or bodies Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has design certification or for a have been duly made; been adequate. manufactured reactor have been met, (iii) If the applicant requests, under (3) Regardless of whether the but only to the extent that the combined § 52.17(c) of this chapter, a limited work proceeding is contested or uncontested, license application represents that those authorization under § 50.10 of this the presiding officer will, in accordance inspections, tests and analyses have chapter, whether there is reasonable with subpart A of part 51 of this been successfully completed and the assurance that the proposed site is a chapter: acceptance criteria have been met; suitable location for a reactor of the (i) Determine whether the (vii) Whether the issuance of the general size and type described in the requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), combined license will be inimical to the application from the standpoint of and (E) of the NEPA and subpart A of common defense and security or to the radiological health and safety part 51 of this chapter have been health and safety of the public; and considerations under the Act and complied with in the proceeding; (viii) Whether, in accordance with the regulations issued by the Commission; (ii) Independently consider the final requirements of subpart C of part 52 of (iv) Whether there is reasonable balance among conflicting factors this chapter and subpart A of part 51 of assurance that the site is in conformity contained in the record of the this chapter, the combined license with the provisions of the Act, and the proceeding with a view to determine the should be issued as proposed. (2) If the proceeding is not a contested Commission’s regulations; appropriate action to be taken; and proceeding, the presiding officer will (v) Whether the applicant is (iii) If the applicant requests technically qualified to engage in any determine, without conducting a de authorization to perform the activities novo evaluation of the application, if: activities authorized; under § 52.17(c) of this chapter, whether (vi) Whether the proposed (i) The application and the record of there is reasonable assurance that the the proceeding contain sufficient inspections, tests, analyses and proposed site is a suitable location for acceptance criteria, including any on information, and the review of the a reactor of the general size and type application by the NRC staff has been emergency planning, are necessary and described in the application from the sufficient within the scope of the early adequate to support affirmative findings standpoint of radiological health and on paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (vii) and safety considerations under the Act and 1 (e)(1)(ix) of this section, and a negative If the notice of hearing concerning an regulations issued by the Commission. application for a construction permit, early site finding on paragraph (e)(1)(viii) of this permit, or combined license for a facility of the type (iv) Determine whether the combined section; and described in § 50.21(b) or § 50.22 of this chapter or license should be issued, denied or (ii) The review conducted under part a testing facility does not specify the time and place appropriately conditioned to protect of initial hearing, a subsequent notice will be 51 of this chapter under NEPA has been published in the Federal Register which will environmental values. adequate. provide at least 30 days notice of the time and place (e) In the case of an application for a (3) Regardless of whether the of that hearing. After this notice is given the combined license under subpart C of proceeding is contested or uncontested, presiding officer may reschedule the commencement of the initial hearing for a later date part 52 of this chapter, the notice of the presiding officer will, in accordance or reconvene a recessed hearing without again hearing will state, in implementation of with subpart A of part 51 of this providing at least 30 days notice. paragraph (a)(3) of this section: chapter:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61345

(i) Determine whether the subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, the of this section, unless otherwise requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), license should be issued as proposed. authorized by the Commission. and (E) of the NEPA and subpart A of (2) If the proceeding is not a contested (m)(1) The Secretary will transmit a part 51 of this chapter have been proceeding, the presiding officer will notice of hearing on an application for complied with in the proceeding; determine, without conducting a de a license for a production or utilization (ii) Independently consider the final novo evaluation of the application, facility including an early site permit, balance among conflicting factors whether: combined license (but not for a contained in the record of the (i) The application and the record of manufacturing license), for a license for proceeding with a view to determine the the proceeding contain sufficient receipt of waste radioactive material appropriate action to be taken; and information, and the review of the from other persons for the purpose of (iii) Determine whether the combined application by the NRC staff has been commercial disposal by the waste license should be issued, denied or adequate to support affirmative findings disposal licensee, for a license under appropriately conditioned to protect on paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) and part 61 of this chapter, for a environmental values. (f)(1)(vii) of this section proposed to be construction authorization for a HLW (f) In the case of an application for a made and a negative finding on repository at a geologic repository manufacturing license under subpart F paragraph (f)(1)(vi) of this section; and operations area under parts 60 or 63 of of part 52 of this chapter, the issues (ii) The review conducted under part this chapter, for a license to receive and stated in the notice of hearing under 51 of this chapter under NEPA has been possess high-level radioactive waste at a paragraph (a)(3) of this section will not adequate. geologic repository operations area involve consideration of the particular (3) Regardless of whether the under parts 60 or 63 of this chapter, and sites at which any of the nuclear power proceeding is contested or uncontested, for a license under part 72 of this reactors to be manufactured may be the presiding officer will, in accordance chapter to acquire, receive or possess located and operated. Unless the with subpart A of part 51 of this spent fuel for the purpose of storage in Commission determines otherwise, the chapter: an independent spent fuel storage notice of hearing will state: (i) Determine whether the installation (ISFSI) to the governor or (1) If the proceeding is a contested requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), other appropriate official of the State proceeding, the presiding officer will and (E) of the National Environmental and to the chief executive of the consider the following issues: Policy Act and subpart A of part 51 of municipality in which the facility is to (i) Whether applicable standards and this chapter have been complied with in be located or the activity is to be requirements of the Act and the the proceeding; conducted or, if the facility is not to be (ii) Independently consider the final Commission’s regulations have been located or the activity conducted within balance among conflicting factors met; a municipality, to the chief executive of contained in the record of the (ii) Whether there is reasonable the county (or to the Tribal organization, proceeding with a view to determine the assurance that the reactor(s) will be if it is to be located or conducted within appropriate action to be taken; and an Indian reservation). manufactured, and can be transported, (iii) Determine whether the (2) The Secretary will transmit a incorporated into a nuclear power plant, manufacturing license should be issued, notice of opportunity for hearing under and operated in conformity with the denied or appropriately conditioned to § 52.103 of this chapter on whether the manufacturing license, the provisions of protect environmental values. the Act, and the Commission’s (4) The place of hearing on an facility as constructed complies, or on regulations; application for a manufacturing license completion will comply, with the (iii) Whether the proposed reactor(s) will be Rockville, Maryland, or such acceptance criteria in the combined to be manufactured can be incorporated other location as the Commission deems license, except for those ITAAC that the into a nuclear power plant at sites appropriate. Commission found were met under having characteristics that fall within (g)–(k) Reserved § 52.97 of this chapter, to the governor the site parameters postulated for the (l) In an application for a construction or other appropriate official of the State design of the manufactured reactor(s) permit or an operating license for a and to the chief executive of the without undue risk to the health and facility on which a hearing is required municipality in which the facility is to safety of the public; by the Act or this chapter, the notice of be located or the activity is to be (iv) Whether the applicant is hearing will, unless the Commission conducted or, if the facility is not to be technically qualified to design and determines otherwise, state: located or the activity conducted within manufacture the proposed nuclear (1) A time of the hearing, which will a municipality, to the chief executive of power reactor(s); be as soon as practicable after the county (or to the Tribal organization, (v) Whether the proposed inspections, compliance with section 189a of the Act if it is to be located or conducted within tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria and this part; an Indian reservation). are necessary and sufficient, within the (2) The presiding officer for the (3) The Secretary will transmit a scope of the manufacturing license, to hearing who shall be either an notice of hearing on an application for provide reasonable assurance that the administrative law judge or an atomic a license under part 72 of this chapter reactor has been manufactured and will safety and licensing board established to acquire, receive or possess spent fuel, be operated in conformity with the by the Commission or by the Chief high-level radioactive waste or license, the provisions of the Act, and Administrative Judge of the Atomic radioactive material associated with the Commission’s regulations; Safety and Licensing Board Panel; and high-level radioactive waste for the (vi) Whether the issuance of a license (3) That matters of radiological health purpose of storage in a monitored for manufacture of the reactor(s) will be and safety and common defense and retrievable storage installation (MRS) to inimical to the common defense and security, and matters raised under the same persons who received the security or to the health and safety of NEPA, will be considered at another notice of docketing under § 72.16(e) of the public; and hearing if otherwise required or ordered this chapter. (vii) Whether, in accordance with the to be held, for which a notice will be 4. The heading of subpart F is revised requirements of subpart F of part 52 and published under paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Subpart F—Additional Procedures initial decision rendered in accordance § 2.101(a)(3) and (4) relating to formal Applicable to Early Partial Decisions with this subpart. No construction docketing and the submission and on Site Suitability Issues in permit may be issued without distribution of additional copies of the Connection With an Application for a completion of the full review required application must be followed. Construction Permit or Combined by section 102(2) of the National (c) If part one of the application is License To Construct Certain Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as docketed, the Director will cause to be Utilization Facilities; and Advance amended, and subpart A of part 51 of published in the Federal Register and Issuance of Limited Work this chapter. The authority of the send to the Governor or other Authorizations Commission to review such a partial appropriate official of the State in which initial decision sua sponte, or to raise the site is located, a notice of docketing 5. Section 2.600 is revised to read as sua sponte an issue that has not been of the application which states the follows: raised by the parties, will be exercised purpose of the application, states the § 2.600 Scope of Subpart. within the same time period as in the location of the proposed site, states that a notice of hearing will be published, This subpart prescribes procedures case of a full decision relating to the and requests comments on the limited applicable to licensing proceedings issuance of a construction permit. work authorization from Federal, State, which involve an early submittal of site * * * * * and local agencies and interested suitability information in accordance 9. Following § 2.606, an undesignated persons. The notice will state that with § 2.101(a–1), and a hearing and center heading and §§ 2.641 through comments must be submitted to the early partial decision on issues of site 2.649 are added to read as follows: NRC within 60 days or such other time suitability, in connection with an Phased Applications Involving Limited as may be specified in the notice. application for a permit to construct a Work Authorizations (d) Part two of the application will be utilization facility which is subject to Sec. docketed upon a determination by the § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the Director that it is complete. type specified in § 50.21(b) (2) or (3) or 2.641 Filing Fees. 2.643 Acceptance and docketing of (e) If part two of the application is § 50.22 of this chapter or is a testing applications for limited work docketed, the Director will cause to be facility. This subpart also prescribes authorization. published in the Federal Register and procedures applicable to proceedings 2.645 Notice of hearing. sent to the Governor or other for a construction permit for a 2.647 [Reserved] appropriate official of the State in which utilization facility which is subject to 2.649 Partial decisions on limited work authorization. the site is located, a notice of docketing § 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the of part two of the application which type specified in § 50.21(b)(2) or (3) or § 2.641 Filing fees. states the purpose of the application, § 50.22 of this chapter, or an applicant Each application which contains a states that a notice of hearing will be for a combined license under part 52 of request for limited work authorization published, and requests comments on this chapter, who seeks to conduct the under the procedures of § 2.101(a)(9) the construction permit or combined activities authorized under § 50.10(c) of and this subpart shall be accompanied license application, as applicable, from part 50 of this chapter in advance of by any fee required by § 50.30(e) and Federal, State, and local agencies and issuance of the construction permit or part 170 of this chapter. interested persons. The notice will state combined license, and submits an that comments must be submitted to the application in accordance with § 2.643 Acceptance and docketing of NRC within 60 days or such other time § 2.101(a)(9). application for limited work authorization. as may be specified in the notice. 6. Section 2.601 is revised to read as (a) Each part of an application follows: submitted in accordance with 2.645 Notice of hearing. § 2.101(a)(9) will be initially treated as (a) The notice of hearing on part one § 2.601 Applicability of other sections. a tendered application. If it is of the application must set forth the The provisions of subparts A, C, G, L determined that any one of the parts as matters of fact and law to be considered, and N of this part relating to described in § 2.101(a)(9) is incomplete as required by § 2.104, which will be applications for construction permits and not acceptable for processing, the modified to state that the hearing will and proceedings thereon apply, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation relate only to the matters related to respectively, to applications and will inform the applicant of this § 50.33(a) through (f) of this chapter, proceedings in accordance with this determination and the respects in which and the limited work authorization. subpart, except as specifically provided the document is deficient. A (b) After docketing of part two of the otherwise by the provisions of this determination of completeness will application, as provided in subpart. generally be made within a period of §§ 2.101(a)(9) and 2.643(d), a 7. Preceding § 2.602, an undesignated thirty (30) days. supplementary notice of hearing will be center heading is added to read as (b) The Director will accept for published under § 2.104 with respect to follows: docketing part one of an application for the remaining unresolved issues in the Early Partial Decisions on Site a construction permit for a utilization proceeding within the scope of § 2.104. Suitability facility which is subject to § 51.20(b) of The supplementary notice of hearing 8. In § 2.606, paragraph (a) is revised this chapter and is of the type specified will provide that any person whose to read as follows: in § 50.21(b) (2) or (3) or § 50.22 of this interest may be affected by the chapter or an application for a proceeding and who desires to § 2.606 Partial decision on site suitability combined license where part one of the participate as a party in the resolution issues. application as described in § 2.101(a)(9) of the remaining issues shall file a (a) The provisions of §§ 2.331, 2.339, is complete. Part one will not be petition for leave to intervene within the 2.340(b), 2.343, 2.712, and 2.713 apply considered complete unless it contains time prescribed in the notice. The to any partial initial decision rendered the information required by § 50.10(c) of petition to intervene must meet the in accordance with this subpart. Section this chapter. Upon assignment of a applicable requirements in subpart C of 2.340(c) does not apply to any partial docket number, the procedures in part 2 of this chapter, including § 2.309.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61347

