12–19–06 Tuesday Vol. 71 No. 243 Dec. 19, 2006

Pages 75851–76110

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:28 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\19DEWS.LOC 19DEWS sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES II Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 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 18:28 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\19DEWS.LOC 19DEWS sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 243

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Agricultural Marketing Service Education Department NOTICES NOTICES Grade standards: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Cultivated ginseng, 75932 submissions, and approvals, 75952–75953 Meetings: Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, Special education and rehabilitative services— 75932–75933 Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities Program, 75953–75958 Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service Employment and Training Administration See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES See Commodity Credit Corporation Agency information collection activities; proposals, See Farm Service Agency submissions, and approvals, 75985–75986 See Forest Service See Rural Business-Cooperative Service See Rural Housing Service Energy Department See Rural Utilities Service See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Air programs: Fruit fly and pink bollworm, genetically engineered; field Ambient air quality standards, national— study, 75933–75934 Air quality designations and classifications; 8-hour ozone, 75902–75916 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Air quality implementation plans; approval and NOTICES promulgation; various States: Agency information collection activities; proposals, California, 75916–75918 submissions, and approvals, 75966–75967 National Environmental Policy Act; procedures for implementation and assessing environmental effects Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services abroad of EPA actions, 76082–76106 NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Air pollution control: submissions, and approvals, 75967 Citizens suits; proposed settlements— Children and Families Administration Sierra Club and Coosa River Basin Initiative, 75962– 75963 NOTICES Meetings: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Scientific Counselors Board, 75963–75964 submissions, and approvals, 75967–75968 Commerce Department Executive Office of the President See International Trade Administration See Presidential Documents See National Institute of Standards and Technology See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Farm Service Agency RULES Commodity Credit Corporation Program regulations: NOTICES Financial assistance; servicing and collection from Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: unauthorized recipients, 75851–75854 Cotton storage agreement; amendment 2, 75934–75935 Defense Acquisition Regulations System Federal Aviation Administration RULES RULES Acquisition regulations: Airworthiness directives: Acquisition-related thresholds; inflation adjustment, CFM International, S.A., 75854–75855 75891–75893 Rolls-Royce Corp., 75855–75857 Material inspection and receiving report, 75890–75891 Class E airspace, 75857–75864 PROPOSED RULES Restriction on carbon, alloy, and armor steel plate, Airworthiness directives: 75893–75894 Turbomeca S.A., 75896–75898 Defense Department See Defense Acquisition Regulations System Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Defense Health Board, 75952 submissions, and approvals, 75964–75965

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\19DECN.SGM 19DECN sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES IV Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Contents

Federal Emergency Management Agency Food and Drug Administration RULES RULES Flood elevation determinations: Medical devices: Various States, 75885–75890 Gloves; patient examination and surgeon’s gloves; test PROPOSED RULES procedures and acceptance criteria, 75865–75879 Flood elevation determinations: Various States, 75919–75924 Forest Service NOTICES RULES Disaster and emergency areas: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Title VIII Alaska, 75969 implementation (subsistence priority): Louisiana, 75969 Tustumena Lake; subsistence management, 75883–75885 PROPOSED RULES Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Title VIII NOTICES implementation (subsistence priority): Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, Fish and shellfish; subsistence taking, 75899–75902 NOTICES 75961 Recreation fee areas: Environmental statements; availability, etc.: America the Beautiful; the National Parks and Federal Calypso U.S. Pipeline, L.L.C., 75962 Recreational Lands Pass; Federal Lands Recreation Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Enhancement Act, 75935 California Independent System Operator Corp., 75958 Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC, 75958 Health and Human Services Department East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, 75958 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, 75959 See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Northern Natural Gas Co., 75959–75960 See Children and Families Administration Northwest Pipeline Corp., 75960 See Food and Drug Administration PanEnergy Louisiana Intrastate, LLC, 75960–75961 See Health Resources and Services Administration

Federal Highway Administration Health Resources and Services Administration PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Engineering and traffic operations: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Temporary traffic control devices; work zone safety submissions, and approvals, 75968–75969 protection measures for workers and motorists, 75898 NOTICES Homeland Security Department Interstate Highway System; nationally and exceptionally See Federal Emergency Management Agency significant features See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Final list, 76019–76021 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Housing and Urban Development Department Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement NOTICES Program, 76038–76055 Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 75972–75974 Federal Reserve System Grant and cooperative agreement awards: Assisted Living Conversion Program, 75974–75975 NOTICES Section 202 Supportive Housing for Elderly Program, Banks and bank holding companies: 75975–75979 Change in bank control, 75965 Service Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Program, Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 75965–75966 75979–75981 Permissible nonbanking activities, 75966 Interior Department Fish and Wildlife Service See Fish and Wildlife Service RULES See Land Management Bureau Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Title VIII See National Park Service implementation (subsistence priority): See Reclamation Bureau Tustumena Lake; subsistence management, 75883–75885 NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act; Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; Title VIII implementation; statement of findings, 75981–75982 implementation (subsistence priority): Fish and shellfish; subsistence taking, 75899–75902 Internal Revenue Service Endangered and threatened species: RULES Findings on petitions, etc.— Income taxes: Greater sage-grouse, 76058–76079 Corporate reorganizations and distributions, 75879–75882 Graham’s beardtongue; withdrawn, 76024–76035 Practice and procedure: Virginia northern flying squirrel; delisting, 75924–75931 Residence rules source rules NOTICES Correction, 75882–75883 Recreation fee areas: PROPOSED RULES America the Beautiful; the National Parks and Federal Income taxes: Recreational Lands Pass; Federal Lands Recreation Corporate reorganizations; distributions; cross-reference, Enhancement Act, 75935 75898–75899

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\19DECN.SGM 19DECN sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Contents V

NOTICES Marine mammals: Meetings: Incidental taking; authorization letters, etc.— Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 76021 Scripps Institution of Oceanography; South Pacific Ocean; low energy seismic survey; small numbers International Trade Administration of marine mammals, 75946–75952 NOTICES Antidumping: National Park Service Helical spring lock washers from— NOTICES China; correction, 75935 Realty actions; sales, leases, etc.: Persulfates from— Richmond National Battlefield, VA, 75983–75984 China, 75935–75936 Recreation fee areas: Tapered roller bearings and parts, finished and America the Beautiful; the National Parks and Federal unfinished, from— Recreational Lands Pass; Federal Lands Recreation China, 75936–75937 Enhancement Act, 75935 Countervailing duties: Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from— National Science Foundation Korea, 75937–75940 NOTICES North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978; permit applications, binational panel reviews: etc., 75986 Magnesium from— Nuclear Regulatory Commission Canada, 75940 NOTICES Red delicious table apples and golden delicious apples Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: from— Reactor Safeguards Advisory Committee, 75986–75987 United States, 75940–75941 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 75987 Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards Justice Department considerations; biweekly notices, 75987–76003 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Presidential Documents submissions, and approvals, 75984–75985 PROCLAMATIONS Special observances: Labor Department Wright Brothers Day (Proc. 8091), 76107–76110 See Employment and Training Administration Reclamation Bureau Land Management Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Recreation fee areas: Agency information collection activities; proposals, America the Beautiful; the National Parks and Federal submissions, and approvals, 75982–75983 Recreational Lands Pass; Federal Lands Recreation Minerals management: Enhancement Act, 75935 Gilsonite leasing areas, UT; classification, 75983 Recreation fee areas: Rural Business-Cooperative Service America the Beautiful; the National Parks and Federal RULES Recreational Lands Pass; Federal Lands Recreation Program regulations: Enhancement Act, 75935 Financial assistance; servicing and collection from unauthorized recipients, 75851–75854 National Institute of Standards and Technology Rural Housing Service NOTICES RULES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Program regulations: Precision Measurement Program, 75941–75944 Financial assistance; servicing and collection from Meetings: unauthorized recipients, 75851–75854 National Conference on Weights and Measures, 75944– 75945 Rural Utilities Service RULES National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Program regulations: RULES Financial assistance; servicing and collection from Fishery conservation and management: unauthorized recipients, 75851–75854 Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Red snapper, 75894–75895 Securities and Exchange Commission Ocean and coastal resource management: NOTICES Coastal Zone Management Act; Federal consistency Agency information collection activities; proposals, process submissions, and approvals, 76003–76008 Correction, 75864–75865 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: NOTICES New York Stock Exchange LLC, 76008–76017 Endangered and threatened species permit applications, 75945 Small Business Administration Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: NOTICES Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Awards Program, Disaster loan areas: 75945–75946 Pennsylvania, 76017

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\19DECN.SGM 19DECN sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES VI Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Contents

Transportation Department Part III See Federal Aviation Administration Transportation Department, Federal Highway See Federal Highway Administration Administration, 76038–76055 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Part IV Flights to college bowl games, NCAA basketball playoff Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 76058– games, and other special events; transportation 76079 requirements, 76017–76019

Treasury Department Part V See Internal Revenue Service Environmental Protection Agency, 76082–76106

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Part VI NOTICES Executive Office of the President, Presidenial Documents, Agency information collection activities; proposals, 76107–76110 submissions, and approvals, 75969–75971 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: English, U.S. history, and government test for naturalization applicants; revised content, 75971– Reader Aids 75972 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Separate Parts In This Issue To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// Part II listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 76024– archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change 76035 settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\19DECN.SGM 19DECN sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 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 Proclamations: 8091...... 76109 7 CFR 1951...... 75851 14 CFR 39 (2 documents) ...... 75854, 75855 71 (6 documents) ...... 75857, 75859, 75860, 75861, 75862, 75863 Proposed Rules: 39...... 75896 15 CFR 930...... 75864 21 CFR 800...... 75865 23 CFR Proposed Rules: 630...... 75898 26 CFR 1 (2 documents) ...... 75879, 75882 Proposed Rules: 1...... 75898 36 CFR 242...... 75883 Proposed Rules: 242...... 75899 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 6...... 76082 51...... 75902 52...... 75916 44 CFR 67...... 75885 Proposed Rules: 67...... 75918 48 CFR Ch. 2 ...... 75890 201...... 75891 205...... 75891 207...... 75891 211...... 75891 217...... 75891 219...... 75891 223...... 75891 225 (2 documents) ...... 75891, 75893 228...... 75891 232...... 75891 237...... 75891 252 (2 documents) ...... 75891, 75893 257...... 75891 50 CFR 100...... 75883 622...... 75894 Proposed Rules: 17 (3 documents) ...... 75923, 76024, 76058 100...... 75899

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19DELS.LOC 19DELS sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 75851

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 243

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: specifically allow bringing suit at an contains regulatory documents having general earlier time. applicability and legal effect, most of which Classification are keyed to and codified in the Code of This action is not subject to the The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Federal Regulations, which is published under provisions of Executive Order 12866 1995 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. because it pertains to internal Agency Title II of the Unfunded Mandates The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by management only. Accordingly, public Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of notice and comment are not warranted, requirements for Federal agencies to new books are listed in the first FEDERAL and this action is published as a final assess the effects of their regulatory REGISTER issue of each week. rule rather than as a proposed actions on State, local, and tribal rulemaking. governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, USDA Programs Affected DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE must prepare a written statement, The Catalog of Federal Domestic including a cost benefit analysis, for Rural Housing Service Assistance Program numbers assigned to proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal these programs are: 10.352 Value-Added mandates’’ that may result in Rural Business-Cooperative Service Producer Grants, 10.353 National Rural expenditures to State, local or tribal Development Partnership, 10.767 governments, in the aggregate, or to the Rural Utilities Service Intermediary Relending Program, private sector, of $100 million or more 10.768, Business and Industrial Loans, in any one year. When such a statement Farm Service Agency 10.769 Rural Business Enterprise is needed for a rule, section 205 of Grants, 10.771 Rural Cooperative UMRA generally requires USDA to 7 CFR Part 1951 Development Grants, 10.772 identify and consider a reasonable Empowerment Zones Program, 10.773 number of regulatory alternatives and Servicing and Collections— Rural Business Opportunity Grants, adopt the least costly, more cost Unauthorized Recipients of Financial 10.775 Renewable Energy Systems and effective, or least burdensome Assistance Energy Efficiency Improvements alternative that achieves the objectives AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, Rural Program, 10.776 Agriculture Innovation of the rule. This rule contains no Federal Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Centers, 10.854 Rural Economic mandates (under the regulatory Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, Development Loans and Grants, and provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for USDA. 10.766 Community Facilities Loans and Grants, State, local, and tribal governments or ACTION: Final rule. the private sector. Therefore, this rule is Paperwork Reduction Act SUMMARY: This action amends the not subject to the requirements of servicing regulations that apply when it This rule is not subject to the sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Paperwork Reduction Act. is determined that unauthorized Regulatory Flexibility Act recipients have received financial Environmental Impact Statement In compliance with the Regulatory assistance under USDA Business, This document has been reviewed in Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Cooperative, and Community Facility accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, undersigned has determined and loan and grant programs. The changes Subpart G, Environmental Program. It is certified by signature of this document make clear that the first demand letter the determination of the Rural Business that this rule will not have a significant notifying the recipient of the Agency’s and Cooperative Services that this economic impact on a substantial determination serves as the initial step action does not constitute a major number of small entities. The in the Agency’s collection efforts, and Federal action significantly affecting the Regulatory Flexibility Act is intended to that it may serve as the basis for the environment. Therefore, in accordance encourage Federal agencies to utilize recipient’s appeal rights. The terms of with the National Environmental Policy innovative administrative procedures in the first demand letter remain in full Act of 1969, an Environmental Impact dealing with individuals, small force and effect, unless the demand Statement is not required. businesses, small organizations, and letter is subsequently amended in small governmental bodies that would writing by the Agency after discussions Executive Order 12988 otherwise be unnecessarily adversely with the recipient or modified as a This rule has been reviewed in affected by Federal regulations. No result of judicial proceedings. accordance with E.O. 12988, Civil regulatory flexibility analysis under the DATES: Effective Date: This rule is Justice Reform. In accordance with this Regulatory Flexibility Act is necessary. effective on December 19, 2006. rule: (1) All State and local laws and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill regulations that are in conflict with this Executive Order 13132, Federalism Hagy, Deputy Administrator, Rural rule will be preempted; (2) no The policies contained in this rule do Development Business Programs, retroactive effect will be given to this not have any substantial direct effect on USDA, Stop 3220, Room 5811, 1400 rule; and (3) administrative proceedings States, the relationship between the Independence Ave., SW., Washington, in accordance with 7 CFR part 11 must national government and the States, or DC 20250, telephone (202) 720–7287, or be exhausted before bringing suit in the distribution of power and internet e-mail court challenging action taken under responsibilities among the various ‘‘[email protected]’’. this rule unless those regulations levels of government. Nor does this rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75852 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