This supplementary notice will also raised by the parties, will be exercised piles, installation of the foundation, provide appropriate opportunities for within the same time period as in the including the placement of concrete, participation by a representative of an case of a full decision relating to the and on-site, in-place fabrication, interested State under § 2.315(c) and for issuance of a construction permit or erection, integration or testing, for any limited appearances under § 2.315(a). combined license. structure, system or component of a (c) Any person who was permitted to facility required by the Commission’s intervene under the initial notice of PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF rules and regulations to be described in hearing on the limited work PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION the site safety analysis report or authorization and who was not FACILITIES preliminary or final safety analysis dismissed or did not withdraw as a 10. The authority citation for Part 50 report. The term ‘‘construction’’ party, may continue to participate as a continues to read as follows: excludes: party with respect to the remaining (1) Changes for the temporary use of unresolved issues only if, within the Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, the land for public recreational 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, time prescribed for filing of petitions for purposes; 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. (2) Site exploration, including: leave to intervene in the supplementary 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. notice of hearing, that person files a 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, necessary borings to determine petition for intervention which meets 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, foundation conditions or other the applicable requirements in subpart 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, preconstruction monitoring to establish C of part 2, including § 2.309, provided, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, background information related to the however, that the petition need not 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). suitability of the site, the environmental address § 2.309(d). However, a person Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95– impacts of construction or operation, or 601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5841). the protection of environmental values; who was granted discretionary Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, intervention under § 2.309(e) must (3) Preparation of the site for 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. construction of a facility, including address in its petition the factors in 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. § 2..309(e) as they apply to the 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, clearing of the site, grading, installation supplementary hearing. 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. of drainage, erosion and other (d) A party who files a non-timely 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. environmental mitigation measures, and petition for intervention under 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 construction of temporary roads and subsection (c) of this section to continue also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 borrow areas; as a party may be dismissed from the U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and (4) Construction of fencing and other Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. proceeding, absent a determination that access control measures; L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). (5) Construction of temporary the party has made a substantial Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under showing of good cause for failure to file construction support buildings (such as sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). construction equipment storage sheds, on time, and with particular reference to Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, the factors specified in §§ 2.309(c)(1)(i) under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 through (iv) and 2.309(d). The notice U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under concrete mixing plants, docking and will be ruled upon by the Commission sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). unloading facilities, and construction or presiding officer designated to rule Sections 50.80–50.81 also issued under sec. support buildings and offices) for use in on petitions for leave to intervene. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. connection with the construction of the 2234). Appendix F also issued under sec. (e) To the maximum extent facility; 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). (6) Construction of permanent service practicable, the membership of the facilities, such as paved roads, parking atomic safety and licensing board, or the 11. Section 50.10 is revised to read as lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and individual presiding officer, as follows: lighting systems, potable water systems, applicable, designated to preside in the § 50.10 License required; limited work sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, proceeding on the remaining unresolved authorization. transmission lines, support buildings, issues pursuant to the supplemental (a) Requirement for license. Except as and office buildings; notice of hearing will be the same as the provided in § 50.11, no person within (7) Procurement or manufacture of the membership or individual designated to the United States shall transfer or components of the proposed facility, or preside in the initial notice of hearing. receive in interstate commerce, the manufacture of a nuclear power § 2.647 [Reserved]. manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, reactor under a manufacturing license possess, or use any production or under subpart F of this part to be § 2.649 Partial decisions on limited work utilization facility except as authorized installed at the proposed site and be authorization. by a license issued by the Commission. part of the proposed facility; and The provisions of §§ 2.331, 2.339, (b) Requirement for construction (8) With respect to production or 2.340(b), 2.343, 2.712, and 2.713 apply permit, early site permit, combined utilization facilities, other than testing to any partial initial decision rendered license, or limited work authorization. facilities and nuclear power plants, in accordance with this subpart. Section No person may begin the construction of required to be licensed pursuant to 2.340(c) does not apply to any partial a production or utilization facility on a section 104.a or section 104.c of the Act, initial decision rendered in accordance site on which the facility is to be the construction of buildings which will with this subpart. A limited work operated until that person has been be used for activities other than authorization may not be issued under issued either a construction permit operation of a facility and which may 10 CFR 50.10(c) without completion of under this part or a combined license also be used to house a facility (for the review for limited work under part 52 of this chapter, or a example, the construction of a college authorizations required by subpart A of limited work authorization under laboratory building with space for part 51 of this chapter. The authority of paragraph (c) of this section. As used in installation of a training reactor). the Commission to review such a partial this paragraph, the term ‘‘construction’’ (c) Request for limited work initial decision sua sponte, or to raise includes excavation, subsurface authorization. (1) Any person to whom sua sponte an issue that has not been preparation, including the driving of the Commission may otherwise issue

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

either a license or permit under Sections limited work authorization in the NRC, then the holder must begin 103, 104.b, or 185 of the Act for a accordance with subpart A of part 51 of implementation of the redress plan in a facility of the type specified in this chapter; reasonable time, and complete the § 50.21(b)(2) or (3), § 50.22, or a testing (ii) The presiding officer makes the redress of the site no later than eighteen facility, may request a limited work finding in § 51.105(c) or § 51.107(d) of (18) months after termination of authorization allowing that person to this chapter, as applicable; construction, revocation of the LWA, perform excavation, subsurface (iii) The Director determines that the upon effectiveness of the Commission’s preparation, including the driving of applicable standards and requirements final decision denying the associated piles, and installation of the foundation, of the Act and the Commission’s operating license application or the including placement of concrete, for any regulations applicable to the activities to underlying combined license structure, system or component of the be conducted under the limited work application, as applicable. facility. authorization have been met; the (2) An application for a limited work applicant is technically qualified to PART 51—ENVIRONMENTAL authorization may be submitted as part engage in the activities authorized; and PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR of a complete application for a issuance of the limited work DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED construction permit or combined license authorization will provide reasonable REGULATORY FUNCTIONS in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) assurance of adequate protection to through (4), or as a partial application public health and safety and will not be 12. The authority citation for Part 51 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(9). inimical to the common defense and continues to read as follows: An application for a limited work security; and Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as authorization must be submitted by an (iv) The presiding officer finds that amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, applicant for or holder of an early site there are no unresolved safety issues 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as permit as a complete application in relating to the activities to be conducted amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) under the limited work authorization 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 through (4). that would constitute good cause for Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A also issued under National Environmental (3) The application must include: withholding the authorization. (2) Each limited work authorization Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 (i) A safety analysis report required by Stat. 853–854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 10 CFR 50.34, 10 CFR 52.17 or 10 CFR will specify the activities that the holder 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95–604, Title II, 92 52.79, as applicable, a description of the is authorized to perform. The limited Stat. 3033–3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101– activities requested to be performed, work authorization will include a 575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections and the design and construction condition requiring the holder to redress 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also information otherwise required by the the site in accordance with the redress issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, Commission’s rules and regulations to plan required by § 52.17(c) of this 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. be submitted for a construction permit chapter, if construction is terminated by 100–203, 101 Stat. 1330–223 (42 U.S.C. or combined license, but limited to the holder, the LWA is revoked by the 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as those portions of the facility that are NRC, or upon effectiveness of the Commission’s final decision denying amended by 92 Stat. 3036–3038 (42 U.S.C. within the scope of the limited work 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of authorization. The safety analysis report the associated operating license 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. must demonstrate that activities application or the underlying combined 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 conducted under the limited work license application, as applicable. also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorization will be conducted in (e) Effect of limited work of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as compliance with the technically- authorization. Any activities amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)). relevant Commission requirements in 10 undertaken under a limited work 13. In § 51.4, a new definition of CFR Chapter I applicable to the design authorization are entirely at the risk of construction is added to read as follows: the applicant and, except as to the of those portions of the facility within § 51.4 Definitions. the scope of the limited work matters determined under paragraph authorization; (d)(1) of this section, the issuance of the * * * * * (ii) An environmental report in limited work authorization has no Construction includes excavation, accordance with § 51.49 of this chapter; bearing on the issuance of a subsurface preparation, including the and construction permit or combined license driving of piles, installation of the (iii) A plan for redress of the site to with respect to the requirements of the foundation, including the placement of achieve an environmentally stable and Act, and rules, regulations, or orders concrete, and on-site, in-place aesthetically acceptable site suitable for promulgated pursuant thereto. The fabrication, erection, integration or whatever non-nuclear use may conform environmental impact statement for a testing, for any structure, system or with local zoning laws, should limited construction permit or combined license component of a facility required by the work activities be terminated by the application for which a limited work Commission’s rules and regulations to holder, the limited work authorization authorization was previously issued be described in the site safety analysis is revoked by the NRC, or upon will not address, and the presiding report or preliminary or final safety effectiveness of the Commission’s final officer will not consider, the sunk costs analysis report. The term ‘‘construction’’ decision denying the associated of the holder of limited work excludes: construction permit or combined license authorization in determining the (1) Changes for the temporary use of application, as applicable. proposed action (i.e., issuance of the the land for public recreational (d) Issuance of limited work construction permit or combined purposes; authorization. (1) The Director of the license). (2) Site exploration, including: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (f) Implementation of redress plan. If Necessary borings to determine may issue a limited work authorization construction is terminated by the foundation conditions or other only after: holder, the underlying application is preconstruction monitoring to establish (i) The NRC staff issues the final withdrawn by the applicant or denied background information related to the environmental impact statement for the by the NRC, or the LWA is revoked by suitability of the site, the environmental

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61349

impacts of construction or operation, or statement or a supplement to an who is requesting a limited work the protection of environmental values; environmental impact statement: authorization shall submit with its (3) Preparation of the site for * * * * * application the environmental report construction of a facility, including (5) Issuance of a limited work required by § 51.50(b), provided, clearing of the site, grading, installation authorization under 10 CFR 50.10 of the however, that the report must also of drainage, erosion and other chapter. contain the following information: environmental mitigation measures, and * * * * * (1) A description of the activities construction of temporary roads and 16. A new § 51.49 is added under the proposed to be conducted under the borrow areas; heading Environmental Reports— limited work authorization; (4) Construction of fencing and other Production and Utilization Facilities to (2) A statement of the need for the access control measures; read as follows: activities; and (5) Construction of temporary (3) A description of the environmental construction support buildings (such as § 51.49 Environmental report—limited impacts that may reasonably be construction equipment storage sheds, work authorization. expected to result from the activities, warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, (a) Limited work authorization the mitigation measures that the concrete mixing plants, docking and submitted as part of complete applicant proposes to implement in unloading facilities, and construction construction permit or combined license order to achieve the level of support buildings and offices) for use in application. Each applicant for environmental impacts described, and a connection with the construction of the construction permit or combined license discussion of the reasons for rejecting facility; who applies for a limited work mitigation measures that could be (6) Construction of permanent service authorization under § 50.10(c) of part 50 employed by the applicant to further facilities, such as paved roads, parking of this chapter in a complete application reduce environmental impacts. lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility and under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1) through (4), (d) Limited work authorization lighting systems, potable water systems, shall submit with its application a request submitted by early site permit sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, separate document, entitled, holder. Each holder of an early site transmission lines, support buildings, ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental Report— permit who requests a limited work and office buildings; Limited Work Authorization Stage,’’ authorization shall submit with its (7) Procurement or manufacture of the which is in addition to the application the environmental report components of the proposed facility, or Environmental Report required by containing the following information: the manufacture of a nuclear power § 51.50 of this section. The Applicant’s (1) A description of the activities reactor under a manufacturing license Environmental Report—Limited Work proposed to be conducted under the under subpart F of this part to be Authorization Stage must contain the limited work authorization; (2) A statement of the need for the installed at the proposed site and be following information: activities; part of the proposed facility; and (1) A description of the activities proposed to be conducted under the (3) A description of the environmental (8) With respect to production or impacts that may reasonably be utilization facilities, other than testing limited work authorization; (2) A statement of the need for the expected to result from the activities, facilities and nuclear power plants, activities; and the mitigation measures that the required to be licensed pursuant to (3) A description of the environmental applicant proposes to implement in section 104.a or section 104.c of the Act, impacts that may reasonably be order to achieve the level of the construction of buildings which will expected to result from the activities, environmental impacts described, and a be used for activities other than the mitigation measures that the discussion of the reasons for rejecting operation of a facility and which may applicant proposes to implement in mitigation measures that could be also be used to house a facility (for order to achieve the level of employed by the applicant to further example, the construction of a college environmental impacts described, and a reduce environmental impacts; and laboratory building with space for discussion of the reasons for rejecting (4) A discussion of any new and installation of a training reactor). mitigation measures that could be significant information on the 14. In § 51.17, paragraph (b) is revised employed by the applicant to further environmental impacts of construction to read as follows: reduce environmental impacts. as determined in the environmental § 51.17 Information collection (b) Phased application for limited impact statement for the early site requirements; OMB approval. work authorization and construction permit, which may materially affect the * * * * * permit or combined license. If the conclusions of the early site permit with (b) The approved information construction permit or combined license respect to the environmental impacts of collection requirements in this part application is filed in accordance with the activities to be conducted under the appear in §§ 51.6, 51.16, 51.41, 51.45, § 2.101(a)(9) of this chapter, then the limited work authorization. 51.49, 51.50, 51.51, 51.52, 51.53, 51.54, environmental report for part one of the (e) Limited work authorization for site 51.58, 51.60, 51.61, 51.62, 51.66, 51.68, application may be limited to a where EIS was prepared, but the facility and 51.69. discussion of the activities proposed to was not constructed. If the limited work 15. In § 51.20, the introductory text of be conducted under the limited work authorization is for activities to be paragraph (b) is republished and a new authorization, and the proposed redress conducted at a site for which the paragraph (b)(5) is added to read as plan. If the scope of the environmental Commission has previously prepared an follows: report for part one is so limited, then environmental impact statement for the part two of the application must include construction and operation of a nuclear § 51.20 Criteria for and identification of the information required by § 51.50, as power plant, and a construction permit licensing and regulatory actions requiring applicable. was issued but construction of the plant environmental impact statements. (c) Limited work authorization was never completed, then the * * * * * submitted as part of early site permit applicant’s environmental report may (b) The following types of actions application. Each applicant for an early reference the earlier environmental require an environmental impact site permit under subpart A of part 51 impact statement. In the event of such