impose substantial direct compliance § 1951.701 Purpose. Unauthorized assistance. Any loan, costs on State and local governments. This subpart prescribes the policies interest subsidy, grant, or portion Therefore, consultation with the States and procedures for servicing thereof received by a recipient for which is not required. Community and Business Program loans there was no regulatory authorization or for which the recipient was not eligible. Discussion and/or grants made by Rural Development when it is determined that Interest subsidy includes subsidy This rule revises the servicing the borrower or grantee was not eligible benefits received because a loan was regulations that apply when it has been for all or part of the financial assistance closed at a lower interest rate than that determined that an unauthorized received in the form of a loan, grant, or to which the recipient was entitled, recipient has received financial subsidy granted, or any other direct whether the incorrect interest rate was assistance under the USDA Rural financial assistance. It does not apply to selected erroneously by the approval Development Business and Industry guaranteed loans. Loans sold without official or the documents were prepared Direct Loan program, all other insurance by Rural Development to the in error. applicable grant and loan programs, and private sector will be serviced in the § 1951.703 Policy. the USDA Rural Development private sector and will not be serviced Community Facilities Loan and Grant under this subpart. The provisions of When unauthorized assistance has programs. Those parts of the Code of this subpart are not applicable to such been received, an expeditious effort Federal Regulations that relate solely to loans. Future changes to this subpart must be made to collect from the internal Agency processes are removed, will not be made applicable to such recipient the sum which is determined and procedures that apply to Agency loans. to be unauthorized, regardless of notification to the recipient and amount. decisionmaking with respect the § 1951.702 Definitions. §§ 1951.704–1951.705 [Reserved]. Agency’s determination(s) are clarified As used in this subpart, the following to state that an account receivable will definitions apply: § 1951.706 Initial determination that be established to recover the amounts Active borrower. A borrower who has unauthorized assistance was received. claimed by the Agency. an outstanding account in the records of Unauthorized assistance may be List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 1951 the Office of the Deputy Chief Financial identified through audits conducted by Officer (ODCFO), including collection- the USDA Office of Inspector General Accounting, Account servicing, only or an unsatisfied account balance (OIG), through reviews made by Rural Credit, Debt, Loan programs— where a voluntary conveyance was Development personnel, or through agriculture, Low and moderate income accepted without release from liability other means such as information housing loans—servicing, Rent of foreclosure did not satisfy the provided by a private citizen who subsidies. indebtedness. documents that unauthorized assistance I Accordingly, chapter VXIII, title 7 of Assistance. Finance assistance in the has been received by a recipient of Rural the Code of Federal Regulations, is form of a loan, grant, or subsidy Development assistance. amended as follows: received. § 1951.707 Determination of the amount of Debt instrument. Used as a collective PART 1951—SERVICING AND unauthorized assistance. term to include promissory note, COLLECTIONS assumption agreement, grant agreement, (a) Unauthorized loan amount. The unauthorized loan amount will be the I 1. The authority citation for part 1951 or bond. unauthorized principal plus any interest continues to read as follows: False information. Information, accruing on the unauthorized principal known to be incorrect, provided with Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1932 at the note interest rate until the date the intent to obtain benefits which Note; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 31 U.S.C. 3716; 42 paid unless otherwise agreed in writing would not have been obtainable based U.S.C. 1480. by Rural Development. on correct information. I 2. Subpart O of part 1951 is revised to (b) Unauthorized grant amount. The Inaccurate information. Incorrect read as follows: unauthorized amount will be the information provided inadvertently unauthorized grant amount actually without intent to obtain benefits Subpart O—Servicing Cases Where expended under the grant agreement fraudulently. Unauthorized Loan(s) or Other plus interest accrued beginning on the Financial Assistance Was Received— Inactive borrower. A former borrower date of the demand letter at the interest Community and Insured Business whose loan(s) has been paid in full or rate stipulated in the applicable grant Programs. assumed by another party(ies) and who agreement, or, if none is stated, the does not have an outstanding account in Sec. default rate established by the U.S. the records of the ODCFO. Department of the Treasury, until the 1951.701 Purpose. Recipient. ‘‘Recipient’’ refers to an 1951.702 Definitions. date paid unless otherwise agreed in 1951.703 Policy. individual or entity that received a loan, writing by Rural Development. 1951.704–1951.705 [Reserved]. or portion of a loan, an interest subsidy, 1951.706 Initial determination that a grant, or a portion of a grant which § 1951.708 Notification to recipient. unauthorized assistance was received. was unauthorized. (a) Upon determination that 1951.707 Determination of the amount of Rural Development. A mission area unauthorized assistance was received, unauthorized assistance. within the U.S. Department of Rural Development will send a demand 1951.708 Notification to recipient. Agriculture consisting of the Office of letter to the recipient that: 1951.709 Decision on servicing actions. the Under Secretary for Rural (1) Specifies the amount of 1951.710 [Reserved]. 1951.711 Servicing options in lieu of Development, Office of Community unauthorized assistance, including any liquidation or legal action to collect. Development, Rural Business- accrued interest to be repaid, and the 1951.712–1951.716 [Reserved]. Cooperative Service, Rural Housing standards for imposing accrued interest; 1951.717 Exception authority. Service, and Rural Utilities Service and (2) States the amount of penalties and 1951.718–1951.750 [Reserved]. their successors. administrative costs to be paid, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75853

standards for imposing them, and the servicing actions outlined in § 1951.711 (2) Grantee, inactive borrower, or date on which they will begin to accrue; may be taken provided all of the active borrower with unsecured loan (3) Provides detailed reason(s) why following conditions are met: (such as collection-only, or unsatisfied the assistance was determined to be (1) The recipient did not provide false balance after liquidation). Rural unauthorized; information as defined in § 1951.702. Development may pursue all reasonable (4) States the amount is immediately (2) It would be highly inequitable to legal remedies. due and payable to Rural Development; require prompt repayment of the § 1951.710 [Reserved]. (5) Describes the rights the recipient unauthorized assistance. has for seeking review of Rural (3) Failure to collect the unauthorized § 1951.711 Servicing options in lieu of Development’s determination pursuant assistance in full will not adversely liquidation or legal action to collect. to 7 CFR part 11; affect Rural Development’s financial When the conditions outlined in (6) Describes the Agency’s available interest. remedies regarding enforced collection, § 1951.709(b) are met, the servicing (c) Appeals. Appeals resulting from options outlined in this section will be including referral of debt delinquent the letter prescribed in § 1951.708 will more than 180 days for Federal salary, considered. be handled according to 7 CFR Part 11. (a) Continuation on modified terms. benefit, and tax offset under the All appeal provisions will be concluded When the recipient has the legal and Department of Treasury Offset Program before proceeding with further actions. financial capabilities, the case will be (TOP); and (d) Liquidation of loan(s) or legal (7) Provides an opportunity for the serviced according to one of the action to enforce collection. When a following, as appropriate. recipient to meet with Rural case cannot be handled according to the Development to provide facts, figures, (1) Unauthorized loan. A loan for the provisions of paragraph (a) or (b) of this unauthorized amount determined written records, or other information section, or if the recipient refuses to which might refute Rural Development’s according to § 1951.707(a) will remain execute the documents necessary to accelerated per the demand letter sent determination. establish an obligation to repay the (b) If the recipient meets with Rural in accordance with § 1951.708 unless unauthorized assistance as provided in Development, Rural Development will modified terms are timely reached with § 1951.711, one or more of the following outline to the recipient why the the recipient and accrued at the interest actions will be taken: assistance was determined to be rate specified in the outstanding debt (1) Active borrower with a secured unauthorized. The recipient will be instrument or at the present market loan. (i) Rural Development will attempt given an opportunity to provide interest rate, whichever is greater, for to have the recipient liquidate information to refute Rural the respective Community and Business voluntarily. If the recipient does not Development’s findings. When program area. The loan will be agree to voluntary liquidation, or agrees requested by the recipient, Rural amortized per a repayment schedule but it cannot be accomplished within a Development may grant additional time satisfactory to Rural Development, but reasonable period of time (usually not for the recipient to assemble in no event may the revised repayment more than 90 days), forced liquidation documentation. Such extension of time schedule exceed a period of fifteen (15) action will be initiated in accordance for payment will be valid only if Rural years, the remaining term of the original with applicable provisions of subpart A Development documents the extension loan, or the remaining useful life of the of part 1955 of this chapter unless: in writing and specifies the period in facility, whichever is shorter. days during which period the payment (A) The amount of unauthorized (2) Unauthorized grant. The obligation created by the demand letter assistance outstanding, including unauthorized grant amount determined (but not the ongoing accrual of interest) principal, accrued interest, and any according to § 1951.707(b) will be will be suspended. Interest and other recoverable costs charged to the converted to an account receivable, with charges will continue to accrue account, is less than $1,000; or interest payable at the market interest pursuant to the demand letter during (B) It would not be in the best rate for the respective Community any extension period unless the terms of financial interest of the Government to Facilities or Business and Industry the demand letter are modified in force liquidation. Program area in effect on the date the writing by Rural Development. (ii) When all of the conditions of financial assistance was provided. In all (c) Unless Rural Development paragraph (a) or (b) of this section are cases, the receivable will be amortized modifies the original demand, it will met, but the recipient does not repay or per a repayment schedule satisfactory to remain in full force and effect. refuses to execute documents to effect Rural Development, but in no event may necessary account adjustments the amortization period exceed fifteen § 1951.709 Decision on servicing actions. according of the provisions of (15) years. The recipient will be (a) Payment in full. If the recipient § 1951.711, forced liquidation action required to execute a debt instrument to agrees with Rural Development’s will be initiated as provided in evidence this receivable, and the best determination or will pay the amount in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. security position available to adequately question, Rural Development may allow (iii) When forced liquidation would protect Rural Development’s interest a reasonable period of time (usually not be initiated, except that the loan is being during the repayment period will be to exceed 90 days) for the recipient to handled in accordance with paragraph taken as security. arrange for repayment. The amount due (d)(1)(i)(A) or (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section, (3) Unauthorized subsidy benefits will be determined according to continuation with the loan on existing received. When the recipient was § 1951.707. terms may be provided. eligible for the loan but should have (b) Continuation with recipient. If the (iv) If the debt is not otherwise been charged a higher interest rate than recipient agrees with Rural resolved, Rural Development will take that in the debt instrument, which Development’s determination or is appropriate debt collection actions in resulted in the receipt of unauthorized willing to pay the amount in question accordance with 7 CFR Part 3, subparts subsidy benefits, the case will be but cannot repay the unauthorized B and C, and the Federal Claims handled as follows: assistance within a reasonable period of Collection Standards at 31 CFR Chapter (i) The recipient will be given the time, continuation is authorized and IX, Parts 900–904. option to submit a written request that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75854 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the interest rate be corrected to the turbofan engines. This AD requires For that reason, we are issuing this AD lower of the rate for which they were replacing certain fuel filters to prevent the potential loss of thrust eligible that was in effect at the date of manufactured under parts manufacturer that could result in loss of control loan approval or loan closing. approvals (PMA). This AD results from during takeoff or landing. (ii) Any accrued unauthorized 12 reports of failed fuel filters. We are subsidy will be handled in accordance issuing this AD to prevent the loss of FAA’s Determination of the Effective with § 1951.709. engine thrust that could result in loss of Date (b) Continuation on existing terms. control during takeoff or landing. Since an unsafe condition exists that When the recipient does not have the DATES: This AD becomes effective requires the immediate adoption of this legal and/or financial capabilities for the January 3, 2007. AD, we have found that notice and options outlined in paragraph (a)(1), We must receive any comments on opportunity for public comment before (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section, the this AD by February 20, 2007. issuing this AD are impracticable, and recipient may be allowed to continue to ADDRESSES: Use one of the following that good cause exists for making this meet the loan obligations outlined in the addresses to comment on this AD: amendment effective in less than 30 existing loan instruments. Rural • DOT Docket Web site: Go to days. Development will not continue with http://dms.dot.gov and follow the unauthorized grants on existing terms. instructions for sending your comments Comments Invited electronically. §§ 1951.712–1951.716 [Reserved]. • This AD is a final rule that involves Government-wide rulemaking Web requirements affecting flight safety and § 1951.717 Exception authority. site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov was not preceded by notice and an The Administrator may, in individual and follow the instructions for sending opportunity for public comment; cases, make an exception to any your comments electronically. however, we invite you to send us any • Mail: Docket Management Facility; requirement or provision of this subpart, written relevant data, views, or U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 provided that any such exception is not arguments regarding this AD. Send your Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, inconsistent with any applicable law or comments to an address listed under Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– opinion of the Comptroller General, and ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘AD Docket No. 0001. provided further, the Administrator FAA–2006–26502; Directorate Identifier • Fax: (202) 493–2251. determines that the application of the • 2006–NE–37–AD’’ in the subject line of requirement or provision would Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, your comments. We specifically invite adversely affect the Government’s comments on the overall regulatory, interest. 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday economic, environmental, and energy §§ 1951.718–1951.750 [Reserved]. through Friday, except Federal holidays. aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: December 11, 2006. Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Los We will post all comments we Jackie J. Gleason, Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, receive, without change, to http:// Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, dms.dot.gov, including any personal Service. 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA information you provide. We will also Dated: December 13, 2006. 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5262; post a report summarizing each Russell T. Davis, fax (562) 627–5210. substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the Administrator, Rural Housing Service. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have [FR Doc. 06–9763 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] received reports of 12 PMA fuel filters, search function of the DMS Web site, anyone can find and read the comments BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P fuel filters part numbers WF337661 and WF337017, manufactured by Western in any of our dockets, including the Filter, and part numbers 7595983–101 name of the individual who sent the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and 7588133, manufactured by PTI comment (or signed the comment on Technologies, that have failed in service behalf of an association, business, labor Federal Aviation Administration on CFM56–7B engines since March union, etc.). You may review the DOT’s 2006. These filters use a deeper pleat complete Privacy Act Statement in the 14 CFR Part 39 and are more susceptible to collapse or Federal Register published on April 11, deterioration of the filter media than the 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit [Docket No. FAA–2006–26502; Directorate http://dms.dot.gov. Identifier 2006–NE–37–AD; Amendment 39– original equipment manufacturer filters. 14859; AD 2006–26–01] A collapsed or deteriorated fuel filter Examining the AD Docket can allow unfiltered fuel contamination RIN 2120–AA64 in fuel components, including fuel You may examine the docket that Airworthiness Directives; CFM nozzles, with no indication of fuel filter contains the AD, any comments International, S.A. CFM56 Series bypass to the flight crew. This received, and any final disposition in Turbofan Engines condition, if not corrected, could result person at the Docket Management in the loss of engine thrust that could Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. AGENCY: Federal Aviation result in loss of control during takeoff or and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Administration (FAA), Department of landing. except Federal holidays. The Docket Transportation (DOT). Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is FAA’s Determination and Requirements located on the plaza level of the ACTION: Final rule; request for of This AD comments. Department of Transportation Nassif The unsafe condition described Building at the street address stated in SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new previously is likely to exist or develop ADDRESSES. Comments will be available airworthiness directive (AD) for certain on other CFM International CFM56 in the AD docket shortly after the DMS CFM International CFM56 Series series engines of the same type design. receives them.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75855