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61350 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

referencing, the environmental report to determine whether there is any proceeding, either for the site or design; must identify whether there is new and obviously superior alternative to the site and significant information material to the proposed. For other than light-water- (iii) Any new and significant matters required to be addressed in cooled nuclear power reactors, the information on the site or design to the paragraph (a) of this section. environmental report shall contain the extent that it differs from, or is in (f) Environmental Report. An basis for evaluating the contribution of addition to, that discussed in the early environmental report submitted in the environmental effects of fuel cycle site permit environmental impact accordance with this section must activities for the nuclear power reactor. statement. separately evaluate the environmental Each environmental report shall identify (2) Application referencing standard impacts and proposed alternatives procedures for reporting and keeping design certification. If the combined attributable to the activities proposed to records of environmental data, and any license references a standard design be conducted under the limited work conditions and monitoring requirements certification, then the combined license authorization. At the option of the for protecting the non-aquatic environmental report may incorporate applicant, the Applicant’s environment, proposed for possible by reference the environmental Environmental Report—Limited Work inclusion in the license as assessment previously prepared by the Authorization Stage may contain the environmental conditions in accordance NRC for the referenced design information required to be submitted in with § 50.36b of this chapter. certification. If the design certification the environmental report required under (c) Combined license stage. Each environmental assessment is referenced, § 51.50, which addresses the impacts of applicant for a combined license shall then the combined license construction and operation for the submit with its application a separate environmental report must contain proposed facility (including the document, entitled ‘‘Applicant’s information to demonstrate that the site environmental impacts attributable to Environmental Report—Combined characteristics for the combined license the limited work authorization), and License Stage.’’ Each environmental site fall within the site parameters in the discusses the overall costs and benefits report shall contain the information design certification environmental balancing for the proposed action. specified in §§ 51.45, 51.51 and 51.52, assessment. 17. Section 51.50 is revised to read as for other than light-water-cooled nuclear (3) Application referencing a follows: power reactors, the environmental manufactured reactor. If the combined report shall contain the basis for license application proposes to use a § 51.50 Environmental report— evaluating the contribution of the manufactured reactor, then the construction permit, early site permit, or environmental effects of fuel cycle combined license environmental report combined license stage. activities for the nuclear power reactor. may incorporate by reference the (a) Construction permit stage. Each Each environmental report shall identify environmental assessment previously applicant for a permit to construct a procedures for reporting and keeping prepared by the NRC for the underlying production or utilization facility records of environmental data, and any manufacturing license. If the covered by § 51.20 shall submit with its conditions and monitoring requirements manufacturing license environmental application a separate document, for protecting the non-aquatic assessment is referenced, then the entitled ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental environment, proposed for possible combined license environmental report Report—Construction Permit Stage,’’ inclusion in the license as must contain information to which shall contain the information environmental conditions in accordance demonstrate that the site characteristics specified in §§ 51.45, 51.51 and 51.52. with § 50.36b of this chapter. The for the combined license site fall within Each environmental report shall identify combined license environmental report the site parameters in the manufacturing procedures for reporting and keeping may reference information contained in license environmental assessment. The records of environmental data, and any a final environmental document environmental report need not address conditions and monitoring requirements previously prepared by the NRC staff. the environmental impacts associated for protecting the non-aquatic (1) Application referencing an early with manufacturing the reactor under environment, proposed for possible site permit. The applicant must have a the manufacturing license. inclusion in the license as reasonable process for identifying any * * * * * environmental conditions in accordance new and significant information 18. In § 51.71, paragraph (d) and with § 50.36b of this chapter. regarding the NRC’s conclusions in the footnote 3 are revised, paragraph (e) is (b) Early site permit stage. Each early site permit environmental impact redesignated as paragraph (f), and a new applicant for an early site permit shall statement. If the combined license paragraph (e) is added to read as submit with its application a separate application references an early site follows: document, entitled ‘‘Applicant’s permit, then the ‘‘Applicant’s Environmental Report—Early Site Environmental Report—Combined § 51.71 Draft environmental impact Permit Stage,’’ which shall contain the License Stage’’ need not contain statement-contents. information specified in §§ 51.45, 51.51, information or analyses submitted to the * * * * * and 51.52, as modified in this Commission in ‘‘Applicant’s (d) Analysis. (1) Unless excepted in paragraph. Environmental reports need Environmental Report—Early Site this paragraph, the draft environmental not include an assessment of the Permit Stage,’’ but must contain, in impact statement will include a economic, technical, and other benefits addition to the environmental preliminary analysis that considers and and costs of the proposed action or an information and analyses otherwise weighs the environmental effects of the analysis of other energy alternatives. required: proposed action; the environmental Environmental reports must focus on (i) Information to demonstrate that the impacts of alternatives to the proposed the environmental effects of design of the facility falls within the site action; and alternatives available for construction and operation of a reactor, characteristics and design parameters reducing or avoiding adverse or reactors, which have characteristics specified in the early site permit; environmental effects and consideration that fall within the postulated site (ii) Information to resolve any other of the economic, technical, and other parameters. Environmental reports must significant environmental issue not benefits and costs of the proposed include an evaluation of alternative sites considered in the early site permit action and alternatives and indicate

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61351

what other interests and considerations issues designated as Category 1 in the analysis will, for the purposes of of Federal policy, including factors not appendix B to subpart A of this part. NEPA, consider the radiological effects related to environmental quality if The draft supplemental environmental of the proposed action and alternatives. applicable, are relevant to the impact statement must contain an (e) Effect of limited work consideration of environmental effects analysis of those issues identified as authorization. If a limited work of the proposed action identified under Category 2 in appendix B to subpart A authorization was issued either in paragraph (a) of this section. of this part that are open for the connection with or subsequent to an (2) The draft environmental impact proposed action. early site permit, or in connection with statement prepared at the early site (5) The analysis for all draft a construction permit or combined permit stage must focus on the environmental impact statements will, license application, then the environmental effects of construction to the fullest extent practicable, quantify environmental impact statement for the and operation of a reactor, or reactors, the various factors considered. To the construction permit or combined license which have characteristics that fall extent that there are important application will not address or consider within the postulated site parameters, qualitative considerations or factors that the sunk costs associated with the and will not include an assessment of cannot be quantified, these limited work authorization. the benefits (for example, need for considerations or factors will be * * * * * power) of the proposed action or an discussed in qualitative terms. 19. Section 51.76 is revised to read as evaluation of other alternative energy (6) Due consideration will be given to follows: sources unless considered by the compliance with environmental quality applicant, but must include an standards and requirements that have § 51.76 Draft environmental impact evaluation of alternative sites to been imposed by Federal, State, statement-limited work authorization. determine whether there is any regional, and local agencies having The NRC will prepare a draft obviously superior alternative to the site responsibility for environmental environmental impact statement relating proposed. protection, including applicable zoning to issuance of a limited work (3) The draft supplemental and land-use regulations and water authorization in accordance with the environmental impact statement pollution limitations or requirements procedures and measures described in prepared at the combined license stage issued or imposed under the Federal §§ 51.70, 51.71, and 51.73, as further when an early site permit is referenced Water Pollution Control Act. The supplemented or modified in the need not include detailed information environmental impact of the proposed following paragraphs. or analyses that were resolved in the action will be considered in the analysis (a) Limited work authorization final environmental impact statement with respect to matters covered by submitted as part of complete prepared by the Commission in environmental quality standards and construction permit or combined license connection with the early site permit, if: requirements irrespective of whether a application. If the application for a (i) The design of the facility falls certification or license from the limited work authorization is submitted within the design parameters specified appropriate authority has been as part of a complete construction in the early site permit; obtained.3 While satisfaction of permit or combined license application, (ii) The site falls within the site Commission standards and criteria then the NRC may prepare a partial draft characteristics specified within the early pertaining to radiological effects will be environmental impact statement, site permit; and necessary to meet the licensing provided, however, that the analysis (iii) There is no significant new requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, called for by § 51.71(d) will be limited environmental issue or information not to the activities proposed to be considered on the site or the design only 3 Compliance with the environmental quality conducted under the limited work to the extent that they differ from that standards and requirements of the Federal Water authorization. Alternatively, the NRC discussed in the final environmental Pollution Control Act (imposed by EPA or may prepare a complete draft designated permitting states) is not a substitute for, impact statement prepared by the and does not negate the requirement for NRC to environmental impact statement Commission in connection with the weigh all environmental effects of the proposed prepared in accordance with § 51.75(a) early site permit. action, including the degradation, if any, of water or (c), as applicable. (4) The draft supplemental quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed (b) Phased application for limited action that are available for reducing adverse environmental impact statement effects. Where an environmental assessment of work authorization under § 2.101(a)(9) prepared at the license renewal stage aquatic impact from plant discharges is available of this chapter. If the application for a under § 51.95(c) need not discuss the from the permitting authority, the NRC will limited work authorization is submitted economic or technical benefits and costs consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of environmental impacts for striking an in accordance with § 2.101(a)(9) of this of either the proposed action or overall cost-benefit balance at the construction chapter, then the draft environmental alternatives except if benefits and costs permit and operating license and early site permit impact statement for part one of the are either essential for a determination and combined license stages, and in its application may be limited to determination of whether the adverse regarding the inclusion of an alternative environmental impacts of license renewal are so consideration of the activities proposed in the range of alternatives considered great that preserving the option of license renewal to be conducted under the limited work or relevant to mitigation. In addition, for energy planning decision-makers would be authorization, and the proposed redress the supplemental environmental impact unreasonable at the license renewal stage. When the plan. However, if the environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is not available from statement prepared at the license the permitting authority, NRC will establish on its report contains the full set of renewal stage need not discuss other own, or in conjunction with the permitting information required to be submitted issues not related to the environmental authority and other agencies having relevant under § 51.50(a) or (c), then the draft effects of the proposed action and expertise, the magnitude of potential impacts for environmental impact statement will be striking an overall cost-benefit balance for the associated alternatives. The draft facility at the construction permit and operating prepared in accordance with § 51.75(a) supplemental environmental impact license and early site permit and combined license or (c), as applicable. Siting issues, statement for license renewal prepared stages, and in its determination of whether the including whether there is an obviously under § 51.95(c) will rely on adverse environmental impacts of license renewal superior alternative site, or issues are so great that preserving the option of license conclusions as amplified by the renewal for energy planning decision-makers would related to operation of the proposed supporting information in the GEIS for be unreasonable at the license renewal stage. nuclear power plant at the site,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61352 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