Authority for This Rulemaking Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found Title 49 of the United States Code § 39.13 [Amended] in 14 CFR 39.19. specifies the FAA’s authority to issue I 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Related Information the following new airworthiness Section 106, describes the authority of (j) None. directive: the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Material Incorporated by Reference Aviation Programs, describes in more 2006–26–01 CFM International, S.A.: detail the scope of the Agency’s Amendment 39–14859. Docket No. (k) None. FAA–2006–26502; Directorate Identifier Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on authority. 2006–NE–37–AD. We are issuing this rulemaking under December 12, 2006. the authority described in Subtitle VII, Effective Date Peter A. White, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that becomes effective January 3, 2007. Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. section, Congress charges the FAA with Affected ADs [FR Doc. E6–21485 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in BILLING CODE 4910–13–P (b) None. air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures Applicability the Administrator finds necessary for (c) This AD applies to CFM International DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION safety in air commerce. This regulation CFM56–2 series, –3 series, –5 series, and –7B is within the scope of that authority series engines with fuel filters, Western Filter Federal Aviation Administration because it addresses an unsafe condition part numbers (P/Ns) WF337661 and that is likely to exist or develop on WF337017 and PTI Technologies P/Ns 14 CFR Part 39 products identified in this rulemaking 7595983–101 and 7588133, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, [Docket No. FAA–2006–26193; Directorate action. Airbus A320 and A340 series airplanes, Identifier 2001–NE–01–AD; Amendment 39– 14853; AD 2006–25–12] Regulatory Findings Boeing DC8–71 series, –72 series, and –73 series airplanes, and Boeing 737 series RIN 2120–AA64 We have determined that this AD will airplanes. not have federalism implications under Unsafe Condition Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Executive Order 13132. This AD will Corporation 501–D Series Turboprop not have a substantial direct effect on (d) This AD results from 12 reports of Engines the States, on the relationship between failed fuel filters. We are issuing this AD to the national Government and the States, prevent the loss of engine thrust that could AGENCY: Federal Aviation or on the distribution of power and result in loss of control during takeoff or Administration (FAA), Department of landing. responsibilities among the various Transportation (DOT). levels of government. Compliance ACTION: Final rule. For the reasons discussed above, I (e) You are responsible for having the certify that the regulation: actions required by this AD performed within SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory the compliance times specified unless the existing airworthiness directive (AD) for action’’ under Executive Order 12866; actions have already been done. Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) 501–D series turboprop engines. That AD 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the Replacing the Fuel Filters on CFM56–7B DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Engines requires removal from service of certain (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and turbine rotor components at reduced life (f) For CFM56–7B engines, within 600 limits. This AD requires the same 3. Will not have a significant flight hours or 60 days after the effective date economic impact, positive or negative, of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace actions but adds two new life limits. on a substantial number of small entities fuel filter, Western Filter This AD results from RRC reevaluating under the criteria of the Regulatory P/Ns WF337661 or WF337017 and PTI and revising component life limits for Flexibility Act. Technologies P/Ns 7595983–101 or 7588133, 501–D22 series turboprop engines. We We prepared a summary of the costs with a filter that has a P/N not listed in this are issuing this AD to prevent to comply with this AD and placed it in AD. uncontained turbine rotor failure the AD Docket. You may get a copy of Replacing the Fuel Filters on CFM56–2, –3, resulting in an in-flight engine this summary at the address listed and –5 Series Engines shutdown and possible damage to the under ADDRESSES. (g) For CFM56–2 series, –3 series, and –5 airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 series engines, at the next filter change or DATES: This AD becomes effective 4,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, January 23, 2007. The Director of the Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation after the effective date of this AD, replace Federal Register approved the safety, Safety. fuel filter, Western Filter P/Ns WF337661 or incorporation by reference of certain WF337017 and PTI Technologies P/Ns publications listed in the regulations as Adoption of the Amendment 7595983–101 or 7588133, with a filter that of January 23, 2007. I Under the authority delegated to me has a P/N not listed in this AD. ADDRESSES: You can get the service by the Administrator, the Federal Prohibition Against Installing Fuel Filters information identified in this AD from Aviation Administration amends part 39 with Certain P/Ns Rolls-Royce Corporation, P.O. Box 420, of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 (h) After the effective date of this AD, do 2001 South Tibbs Avenue, Indianapolis, CFR part 39) as follows: not install any fuel filter, Western Filter P/ IN 46206–0420; telephone (317) 230– Ns WF337661 or WF337017 or PTI 2000; fax (317) 230–4020 for the service PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS Technologies P/Ns 7595983–101 or 7588133. DIRECTIVES information identified in this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance You may examine the AD docket on I 1. The authority citation for part 39 (i) The Manager, Engine Certification the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in continues to read as follows: Office, has the authority to approve Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75856 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, Special Flight Permits Paragraph the national government and the States, SW., Washington, DC. Removed or on the distribution of power and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paragraph (f) of the current AD, AD responsibilities among the various Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer, 2003–07–02, contains a paragraph levels of government. Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, pertaining to special flight permits. For the reasons discussed above, I FAA, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Even though this AD does not contain certify that this AD: Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 294– a similar paragraph, we have made no (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 7870; fax (847) 294–7834. changes with regard to the use of special action’’ under Executive Order 12866; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA flight permits to operate the airplane to (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a repair facility to do the work required DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures a proposed AD. The proposed AD by this AD. In July 2002, we published (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and applies to RRC 501–D series turboprop a new Part 39 that contains a general (3) Will not have a significant engines. We published the proposed AD authority regarding special flight economic impact, positive or negative, in the Federal Register on February 22, permits and airworthiness directives; on a substantial number of small entities 2006 (71 FR 9048). That action proposed see Docket No. FAA 2004–8460, under the criteria of the Regulatory to require removal from service of Amendment 39–9474 (69 FR 47998, July Flexibility Act. certain turbine rotor components at 22, 2002). Thus, when we now We prepared a summary of the costs reduced life limits, the same as AD supersede ADs we will not include a to comply with this AD and placed it in 2003–07–02, but would add two new specific paragraph on special flight the AD Docket. You may get a copy of life limits. permits unless we want to limit the use this summary at the address listed of that general authority granted in under ADDRESSES. Examining the AD Docket section 39.23. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments Docket Number Change Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation received, and any final disposition in We are transferring the docket for this safety, Incorporation by reference, person at the Docket Management AD to the Docket Management System Safety. as part of our on-going docket Facility Docket Offices between 9 a.m. Adoption of the Amendment and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, management consolidation efforts. The except Federal holidays. The Docket new Docket No. is FAA–2006–26193. I Accordingly, under the authority Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is The old Docket No. became the delegated to me by the Administrator, located on the plaza level of the Directorate Identifier, which is 2001– the Federal Aviation Administration Department of Transportation Nassif NE–01–AD. This AD might get logged amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: Building at the street address stated in into the DMS docket, ahead of the ADDRESSES. Comments will be available previously collected documents from PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS in the AD docket shortly after the DMS the old docket file, as we are in the DIRECTIVES process of sending those items to the receives them. I DMS. 1. The authority citation for part 39 Comments continues to read as follows: Authority for This Rulemaking We provided the public the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. opportunity to participate in the Title 49 of the United States Code § 39.13 [Amended] development of this AD. We received no specifies the FAA’s authority to issue comments on the proposal or on the rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, I 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by determination of the cost to the public. Section 106, describes the authority of removing Amendment 39–13098 (68 FR the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 15937, April 2, 2003), and by adding a Incorrect Supplemental Type Aviation Programs, describes in more new airworthiness directive, Certificate (STC) Number detail the scope of the Agency’s Amendment 39–14853, to read as Since we issued the proposed AD, we authority. follows: became aware that the STC number We are issuing this rulemaking under 2006–25–12 Rolls-Royce Corporation SE1161EA, referenced in paragraph (c), the authority described in Subtitle VII, (formerly Allison Engine Company): is incorrect. We corrected the number to Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, Amendment 39–14853. Docket No. STC SA4–1100 in the AD. ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that FAA–2006–26193; Directorate Identifier section, Congress charges the FAA with 2001–NE–01–AD. Conclusion promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in Effective Date We have carefully reviewed the air commerce by prescribing regulations available data and determined that air for practices, methods, and procedures (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 23, 2007. safety and the public interest require the Administrator finds necessary for adopting the AD with the change safety in air commerce. This regulation Affected ADs described previously. is within the scope of that authority (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003–07–02, because it addresses an unsafe condition Amendment 39–13098. Costs of Compliance that is likely to exist or develop on Applicability We estimate that this AD will affect products identified in this rulemaking 684 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. action. (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce registry. The action does not impose any Corporation (formerly Allison Engine additional labor costs if performed at Regulatory Findings Company) (RRC) 501–D series turboprop engines. These engines are installed on, but the time of scheduled engine overhaul. We have determined that this AD will not limited to, Lockheed 188 series and 382 Required parts will cost about $45,000 not have federalism implications under series turboprop airplanes, Airbus 377SG5–F per engine. Based on these figures, we Executive Order 13132. This AD will (Super Guppy) airplanes, and Convair estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. not have a substantial direct effect on Models 340 and 440 airplanes which have operators to be $30,780,000. the States, on the relationship between RRC 501–D series turboprop engines

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75857

installed under Supplemental Type this AD to prevent uncontained turbine rotor the compliance times specified unless the Certificate No. SA4–1100. These latter failure resulting in an in-flight engine actions have already been done. models are commonly referred to as Convair shutdown and possible damage to the 501–D13 Series Engines 580/580A or 5800 models. airplane. (d) This AD results from RRC reevaluating Compliance (f) For 501–D13 series engines, remove turbine wheels and spacers from service as and revising component life limits for 501- (e) You are responsible for having the D22 series turboprop engines. We are issuing actions required by this AD performed within specified in the following Table 1:

TABLE 1.—501–D13 SERIES LIFE LIMITS

Life limit for wheels that have complied with Part name Part No. commercial overhaul information letter (COIL) Life limit for wheels that have not complied 401, dated May 1978 with COIL 401, dated May 1978

(1) Second-stage tur- 6847142 and 6876892 Remove from service before or upon accu- Remove from service before or upon accu- bine wheel assembly. mulating 16,000 cycles-in-service (CIS). mulating 12,000 CIS. (2) Third-stage turbine 6845883 and 6849743 Remove from service before or upon accu- Remove from service before or upon accu- wheel assembly. mulating 13,000 CIS. mulating 10,000 CIS. (3) Fourth-stage turbine 6876468 ...... Remove from service before or upon accu- Remove from service before or upon accu- wheel assembly. mulating 24,000 CIS. mulating 18,000 CIS.

501–D22 Series Engines (g) For 501–D22 series engines, remove turbine wheels and spacers from service as specified in the following Table 2:

TABLE 2.—501–D22 SERIES LIFE LIMITS

Part name Part No. Remove from service

(1) Third-stage turbine wheel as- 6855083 ...... Before or upon accumulating 10,000 cycles-in-service (CIS). sembly. (2) 1st–2nd-stage spacer assembly 6844632, 23033463, 23064854, Before or upon accumulating 4,700 CIS. and 23064858. (3) 1st–2nd-stage spacer assembly 23056966 ...... (i) Before or upon accumulating 8,000 CIS. (ii) If the 1st–2nd-stage spacer assembly passes the hardness criteria in RRC Commercial Engine Bulletin No. CEB–A–72–1135, Revi- sion 2, dated July 11, 2003, then before or upon accumulating 10,000 CIS. (4) 2nd–3rd-stage spacer assembly 23033456 ...... Before or upon accumulating 4,200 CIS. (5) 2nd–3rd-stage spacer assembly 23033464 and 6842683 ...... Before or upon accumulating 5,200 CIS. (6) 3rd–4th-stage spacer assembly 6844794 prior to revision letter ‘‘R’’ Before or upon accumulating 5,100 CIS.