including need for power may not be whether there is significant new applicable to the limited work considered. After part two of the information with respect to the authorization or in accordance with the application is docketed, the NRC will environmental impacts of construction, terms of any notice of hearing prepare a draft supplement to the final relevant to the activities to be conducted applicable to the limited work environmental impact statement for part under the limited work authority, such authorization. In the proceeding, the two of the application under § 51.72. No that the conclusion of the referenced presiding officer will decide any such updating of the information contained environmental impact statement on the matters in controversy among the in the final environmental statement impacts of construction would, when parties. prepared for part one is necessary in analyzed in accordance with § 51.71, 22. Section 51.105, is revised to read preparation of the supplemental lead to the conclusion that the limited as follows: environmental impact statement. The work authorization should not be issued draft supplement must consider all or should be issued with appropriate § 51.105 Public hearings in proceedings environmental impacts associated with for issuance of construction permits or conditions. early site permits; limited work the prior issuance of the limited work (f) A draft environmental impact authorizations. authorization, but may not address or statement prepared under this section (a) In addition to complying with consider the sunk costs associated with must separately evaluate the applicable requirements of § 51.104, in the limited work authorization. environmental impacts and proposed a proceeding for the issuance of a (c) Limited work authorization alternatives attributable to the activities construction permit or early site permit submitted as part of an early site permit proposed to be conducted under the for a nuclear power reactor, testing application. If the application for a limited work authorization. However, if facility, fuel reprocessing plant or limited work authorization is submitted the Applicant’s Environmental Report— isotopic enrichment plant, the presiding as part of an application for an early site Limited Work Authorization Stage also officer will: permit, then the NRC will prepare an contains the information required to be (1) Determine whether the environmental impact statement in submitted in the environmental report requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), accordance with § 51.75(b). However, required under § 51.50, then the and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in the analysis called for by § 51.71(d) environmental impact statement must this subpart have been met; must also address the activities address the impacts of construction and (2) Independently consider the final proposed to be conducted under the operation for the proposed facility balance among conflicting factors limited work authorization. (including the environmental impacts contained in the record of the (d) Limited work authorization attributable to the limited work proceeding with a view to determining request submitted by early site permit authorization), and discuss the overall the appropriate action to be taken; holder. If the application for a limited costs and benefits balancing for the work authorization is submitted by a (3) Determine, after weighing the underlying proposed action, in environmental, economic, technical, holder of an early site permit, then the accordance with § 51.71, and § 51.75(a) NRC will prepare a prepare a draft and other benefits against or (c), as applicable. environmental and other costs, and supplement to the environmental 20. In § 51.103, a new paragraph (a)(6) considering reasonable alternatives, impact statement for the early site is added to read as follows: permit. The supplement is limited to whether the construction permit or early consideration of the activities proposed § 51.103 Record of decision—general. site permit should be issued, denied, or to be conducted under the limited work (a) * * * appropriately conditioned to protect authorization, the adequacy of the (6) In a construction permit or the environmental values; proposed redress plan, and whether combined license proceeding, where a (4) Determine, in an uncontested there is significant new information on limited work authorization under 10 proceeding, whether the NEPA review the impacts of construction which CFR 50.10 was issued, the conducted by the NRC staff has been materially affect the conclusions of the Commission’s decision on the adequate; and early site permit with respect to the construction permit or combined license (5) Determine, in a contested environmental impacts of the activities application will not address or consider proceeding, whether in accordance with to be conducted under the limited work the sunk costs associated with the the regulations in this subpart, the authorization. No other updating of the limited work authorization in construction permit or early site permit information contained in the final determining the proposed action. should be issued as proposed. (b) The presiding officer in an early environmental statement prepared for * * * * * the early site permit is required. 21. In § 51.104, a new paragraph (c) is site permit hearing shall not admit (e) Limited work authorization for site added to read as follows: contentions proffered by any party where EIS was prepared, but the facility concerning the benefits assessment (e.g., was not constructed. If the limited work § 51.104 NRC proceedings using public need for power) or alternative energy authorization is for activities to be hearings; consideration of environmental sources if those issues were not conducted at a site for which the impact statement. addressed by the applicant in the early Commission has previously prepared an * * * * * site permit application. environmental impact statement for the (c) Limited work authorization. In any (c)(1) In addition to complying with construction and operation of a nuclear proceeding in which a limited work the applicable provisions of § 51.104, in power plant, a construction permit was authorization is requested, unless the any proceeding for the issuance of a issued but construction of the plant (as Commission orders otherwise, a party to construction permit for a nuclear power defined in § 50.10 of this chapter) was the proceeding may take a position and plant or an early site permit under part never commenced, the draft offer evidence only on the aspects of the 52 of this chapter where the applicant environmental impact statement shall proposed action within the scope of requests a limited work authorization incorporate by reference the earlier NEPA and this subpart which are within under § 50.10(c) of this chapter, the environmental impact statement. The the scope of that party’s admitted presiding officer shall—– draft environmental impact statement contention, in accordance with the (i) Determine whether the will be limited to a consideration of provisions of part 2 of this chapter requirements of section 102(2)(A), (C)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61353

and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in (3) Determine, after weighing the and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in the subpart have been met, with respect environmental, economic, technical, the subpart have been met, with respect to the activities to be conducted under and other benefits against to the activities to be conducted under the limited work authorization; environmental and other costs, and the limited work authorization; (ii) Independently consider the considering reasonable alternatives, (ii) Independently consider the balance among conflicting factors with whether the combined license should be balance among conflicting factors with respect to the limited work issued, denied, or appropriately respect to the limited work authorization which is contained in the conditioned to protect environmental authorization which is contained in the record of the proceeding, with a view to values; record of the proceeding, with a view to determining the appropriate action to be (4) Determine, in an uncontested determining the appropriate action to be taken; proceeding, whether the NEPA review taken; (iii) In an uncontested proceeding, conducted by the NRC staff has been (iii) In an uncontested proceeding, determine whether the NEPA review adequate; and determine whether the NEPA review conducted by the NRC staff for the (5) Determine, in a contested conducted by the NRC staff for the limited work authorization has been proceeding, whether in accordance with limited work authorization has been adequate; and the regulations in this subpart, the adequate; and (iv) In a contested proceeding, combined license should be issued as (iv) In a contested proceeding, determine whether in accordance with proposed by the NRC’s Director of determine whether in accordance with the regulations in this subpart, the Nuclear Reactor Regulation. the regulations in this subpart, the limited work authorization should be (b) If the combined license limited work authorization should be issued as proposed. application references an early site issued as proposed by the NRC’s (2) If the limited work authorization is permit, then the presiding officer in a Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. for activities to be conducted at a site for combined license hearing shall not (2) If the limited work authorization is which the Commission has previously admit contentions proffered by any for activities to be conducted at a site for prepared an environmental impact party on environmental issues which which the Commission has previously statement for the construction and have been accorded finality under prepared an environmental impact operation of a nuclear power plant, and § 52.39 of this chapter, unless this statement for the construction and a construction permit was issued but contention— operation of a nuclear power plant, and construction of the plant was never (1) Demonstrates that the design of the a construction permit was issued but completed, then in making the facility falls outside the design construction of the plant was never determinations in paragraph (c)(1) of parameters specified in the early site completed, then in making the this section, the presiding officer shall permit; determinations in paragraph (c)(1) of be limited to a consideration whether (2) Demonstrates that the site no this section, the presiding officer shall there is, with respect to construction longer falls within the site be limited to a consideration whether activities encompassed by the characteristics specified in the early site there is, with respect to construction environmental impact statement which permit; or activities encompassed by the are analogous to the activities to be (3) Raises any other significant environmental impact statement which conducted under the limited work environmental issue not considered are analogous to the activities to be authorization, significant new which is material to the site or the conducted under the limited work information on the environmental design only to the extent that it differs authorization, significant new impacts of those activities, such that the from those discussed or it reflects information on the environmental limited work authorization should not significant new information in addition impacts of those activities, such that the be issued as proposed. to that discussed in the final limited work authorization should not (3) The presiding officer’s environmental impact statement be issued as proposed by the Director of determination in this paragraph shall be prepared by the Commission in Nuclear Reactor Regulation. made in a partial initial decision to be connection with the early site permit. (3) In making the determination issued separately from, and in advance (c) If the combined license application required by this section, the presiding of, the presiding officer’s decision in references a standard design officer may not address or consider the paragraph (a) of this section. certification, or proposes to use a sunk costs associated with the limited 23. Section 51.107 is added to read as manufactured reactor, then the work authorization. follows: presiding officer in a combined license (4) The presiding officer’s hearing may not admit contentions determination in this paragraph shall be § 51.107 Public hearings in proceedings proffered by any party concerning made in a partial initial decision to be for issuance of combined licenses; limited severe accident mitigation design work authorizations. issued separately from, and in advance alternatives unless the contention of, the presiding officer’s decision in (a) In addition to complying with demonstrates that the site characteristics paragraph (a) of this section on the applicable requirements of § 51.104, in fall outside of the site parameters in the combined license. a proceeding for the issuance of a standard design certification or combined license for a nuclear power underlying manufacturing license for PART 52—EARLY SITE PERMITS; reactor, the presiding officer will: the manufactured reactor. STANDARD DESIGN (1) Determine whether the (d)(1) In addition to complying with CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED requirements of section 102(2) (A), (C), the applicable provisions of § 51.104, in LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER and (E) of NEPA and the regulations in any proceeding for the issuance of a PLANTS this subpart have been met; combined license where the applicant (2) Independently consider the final requests a limited work authorization 24. The authority citation for part 52 balance among conflicting factors under § 50.10(c) of this chapter, the continues to read as follows: contained in the record of the presiding officer shall— Authority: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, proceeding with a view to determining (i) Determine whether the 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, the appropriate action to be taken; requirements of section 102(2)(A), (C) 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61354 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, same site, even though the nuclear (ii) The anticipated maximum levels 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 power station may have some shared or of radiological and thermal effluents Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. common systems. each facility will produce; 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 Prototype plant means a nuclear (iii) The type of cooling systems, (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). power plant that is used to test new intakes, and outflows that may be 25. Section 52.1 is removed. safety features, such as the testing associated with each facility; 26. Section 52.3 is redesignated as required under 10 CFR 50.43(e). The (iv) The boundaries of the site; § 52.1 and revised to read as follows: prototype plant is similar to a first-of-a- (v) The proposed general location of each facility on the site; § 52.1 Definitions. kind or standard plant design in all features and size, but may include (vi) The seismic, meteorological, (a) As used in this part— additional safety features to protect the hydrologic, and geologic characteristics Combined license means a combined public and the plant staff from the of the proposed site with appropriate construction permit and operating possible consequences of accidents consideration of the most severe of the license with conditions for a nuclear during the testing period. natural phenomena that have been power facility issued under subpart C of Site characteristics are the actual historically reported for the site and this part. surrounding area and with sufficient Decommission means to remove a physical, environmental and demographic features of a site. Site margin for the limited accuracy, facility or site safely from service and quantity, and period of time in which reduce residual radioactivity to a level characteristics are specified in an early site permit or in a final safety analysis the historical data have been that permits— accumulated; (i) Release of the property for report for a combined license. Site parameters are the postulated (vii) The location and description of unrestricted use and termination of the any nearby industrial, military, or license; or physical, environmental and demographic features of an assumed transportation facilities and routes; (ii) Release of the property under (viii) The existing and projected restricted conditions and termination of site. Site parameters are specified in a standard design approval, standard future population profile of the area the license. surrounding the site; Design characteristics are the actual design certification, or a manufacturing license. (ix) A description and safety features of a reactor or reactors. Design assessment of the site on which a characteristics are specified in a Standard design means a design which is sufficiently detailed and facility is to be located. The assessment standard design approval, a standard must contain an analysis and evaluation design certification, or a combined complete to support certification in accordance with subpart B or E of this of the major structures, systems, and license application. components of the facility that bear Design parameters are the postulated part, and which is usable for a multiple significantly on the acceptability of the features of a reactor or reactors that number of units or at a multiple number site under the radiological consequence could be built at a proposed site. Design of sites without reopening or repeating evaluation factors identified in parameters are specified in an early site the review. paragraphs (a)(1)(ix)(A) and (a)(1)(ix)(B) permit. Standard design approval or design of this section. In performing this Early site permit means a Commission approval means an NRC staff approval, assessment, an applicant shall assume a approval, issued under subpart A of this issued under subpart E of this part, of fission product release 1 from the core part, for a site or sites for one or more a final standard design for a nuclear into the containment assuming that the nuclear power facilities. power reactor of the type described in facility is operated at the ultimate power License means a license, including an 10 CFR 50.22. The approval may be for level contemplated. The applicant shall early site permit, combined license or either the final design for the entire perform an evaluation and analysis of manufacturing license under this part or reactor facility or the final design of the postulated fission product release, a renewed license issued by the major portions thereof. using the expected demonstrable Commission under this part or part 54 Standard design certification or containment leak rate and any fission of this chapter. design certification means a Licensee means a person who is Commission approval, issued under product cleanup systems intended to authorized to conduct activities under a subpart B of this part, of a final standard mitigate the consequences of the license issued by the Commission. design for a nuclear power facility. This accidents, together with applicable site Limited work authorization means the design may be referred to as a certified characteristics, including site authorization provided by the Director standard design. meteorology, to evaluate the offsite radiological consequences. Site of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under (b) All other terms in this part have characteristics must comply with part § 50.10 of this chapter. the meaning set out in 10 CFR 50.2, or 100 of this chapter. The evaluation must Manufacturing license means a Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act, as determine that: license, issued under subpart F of this applicable. (A) An individual located at any point part, authorizing the manufacture of 27. Section 52.17 is revised to read as on the boundary of the exclusion area nuclear power reactors but not their follows: construction, installation, or operation for any 2 hour period following the at the sites on which the reactors are to § 52.17 Contents of applications; technical onset of the postulated fission product be operated. information. release, would not receive a radiation Modular design means a nuclear (a) The application must contain: (1) A site safety analysis report. The 1 The fission product release assumed for this power station that consists of two or evaluation should be based upon a major accident, more essentially identical nuclear site safety analysis report must include hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or reactors (modules) and each module is the following: postulated from considerations of possible a separate nuclear reactor capable of (i) The specific number, type, and accidental events. Such accidents have generally been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of being operated independent of the state thermal power level of the facilities, or the core with subsequent release into the of completion or operating condition of range of possible facilities, for which the containment of appreciable quantities of fission any other module co-located on the site may be used; products.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61355

dose in excess of 25 rem 2 total effective the evaluation must discuss how the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, dose equivalent (TEDE). proposed alternative provides an and the NRC’s regulations. (B) An individual located at any point acceptable method of complying with (4) Under paragraphs (b)(1) and on the outer boundary of the low the Commission’s regulations, or (b)(2)(i) of this section, the application population zone, who is exposed to the portions thereof, that underlie the must include a description of contacts radioactive cloud resulting from the corresponding SRP acceptance criteria. and arrangements made with Federal, postulated fission product release The SRP was issued to establish criteria State, and local governmental agencies (during the entire period of its passage) that the NRC staff intends to use in with emergency planning would not receive a radiation dose in evaluating whether an applicant/ responsibilities. The application must excess of 25 rem TEDE; licensee meets the Commission’s contain any certifications that have been (x) For nuclear power facilities to be regulations. The SRP is not a substitute obtained. If these certifications cannot sited on multi-unit sites, an evaluation for the regulations, and compliance is be obtained, the application must of the potential hazards to the not a requirement. contain information, including a utility structures, systems, and components (2) A complete environmental report plan, sufficient to show that the important to safety of operating units as required by 10 CFR 51.50(b). proposed plans provide reasonable resulting from construction activities, as (b)(1) The application must identify assurance that adequate protective well as a description of the managerial physical characteristics of the proposed measures can and will be taken in the and administrative controls to be used site, such as egress limitations from the event of a radiological emergency at the to provide assurance that the limiting area surrounding the site, that could site. Under the option set forth in conditions for operation are not pose a significant impediment to the paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the exceeded as a result of construction development of emergency plans. If applicant shall make good faith efforts activities at the multi-unit sites; physical characteristics are identified to obtain from the same governmental (xi) Information demonstrating that that could pose a significant agencies certifications that: site characteristics are such that (i) The proposed emergency plans are impediment to the development of adequate security plans and measures practicable; emergency plans, the application must can be developed; (ii) These agencies are committed to (xii) For applications submitted after identify measures that would, when participating in any further [effective date of final rule], a implemented, mitigate or eliminate the development of the plans, including any description of the quality assurance significant impediment. required field demonstrations; and program applied to site-related activities (2) The application may also: (iii) That these agencies are for the future design, fabrication, (i) Propose major features of the committed to executing their construction, and testing of the emergency plans in the site safety responsibilities under the plans in the structures, systems, and components of analysis report, in accordance with the event of an emergency. a facility or facilities that may be pertinent standards of 10 CFR 50.47, (c) An applicant may request that a constructed on the site. Appendix B to and the requirements of appendix E to limited work authorization under 10 10 CFR part 50 contains requirements 10 CFR part 50, such as the exact size CFR 50.10 be issued in conjunction with for quality assurance programs for and configuration of the emergency the early site permit. The application nuclear power plants. The description planning zones, that can be reviewed must include the information otherwise of the quality assurance program for a and approved by NRC in consultation required by 10 CFR 50.10. nuclear power plant site must include a with the Federal Emergency (d) The NRC staff will advise the discussion of how the applicable Management Agency (FEMA) in the applicant on whether any information requirements of appendix B to 10 CFR absence of complete and integrated beyond that required by this section part 50 will be satisfied; and emergency plans; or must be submitted. (xiii) An evaluation of the site against (ii) Propose complete and integrated 28. Section 52.24 is revised to read as applicable sections of the Standard emergency plans in the site safety follows: analysis report for review and approval Review Plan (SRP) revision in effect 6 § 52.24 Issuance of early site permit. months before the docket date of the by the NRC, in consultation with FEMA, (a) After conducting a hearing under application. The evaluation required by in accordance with the applicable § 52.21 and receiving the report to be this section must include an standards of 10 CFR 50.47, and the submitted by the ACRS under § 52.23, identification and description of all requirements of appendix E to 10 CFR the Commission may issue an early site differences in analytical techniques and part 50. To the extent approval of permit, in the form the Commission procedural measures proposed for a site emergency plans is sought, the deems appropriate, if the Commission and those corresponding techniques and application must contain the finds that: information required by §§ 50.33(g) and measures given in the SRP acceptance (1) An application for an early site (j) of this chapter. criteria. Where such a difference exists, permit meets the applicable standards (3) Emergency plans, and each major and requirements of the Act and the 2 A whole body dose of 25 rem has been stated feature of an emergency plan, submitted Commission’s regulations; to correspond numerically to the once in a lifetime under paragraph (b)(2) of this section accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers (2) Notifications, if any, to other which, according to NCRP recommendations at the must include the proposed inspections, agencies or bodies have been duly time could be disregarded in the determination of tests, and analyses that the holder of a made; their radiation exposure status (see NBS Handbook combined license referencing the early (3) There is reasonable assurance that 69 dated June 5, 1959). However, its use is not site permit shall perform, and the intended to imply that this number constitutes an the site is in conformity with the acceptable limit for an emergency dose to the public acceptance criteria that are necessary provisions of the Act, and the under accident conditions. Rather, this dose value and sufficient to provide reasonable Commission’s regulations; has been set forth in this section as a reference assurance that, if the inspections, tests, (4) The applicant is technically value, which can be used in the evaluation of plant and analyses are performed and the qualified to engage in any activities design features with respect to postulated reactor accidents, to assure that these designs provide acceptance criteria met, the facility has authorized; assurance of low risk of public exposure to been constructed and will operate in (5) The proposed inspections, tests, radiation, in the event of an accident. conformity with the license, the analyses and acceptance criteria,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61356 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

including any on emergency planning, (iv) The location and description of (during the entire period of its passage) are necessary and sufficient, within the any nearby industrial, military, or would not receive a radiation dose in scope of the early site permit, to provide transportation facilities and routes; excess of 25 rem TEDE; and reasonable assurance that the facility (v) The existing and projected future (2) A description and analysis of the has been constructed and will be population profile of the area structures, systems, and components of operated in conformity with the license, surrounding the site; the facility with emphasis upon the provisions of the Act, and the (vi) A description and safety performance requirements, the bases, Commission’s regulations; assessment of the site on which the with technical justification, upon which (6) Issuance of the permit will not be facility is to be located. The assessment these requirements have been inimical to the common defense and must contain an analysis and evaluation established, and the evaluations security or to the health and safety of of the major structures, systems, and required to show that safety functions the public; components of the facility that bear will be accomplished. It is expected that (7) Any significant adverse significantly on the acceptability of the reactors will reflect through their environmental impact resulting from site under the radiological consequence design, construction and operation an activities requested under § 52.17(c) can evaluation factors identified in extremely low probability for accidents be redressed; and paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(A) and (a)(1)(vi)(B) that could result in the release of (8) The findings required by subpart of this section. In performing this significant quantities of radioactive A of 10 CFR part 51 have been made. assessment, an applicant shall assume a fission products. The descriptions must (b) The early site permit must specify fission product release 1 from the core be sufficient to permit understanding of the site characteristics, design into the containment assuming that the the system designs and their parameters, and terms and conditions of facility is operated at the ultimate power relationship to safety evaluations. Items the early site permit the Commission level contemplated. The applicant shall as the reactor core, reactor coolant deems appropriate. Before issuance of perform an evaluation and analysis of system, instrumentation and control either a construction permit or the postulated fission product release, systems, electrical systems, containment combined license referencing an early using the expected demonstrable system, other engineered safety features, site permit, the Commission shall find containment leak rate and any fission auxiliary and emergency systems, power that any relevant terms and conditions product cleanup systems intended to conversion systems, radioactive waste of the early site permit have been met. mitigate the consequences of the handling systems, and fuel handling 29. Section 52.25 is revised to read as accidents, together with applicable site systems must be discussed insofar as follows: characteristics, including site they are pertinent. The following power meteorology, to evaluate the offsite reactor design characteristics and § 52.25 Limited work authorization after issuance of early site permit. radiological consequences. Site proposed operation will be taken into characteristics must comply with part consideration by the Commission: A holder of an early site permit may 100 of this chapter. The evaluation must (i) Intended use of the reactor request a limited work authorization in determine that: including the proposed maximum accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 of this (A) An individual located at any point power level and the nature and chapter. on the boundary of the exclusion area inventory of contained radioactive 30. Section 52.79 is revised to read as for any 2 hour period following the materials; follows: onset of the postulated fission product (ii) The extent to which generally § 52.79 Contents of applications; technical release, would not receive a radiation accepted engineering standards are information in final safety analysis report. dose in excess of 25 rem 2 total effective applied to the design of the reactor; (a) The application must contain a dose equivalent (TEDE). (iii) The extent to which the reactor final safety analysis report that (B) An individual located at any point incorporates unique, unusual or describes the facility, presents the on the outer boundary of the low enhanced safety features having a design bases and the limits on its population zone, who is exposed to the significant bearing on the probability or operation, and presents a safety analysis radioactive cloud resulting from the consequences of accidental release of of the structures, systems, and postulated fission product release radioactive materials; components of the facility as a whole. (iv) The safety features that are to be The final safety analysis report must 1 The fission product release assumed for this engineered into the facility and those evaluation should be based upon a major accident, include the following information, at a barriers that must be breached as a hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or result of an accident before a release of level of information sufficient to enable postulated from considerations of possible the Commission to reach a final accidental events. Such accidents have generally radioactive material to the environment conclusion on all safety matters that been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of can occur. Special attention must be the core with subsequent release into the must be resolved by the Commission directed to plant design features containment of appreciable quantities of fission intended to mitigate the radiological before issuance of a combined license: products. (1)(i) The boundaries of the site; 2 A whole body dose of 25 rem has been stated consequences of accidents. In (ii) The proposed general location of to correspond numerically to the once in a lifetime performing this assessment, an each facility on the site; accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers applicant shall assume a fission product which, according to NCRP recommendations at the release 3 from the core into the (iii) The seismic, meteorological, time could be disregarded in the determination of hydrologic, and geologic characteristics their radiation exposure status (see NBS Handbook containment assuming that the facility of the proposed site with appropriate 69 dated June 5, 1959). However, its use is not intended to imply that this number constitutes an 3 The fission product release assumed for this consideration of the most severe of the acceptable limit for an emergency dose to the public evaluation should be based upon a major accident, natural phenomena that have been under accident conditions. Rather, this dose value hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or historically reported for the site and has been set forth in this section as a reference postulated from considerations of possible surrounding area and with sufficient value, which can be used in the evaluation of plant accidental events. These accidents have generally design features with respect to postulated reactor been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of margin for the limited accuracy, accidents, to assure that these designs provide the core with subsequent release into the quantity, and time in which the assurance of low risk of public exposure to containment of appreciable quantities of fission historical data have been accumulated; radiation, in the event of an accident. products.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61357