Alternative Methods of Compliance 0420; telephone (317) 230–2000; fax (317) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (h) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft 230–4020 for a copy of this service Certification Office, has the authority to information. You may review copies at the Federal Aviation Administration approve alternative methods of compliance National Archives and Records for this AD if requested using the procedures Administration (NARA). For information on 14 CFR Part 71 found in 14 CFR 39.19. the availability of this material at NARA, call Related Information 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// [Docket No. FAA–2006–25762; Airspace www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr- (i) Information on 501–D13 series engine Docket No. 06–AAL–25] turbine life limits can be found in RRC locations.html. Commercial Service Letter (CSL) No. CSL– Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on Revision of Class E Airspace; Homer, 120, Revision No. 52, dated July 22, 2002. December 11, 2006. AK (j) Information on 501–D22 series engine turbine life limits can be found in RRC CSL Peter A. White, AGENCY: Federal Aviation No. CSL–1001, Revision No. 20, dated April Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Administration (FAA), DOT. 5, 2005. Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. ACTION: Final rule. Material Incorporated by Reference [FR Doc. E6–21352 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] (k) You must use Rolls-Royce Corporation BILLING CODE 4910–13–P SUMMARY: This action revises Class E Commercial Engine Bulletin No. CEB–A–72– airspace at Homer, AK to provide 1135, Revision 2, dated July 11, 2003, to adequate controlled airspace to contain check if 1st–2nd stage spacer assemblies pass aircraft executing four new Standard the hardness criteria required by Table 2 of Instrument Approach Procedures this AD. The Director of the Federal Register (SIAPs). This rule results in the revision approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 of Class E airspace upward from the U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact surface, from 700 feet (ft.), and from Rolls-Royce Corporation, P.O. Box 420, 2001 1,200 ft. above the surface at Homer, South Tibbs Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46206– AK.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75858 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Register approves this incorporation by Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations Navigation (air). reference action under title 1, Code of and Reporting Points, dated September Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to 1, 2006, and effective September 15, Adoption of the Amendment the annual revision of FAA Order 2006, which is incorporated by I In consideration of the foregoing, the 7400.9 and publication of conforming reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E Federal Aviation Administration amendments. airspace designations listed in this amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary document will be published Rolf, AAL–538G, Federal Aviation subsequently in the Order. PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, The Rule Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; telephone number (907) 271–5898; fax: This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING (907) 271–2850; e-mail: revises Class E airspace at the Homer POINTS [email protected]. Internet address: Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. revised to accommodate aircraft part 71 continues to read as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: executing four new SIAPs, and will be Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, History depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– reference. The intended effect of this 1963 Comp., p. 389. On Thursday, October 5, 2006, the rule is to provide adequate controlled FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the airspace for IFR operations at the Homer § 71.1 [Amended] Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Airport, Homer, Alaska. I 2. The incorporation by reference in part 71) to revise Class E airspace The FAA has determined that this 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace the surface at Homer, AK (71 FR 58758). regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which Designations and Reporting Points, The action was proposed in order to dated September 1, 2006, and effective create Class E airspace sufficient in size frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally September 15, 2006, is amended as to contain aircraft while executing four follows: new SIAPs for the Homer Airport. The current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a * * * * * new approaches are (1) Area Navigation ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (Global Positioning System) (RNAV Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace (GPS)) Z Runway (RWY) 03, Original (2) ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Designated As Surface Areas RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21, Original (3) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 AAL AK E2 Homer, AK [Revised] FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 03, Original and Homer Airport, AK (4) RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, Original. does not warrant preparation of a (Lat. 59°38″44′ N., long. 151°28″36′ W.) Class E controlled airspace extending regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Kachemak NDB upward from the surface, from 700 ft., impact is so minimal. Since this is a (Lat. 59°38″29′ N., long. 151°30″01′ W.) and from 1,200 ft. above the surface in routine matter that will only affect air Within a 4.2-mile radius of the Homer the Homer Airport area is revised by traffic procedures and air navigation, it Airport, AK, and within 1.9 miles either side this action. The Notice of Proposed is certified that this rule will not have of the 055° bearing from the Homer Airport, Rulemaking did not mention in the a significant economic impact on a AK, to 7.2-miles northeast of the Homer Proposal section the fact that some of substantial number of small entities Airport, AK, and within 2.4-miles north and ° the airspace affected by this action is under the criteria of the Regulatory 4.2-miles south of the Kachemak NDB 235 from the surface. However, the proposed Flexibility Act. radial extending from the Kachemak NDB to 8.3-miles southwest of the Kachemak NDB. rule included the actual text entry. The The FAA’s authority to issue rules This Class E airspace area is effective during actual change to the existing surface regarding aviation safety is found in the specific dates and times established in area is administrative in nature and has Title 49 of the United States Code. advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective negligible effect, if any, on the actual Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the date and time will thereafter be continuously airspace footprint. authority of the FAA Administrator. published in the Supplement Alaska Interested parties were invited to (Airport/Facility Directory). Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, participate in this rulemaking describes in more detail the scope of the Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending proceeding by submitting written agency’s authority. Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the comments on the proposal to the FAA. Surface of the Earth This rulemaking is promulgated No public comments have been * * * * * received; thus the rule is adopted as under the authority described in proposed. Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section AAL AK E5 Homer, AK [Revised] The area will be depicted on 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. Homer Airport, AK aeronautical charts for pilot reference. Under that section, the FAA is charged (Lat. 59°38″44′ N., long. 151°28″36′ W.) The coordinates for this airspace docket with prescribing regulations to ensure Kachemak NDB ° ″ ′ ° ″ ′ are based on North American Datum 83. the safe and efficient use of the (Lat. 59 38 29 N., long. 151 30 01 W.) The class E airspace areas designated as navigable airspace. This regulation is That airspace extending upward from 700 surface areas are published in paragraph within the scope of that authority feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the Homer Airport, AK, and within 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9P, Airspace because it creates Class E airspace ° sufficient in size to contain aircraft 4 miles either side of the 055 bearing from Designations and Reporting Points, the Homer Airport, AK, to 12-miles northeast dated September 1, 2006, and effective executing instrument procedures for the of the Homer Airport, AK, and within 8-miles September 15, 2006, which is Homer Airport and represents the FAA’s north and 4.2-miles south of the Kachemak incorported by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. continuing effort to safely and NDB 235° bearing extending from the The Class E airspace areas designated as efficiently use the navigable airspace. Kachemak NDB to 16 miles southwest of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75859

Kachemak NDB; and that airspace extending was proposed in order to create Class E The FAA’s authority to issue rules upward from 1,200 feet above the surface airspace sufficient in size to contain regarding aviation safety is found in within a 73-mile radius of the Homer Airport, aircraft while executing SIAPs for the Title 49 of the United States Code. AK. Kodiak Airport. While conducting a Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the * * * * * review of Kodiak’s instrument authority of the FAA Administrator. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, procedures, the FAA discovered that a Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 2006. small section (about 10 square miles) of describes in more detail the scope of the Anthony M. Wylie, uncontrolled airspace north of Kodiak, agency’s authority. Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information AK needed to be converted to controlled This rulemaking is promulgated Office. airspace. Class E controlled airspace under the authority described in [FR Doc. E6–21534 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] extending upward from 3,500 ft. above Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section BILLING CODE 4910–13–P the surface in the Kodiak Airport area is 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. revised by this action. Under that section, the FAA is charged Interested parties were invited to with prescribing regulations to ensure DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION participate in this rulemaking the safe and efficient use of the proceeding by submitting written navigable airspace. This regulation is Federal Aviation Administration comments on the proposal to the FAA. within the scope of that authority No public comments have been because it creates Class E airspace 14 CFR Part 71 received; thus the rule is adopted as sufficient in size to contain aircraft [Docket No. FAA–2006–25763; Airspace proposed. executing instrument procedures for the Docket No. 06–AAL–26] The area will be depicted on Kodiak Airport and represents the aeronautical charts for pilot reference. FAA’s continuing effort to safely and Revision of Class E Airspace; Kodiak, The coordinates for this airspace docket efficiently use the navigable airspace. AK are based on North American Datum 83. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 The Class E airspace areas designated as AGENCY: Federal Aviation 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Administration (FAA), DOT. published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Navigation (air). ACTION: Final rule. Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations Adoption of the Amendment and Reporting Points, dated September SUMMARY: This action revises Class E I In consideration of the foregoing, the airspace at Kodiak, AK to provide 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by Federal Aviation Administration adequate controlled airspace to contain amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: aircraft executing Standard Instrument reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The FAA airspace designations listed in this PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Instrument Flight Procedures document will be published CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND Production and Maintenance Branch subsequently in the Order. CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; had noticed that a section of airspace The Rule AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING north of Kodiak, AK, needed to be POINTS converted to controlled airspace. This This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR rule addresses this issue and results in revises Class E airspace at the Kodiak part 71 continues to read as follows: the revision of Class E airspace upward Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is from 3,500 feet (ft.) above the surface at revised to accommodate aircraft Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Kodiak, AK. executing SIAPs, and will be depicted 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– on aeronautical charts for pilot 1963 Comp., p. 389. DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March reference. The intended effect of this § 71.1 [Amended] 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal rule is to provide adequate controlled Register approves this incorporation by airspace for IFR operations at the I 2. The incorporation by reference in reference action under title 1, Code of Kodiak Airport, Kodiak, Alaska. 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to The FAA has determined that this Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace the annual revision of FAA Order regulation only involves an established Designations and Reporting Points, 7400.9 and publication of conforming body of technical regulations for which dated September 1, 2006, and effective amendments. frequent and routine amendments are September 15, 2006, is amended as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary necessary to keep them operationally follows: Rolf, AAL–538G, Federal Aviation current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a * * * * * Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the telephone number (907) 271–5898; fax: ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Surface of the Earth (907) 271–2850; e-mail: Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 * * * * * [email protected]. Internet address: FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. does not warrant preparation of a AAL AK E5 Kodiak, AK [Revised] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Kodiak Airport, AK impact is so minimal. Since this is a (Lat. 57°45′00″ N., long. 152°29′38″ W.) History routine matter that will only affect air Kodiak VORTAC (Lat. 57°46′30″ N., long. 152°20′23″ W.) On Thursday, October 5, 2006, the traffic procedures and air navigation, it Kodiak Localizer FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the is certified that this rule will not have (Lat. 57°45′08″ N., long. 152°31′15″ W.) Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR a significant economic impact on a That airspace extending upward from 700 part 71) to revise Class E airspace substantial number of small entities feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile upward from 3,500 ft. above the surface under the criteria of the Regulatory radius of the Kodiak Airport, AK, and within at Kodiak, AK (71 FR 58761). The action Flexibility Act. 5 miles south and 9 miles north of the 070°

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75860 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

radial of the Kodiak VORTAC extending from Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; body of technical regulations for which the 6.8-mile radius to 17 miles northeast of telephone number (907) 271–5898; fax: frequent and routine amendments are the Kodiak VORTAC, and within 8 miles (907) 271–2850; e-mail: necessary to keep them operationally north and 4 miles south of the Kodiak [email protected]. Internet address: current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a Localizer front course extending from 6.8- http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. mile radius to 20.3 miles east of the Kodiak ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Airport, AK, and within 14 miles of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ° ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Kodiak VORTAC extending from the 358 History radial clockwise to the 107° radial; and that Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet On Thursday, October 5, 2006, the FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) above the surface within lat. 57°57′06″ N., FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the does not warrant preparation of a long. 152°45′ 00″ W. to lat. 57°55′00″ N., Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR regulatory evaluation as the anticipated long. 152°28′00″ W. to lat. 57°53′00″ N., long. part 71) to revise Class E airspace ° ′ ″ impact is so minimal. Since this is a 152 27 06 W. to point of beginning and upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above routine matter that will only affect air within 27 miles of the Kodiak VORTAC ° the surface at St. Michael, AK (71 FR traffic procedures and air navigation, it extending from the 023 radial clockwise to 58762). The action was proposed in the 088° radial and within 8 miles north and is certified that this rule will not have 5 miles south of the Kodiak Localizer front order to create Class E airspace a significant economic impact on a course extending from the Kodiak Airport, sufficient in size to contain aircraft substantial number of small entities AK, to 32 miles east of the Kodiak Airport; while executing one amended SIAP for under the criteria of the Regulatory AK; and that airspace extending upward from the St. Michael Airport. The amended Flexibility Act. 3,500 feet above the surface within 4 miles approach is the Area Navigation (Global The FAA’s authority to issue rules either side of the 012° radial of the Kodiak Positioning System) (RNAV (GPS)) regarding aviation safety is found in VORTAC to 40 miles north of the Kodiak Runway (RWY) 20, Amendment 1. Class Title 49 of the United States Code. VORTAC. E controlled airspace extending upward Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the * * * * * from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the authority of the FAA Administrator. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, surface in the St. Michael Airport area Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 2006. is revised by this action. Some of the describes in more detail the scope of the Anthony M. Wylie, necessary controlled airspace lies over agency’s authority. Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information an area more than 12 miles offshore, and This rulemaking is promulgated Office. is designated as Offshore Airspace Area, under the authority described in Norton Sound Low. That Offshore [FR Doc. E6–21535 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section Airspace action will be addressed in a BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. separate pending rulemaking case. Under that section, the FAA is charged Interested parties were invited to with prescribing regulations to ensure DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION participate in this rulemaking the safe and efficient use of the proceeding by submitting written navigable airspace. This regulation is Federal Aviation Administration comments on the proposal to the FAA. within the scope of that authority No public comments have been because it creates Class E airspace 14 CFR Part 71 received; thus the rule is adopted as sufficient in size to contain aircraft proposed. executing instrument procedures for the [Docket No. FAA–2006–25825; Airspace The area will be depicted on Docket No. 06–AAL–27] St. Michael Airport and represents the aeronautical charts for pilot reference. FAA’s continuing effort to safely and The coordinates for this airspace docket Revision of Class E Airspace; St. efficiently use the navigable airspace. are based on North American Datum 83. Michael, AK The Class E airspace areas designated as List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 AGENCY: Federal Aviation 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Administration (FAA), DOT. published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Navigation (air). ACTION: Final rule. Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September Adoption of the Amendment SUMMARY: This action revises Class E 1, 2006, and effective September 15, I In consideration of the foregoing, the airspace at St. Michael, AK to provide 2006, which is incorporated by Federal Aviation Administration adequate controlled airspace to contain reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: aircraft executing one amended airspace designation listed in this Standard Instrument Approach document will be published PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Procedure (SIAP). This rule results in subsequently in the Order. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND the revision of Class E airspace upward The Rule CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; from 700 feet (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING surface at St. Michael, AK. This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 POINTS revises Class E airspace at the St. DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March Michael Airport, Alaska. This Class E I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal airspace is revised to accommodate part 71 continues to read as follows: Register approves this incorporation by aircraft executing an amended SIAP, reference action under title 1, Code of Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, and will be depicted on aeronautical Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– charts for pilot reference. The intended 1963 Comp., p. 389. the annual revision of FAA Order effect of this rule is to provide adequate 7400.9 and publication of conforming § 71.1 [Amended] controlled airspace for IFR operations at amendments. the St. Michael Airport, St. Michael, I 2. The incorporation by reference in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Alaska. 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Rolf, AAL–538G, Federal Aviation The FAA has determined that this Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, regulation only involves an established Designations and Reporting Points,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75861

dated September 1, 2006, and effective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: traffic procedures and air navigation, it September 15, 2006, is amended as is certified that this rule will not have History follows: a significant economic impact on a * * * * * On Thursday, October 5, 2006, the substantial number of small entities FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the under the criteria of the Regulatory Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Flexibility Act. Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the part 71) to revise Class E airspace Surface of the Earth The FAA’s authority to issue rules upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above regarding aviation safety is found in * * * * * the surface at Tok Junction, AK (71 FR Title 49 of the United States Code. AAL AK E5 St. Michael, AK [Revised] 58760). The action was proposed in Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the order to create Class E airspace St. Michael Airport, AK authority of the FAA Administrator. (Lat. 63°29′24″ N., long. 162°06′37″ W.) sufficient in size to contain aircraft Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, while executing a new SIAP for the Tok That airspace extending upward from 700 describes in more detail the scope of the feet above the surface within an 8.4-mile Junction Airport. The new approach is agency’s authority. the Area Navigation (Global Positioning radius of the St. Michael Airport; and that This rulemaking is promulgated System) (RNAV (GPS)) A, Original. airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet under the authority described in Class E controlled airspace extending above the surface within a 73-mile radius of Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section the St. Michael Airport. upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. * * * * * the surface in the Tok Junction Airport area is revised by this action. Under that section, the FAA is charged Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, Interested parties were invited to with prescribing regulations to ensure 2006. participate in this rulemaking the safe and efficient use of the Anthony M. Wylie, proceeding by submitting written navigable airspace. This regulation is Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information comments on the proposal to the FAA. within the scope of that authority Office. No public comments have been because it creates Class E airspace [FR Doc. E6–21537 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] received; thus the rule is adopted as sufficient in size to contain aircraft BILLING CODE 4910–13–P proposed. executing instrument procedures for the The area will be depicted on Tok Junction Airport and represents the aeronautical charts for pilot reference. FAA’s continuing effort to safely and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The coordinates for this airspace docket efficiently use the navigable airspace. are based on North American Datum 83. Federal Aviation Administration List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 14 CFR Part 71 published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Navigation (air). [Docket No. FAA–2006–25826; Airspace Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations Adoption of the Amendment Docket No. 06–AAL–28] and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, I In consideration of the foregoing, the Revision of Class E Airspace; Tok 2006, which is incorporated by Federal Aviation Administration Junction, AK reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: airspace designation listed in this AGENCY: Federal Aviation PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Administration (FAA), DOT. document will be published subsequently in the Order. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND ACTION: Final rule. CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; The Rule AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING SUMMARY: This action revises Class E POINTS airspace at Tok Junction, AK to provide This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class E airspace at the Tok adequate controlled airspace to contain I Junction Airport, Alaska. This Class E 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR aircraft executing a new Standard part 71 continues to read as follows: Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP). airspace is revised to accommodate This rule results in the revision of Class aircraft executing a new SIAP, and will Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, be depicted on aeronautical charts for 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) 1963 Comp., p. 389. and 1,200 ft. above the surface at Tok pilot reference. The intended effect of Junction, AK. this rule is to provide adequate § 71.1 [Amended] controlled airspace for IFR operations at DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March the Tok Junction Airport, Tok, Alaska. I 2. The incorporation by reference in 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal The FAA has determined that this 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Register approves this incorporation by regulation only involves an established Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace reference action under title 1, Code of body of technical regulations for which Designations and Reporting Points, Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to frequent and routine amendments are dated September 1, 2006, and effective the annual revision of FAA Order necessary to keep them operationally September 15, 2006, is amended as 7400.9 and publication of conforming current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a follows: amendments. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under * * * * * FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Rolf, AAL–538G, Federal Aviation ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 Surface of the Earth Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) * * * * * telephone number (907) 271–5898; fax: does not warrant preparation of a (907) 271–2850; e-mail: regulatory evaluation as the anticipated AAL AK E5 Tok Junction, AK [Revised] [email protected]. Internet address: impact is so minimal. Since this is a Tok Junction Airport, AK http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. routine matter that will only affect air (Lat. 63°19′46″ N., long. 142°57′13″ W.)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75862 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

That airspace extending upward from 700 sufficient in size to contain aircraft a significant economic impact on a feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile while executing two new SIAPs for the substantial number of small entities radius of the Tok Junction Airport, AK; and Hooper Bay Airport. The new under the criteria of the Regulatory that airspace extending upward from 1,200 approaches are (1) Area Navigation Flexibility Act. feet above the surface within a 64.8-mile radius of the Tok Junction Airport, AK; (Global Positioning System) (RNAV The FAA’s authority to issue rules excluding that airspace east of 141°00′00″ W (GPS)) Runway (RWY) 05, Original and regarding aviation safety is found in longitude. (2) RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Original. Class Title 49 of the United States Code. * * * * * E controlled airspace extending upward Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the authority of the FAA Administrator. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, surface in the Hooper Bay Airport area Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 2006. is revised by this action. Some of the describes in more detail the scope of the Anthony M. Wylie, necessary controlled airspace lies over agency’s authority. Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information an area more than 12 miles offshore, and This rulemaking is promulgated Office. is designated as Offshore Airspace Area, under the authority described in [FR Doc. E6–21516 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Norton Sound Low. That Offshore Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Airspace action will be addressed in a 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. separate pending rulemaking case. Under that section, the FAA is charged Interested parties were invited to with prescribing regulations to ensure DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION participate in this rulemaking the safe and efficient use of the proceeding by submitting written navigable airspace. This regulation is Federal Aviation Administration comments on the proposal to the FAA. within the scope of that authority No public comments have been because it creates Class E airspace 14 CFR Part 71 received; thus the rule is adopted as sufficient in size to contain aircraft [Docket No. FAA–2006–24675; Airspace proposed. executing instrument procedures for the Docket No. 06–AAL–14] The area will be depicted on Hooper Bay Airport and represents the aeronautical charts for pilot reference. FAA’s continuing effort to safely and Revision of Class E Airspace; Hooper The coordinates for this airspace docket efficiently use the navigable airspace. Bay, AK are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 AGENCY: Federal Aviation 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are Administration (FAA), DOT. Airspace, Incorporation by reference, published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Navigation (air). ACTION: Final Rule. Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations Adoption of the Amendment SUMMARY: This action revises Class E and Reporting Points, dated September airspace at Hooper Bay, AK to provide 1, 2006, and effective September 15, I In consideration of the foregoing, the adequate controlled airspace to contain 2006, which is incorporated by Federal Aviation Administration aircraft executing two new Standard reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: Instrument Approach Procedures airspace designation listed in this (SIAPs). This rule results in the revision document will be published PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, of Class E airspace upward from 700 feet subsequently in the Order. CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND (ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at The Rule CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Hooper Bay, AK. AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 POINTS DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March revises Class E airspace at the Hooper 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal Bay Airport, Alaska. This Class E I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Register approves this incorporation by airspace is revised to accommodate part 71 continues to read as follows: reference action under title 1, Code of aircraft executing two new SIAPs, and Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to will be depicted on aeronautical charts 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– the annual revision of FAA Order for pilot reference. The intended effect 1963 Comp., p. 389. 7400.9 and publication of conforming of this rule is to provide adequate amendments. controlled airspace for IFR operations at § 71.1 [Amended] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary the Hooper Bay Airport, Hooper Bay, I 2. The incorporation by reference in Rolf, AAL–538G, Federal Aviation Alaska. 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, The FAA has determined that this Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; regulation only involves an established Designations and Reporting Points, telephone number (907) 271–5898; fax: body of technical regulations for which dated September 1, 2006, and effective (907) 271–2850; e-mail: frequent and routine amendments are September 15, 2006, is amended as [email protected]. Internet address: necessary to keep them operationally follows: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. current. It, therefore—(1) is not a * * * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending History Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Surface of the Earth On Thursday, October 5, 2006, the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) * * * * * Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR does not warrant preparation of a AAL AK E5 Hooper Bay, AK [Revised] part 71) to revise Class E airspace regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Hooper Bay Airport, AK upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above impact is so minimal. Since this is a (Lat. 61°31′26″ N., long. 166°08′48″ W.) the surface at Hooper Bay, AK (71 FR routine matter that will only affect air That airspace extending upward from 700 58765). The action was proposed in traffic procedures and air navigation, it feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile order to create Class E airspace is certified that this rule will not have radius of the Hooper Bay Airport, AK; and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75863

that airspace extending upward from 1,200 new SID for the Perryville Airport. The provide adequate controlled airspace for feet above the surface within a 45-mile radius new approach is the Area Navigation IFR operations at the Perryville Airport, of Hooper Bay Airport, AK. (Global Positioning System) (RNAV Perryville, Alaska. * * * * * (GPS)) Runway (RWY) 02, Original. The The FAA has determined that this Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, SID is the CILAC TWO departure. Class regulation only involves an established 2006. E controlled airspace extending upward body of technical regulations for which Anthony M. Wylie, from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above the frequent and routine amendments are Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information surface in the Perryville Airport area is necessary to keep them operationally Office. revised by this action. There is an issue current. It, therefore—(1) is not a [FR Doc. E6–21532 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] with charting domestic controlled ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under airspace near Perryville, Alaska. Any Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ° airspace to the West of 160 West ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Longitude must be defined in the Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Offshore Airspace Area named Control FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 1234L, even if the airspace is within 12 does not warrant preparation of a Federal Aviation Administration miles of the shoreline. The Notice of regulatory evaluation as the anticipated Proposed Rulemaking mentioned this impact is so minimal. Since this is a 14 CFR Part 71 issue, but did not explain that this is a routine matter that will only affect air charting issue and does not impact traffic procedures and air navigation, it [Docket No. FAA–2006–24748; Airspace controlled airspace. Any of the Docket No. 06–AAL–15] is certified that this rule will not have controlled airspace necessary for service a significant economic impact on a at Perryville Airport which lies to the Revision of Class E Airspace; ° substantial number of small entities Perryville, AK west of 160 W. Longitude must be under the criteria of the Regulatory described in the Offshore definition for Flexibility Act. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Control 1234L. Domestic airspace east of The FAA’s authority to issue rules Administration (FAA), DOT. 160° W. Longitude extends to 12 miles regarding aviation safety is found in from the shoreline. The airspace ACTION: Final rule. Title 49 of the United States Code. definition delineation between Offshore Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the SUMMARY: This action revises Class E and domestic controlled airspace is not authority of the FAA Administrator. airspace at Perryville, AK to provide necessary because the 12-mile limit line Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, adequate controlled airspace to contain is shown on aeronautical charts. To describes in more detail the scope of the aircraft executing a new Standard address the delineation in the controlled Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) airspace description would be agency’s authority. and a new Stardard Instrument redundant. The Offshore Airspace This rulemaking is promulgated Departure procedure (SID). This rule action associated with this rule is taking under the authority described in results in the revision of Class E place concurrently in a separate Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) and airspace rule. 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace. 1,200 ft. above the surface at Perryville, Interested parties were invited to Under that section, the FAA is charged AK. participate in this rulemaking with prescribing regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March proceeding by submitting written 15, 2007. The Director of the Federal comments on the proposal to the FAA. navigable airspace. This regulation is Register approves this incorporation by No public comments have been within the scope of that authority reference action under title 1, Code of received; thus the rule is adopted as because it creates Class E airspace Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to proposed. sufficient in size to contain aircraft the annual revision of FAA Order The area will be depicted on executing instrument procedures for the 7400.9 and publication of conforming aeronautical charts for pilot reference. Perryville Airport and represents the amendments. The coordinates for this airspace docket FAA’s continuing effort to safely and are based on North American Datum 83. efficiently use the navigable airspace. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary The Class E airspace areas designated as List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Rolf, AAL–538G, Federal Aviation 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; Order 7400.9P, Airspace Designations Navigation (air). telephone number (907) 271–5898; fax: and Reporting Points, dated September Adoption of the Amendment (907) 271–2850; e-mail: 1, 2006, and effective September 15, [email protected]. Internet address: 2006, which is incorporated by I In consideration of the foregoing, the http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at. reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E Federal Aviation Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: airspace designation listed in this amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: History document will be published subsequently in the Order. PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, On Thursday, October 5, 2006, the CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND The Rule FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING part 71) to revise Class E airspace revises Class E airspace at the Perryville POINTS upward from 700 ft. and 1,200 ft. above Airport, Alaska. This Class E airspace is the surface at Perryville, AK (71 FR revised to accommodate aircraft I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 58764). The action was proposed in executing one new SIAP and one new part 71 continues to read as follows: order to create Class E airspace SID, and will be depicted on Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, sufficient in size to contain aircraft aeronautical charts for pilot reference. 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– while executing one new SIAP and one The intended effect of this rule is to 1963 Comp., p. 389.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75864 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