is operated at the ultimate power level (9) The coping analyses required, and from the State and local governmental contemplated; any necessary design features necessary agencies with emergency planning (3) The kinds and quantities of to address station blackout, as described responsibilities must state that: radioactive materials expected to be in § 50.63 of this chapter; (A) The proposed emergency plans produced in the operation and the (10) A description of the program are practicable; means for controlling and limiting required by § 50.49(a) of this chapter for (B) These agencies are committed to radioactive effluents and radiation the environmental qualification of participating in any further exposures within the limits set forth in electric equipment important to safety development of the plans, including any part 20 of this chapter; and the list of electric equipment required field demonstrations; and (4) The design of the facility important to safety that is required by (C) These agencies are committed to including: 10 CFR 50.49(d); executing their responsibilities under (i) The principal design criteria for the (11) A description of the program(s) the plans in the event of an emergency; facility. Appendix A to part 50 of this necessary to ensure that the systems and (ii) If certifications cannot be obtained chapter, ‘‘General Design Criteria for components meet the requirements of after sustained, good faith efforts by the Nuclear Power Plants,’’ establishes the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel applicant, then the application must minimum requirements for the principal Code in accordance with § 50.55a of this contain information, including a utility design criteria for water-cooled nuclear chapter; plan, sufficient to show that the power plants similar in design and (12) A description of the primary proposed plans provide reasonable location to plants for which containment leakage rate testing assurance that adequate protective construction permits have previously program necessary to ensure that the measures can and will be taken in the been issued by the Commission and containment meets the requirements of event of a radiological emergency at the provides guidance to applicants in Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50; site. establishing principal design criteria for (13) A description of the reactor (23) An applicant may request that a other types of nuclear power units; vessel material surveillance program limited work authorization under 10 (ii) The design bases and the relation required by Appendix H to 10 CFR part CFR 50.10 be issued in advance of of the design bases to the principal 50; issuance of the combined license. The design criteria; (14) A description of the operator application must include the (iii) Information relative to materials training program necessary to meet the information otherwise required by 10 of construction, arrangement, and requirements of 10 CFR part 55; CFR 50.10, in accordance with either 10 dimensions, sufficient to provide (15) A description of the program for CFR 2.101(a)(1) through (4), or 10 CFR reasonable assurance that the design monitoring the effectiveness of 2.101(a)(9). will conform to the design bases with maintenance necessary to meet the (24) If the application is for a nuclear adequate margin for safety. requirements of § 50.65 of this chapter; power reactor design which differs (5) An analysis and evaluation of the (16) The information with respect to significantly from light-water reactor design and performance of structures, the design of equipment to maintain designs that were licensed before 1997 systems, and components with the control over radioactive materials in or use simplified, inherent, passive, or objective of assessing the risk to public gaseous and liquid effluents produced other innovative means to accomplish health and safety resulting from during normal reactor operations, as their safety functions, the application operation of the facility and including described in § 50.34a(d) of this chapter; must describe how the design meets the determination of the margins of safety (17) The information with respect to requirements in § 50.43(e) of this during normal operations and transient compliance with technically relevant chapter; conditions anticipated during the life of positions of the Three Mile Island (25) A description of the quality the facility, and the adequacy of requirements in § 50.34(f) of this assurance program to be applied to the structures, systems, and components chapter, with the exception of design, fabrication, construction, and provided for the prevention of accidents §§ 50.34(f)(1)(xii), (f)(2)(ix), and (f)(3)(v); testing of the structures, systems, and and the mitigation of the consequences (18) If the applicant seeks to use risk- components of the facility. Appendix B of accidents. Analysis and evaluation of informed treatment of SSCs in to 10 CFR part 50 sets forth the ECCS cooling performance and the need accordance with § 50.69 of this chapter, requirements for quality assurance for high-point vents following the information required by § 50.69(b)(2) programs for nuclear power plants. The postulated loss-of-coolant accidents of this chapter; description of the quality assurance must be performed in accordance with (19) Information necessary to program for a nuclear power plant shall the requirements of §§ 50.46 and 50.46a demonstrate that the SSCs important to include a discussion of how the of this chapter; safety comply with the earthquake applicable requirements of appendix B (6) A description and analysis of the engineering criteria in 10 CFR part 50, to 10 CFR part 50 will be satisfied; fire protection design features for the appendix S; (26) The applicant’s organizational reactor necessary to comply with 10 (20) Proposed technical resolutions of structure, allocations or responsibilities CFR part 50, appendix A, GDC 3, and those unresolved safety issues and and authorities, and personnel § 50.48 of this chapter; medium- and high-priority generic qualifications requirements for (7) A description of protection safety issues that are identified in the operation; provided against pressurized thermal version of NUREG–0933 current on the (27) Managerial and administrative shock events, including projected values date 6 months before application and controls to be used to assure safe of the reference temperature for reactor that are technically relevant to the operation. Appendix B to 10 CFR part vessel beltline materials as defined in design; 50 sets forth the requirements for these §§ 50.60, and 50.61(b)(1) and (b)(2) of (21) Emergency plans complying with controls for nuclear power plants. The this chapter; the requirements of § 50.47 of this information on the controls to be used (8) The analyses and the descriptions chapter, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix for a nuclear power plant shall include of the equipment and systems required E; a discussion of how the applicable by § 50.44 of this chapter for (22)(i) All emergency plan requirements of appendix B to 10 CFR combustible gas control; certifications that have been obtained part 50 will be satisfied;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 61358 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(28) Plans for preoperational testing required for this plan need not be (44) The NRC staff will advise the and initial operations; submitted for approval.) applicant on whether any information (29) Plans for conduct of normal (ii) Each applicant who prepares a beyond that required by this section operations, including maintenance, physical security plan, a safeguards must be submitted. surveillance, and periodic testing of contingency plan, or a guard (b) If the application for a final safety structures, systems, and components; qualification and training plan, shall analysis report references an early site (30) Proposed technical specifications protect the plans and other related permit, then the following requirements prepared in accordance with the Safeguards Information against apply: requirements of §§ 50.36 and 50.36a of unauthorized disclosure in accordance (1) The final safety analysis report this chapter; with the requirements of § 73.21 of this need not contain information or analyses submitted to the Commission (31) For nuclear power plants to be chapter, as appropriate. in connection with the early site permit, operated on multi-unit sites, an (37) The information which but must contain, in addition to the evaluation of the potential hazards to demonstrates how operating experience information and analyses otherwise the structures, systems, and components insights from generic letters and bulletins issued up to 6 months before required, information sufficient to important to safety of operating units demonstrate that the design of the resulting from construction activities, as the docket date of the application, or comparable international operating facility falls within the site well as a description of the managerial characteristics and design parameters and administrative controls to be used experience, have been incorporated into the plant design; specified in the early site permit. to provide assurance that the limiting (2) If the final safety analysis report (38) A description and analysis of conditions for operation are not does not demonstrate that design of the design features for the prevention and exceeded as a result of construction facility falls within the site mitigation of severe accidents (core-melt activities at the multi-unit sites; characteristics and design parameters, accidents), including challenges to (32) The technical qualifications of the application must include a request containment integrity caused by core- the applicant to engage in the proposed for a variance that complies with the concrete interaction, steam explosion, activities in accordance with the requirements of §§ 52.39 and 52.93. regulations in this chapter; high-pressure core melt ejection, (3) The final safety analysis report (33) A description of the training hydrogen detonation, and containment must demonstrate that all terms and program required by § 50.120 of this bypass; conditions that have been included in chapter; (39) The earliest and latest dates for the early site permit will be satisfied by (34) A description and plans for completion of the construction; the date of issuance of the combined implementation of an operator (40) [Reserved] license. requalification program. The operator (41) For applications for light-water (4) If the early site permit approves requalification program must as a cooled nuclear power plant combined complete and integrated emergency minimum, meet the requirements for licenses, an evaluation of the facility plans, or major features of emergency those programs contained in § 55.59 of against the Standard Review Plan (SRP) plans, then the final safety analysis this chapter; in effect 6 months before the docket date report must include any new or of the application. The evaluation (35) A physical security plan, additional information that updates and required by this section must include an describing how the applicant will meet corrects the information that was identification and description of all the requirements of 10 CFR part 73 (and provided under § 52.17(b), and discuss differences in design features, analytical 10 CFR part 11, if applicable, including whether the new or additional techniques and procedural measures the identification and description of information materially changes the proposed for a facility and those jobs as required by § 11.11(a) of this bases for compliance with the corresponding features, techniques and chapter, at the proposed facility). The applicable requirements. If the proposed measures given in the SRP acceptance plan must list tests, inspections, audits, facility emergency plans incorporate criteria. Where a difference exists, the and other means to be used to existing emergency plans or major evaluation must discuss how the demonstrate compliance with the features of emergency plans, the proposed alternative provides an requirements of 10 CFR parts 11 and 73, application must identify changes to the acceptable method of complying with if applicable; emergency plans or major features of the Commission’s regulations, or (36)(i) A safeguards contingency plan emergency plans that have been portions thereof, that underlie the in accordance with the criteria set forth incorporated into the proposed facility corresponding SRP acceptance criteria. in appendix C to 10 CFR part 73. The emergency plans and that constitute a The SRP was issued to establish criteria safeguards contingency plan shall decrease in effectiveness under that the NRC staff intends to use in include plans for dealing with threats, § 50.54(q) of this chapter. evaluating whether an applicant/ thefts, and radiological sabotage, as (5) If complete and integrated licensee meets the Commission’s defined in part 73 of this chapter, emergency plans are approved as part of regulations. The SRP is not a substitute relating to the special nuclear material the early site permit, new certifications for the regulations, and compliance is and nuclear facilities licensed under meeting the requirements of paragraph not a requirement; this chapter and in the applicant’s (a)(22) of this section are not required. (42) Information demonstrating how possession and control. Each (c) If the combined license application the applicant will comply with application for this type of license shall references a standard design approval, requirements for reduction of risk from include the information contained in then the following requirements apply: anticipated transients without scram (1) The final safety analysis report the applicant’s safeguards contingency (ATWS) events in § 50.62 of this need not contain information or plan.4 (Implementing procedures chapter; analyses submitted to the Commission (43) Information demonstrating how in connection with the design approval, 4 A physical security plan that contains all the information required in both §§ 73.55 of this the applicant will comply with but must contain, in addition to the chapter and appendix C to 10 CFR part 73 satisfies requirements for criticality accidents in information and analyses otherwise the requirement for a contingency plan. § 50.68 of this chapter; required, information sufficient to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61359

demonstrate that the characteristics of license, but must contain, in addition to been constructed and will operate in the site fall within the site parameters the information and analyses otherwise conformity with the combined license, specified in the design approval. required, information sufficient to the provisions of the Atomic Energy (2) The final safety analysis report demonstrate that the site parameters for Act, and the NRC’s regulations. must demonstrate that the interface the manufactured reactor are bounded (1) If the application references an requirements established for the design by the site where the manufactured early site permit with ITAAC, the early under § 52.137 have been met. reactor is to be installed and used. site permit ITAAC must apply to those (3) The final safety analysis report (2) The final safety analysis report aspects of the combined license which must demonstrate that all terms and must demonstrate that the interface are approved in the early site permit. conditions that have been included in requirements established for the design the final design approval will be have been met. (2) If the application references a satisfied by the date of issuance of the (3) The final safety analysis report standard design certification, the ITAAC combined license. must demonstrate that all terms and contained in the certified design must (d) If the combined license conditions that have been included in apply to those portions of the facility application references a standard design the manufacturing license will be design which are approved in the design certification, then the following satisfied by the date of issuance of the certification. requirements apply: combined license. (3) If the application references an (1) The final safety analysis report 31. Section 52.80 is added to read as early site permit with ITAAC or a need not contain information or follows: standard design certification or both, the analyses submitted to the Commission application may include a notification in connection with the design § 52.80 Contents of applications; additional technical information. that a required inspection, test, or certification, but must contain, in analysis in the ITAAC has been addition to the information and analyses The application must contain: (a) A plant-specific probabilistic risk successfully completed and that the otherwise required, information corresponding acceptance criterion has sufficient to demonstrate that the assessment (PRA). If the application references a standard design been met. The Federal Register characteristics of the site fall within the notification required by § 52.85 must site parameters specified in the design certification or standard design approval, or if the application proposes indicate that the application includes certification. this notification. (2) The final safety analysis report to use a nuclear power reactor must demonstrate that the interface manufactured under a manufacturing (c) An environmental report, in requirements established for the design license under subpart F of this part, the accordance with 10 CFR 51.50(c) if a under § 52.47 have been met. plant-specific PRA must use the PRA for limited work authorization under 10 (3) The final safety analysis report the design certification, design CFR 50.10 is not requested in must demonstrate that all requirements approval, or manufactured reactor, as conjunction with the combined license and restrictions set forth in the applicable, and must be updated to application, or in accordance with referenced design certification rule must account for site-specific design §§ 51.49 and 51.50(c) of this chapter if be satisfied by the date of issuance of information and any design changes, a limited work authorization is the combined license. departures, or variances. requested in conjunction with the (e) If the combined license application (b) The proposed inspections, tests, combined license application. references the use of one or more and analyses, including those applicable Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day manufactured nuclear power reactors to emergency planning, that the licensee of October 2006. shall perform, and the acceptance licensed under subpart F of this part, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. then the following requirements apply: criteria which are necessary and (1) The final safety analysis report sufficient to provide reasonable Annette L. Vietti-Cook, need not contain information or assurance that, if the inspections, tests, Secretary of the Commission. analyses submitted to the Commission and analyses are performed and the [FR Doc. 06–8656 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] in connection with the manufacturing acceptance criteria met, the facility has BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:26 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM 17OCP2 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Part V

The President Proclamation 8068—National Energy Awareness Month, 2006 Proclamation 8069—White Cane Safety Day, 2006

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:31 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS4 VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:31 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS4 61363

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 71, No. 200

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Title 3— Proclamation 8068 of October 12, 2006

The President National Energy Awareness Month, 2006

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Our Nation is moving toward remarkable technological advances that will make energy cleaner, more abundant, and more affordable for our citizens. During National Energy Awareness Month, we underscore our commitment to a more secure energy future. My Administration is working to improve energy efficiency and conservation, increase our domestic supply of energy, and diversify our energy supply through advanced technologies. Since 2001, we have invested nearly $10 billion in the development of cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable energy sources. We developed a comprehensive National Energy Policy, and last year I signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 -- the first comprehensive energy bill in more than a decade. My Administration’s Advanced Energy Initiative seeks to diversify energy resources by substantially increasing funding for clean-energy research. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. We will focus on improving hybrid and hydrogen technologies for our automobiles and increasing the use of biofuels. By harnessing the power of technology, we can grow our economy, protect our environment, and enhance our energy security. Technology is also helping develop new energy-saving products that give our consumers better performance at a lower cost. At home, energy-efficient windows reduce the loss of hot and cold air, and high efficiency light- bulbs last longer than traditional bulbs while requiring less electricity. The Federal Government’s Energy Savers website, energysavers.gov, offers more information about how to use less energy in homes, offices, and vehicles, and how consumers can save money on energy costs. Meeting our growing energy needs will require creativity, determination, and discipline. By working together, we can foster economic growth, improve our environment, and leave behind a safer, cleaner, more prosperous world for future generations. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2006 as National Energy Awareness Month. I encourage Americans to take steps to conserve energy and develop responsible habits that will reduce energy consumption in their everyday lives.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:31 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS4 61364 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

[FR Doc. 06–8759 Filed 10–16–06; 8:51 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:31 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCD0.SGM 17OCD0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS4 GWBOLD.EPS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Presidential Documents 61365 Presidential Documents

Proclamation 8069 of October 12, 2006

White Cane Safety Day, 2006

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Our Nation believes in the promise of all our citizens, and we must work to ensure that the opportunities of America are more accessible to every person. Many Americans who are blind or visually impaired use white canes to enable them to enjoy greater mobility, engage in productive work, and participate fully in all aspects of life. On White Cane Safety Day, we celebrate the many achievements of Americans who are blind or visually impaired, and we recognize the white cane as an important symbol of their determination and independence. My Administration remains committed to removing barriers that confront Americans with disabilities. Since we launched the New Freedom Initiative 5 years ago, we have worked to improve access to community life, expand educational opportunities, strengthen training and employment services, and promote the development of technology for people with disabilities. We are building on the progress of the Americans with Disabilities Act and working to make America a place where all citizens have the opportunity to realize their full potential. The Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88–628) approved on October 6, 1964, as amended, has designated October 15 of each year as ‘‘White Cane Safety Day.’’ NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 15, 2006, as White Cane Safety Day. I call upon public officials, business leaders, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to join as we work to ensure that the benefits and privileges of life in our great Nation are available to Americans who are blind or visually impaired, and to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs. 61366 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

[FR Doc. 06–8760 Filed 10–16–06; 8:51 am] Billing code 3195–01–P Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Part VI

The President Executive Order 13412—Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With the Government of Sudan

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 61369

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 71, No. 200

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Title 3— Executive Order 13412 of October 13, 2006

The President Blocking Property of and Prohibiting Transactions With the Government of Sudan

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emer- gencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and taking appropriate account of the Darfur Peace and Account- ability Act of 2006 (the ‘‘Act’’), I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the continuation of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States created by certain policies and actions of the Government of Sudan that violate human rights, in particular with respect to the conflict in Darfur, where the Government of Sudan exercises adminis- trative and legal authority and pervasive practical influence, and due to the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the pervasive role played by the Government of Sudan in the petroleum and petrochemical industries in Sudan, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997. Accord- ingly, I hereby order: Section 1. Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, all property and interests in property of the Government of Sudan that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, including their overseas branches, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. Sec. 2. Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order, all transactions by United States persons relating to the petroleum or petro- chemical industries in Sudan, including, but not limited to, oilfield services and oil or gas pipelines, are prohibited. Sec. 3. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. Sec. 4. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, restrictions imposed by this order shall be in addition to, and do not derogate from, restrictions imposed in and under Executive Order 13067. (b)(i) None of the prohibitions in section 2 of Executive Order 13067 shall apply to activities or related transactions with respect to Southern Sudan, Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State, Abyei, Darfur, or marginalized areas in and around Khartoum, provided that the activities or transactions do not involve any property or interests in property of the Government of Sudan.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 61370 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Presidential Documents

(ii) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, may define the term ‘‘Southern Sudan, Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains State, Blue Nile State, Abyei, Darfur, or marginalized areas in and around Khartoum’’ for the purposes of this order. (c) The function of the President under subsection 6(c)(1) of the Comprehen- sive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–497), as amended by section 5(a)(3) of the Act, is assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury as appropriate in the performance of such function. (d) The functions of the President under subsection 6(c)(2) and the last sentence of 6(d) of the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–497), as amended by subsections 5(a)(3) and (b), respectively, of the Act, are assigned to the Secretary of State, except that the function of denial of entry is assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security. (e) The functions of the President under sections 7 and 8 of the Act are assigned to the Secretary of State. Sec. 5. Nothing in this order shall prohibit: (a) transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Govern- ment or the United Nations by employees thereof; or (b) transactions in Sudan for journalistic activity by persons regularly em- ployed in such capacity by a news-gathering organization. Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term ‘‘person’’ means an individual or entity; (b) the term ‘‘entity’’ means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; (c) the term ‘‘United States person’’ means any United States citizen, perma- nent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and (d) the term ‘‘Government of Sudan’’ includes the Government of Sudan, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Sudan, but does not include the regional government of Southern Sudan. Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of meas- ures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffec- tual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067 there need be no prior notice of a determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order. Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All executive agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. The Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure compliance with those provisions of section 401 of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641) applicable to the Department of the Treasury in relation to this order. Sec. 9. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumental- ities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Presidential Documents 61371

Sec. 10. This order shall take effect upon the enactment of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 13, 2006.

[FR Doc. 06–8769 Filed 10–16–06; 11:27 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:38 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\17OCE0.SGM 17OCE0 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS6 GWBOLD.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 200 Tuesday, October 17, 2006

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING OCTOBER

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 72...... 60672 Presidential Documents 3 CFR 430...... 59204, 58410 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proclamations: 431...... 58308 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 6641 (See Proc. 8067) ...... 60649 12 CFR Other Services 8057...... 58481 910...... 60810 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 8058...... 58483 913...... 60810 741–6064 Privacy Act Compilation 8059...... 58999 951...... 59262 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 8060...... 59001 Proposed Rules: 8061...... 59003 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 327...... 60674 8062...... 59359 613...... 60678 8063...... 59362 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 8064...... 60051 13 CFR World Wide Web 8065...... 60053 8066...... 60647 Proposed Rules: Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 8067...... 60649 120...... 59411 is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html 8068...... 61363 14 CFR Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 8069...... 61365 23...... 58735 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: Executive Orders: 39 ...... 57887, 58254, 58485, http://www.archives. gov/federallregister 13067 (See EO 58487, 58493, 59363, 59366, 13412) ...... 61369 E-mail 59368, 59651, 60414, 60417, 13412...... 61369 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 60663 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 7 CFR 43...... 58495 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 58...... 60805 71 ...... 58738, 59006, 59007, of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 301 ...... 57871, 58243, 59649 59008, 59372, 60419, 60814, PDF links to the full text of each document. 360...... 58735 60815, 60816, 60817, 60818 93...... 58495, 60424 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 361...... 58735 920...... 58246 97...... 58256 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 125...... 59373 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 924...... 60807 944...... 60807 135...... 59373 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 955...... 58249 Proposed Rules: service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 1218...... 59363 1...... 58914 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 1421...... 60413 21...... 58914 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 1427...... 60413 39 ...... 58314, 58318, 58320, the instructions. 1792...... 60657 58323, 58755, 60080, 60083, 60085, 60087, 60089, 60444, Proposed Rules: FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 60446, 60448, 60450, 60924, respond to specific inquiries. 56...... 59028 70...... 59028 60926, 60927 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 305...... 59694 43...... 58914 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 318...... 59694 45...... 58914 71 ...... 58758, 58760, 58761, The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 457...... 60439 58762, 58764, 58765, 59031 regulations. 1792...... 60672 2902...... 59862 331...... 58546 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, OCTOBER 3565...... 58545 15 CFR 8 CFR 922...... 60055 57871–58242...... 2 Proposed Rules: 58243–58480...... 3 1003...... 57873 715...... 59032 58481–58734...... 4 9 CFR 716...... 59032 58735–59004...... 5 77...... 58252 721...... 59032 59005–59360...... 6 307...... 59005 922 ...... 58767, 59039, 59050, 59361–59648...... 10 381...... 59005 59338 59649–60054...... 11 60055–60412...... 12 10 CFR 16 CFR 60413–60656...... 13 72...... 60659 Proposed Rules: 60657–60804...... 16 420...... 57885 310...... 58716 60805–61372...... 17 431...... 60662 17 CFR Proposed Rules: 2...... 61330 270...... 58257 50...... 61330 Proposed Rules: 51...... 61330 4...... 60454 52...... 61330 240...... 60636

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS4 ii Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Reader Aids

18 CFR 31...... 58276 351...... 59010 47 CFR 388...... 58273 300...... 58740 370...... 59010 2...... 60067, 60075 301...... 60827, 60835 Proposed Rules: 80...... 60067, 60075 602...... 59696 40 CFR 35...... 58767 Proposed Rules: 37...... 58767 Proposed Rules: 49...... 60852 80...... 60102 40...... 57892 300...... 59696 50...... 60853, 61144 388...... 58325 51...... 58498, 60612 28 CFR 52 ...... 58498, 59383, 59674 48 CFR 20 CFR 16...... 58277 53...... 61236 205...... 58536 58...... 61236 207...... 58537 404...... 60819 29 CFR 59...... 58745 212...... 58537 416...... 60819 1915...... 60843 63...... 58499 216...... 58537 21 CFR 4022...... 60428 80...... 58498 225 ...... 58536, 58537, 58539 4044...... 60428 81...... 60429 234...... 58537 189...... 59653 236...... 58540 Proposed Rules: 82...... 58504 201...... 58739 252...... 58541 1915...... 60932 180...... 58514, 58518 520...... 59374 281...... 58521 5125...... 60076 606...... 58739 302...... 58525 5152...... 60076 610...... 58739 30 CFR 355...... 58525 Proposed Rules: 700...... 59653 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 30...... 58336, 58338 1300...... 60426, 60609 701...... 59592 52 ...... 57894, 57905, 59413, 52...... 58336, 58338 1309...... 60609 773...... 59592 59414, 59697, 60098, 60934, 204...... 61012 1310...... 60609, 60823 774...... 59592 60937 235...... 61012 1314...... 60609 778...... 59592 63...... 59302 252...... 61012 843...... 59592 Proposed Rules: 81 ...... 57894, 57905, 59414, 847...... 59592 20...... 57892 60937 25...... 57892 49 CFR 31 CFR 174...... 59697 201...... 57892 281...... 58571 213...... 59677 202...... 57892 224...... 60847 721...... 59066 541...... 59400 207...... 57892 256...... 60848 Proposed Rules: 225...... 57892 594...... 58742 42 CFR 211...... 59698 595...... 58742 226...... 57892 409...... 58286 217...... 60372 597...... 58742 500...... 57892 410...... 58286 218...... 60372 510...... 57892 591...... 58572 32 CFR 412...... 58286 511...... 57892 413...... 58286 592...... 58572 515...... 57892 283...... 59009 414...... 58286 593...... 58572 516...... 57892 284...... 59374 424...... 58286 594...... 58572 558...... 57892 706...... 58278 433...... 60663 604...... 60460 589...... 57892 Proposed Rules: 485...... 58286 624...... 60681 1312...... 58569 143...... 60092 489...... 58286 144...... 59411 50 CFR 22 CFR 505...... 58286 17...... 58176, 60238 51...... 58496 33 CFR 44 CFR 20...... 58234 126...... 58496 100 ...... 58279, 58281, 60064 62...... 60435 300...... 58058 Proposed Rules: 117 ...... 58283, 58285, 58286, 65...... 59385, 60854 600...... 58058 22...... 60928 58744, 59381 67 ...... 59398, 60864, 60866, 622...... 59019, 60076 51...... 60928 Proposed Rules: 60869, 60870, 60871, 60884, 635...... 58058, 58287 110...... 58230 60917, 60919 648...... 59020 24 CFR 117 ...... 58332, 58334, 58776 Proposed Rules: 660 ...... 57889, 58289, 59405 Proposed Rules: 165...... 57893, 60094 67 ...... 60952, 60961, 60963, 679 ...... 57890, 58753, 59406, 15...... 58994 60980, 60983, 60985, 60985, 59407, 60077, 60078, 60670 36 CFR 60986, 60988 Proposed Rules: 25 CFR Proposed Rules: 17 ...... 58340, 58363, 58574, Proposed Rules: Ch. I ...... 59697 45 CFR 58954, 59700, 59711 292...... 58769 242...... 60095 1310...... 58533 100...... 60095 635...... 58778 26 CFR 37 CFR 46 CFR 648...... 61012 1...... 57888, 59669 350...... 59010 1...... 60066 660...... 61012