§ 71.1 [Amended] document amends the final regulations In addition, non-federal applicants for I 2. The incorporation by reference in by revising these sections. federal authorizations and funding must 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation DATES: Effective December 19, 2006. be fully consistent with the enforceable Administration Order 7400.9P, Airspace FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: policies of State CMPs. States either Designations and Reporting Points, David W. Kaiser, Senior Policy Analyst, concur with or object to a federal dated September 1, 2006, and effective Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource agency’s consistency determination, September 15, 2006, is amended as Management/NOAA, Phone: 603–862– under 15 CFR part 930, subpart C, or an follows: 2719, Fax: 603–862–3957. applicant’s consistency certification, under 15 CFR part 930, subparts D, E or ADDRESSES: Office of Ocean and Coastal * * * * * F. Resource Management/NOAA, c/o Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending For non-federal applicants for federal Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Coastal Response Research Center, authorizations under 15 CFR part 930, Surface of the Earth University of New Hampshire, 35 subparts D, E or F, the applicant may Colovos Road, 246 Gregg Hall, Durham, * * * * * appeal a State’s CZMA objection to the NH 03824–3534. Secretary of Commerce pursuant to AAL AK E5 Perryville, AK [Revised] Headquarter and Official Mailing/ CZMA sections 307(c)(3) and (d). The Perryville Airport, AK Filing Address: Coastal Programs Secretary overrides the State’s objection ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ (Lat. 55 54 24 N., long. 159 09 39 W.) Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal if the Secretary finds that the activity is That airspace extending upward from 700 Resource Management/NOAA, 1305 consistent with the objectives or feet above the surface within a 14.7-mile East-West Hwy., 11th Floor (N/ORM3), purposes of the CZMA or is necessary radius of the Perryville Airport, AK; and that Silver Spring, MD 20910, Fax: 301–713– in the interest of national security. If the airspace east of long. 160°00′00″ W. 4367. Secretary overrides the State(s objection, extending upward from 1,200 feet above the Additional information on federal surface within a 81.2-mile radius of then the Federal agency may issue its consistency can be located at OCRM’s authorization. NOAA’s Federal Perryville Airport, AK. federal consistency web page: http:// * * * * * consistency regulations were first coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/ promulgated in 1979. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 8, consistency/welcome.html. On January 5, 2006, NOAA published 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a final rule amending the Agency’s Anthony M. Wylie, Background regulations implementing the CZMA, Manager, Alaska Flight Service Information including procedural requirements Office. The CZMA was enacted in 1972 to governing the processing of consistency [FR Doc. E6–21533 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] encourage States to be proactive in appeals filed under section 307 of the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P managing natural resources for their CZMA. These changes sought to benefit and the benefit of the Nation. effectuate necessary changes identified The CZMA recognizes a national since the regulations were last amended interest in the resources of the coastal DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in 2000, and respond to amendments to zone and in the importance of balancing the CZMA enacted by Congress in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric the competing uses of those resources. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109– Administration The CZMA is a voluntary program for 58; 119 Stat. 594 (2005)) (Energy Policy States. If a State elects to participate it Act). 15 CFR Part 930 must develop and implement a CMP pursuant to federal requirements. See Explanation of Changes to the Federal [Docket No. 030604145–4038–02] CZMA section 306(d); 15 CFR part 923. Consistency Regulations State CMPs are comprehensive Rule Change 1: § 930.125(b). The RIN 0648–AR16 management plans that describe the January 2006 amendments in part added Coastal Zone Management Act Federal uses subject to the management new requirements concerning the Consistency Regulations program, the authorities and enforceable content of a notice of appeal filed with policies of the management program, the Secretary of Commerce. Section AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal the boundaries of the State’s coastal 930.125(b) now requires that a notice of Resource Management (OCRM), zone, the organization of the appeal include a statement explaining National Ocean Service (NOS), National management program, and related State the bases for appealing the State Oceanic and Atmospheric coastal management concerns. The State agency’s objection. As noted in the Final Administration (NOAA), Department of CMPs are developed with the Rule, this new requirement was Commerce (DOC). participation of Federal agencies, promulgated to help the Secretary ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections. industry, other interested groups and decide appeals within new time the public. Thirty-five coastal States are constraints established under the Energy SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and eligible to participate in the federal Policy Act, by requiring that appellants Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) coastal management program. Thirty- clarify from the outset each separate published a document (Final Rule) in four of the eligible States have federally basis for appeal. See 71 FR 788, 799 the Federal Register on January 5, 2006, approved CMPs. Illinois is not currently (Jan. 5, 2006). If identified in the notice effective on February 6, 2006, revising in program development. of appeal, these bases can be argued in the federal consistency regulations The CZMA federal consistency greater detail within an appellant’s under the Coastal Zone Management provision is a cornerstone of the CZMA subsequent brief. Act of 1972 (CZMA). That document program and a primary incentive for Section 930.125(b) includes an referenced an incorrect cross-reference States’ participation. Federal agency inadvertent error that necessitates in § 930.125(b) and unnecessarily activities that have coastal effects must technical correction. This section required the submission of multiple be consistent to the maximum extent requires a statement explaining the copies of some documents in practicable with the federally approved bases for appeal under ‘‘§ 923.121,’’ a §§ 930.127(d)(1) and 930.127(i)(2). This enforceable policies of the State’s CMP. cross reference that has no relevance to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75865

consistency appeals. The correct cross internal cross-reference in order to § 930.127 [Corrected] reference is §§ 930.121 and 122. provide correct information regarding I 3. Section 930.127 is corrected in the Sections 930.121 and 122 are the two the processing of appeals. The second first sentence of paragraph (d)(1) and in grounds available on which to base an change will reduce unnecessary the first sentence of paragraph (i)(2) by appeal. With this technical correction, paperwork submissions by states and removing the word ‘‘four’’ and adding in § 930.125(b) requires the notice of appellants. Neither change affects the its place the word ‘‘two.’’ appeal to: (1) Explain why the project is substance of the Secretarial appeal Dated: December 14, 2006. consistent with the objectives or process. For this same reason, NOAA William Corso, purposes of the CZMA (§ 930.121), finds good cause to waive the 30-day and/or is otherwise necessary in the delay in the effective date of this action Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. interest of national security (§ 930.122), under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). outlining appellant’s arguments for each [FR Doc. E6–21615 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] element contained within §§ 930.121 Regulatory Flexibility Act BILLING CODE 3510–08–P and/or 930.122 (with the understanding Because prior notice and opportunity that appellant will amplify upon these for public comment are not required for arguments in briefs); and (2) identify DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other HUMAN SERVICES any procedural arguments pursuant to law, the analytical requirements of the § 930.129(b). Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 Rule Change 2: § 930.127(d)(1) and Food and Drug Administration et seq., are not applicable. § 930.127(i)(2). Both of these sections require the appellant to submit four Paperwork Reduction Act 21 CFR Part 800 copies of briefs, supporting materials [Docket No. 2003N–0056 (formerly 03N– and, in the case of appeals of energy This rule contains no additional 0056)] projects under § 930.127(i)(2), the collection-of-information requirements consolidated record maintained by the subject to review and approval by OMB Medical Devices; Patient Examination lead Federal permitting agency. NOAA under the Paperwork Reduction Act and Surgeons’ Gloves; Test has determined that one hard copy and (PRA). Procedures and Acceptance Criteria one electronic copy are sufficient to National Environmental Policy Act AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, process appeals to the Secretary. This HHS. technical change will also reduce NOAA has concluded that this ACTION: Final rule. paperwork burdens on appellants. regulatory action does not have the Miscellaneous Rulemaking potential to pose significant impacts on SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Requirements the quality of the human environment. Administration (FDA) is issuing a final Further, NOAA has concluded that this rule to improve the barrier quality of Executive Order 12372: rule will not result in any changes to the medical gloves marketed in the United Intergovernmental Review human environment. As defined in States. The rule will accomplish this by This program is subject to Executive sections 5.05 and 6.03c3(i) of NAO 216– reducing the current acceptable quality Order 12372. 6, this action is of limited scope, of a levels (AQLs) for leaks and visual technical and procedural nature and any defects observed during FDA testing of Executive Order 12866: Regulatory environmental effects are too Planning and Review medical gloves. By reducing the AQLs speculative or conjectural to lend for medical gloves, FDA will also This final rule has been determined to themselves to meaningful analysis. harmonize its AQLs with consensus be not significant for the purposes of Thus, this rule is categorically excluded standards developed by the Executive Order 12866. from further review pursuant to NEPA. International Organization for Executive Order 13211 List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 930 Standardization (ISO) and ASTM International (ASTM). Executive Order 13211 requires that agencies prepare and submit a Administrative practice and DATES: This rule is effective December ‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’ to the procedure, Coastal zone, Reporting and 19, 2008. Office of Management and Budget for recordkeeping requirements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casper E. Uldriks, Office of Compliance, certain actions. This action will not I Accordingly, 15 CFR part 930 is Center for Devices and Radiological result in any adverse effect upon the amended by making the following Health (HFZ–300), Food and Drug supply, distribution, or use of energy. technical corrections: Rather, this rule makes technical Administration, 2094 Gaither Rd., corrections and changes that will clarify PART 930—FEDERAL CONSISTENCY Rockville, MD 20850, 240–276–0100. existing requirements and will reduce WITH APPROVED COASTAL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: paperwork burdens on appellants. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS I. Background Administrative Procedure Act I 1. The authority citation continues to Since 1990, FDA has tested patient Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the read as follows: examination and surgeons’ gloves for Assistant Administrator for Ocean barrier integrity in accordance with the Services, NOAA finds good cause to Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. sampling plans, test method, and AQLs waive prior notice and an opportunity § 930.125 [Corrected] contained in § 800.20 (21 CFR 800.20). for public comment on this action, as The FDA test method was adopted by notice and comment are unnecessary. I 2. Section 930.125 is corrected in the the consensus standards organizations, This Final Rule makes only minor first sentence of paragraph (b) by ISO and ASTM, who incorporated this technical amendments that will correct removing the term ‘‘§ 923.121’’ and method in ISO 10282, ISO 11193, ASTM mistakes and provide clarification to the adding in its place the phrase D3577, and ASTM D 3578. public. The first change will correct an ‘‘§§ 930.121 and/or 930.122.’’ Subsequently, ISO and ASTM lowered

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75866 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the AQLs in their consensus standards proposed that FDA reword this barrier protection. The FDA test method to be more stringent than the criteria in statement. includes only those visual defects, such the FDA test method. In the Federal Until now, the AQLs in the consensus as tears, embedded foreign objects, etc., Register dated March 31, 2003 (68 FR standards have been tighter than those that are likely to affect the barrier 15404), FDA published a proposed rule in the FDA test method, even when integrity of the glove. As previously to amend the FDA test method and visual defects are considered. As noted stated, FDA has historically considered harmonize the acceptance criteria with previously, visual defects are rarely visual defects that affect the barrier those in the consensus standards. We observed. Even when they are found, integrity as failures during glove testing provided a period of 90 days for they may not increase the total number and has always included them in the comments from interested parties. We of failures in an analysis because the total count of defective gloves. Sampling received comments from several parties, tears and holes detected by means of a and counting visual defects that affect which we summarize and discuss visual examination would most likely barrier integrity separately from gloves below, and we have revised the final leak if subjected to water leak testing that leak during the water leak test rule in response to the comments as and count as failures. Other visually would change established FDA appropriate. defective gloves, such as adhering sampling procedures and could allow (Comment 1) FDA received several gloves, which often tear when pulled more total defects in glove lots than comments expressing concern that the apart, might also leak if subjected to were allowed under the previous AQLs. proposal to lower the AQLs in the FDA water leak testing. This would not be consistent with the rule to match those in the ASTM (Comment 3) FDA received a number purpose of this rulemaking to improve standard does not truly harmonize with of comments expressing concern that the quality of gloves on the U.S. market. ASTM because ASTM applies the AQLs the phrase ‘‘other defects visible upon Also, because visual defects that affect only to pinhole defects, whereas FDA initial examination that may affect the barrier integrity are much less common applies the AQLs to both pinhole and barrier integrity’’ is subject to than cosmetic visual defects, they visual defects. interpretation. Some comments would probably not be present in the Historically, FDA has always recommended a list of specific criteria majority of samples. Routinely taking considered visual defects that affect for identifying visually defective gloves. two sets of samples when one sample is barrier integrity as failures during glove Other comments suggested adding the expected to have no defects would be an testing. The visual analysis of gloves word ‘‘obvious’’ before ‘‘defects.’’ inefficient use of resources for the FDA. while conducting water leak testing was FDA understands these concerns and The increased time required for two specifically included in the original has revised the rule to include more analyses could also result in delaying FDA test method published in examples of specific visual defects that entry of imported products. December 1990 and codified at § 800.20. should be considered as failures. (Comment 5) Three comments noted Our experience with laboratory analyses However, FDA realizes that it cannot that the ASTM standards for patient of medical gloves indicates that visual predict all possible defects that may be examination and surgeons’ gloves defects are relatively rare. However, due encountered. Therefore, the phrase specify the use of single normal to public health concerns, FDA cannot immediately following the list of sampling plans rather than the multiple ignore visual defects when they are specifically identified visual defects has normal sampling plans used by FDA. observed. FDA will continue to consider been revised to read, ‘‘or other visual FDA understands that ASTM uses visual defects affecting barrier integrity defects that are likely to affect the single normal sampling. However, the as failures. FDA does not agree that barrier integrity.’’ FDA disagrees that same ISO document that ASTM including these defects in the analysis adding ‘‘obvious’’ before ‘‘defects’’ references for its single sampling plans will affect harmonization with currently would clarify the type of defects that (ISO 2859, ‘‘Sampling Procedures for recognized consensus standards for the should be counted or reduce the risk of Inspection by Attributes’’) also provides vast majority of samples. subjective interpretation. multiple sampling plans that establish FDA has, however, included language (Comment 4) FDA received several the acceptability or non-acceptability of in the rule clarifying that only visual comments requesting us to revise the the lot with equivalent statistical defects that are likely to affect the test procedure and acceptance criteria to confidence, but generally using a much barrier integrity should be counted as have two sets of samples per lot, one set smaller total sample size. In view of the failures and has described the main for testing for pinhole defects and the volume of gloves that FDA must test types of visual defects that are likely to second set for testing or determining each year, we cannot justify the affect barrier integrity. FDA understands visual defects. The comments suggested additional expense that would the concerns of manufacturers that the that visual defects should have less accompany the use of the single lower AQLs could result in more sample stringent AQLs than pinhole defects. sampling plans. Since the sampling failures, especially if FDA analysts Also, one comment stated that the test plans are statistically very similar, we count visual defects that do not affect certificates glove manufacturers consider the revised test method and barrier integrity. Therefore, FDA intends routinely issue generally categorize acceptance criteria to be harmonized to provide guidance to analysts on how pinholes and visual defects separately. with the ASTM standard. to identify visual defects that affect FDA disagrees with these comments. (Comment 6) Another comment stated barrier integrity. FDA is aware that glove manufacturers that it was unlikely that manufacturers (Comment 2) One comment disagreed routinely inspect their gloves for visual could supply medical gloves that meet with the FDA statement ‘‘Because the cosmetic defects that may affect the the new AQLs without any price standards organization updated their acceptability of the gloves to buyers. increase. The comment further stated standards to reflect the improvement in Since these defects are related to the that tightening the AQLs would cause manufacturing technology, the cosmetic appearance of gloves rather manufacturers to test to even tighter in- consensus standards currently have than safety, they are visually inspected house specifications, which could lead lower AQLs for medical gloves than at a lower AQL than pinhole defects. In to significant ‘‘downgrading’’ of some FDA’s regulations’’ on the grounds that contrast, FDA analysis of medical gloves lots of gloves. the consensus standards’ AQLs do not is intended to ensure that gloves are safe It is FDA’s understanding, based on count visual defects. The commenter and effective for their intended use, representations made in 510(k)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75867

submissions and interactions with glove increasing quantities of gloves from top and, therefore, disagrees that it should manufacturers, that the glove industry is to bottom rather than from bottom to be moved to the preamble. already manufacturing gloves that meet top. (Comment 16) A suggestion was made the 1.5 and 2.5 AQLs for surgeons’ and This change was made to harmonize to move ‘‘Record the number of patient examination gloves, with the tables in the ISO–2859 defective gloves’’ from (b)(3)(iii)(B) to a respectively. FDA recognizes that some sampling plans. new paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C). The manufacturers may decide to withhold (Comment 12) One comment noted rationale for this suggestion was that the from the market or ‘‘downgrade’’ some that the leak test materials and set up data are generated in both (b)(3)(iii)(A) glove lots in order to reduce the risk of described in § 800.20 are an example of and (b)(3)(iii)(B), and not in just failing the FDA test. However, our what might be used in small scale (b)(3)(iii)(B). Therefore, it appeared that analysis, described in section III.E of testing environments, but that the use of the recording requirement should be in this document, indicates that the actual these materials and set up in high a separate paragraph. number of lots that would have to be volume test environments is not FDA agrees and has removed ‘‘Record withheld in order to maintain the realistic. Another comment pointed out the number of defective gloves’’ from current failure risk level is a small that many manufacturers use opaque section (b)(3) (iii)(B) and added a new percentage of the total number of gloves cylinders rather than clear plastic section ‘‘(b)(3)(iii)(C), Record the manufactured and, consequently, will cylinders, as described in paragraph number of defective gloves.’’ have a minimal impact on the industry. § 800.20(b)(2)(i). A suggestion was made (Comment 17) Another comment (Comment 7) We received several to note that the materials and set up stated that the preamble should discuss comments that pointed out that an AQL described in § 800.20(b)(2) and (b)(3)(ii) the relationship between Import Alert value should not reference a percentage are only examples. 80–04 and § 800.20. because it is technically a number FDA agrees that the materials and set This rule describes FDA’s analytical without a unit. The comments suggested up described in the referenced section test method for determining whether that we remove the reference to percent. are only examples and may not be individual gloves are defective and FDA agrees with this comment. The realistic for high volume test settings acceptance criteria for determining AQL values in the final rule do not refer and, therefore, has changed the wording whether lots of medical gloves are to percent. in § 800.20(b)(2) Leak test materials, to adulterated. It applies equally to (Comment 8) One comment requested ‘‘FDA considers the following to be the medical gloves offered for import and that the effective date of this rule be minimal materials required for this medical gloves already in domestic delayed until the year 2010. test.’’ FDA will continue to use clear distribution. While the results of FDA disagrees with this comment. cylinders to remain harmonized with analysis could cause a firm to be placed ASTM lowered its AQLs for surgeons’ the ASTM consensus standard D5151 on Import Alert 80–04, this rule is not and patient examination gloves in 1998. for detection of holes in medical gloves. intended to describe or modify FDA’s FDA believes that manufacturers have (Comment 13) One comment current guidance to FDA field personnel had sufficient time to adapt their recommended that FDA define the regarding ‘‘Surveillance and Detention manufacturing process to conform to elongation and tensile strength required Without Physical Examination of these standards and that, in fact, the for medical grade gloves. Surgeon’s and or Patient Examination vast majority of currently manufactured This comment is beyond the scope of Gloves,’’ which is contained in Import gloves already meet the new AQLs. (Comment 9) One comment suggested this rule. This rule describes a barrier Alert 80–04. the use of normal sampling plans in ISO test method applicable to gloves of all (Comment 18) One comment 2859 for reconditioned lots instead of materials and not a physical properties suggested that we add the following or the tightened sampling plans proposed test method that will necessarily vary equivalent language to (d)(2)(ii) by FDA. This comment maintained that for differing materials. ‘‘Adulteration levels and acceptance the normal inspection plans were the (Comment 14) A suggestion was made criteria for reconditioned gloves’’: ‘‘FDA optimal plans for glove lots and that to increase the water leak test duration considers the reconditioned lot of these same sampling plans should also to 3 minutes from the current 2 minutes medical gloves tested by an be used for reconditioned lots for both because there are some gloves that begin independent laboratory under tightened technical and economic reasons. to leak shortly after the 2 minute mark, sampling to meet the AQLs which will FDA disagrees with this comment. usually at 2 minutes and 30 seconds. provide additional assurance to the When testing reconditioned lots, FDA Changes to this rule are intended to consumers. If the retest result has been needs greater assurance that the gloves harmonize with the current consensus determined to be acceptable, the initial are safe and effective because there has standards. Harmonization would not be analysis of the failed lot before already been an initial failure and an accomplished if FDA were to increase reconditioning shall be nullified.’’ appearance of adulteration. It is its water leak test duration to 3 minutes. FDA disagrees with this comment. important, therefore, that the tightened Moreover, there are no reliable data When a collection of gloves that has sampling plans be used to test justifying the increase. been seized or refused entry based on a reconditioned lots. (Comment 15) One comment violative sample is ‘‘reconditioned,’’ (Comment 10) One comment advised suggested that § 800.20(b)(2)(iv) should some of the problematic sizes or lots of that the sampling plan for Surgeons’ be moved to the preamble because it is the gloves may have been removed Gloves at 1.5 AQL Normal Sampling a guidance. (segregated) from the reconditioned and a lot size of 1,201 to 3,200 does not It is important that FDA’s test method sample. When this occurs, and the provide for lot acceptance for the first for analyzing gloves be presented in a reconditioned sample passes the test 32 gloves sampled. coherent manner that thoroughly under the tightened sampling plan, FDA FDA agrees and has revised the chart. describes the method in a way that is will consider the remaining/ (Comment 11) One comment asked understandable. FDA believes that reconditioned lots in the collection of why the tables for both the Surgeons’ deleting § 800.20(b)(2)(iv) from the gloves to be acceptable, as described in and Patients Examination Gloves were codified language would make the test § 800.20. However, FDA believes that, in changed from the original rule to list method more difficult to understand the situation described previously, FDA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75868 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

cannot ignore the initial failure which is that does not individually or economic impact on a substantial part of the firm’s historical record. cumulatively have a significant effect on number of small entities. (Comment 19) Several comments the human environment. Therefore, Section 202(a) of the Unfunded mentioned that the rule would result in neither an environmental assessment Mandates Reform Act requires that increased costs to consumers of gloves. nor an environmental impact statement agencies prepare a written statement, These comments asserted that is required. which includes an assessment of manufacturing and production changes III. Analysis of Impacts anticipated costs and benefits, before at manufacturing sites would entail issuing a final rule that includes any A. Introduction significant costs that would ultimately Federal mandate that may result in the be passed on to consumers in the form FDA has examined the final rule expenditure of State, local and tribal of price increases. under Executive Order 12866, the governments, in the aggregate, or the FDA disagrees with these comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. private sector of $100 million or more As stated in section III of this document, 601–602), and the Unfunded Mandates (adjusted annually for inflation) in any most lots of imported gloves already Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). one year. The current threshold after meet the lower AQLs. This implies that Executive Order 12866 directs agencies adjustment for inflation is $118 million, significant changes in the to assess all costs and benefits of using the most current (2004) implicit manufacturing processes will not be available regulatory alternatives and, price deflator for the Gross National necessary. In addition, there is no when regulation is necessary, to select Product. The agency does not expect universal economic presumption that regulatory approaches that maximize this final rule to result in a 1-year costs are passed on to consumers in net benefits (including potential expenditure that would meet or exceed order to maintain a constant profit economic, environmental, public health this amount. margin to manufacturers. Market and safety, and other advantages; conditions will dictate the specific distributive impacts; and equity). FDA The information in the following degree to which regulatory costs are has determined that this final rule is not sections sets forth the bases for the borne by various economic sectors, i.e., a significant regulatory action under the above conclusions. We show the manufacturers, distributors, purchasers, Executive order. expected annual costs and benefits of payers, or consumers. Because of the If a rule has a significant economic this final rule next in Table 1. The competitive nature of this industry and impact on a substantial number of small average annualized costs of the final the relatively small proportion of gloves entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act rule are estimated to be $6.6 million affected by this rule, FDA believes that requires agencies to analyze regulatory using either a 3 percent or 7 percent these costs are not likely to be directly options that would minimize the impact discount rate. Average annualized passed on in the form of price increases. of the rule on small entities. Because benefits are expected to be between this final rule will not result in $14.8 million and $15.1 million, II. Environmental Impact economic impacts on domestic small depending on the discount rate. Average The agency has determined under 21 entities, the agency certifies that the annualized net benefits are between CFR 25.30(i) that this action is of a type final rule will not have a significant $8.2 million and $8.5 million.

TABLE 1.—AVERAGE ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS (IN MILLIONS)1

Annual Discount Rate Costs Benefits Net Benefits

3 Percent $6.6 $14.8 $8.2

7 Percent $6.6 $15.1 $8.5 1Annualized over a 10-year evaluation period.

B. Objective of the Final Rule or tissue products has led to increased in an indepth analysis of occupational cases of HIV, HBV, and HCV infections. risk, the CDC reported that between The objective of the final rule is to Available data cannot precisely 1992 and 2002 there had been 56 reduce the risk of transmission of blood- quantify the number of new HIV cases identified incidents of occupational borne pathogens (particularly human that this final rule will prevent. This transmission of the HIV pathogen and immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis analysis, however, attempts to derive a all but 7 of these cases (12.5 percent) B (HBV), and hepatitis C (HCV) conservative estimate. For the year were due to percutaneous cuts or infections). The rule accomplishes this 2000, the Centers for Disease Control needlesticks. In addition, there were 138 objective by ensuring that medical (CDC) reported a cumulative total of other cases of HIV infection or AIDS gloves (surgeons’ and patient approximately 900,000 persons in the among health care workers with examination gloves) maintain a high United States who had contracted HIV, occupational exposures to blood who level of quality with respect to the level of which 775,000 cases had progressed had not reported other risk factors for of noted defects. FDA is also to Acquired Immunodeficiency HIV infection (Ref. 2). Assuming the harmonizing its level for acceptable Syndrome (AIDS) (Ref. 1). Of those same 12.5 percent rate for these workers defects with consensus quality patients whose conditions had implies that 17 additional cases of HIV standards developed by ISO and ASTM. progressed to AIDS, almost 450,000 (58 transmission to health care workers C. Current Risks of Blood-Borne Illness percent) had died as of December 2000. during this period might have been For the year 2000, the CDC identified caused by cutaneous contact in an Unnecessary exposures to blood- 21,704 new cases of HIV infection. occupational setting. Consequently, a borne pathogens are of great importance Approximately 5 percent of the total of 24 incidents of occupational to the health care community because reported HIV/AIDS cases were among transmission of HIV to health care contact with contaminated human blood health care personnel (Ref. 2). However, personnel may have occurred over the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75869

10-year period (or 2.4 per year) due to pathogens due to defects in glove barrier System 6200) (Ref. 8), which implies an problems with the barrier protection protection in health care settings to annual volume of over 50 billion properties of gloves used in health care include 2.4 cases of HIV infection and medical gloves in 10 years. (A 2.6 settings. 2.4 cases of HBV infection. Increasing annual growth rate results in an The CDC also reports approximately the AQL of gloves by lowering the rate expected increase of 29.3 percent in 10 80,000 new cases of HBV for the latest of acceptable defects should reduce the years.) available reporting period (1999) (Ref. transmission rates of these pathogens. Medical glove lot sizes may vary from 3). There are approximately 1.25 million as few as 25 gloves to as many as people in the United States chronically D. Baseline Conditions 500,000. According to discussions with infected with HBV. While only 6 The previous AQL (being replaced by manufacturers (Eastern Research Group, percent of those who contract hepatitis this rule) for medical gloves allowed a Inc. (ERG) 2001), a typical production or B after the age of 5 will develop chronic defect rate of 4.0 percent for patient import lot from a foreign manufacturer conditions, 15 to 25 percent of those examination gloves and 2.5 percent for contains an average of 325,000 gloves that do will die prematurely. Health surgeons’ gloves. The AQL represents (either patient examination or care personnel are at some risk from this the proportion of sampled gloves from surgeons’). This implies that the U. S. pathogen, but the availability of a a given lot that may include defects medical glove market currently imports vaccine has reduced the risk of negative such as leaks or foreign material and over 120,600 lots of gloves per year. outcomes due to exposure. still be accepted for entry into the FDA currently samples only about 1.5 FDA has no direct data for estimating marketplace. Currently, if more than 4 percent of all glove lots, or 1,800 lots the rate of new HBV infections in health percent of the sampled patient per year. Within 10 years, FDA expects care personnel. While the CDC has examination gloves exhibit defects in the number of lots offered for import to reported the risk to health care workers accordance with the sampling criteria, increase to 156,000. If the compliance as ‘‘low,’’ there is no definition of that the entire lot of gloves is considered sampling rate remains constant, FDA term (Refs. 3 and 4). FDA estimates that adulterated. Surgeons’ gloves are would sample about 2,300 lots during as many as 4,000, or 5 percent, of all sampled to a higher quality level (lower that year. new incidents of HBV occur in health AQL requires a higher proportion of FDA’s Winchester Engineering and care personnel. Because occupational non-defective gloves in order to pass Analysis Center (WEAC) analyzed transmissions for HBV may be inspection), because these products results from samples collected from approximately 5 times more likely than have a higher likelihood of contact with 2000 and 2001. These samples represent that for HIV, FDA imputes bodily fluids. Of course, medical glove approximately one-third of FDA’s total approximately 140 annual cases of lots that fail to meet the AQL may be sampling effort for the period. A total of occupational transmission of HBV to marketed as household or other 98,067 gloves were tested from 942 health care personnel (HIV rate of 7.3/ products. If a sample of gloves fails to separate lots. Of these gloves, 2,354 1,085 x 5 x 4,000.) CDC analyses have meet the AQL, the marketer may request were defective, which implies that 2.4 stated that ‘‘most’’ of the occupational resampling of the lot. The required percent of marketed gloves are likely to transmissions are due to percutaneous sampling plan for a lot originally found be defective. If so, then approximately injuries (Ref. 4). Because 2.4 of the 7.3 to be out of compliance is more 940 million defective medical gloves are annual HIV cutaneous contact intensive than the original sampling currently marketed (39.2 billion gloves transmissions (33 percent) were plan for a randomly selected lot. Lots x 0.024). At the current AQL of 4.0, 28 believed to be attributable to glove initially found to be out of compliance lots (2.97 percent) failed. Consequently, defects, FDA similarly expects about are either resampled and subsequently approximately 53 annually sampled lots one-third of the 140 annual offered as medical devices after meeting are defective (1,800 sampled lots x occupational transmissions of HBV the current AQL, offered as nonmedical 0.0297). By the 10th year, in the absence infections (approximately 40 cases) may gloves, or sold in foreign markets. of the final regulation, 1.21 billion potentially be associated with the Approximately 39.2 billion medical defective gloves would be marketed and current quality level of medical gloves. gloves were imported into the United 68 of the sampled lots would fail to If only 6 percent of these cases develop States during 2004 (Ref. 6). According to meet the AQL. chronic conditions, then an average of FDA records, there are over 400 FDA allows glove lots that fail to meet 2.4 annual cases of chronic HBV are manufacturers of medical gloves. the AQL to be resampled. Sponsors associated with defective medical Malaysian manufacturers supply almost usually attempt to resample the glove gloves. 40 percent of the medical gloves in the lot rather than divert the entire lot to HCV currently infects 3.9 million United States while Chinese alternative markets. According to persons in the United States (Ref. 3). manufacturers supply approximately 30 discussions with industry sources and Over 2.7 million patients have reported percent (Ref. 7). Surgeons’ gloves testing laboratories, the cost of glove lot chronic conditions. More than 40,000 accounted for only about 15 percent of resampling and retesting for leakage and new cases were reported in 1999. The all imported medical gloves during tensile strength is approximately $1,400. risk of exposure to health care workers, 2004, and the impact of the final rule on The current annual industry cost of however, appears to be extremely low. this sector is negligibly different from resampling glove lot failures with the In fact, according to the CDC, other than overall patient examination gloves. current AQL is approximately $74,000 from needle stick punctures, there has Therefore, this analysis focuses (53 lots times $1,400 per lot). This been no documented transmission of exclusively on patient examination resampling and retesting cost would HCV to health care personnel from gloves. equal $95,000 within 10 years. intact or non-intact skin exposures to FDA expects the demand for medical blood or other fluids or tissues (Ref. 4). gloves to increase by the same rate as E. Costs of the Final Rule Thus, there is little evidence that glove employment in the medical services FDA expects that the final rule will defects are associated with HCV industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics result in changed shipping practices by exposures. has projected annual employment medical glove manufacturers. Currently, As a result, FDA estimates the overall growth of 2.6 percent for this industry manufacturers use the target AQLs as a annual transmission of blood-borne (North American Industry Classification guide for releasing production lots of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75870 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

gloves for export to the United States (120,600 lots x $45 per lot). The medical market. For example, because the release criteria are lower in expected increase in the demand for manufacturers may attempt to maintain the United States than in other markets. medical gloves by the 10th evaluation a target compliance level in order to Manufacturers attempt to avoid having year will result in a compliance cost of avoid FDA’s Level 3 detention under three failures within a 24-month period, meeting this increased quality level of ‘‘Surveillance and Detentions Without because this may result in refusal of $7.0 million. Over the 10-year period, Physical Examination of Surgeon’s and future imports under Level 3 detention the average annualized cost of this or Patient Examination Gloves.’’ FDA’s described in FDA’s current policy, increased level of testing, at a 3 percent WEAC laboratory sampled 942 lots and ‘‘Surveillance and Detention Without annual discount rate, is $6.2 million discovered that 28 failed using the Physical Examination of Surgeon’s and/ and, at a 7 percent annual discount rate, current AQL while 79 lots failed using or Patient Examination Gloves.’’ Thus, is $6.2 million. the lower AQL in this final rule. To to maintain an uninterrupted supply of 2. Increased Sampling Costs maintain the original 0.0297 (28/942) lot gloves to customers, and to guard brand failure rate, the 53 lots with the highest loyalty while avoiding Level 3 A lower AQL will result in increased defect rate would have to be held back detention, manufacturers would be sampling costs for imported glove lots. by the affected manufacturers (.056)1. The increased sampling costs will result expected to raise their level of quality Therefore, FDA anticipates that under from the need to test greater quantities control to at least maintain the current the lower AQL in the final rule, average lot rejection rate of 2.97 percent. of gloves in order to ensure sufficient statistical power. Based on reported approximately 6,900 lots will be held FDA also expects the rule to increase back by manufactures. In order to meet the costs of sampling by requiring larger costs from U.S. testing laboratories, ERG, an independent economic the expected demand in 10 years, FDA and more detailed sampling plans to expects that 9,000 lots will be held back. assure the lower AQL is met for each contractor, estimated that increased testing would add approximately $200 FDA believes that glove lots that fail to inspected glove lot. FDA does not meet the lower AQL in this final rule for envision increased regulatory oversight to the current costs of $1,400 per sample. (The difference between this medical quality standards will most costs because the rate of inspections is likely be sold as nonmedical gloves. not expected to change. Costs have been increased cost and the $45 increased FDA believes that, although analyzed and discounted using the quality control cost is attributable to manufacturers and distributors may methodology suggested by OMB’s lower costs in foreign countries that experience some loss of revenue from Circular A–4 (September 2003). produce medical gloves.) FDA currently samples about 1.5 percent of the this shift (because of the price premium 1. Costs of Quality Control 120,600 lots imported annually, or 1,800 commanded by medical gloves), the loss Manufacturers currently conduct samples. Thus, the increased sampling will be inconsequential. quality control tests on glove lots prior costs due to this final rule are $0.4 4. Costs of FDA Inspections to release. These tests include water- million (120,600 lots x 0.015 x $200). tight leak and tensile strength assays. Within 10 years, this increased cost will FDA does not envision increased According to interviews with glove equal $0.5 million (due to expected inspection costs due to the final rule. manufacturers, the current cost of increases in the number of inspected The rate of sampled glove lots is not conducting these tests at the glove lots). The average annualized expected to differ and FDA resources manufacturing site is approximately sampling cost increase at a 3 percent are not expected to increase over the $310 per lot, while the more stringent annual discount rate is $0.4 million, and evaluation period. quality control testing required by this at a 7 percent annual discount rate is 5. Total Costs rule may cost an additional $45 per lot. $0.4 million. The additional cost is for increased In sum, FDA estimates that the final inventory and larger sample sizes to 3. Withheld Lots rule will have an average annualized ensure more precise measurements at The lower AQL in this final rule is cost of about $6.6 million using either the lower AQL. Because approximately also likely to result in an increase in the a 3 percent or 7 percent annual discount 120,600 lots are currently imported per number of lots of medical gloves that are rate. Table 2 presents the costs for each year, the expected costs are $5.4 million not released for shipment to the U.S. year of the evaluation period.

TABLE 2.—COSTS PER YEAR OF THE FINAL RULE (IN MILLIONS)

Costs for Quality Costs for Sam- Year Control pling Total Costs

Current $5.4 $0.4 $5.8

1 $5.6 $0.4 $6.0

2 $5.7 $0.4 $6.1

3 $5.9 $0.4 $6.3

4 $6.0 $0.4 $6.4

5 $6.2 $0.4 $6.6

1The current lot failure rate (28/942 = 0.0297) is removed, the overall failure rate is 0.0314 (28/891). FDA expects the withheld lots to include those with reached by removing 53 defective lots from the The expected future failure rate is 0.0292 (26/889). the highest defect rates. sample. If only the 51 additional failing lots are

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75871

TABLE 2.—COSTS PER YEAR OF THE FINAL RULE (IN MILLIONS)—Continued

Costs for Quality Costs for Sam- Year Control pling Total Costs

6 $6.3 $0.4 $6.7

7 $6.5 $0.4 $6.9

8 $6.7 $0.4 $7.1

9 $6.8 $0.5 $7.3

10 $7.0 $0.5 $7.5

Present Values 3%–$53.2 3%–$3.6 3%–$56.8 7%–$43.4 7%–$2.9 7%–$46.3

F. Benefits of the Rule Without Physical Examination of quality levels, this analysis does not The final rule will result in public Surgeon’s and or Patient Examination consider potential HCV transmission. health gains by reducing the frequency Gloves.’’ Manufacturers on Level 3 a. Reductions in HIV transmission. of blood-borne pathogen transmissions detention are not allowed to import While the direct relationship between due to defects in the barrier protection medical gloves because they have defective medical gloves and the provided by medical gloves. Based on repeatedly failed analysis. To avoid the transmission of HIV is unknown, FDA an implied societal willingness to pay denial of entry, manufacturers may be believes it is reasonable to apply the (WTP), FDA expects that an annualized expected to hold a sufficient number of proportional reduction in the number of monetary benefit of $14.8 million (using defective lots from shipment in order to defective gloves due to the final rule a 3 percent discount rate) or $15.1 maintain the same target lot failure rate (about 25 percent) to the annual million (using a 7 percent discount rate) (approximately 3 percent) with a new transmission rate of the HIV pathogen to will be realized due to fewer pathogen AQL. If so, removing the 53 most health care personnel. In the absence of transmissions and unnecessary blood defective lots in the testing sample this rule, the current expectation of 2.4 screens. Fewer glove defects will reduce would result in 26 lot failures from 880 annual cases of HIV transmission to the cost and anxiety associated with total lots, thereby maintaining the health care personnel would likely unnecessary blood screens (i.e., those original 2.92 percent lot failure rate. increase to 3.1 annual cases within 10 that would yield negative results for This scenario leaves 85,172 total gloves years due to the expected growth of health care personnel). Benefits have in the sample, of which 1,512 were employment in the health services been analyzed and discounted using the defective, resulting in a glove defect rate industry. However, with the new AQL methodology suggested by OMB’s of 1.78 percent. The final rule, therefore, in place, FDA forecasts the expected Circular A–4 (September 2003). could reduce the proportion of marketed annual transmission of HIV to health defective medical gloves from 2.4 care personnel to equal 1.8 cases in 1. Reductions in the Number of percent of all marketed gloves to 1.78 current conditions and 2.3 cases by the Marketed Defective Gloves percent of all marketed gloves. 10th evaluation year (based on the As noted in the previous paragraphs, The implications of this expected expected proportionate decrease in FDA has determined that approximately reduction in defective gloves are marketed defective gloves). Over the 940 million defective gloves are significant. The current AQL is entire 10-year evaluation period, these marketed each year in the United States, associated with 940 million glove assumptions suggest that the rule or 2.4 percent of all medical gloves. In defects during the present year (based should prevent approximately seven the absence of this rule, FDA expects on 2004) and within 10 years would cases of HIV transmission to health care that the number of defective medical result in 1.21 billion marketed defective personnel. gloves marketed in the United States medical gloves. When the lower AQL is b. Reductions in HBV transmissions. would increase to 1.21 billion per year in place, the current number of Hepatitis B transmissions to health care within 10 years. The final rule will defective gloves will approximate 700 personnel are more common than substantially reduce this figure. million and within 10 years will result cutaneous HIV transmissions. However, WEAC’s analysis of 98,067 medical in 900 million defective marketed little specific data are available to gloves from 942 sampled lots collected gloves. The number of defective gloves, identify affected patient populations in 2000 and 2001 resulted in therefore, should be reduced by more and routes of transmission. FDA has approximately 3 percent lot failures than 25 percent due to the new AQL. estimated that as many as 2.4 cutaneous with an AQL of 4.0 (28 lots would fail). transmissions of chronic HBV may be This lot failure rate was associated with 2. Reductions in Blood-Borne Pathogens due to defective medical gloves each 2,356 defective gloves, or 2.4 percent of FDA has estimated that there are year. In the absence of this rule, this the total number of sampled gloves. potentially 4.8 annual transmissions of number would be expected to increase Under the lower AQL of 2.5 in the rule, blood-borne pathogens associated with to 3.1 annual transmissions within 10 the WEAC analysis concluded that 51 medical glove defects (section IV.C of years, based on the expected additional lots would fail (a total of 79 this document). These transmissions employment growth in the health failed lots), increasing the lot failure rate include 2.4 cases of HIV and 2.4 cases services industry. from 2.91 percent to 8.39 percent. of chronic HBV. Because there are Implementation of the final rule As previously mentioned, FDA currently no documented cases of should decrease these transmissions by provides a Level 3 detention status in its cutaneous transmission of HCV that about 25 percent. FDA expects 1.8 HBV guidance, ‘‘Surveillance and Detentions would be affected by improving glove transmissions under current conditions,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75872 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

a reduction of 0.6 transmissions from percent) obtained from the research TABLE 3.—EXPECTED ANNUAL baseline conditions. By the 10th hospital sector, the final rule should REDUCTIONS IN BLOOD- evaluation year, FDA expects that there result in 120,000 fewer unnecessary BORNE PATHOGEN TRANS- will be 2.3 chronic HBV transmissions blood screens under current conditions MISSIONS AND UNNECESSARY with the lower AQL, or a total of 0.8 (240 million fewer defects x 0.05 x BLOOD SCREENS—Contin- fewer cases. Overall, about seven 0.01). By the 10th year, 155,000 fewer ued transmissions of chronic HBV will be annual blood screens are expected. Over avoided due to the final rule over a 10- the entire evaluation period, the rule Reduc- year evaluation period. could result in over 1.4 million fewer Reduction in tion in 3. Reductions in the Number of Blood unnecessary blood screens. Blood-Borne Unnec- Year Pathogen essary Screening Tests 4. Cost-Effectiveness of the Final Rule Transmission Blood As the number of defective gloves Screens marketed in the United States decreases We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of 3 1.4 135,000 due to this rule, corresponding the final rule using both the cost per reductions would be expected in the transmission of blood-borne pathogen 4 1.4 135,000 number of unnecessary blood screens. avoided and the cost per unnecessary FDA contacted several research blood screen avoided. The annual 5 1.4 140,000 hospitals to ascertain how frequently numbers of future avoided health care personnel identify glove transmissions and tests were compared 6 1.4 145,000 failure as a reason for initiating blood to the present values of the costs for the 7 1.6 150,000 screens. Respondents stated that about 5 evaluation period and shown in Table 3. percent of all glove failures are noticed Table 3 shows the expected annual 8 1.4 145,000 by the user and about 1 percent of these reductions in blood-borne pathogens identified failures are reported to the and unnecessary blood screens due to 9 1.6 155,000 facility for additional screening (Ref. 9 the final rule. and 10). Respondents noted that the 10 1.6 155,000 glove failure could occur prior to patient TABLE 3.—EXPECTED ANNUAL Although these reductions should contact. Therefore, the additional REDUCTIONS IN BLOOD- continue beyond the evaluation period, screening may apply to the affected BORNE PATHOGEN TRANS- health care personnel or the patient. The we have analyzed only through the 10th MISSIONS AND UNNECESSARY great majority of these screens result in year. Each year’s expected number of negative findings. BLOOD SCREENS reduced blood-borne pathogen As shown in the previous paragraphs, transmissions and unnecessary blood Reduc- screens are discounted (using both a 3 when the final rule is in effect, FDA Reduction in tion in expects the number of defective gloves Blood-Borne Unnec- percent annual discount rate and a 7 marketed to decrease from 940 million Year Pathogen essary percent annual discount rate) to arrive to 700 million, a reduction of 240 Transmission Blood at an equivalent number of reductions if million defective gloves. By the 10th Screens valued during the first evaluation year. year, the number of defective gloves is The present values of the regulatory Current 1.2 120,000 expected to