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Reader Aids iii

REMINDERS Common crop insurance West Coast States and ozone-depleting The items in this list were regulations, basic Western Pacific substances; list of editorially compiled as an aid provisions; and various fisheries— substitutes; comments to Federal Register users. crop insurance provisions; Groundfish; comments due by 10-27-06; Inclusion or exclusion from comments due by 10-26- due by 10-25-06; published 9-27-06 [FR this list has no legal 06; published 9-26-06 [FR published 10-10-06 [FR E6-15831] significance. 06-08216] E6-16676] Significant New Common crop insurance CONSUMER PRODUCT Alternatives Policy regulations; basic SAFETY COMMISSION Program; motor vehicle RULES GOING INTO provisions, and various Consumer Product Safety Act air conditioning; list of EFFECT OCTOBER 17, crop insurance provisions; and Federal Hazardous substitutes; comments 2006 amendments; comments Substances Act: due by 10-23-06; due by 10-26-06; Adult all terrain vehicle published 9-21-06 [FR FEDERAL HOUSING published 7-14-06 [FR 06- requirements and three- 06-07967] FINANCE BOARD 05962] wheeled all terrain vehicle Air quality implementation Privacy Act; implementation; AGRICULTURE ban; comments due by plans; approval and published 10-17-06 DEPARTMENT 10-24-06; published 8-10- promulgation; various TRANSPORTATION Forest Service 06 [FR 06-06703] States: DEPARTMENT Alaska National Interest Lands Correction; comments due Iowa; comments due by 10- Federal Aviation Conservation Act; Title VIII by 10-24-06; published 23-06; published 9-22-06 Administration implementation (subsistence 9-7-06 [FR E6-14757] [FR 06-07954] Airworthiness directives: priority): DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Wisconsin; comments due Airbus; published 9-12-06 Nonrural determinations; Civilian health and medical by 10-23-06; published 9- 22-06 [FR 06-08113] Honeywell; published 9-12- comments due by 10-27- program of the uniformed 06 06; published 8-14-06 [FR services (CHAMPUS): Pesticides; tolerances in food, 06-06902] animal feeds, and raw McDonnell Douglas; TRICARE program— agricultural commodities: published 9-12-06 COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Reserve and Guard family Azoxystrobin; comments due TREASURY DEPARTMENT Grants, other financial member benefits; assistance, and comments due by 10- by 10-23-06; published 8- Fiscal Service nonprocurement 23-06; published 8-22- 23-06 [FR E6-13656] Financial Management agreements: 06 [FR E6-13720] Dimethenamid; comments Service: OMB guidance on Federal Acquisition Regulation due by 10-23-06; Judgment Fund and private nonprocurement (FAR): published 8-23-06 [FR E6- relief bills; payment rules debarment and Approved authentication 13660] and procedures; published suspension; products and services; Fenpyroximate; comments 10-17-06 implementation; comments purchase requirement; due by 10-23-06; Surety corporations; federal due by 10-23-06; comments due by 10-23- published 8-23-06 [FR E6- process agents; published 9-22-06 [FR 06- 06; published 8-23-06 [FR 13761] apointments; published 08022] 06-07088] Kresoxim-methyl; comments 10-17-06 COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Internet Protocol Version 6 due by 10-24-06; TREASURY DEPARTMENT Foreign-Trade Zones Board requirement; comments published 8-25-06 [FR E6- Internal Revenue Service due by 10-23-06; Applications, hearings, 14165] published 8-24-06 [FR 06- Procedure and administration: determinations, etc.: Triflumizole; comments due 07126] Return information Georgia by 10-23-06; published 8- disclosure by officers and ENVIRONMENTAL 23-06 [FR E6-13659] employees for Eastman Kodak Co.; x-ray PROTECTION AGENCY film, color paper, digital Superfund program: investigative purposes Air pollutants, hazardous; media, inkjet paper, National oil and hazardous Correction; published 10- national emission standards: entertainment imaging, substances contingency 17-06 and health imaging; Hazardous waste plan priorities list; Open for comments combustors; comments comments due by 10-23- COMMENTS DUE NEXT until further notice; due by 10-23-06; 06; published 9-22-06 [FR WEEK published 7-25-06 [FR published 9-6-06 [FR 06- 06-07965] 07251] E6-11873] FEDERAL Air programs: AGRICULTURE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS Federally administered DEPARTMENT National Oceanic and COMMISSION emission trading Agricultural Marketing Atmospheric Administration Common carrier services: programs; source Service Fishery conservation and requirements modification; Missoula Intercarrier Prunes (dried) produced in management: comments due by 10-23- Compensation Reform California; comments due by Alaska; fisheries of 06; published 8-22-06 [FR Plan; comments due by 10-23-06; published 9-22-06 Exclusive Economic 06-06819] 10-25-06; published 9-13- [FR 06-07867] Zone— Stratospheric ozone 06 [FR E6-15196] Science and Technology Atka mackerel; comments protection— Radio services; special: Laboratory Service: due by 10-27-06; Fire suppression and Private land mobile Fees and charges increase; published 10-12-06 [FR explosion protection; services— comments due by 10-23- 06-08637] ozone-depleting Upper 700 MHz guard 06; published 9-22-06 [FR Northeastern United States substances; list of band licenses; 06-07821] fisheries— substitutes; comments operational, technical, AGRICULTURE Net mesh size due by 10-27-06; and spectrum DEPARTMENT measurement method; published 9-27-06 [FR requirements; comments Federal Crop Insurance comments due by 10- E6-15842] due by 10-23-06; Corporation 26-06; published 9-26- Fire suppression and published 9-21-06 [FR Crop insurance regulations: 06 [FR 06-08187] explosion protection; 06-07912]

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS4 iv Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Reader Aids

Television broadcasting: 23-06; published 8-22- SECURITIES AND comments due by 10- Telecommunications Act of 06 [FR 06-07029] EXCHANGE COMMISSION 23-06; published 7-25- 1996; implementation— Shivwits milk-vetch and Securities, etc: 06 [FR E6-11726] Broadcast ownership Holmgren milk-vetch; Executive and director Special conditions— rules; 2006 quadrennial comments due by 10- compensation, etc.; Airbus Model A380-800 regulatory review; 26-06; published 9-26- disclosure requirements; airplanes; comments comments due by 10- 06 [FR 06-08191] comments due by 10-23- due by 10-23-06; 23-06; published 9-28- Findings on petitions, etc.— 06; published 9-8-06 [FR published 9-7-06 [FR 06 [FR 06-08168] Island night lizard; 06-06968] E6-14827] FEDERAL DEPOSIT comments due by 10- Securities: Class D and E airspace; INSURANCE CORPORATION 23-06; published 8-22- Transfer agent forms; comments due by 10-23-06; Assessments: 06 [FR E6-13877] electronic filing; comments published 8-18-06 [FR 06- 06910] Risk differentiation Migratory bird hunting and due by 10-26-06; frameworks and base conservation stamp (Federal published 9-11-06 [FR 06- VOR Federal airways; assessment schedule; Duck Stamp) contest; 07269] comments due by 10-23-06; supplemental notice of regulations revision; Self-regulatory organizations; published 9-6-06 [FR E6- initial regulatory flexibility comments due by 10-27-06; proposed rule changes: 14744] analysis; comments due published 9-27-06 [FR E6- American Stock Exchange TRANSPORTATION by 10-26-06; published 15839] LLC. et al.; comments DEPARTMENT 10-16-06 [FR 06-08728] Migratory birds; revised list; due by 10-27-06; Federal Railroad GENERAL SERVICES comments due by 10-23-06; published 10-6-06 [FR E6- Administration ADMINISTRATION published 8-24-06 [FR 06- 16565] Railroad safety: Federal Acquisition Regulation 07001] NYSE Arca, Inc.; comments Passenger equipment safety (FAR): LABOR DEPARTMENT due by 10-24-06; standards— published 10-3-06 [FR E6- Approved authentication Employment and Training Emergency systems; 16247] products and services; Administration comments due by 10- SMALL BUSINESS purchase requirement; Trade Adjustment Assistance 23-06; published 8-24- ADMINISTRATION comments due by 10-23- Program: 06 [FR 06-07099] Surety Bond Guarantee 06; published 8-23-06 [FR Trade adjustment assistance VETERANS AFFAIRS Program: 06-07088] for workers; Workforce DEPARTMENT Internet Protocol Version 6 Investment Act regulations Preferred Surety Bond Vocational rehabilitation and requirement; comments amended; comments due surety qualification, education: due by 10-23-06; by 10-24-06; published 8- increased guarantee for veterans, etc.; comments Vocational Rehabilitation published 8-24-06 [FR 06- 25-06 [FR 06-07067] and Employment 07126] due by 10-26-06; LABOR DEPARTMENT Program— HOMELAND SECURITY published 9-26-06 [FR 06- Mine Safety and Health 08205] Initial evaluations; DEPARTMENT comments due by 10- Administration TRANSPORTATION Customs and Border 27-06; published 8-28- Mine Improvement and New DEPARTMENT Protection Bureau 06 [FR E6-14079] Emergency Response Act; Federal Aviation North American Free Trade implementation: Agreement (NAFTA): Administration Assessment of civil Merchandise processing fee Airworthiness directives: LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS penalties; criteria and Airbus; comments due by exemption and technical procedures; comments corrections; comments 10-26-06; published 9-26- This is a continuing list of due by 10-23-06; 06 [FR 06-08222] public bills from the current due by 10-23-06; published 9-8-06 [FR 06- Boeing; comments due by session of Congress which published 8-23-06 [FR E6- 07512] 13947] 10-23-06; published 9-26- have become Federal laws. It NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 06 [FR 06-08232] may be used in conjunction INTERIOR DEPARTMENT AND SPACE with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws Land Management Bureau Bombardier; comments due ADMINISTRATION by 10-23-06; published 8- Update Service) on 202–741– Minerals management: Federal Acquisition Regulation 23-06 [FR E6-13831] 6043. This list is also Commercial Oil Shale (FAR): available online at http:// EADS SOCATA; comments www.archives.gov/federal- Leasing Program; Approved authentication due by 10-27-06; register/laws.html. comments due by 10-25- products and services; published 9-27-06 [FR 06- 06; published 9-26-06 [FR purchase requirement; 08277] The text of laws is not 06-08198] comments due by 10-23- Empresa Brasileira de published in the Federal INTERIOR DEPARTMENT 06; published 8-23-06 [FR Aeronautica S.A. Register but may be ordered Fish and Wildlife Service 06-07088] (EMBRAER); comments in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Alaska National Interest Lands Internet Protocol Version 6 due by 10-26-06; pamphlet) form from the Conservation Act; Title VIII requirement; comments published 9-26-06 [FR 06- Superintendent of Documents, implementation (subsistence due by 10-23-06; 08223] U.S. Government Printing priority): published 8-24-06 [FR 06- Fokker; comments due by Office, Washington, DC 20402 Nonrural determinations; 07126] 10-23-06; published 8-22- (phone, 202–512–1808). The text will also be made comments due by 10-27- NUCLEAR REGULATORY 06 [FR E6-13731] available on the Internet from 06; published 8-14-06 [FR COMMISSION PZL-Bielsko; comments due GPO Access at http:// 06-06902] Special nuclear material; by 10-27-06; published 9- 27-06 [FR E6-15905] www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ Endangered and threatened domestic licensing: index.html. Some laws may species: Items relied on for safety; Airworthiness standards: not yet be available. Critical habitat facility change process; Normal and transport designations— comments due by 10-27- category rotorcraft— H.R. 4109/P.L. 109–327 Catesbaea melanocarpa; 06; published 9-27-06 [FR Performance and handling To designate the facility of the comments due by 10- 06-08271] qualities requirements; United States Postal Service

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Reader Aids v

located at 6101 Liberty Road H.R. 5546/P.L. 109–331 located at 39-25 61st Street in S. 203/P.L. 109–338 in Baltimore, Maryland, as the To designate the United Woodside, New York, as the ‘‘United States Representative States courthouse to be ‘‘Thomas J. Manton Post National Heritage Areas Act of Parren J. Mitchell Post constructed in Greenville, Office Building’’. (Oct. 12, 2006 (Oct. 12, 2006; 120 Stat. Office’’. (Oct. 12, 2006; 120 South Carolina, as the ‘‘Carroll 2006; 120 Stat. 1774) 1783) Stat. 1767) A. Campbell, Jr. United States H.R. 6051/P.L. 109–335 Last List October 16, 2006 H.R. 4674/P.L. 109–328 Courthouse’’. (Oct. 12, 2006; To designate the facility of the 120 Stat. 1771) To designate the Federal United States Postal Service H.R. 5606/P.L. 109–332 building and United States located at 110 North Chestnut To designate the Federal courthouse located at 2 South Street in Olathe, Kansas, as building and United States Main Street in Akron, Ohio, as Public Laws Electronic the ‘‘Governor John Anderson, courthouse located at 221 and the ‘‘John F. Seiberling Notification Service Jr. Post Office Building’’. (Oct. 211 West Ferguson Street in Federal Building and United (PENS) 12, 2006; 120 Stat. 1768) Tyler, Texas, as the ‘‘William States Courthouse’’. (Oct. 12, H.R. 5224/P.L. 109–329 M. Steger Federal Building 2006; 120 Stat. 1775) To designate the facility of the and United States H.R. 6075/P.L. 109–336 United States Postal Service Courthouse’’. (Oct. 12, 2006; PENS is a free electronic mail located at 350 Uinta Drive in 120 Stat. 1772) To designate the facility of the notification service of newly Green River, Wyoming, as the H.R. 5929/P.L. 109–333 United States Postal Service enacted public laws. To ‘‘Curt Gowdy Post Office To designate the facility of the located at 101 East Gay subscribe, go to http:// Building’’. (Oct. 12, 2006; 120 United States Postal Service Street in West Chester, listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Stat. 1769) located at 950 Missouri Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert publaws-l.html H.R. 5504/P.L. 109–330 Avenue in East St. Louis, J. Thompson Post Office To designate the facility of the Illinois, as the ‘‘Katherine Building’’. (Oct. 12, 2006; 120 Note: This service is strictly United States Postal Service Dunham Post Office Building’’. Stat. 1776) for E-mail notification of new located at 6029 Broadmoor (Oct. 12, 2006; 120 Stat. laws. The text of laws is not S. 56/P.L. 109–337 Street in Mission, Kansas, as 1773) available through this service. the ‘‘Larry Winn, Jr. Post H.R. 6033/P.L. 109–334 Rio Grande Natural Area Act PENS cannot respond to Office Building’’. (Oct. 12, To designate the facility of the (Oct. 12, 2006; 120 Stat. specific inquiries sent to this 2006; 120 Stat. 1770) United States Post Service 1777) address.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:07 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\17OCCU.LOC 17OCCU cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS4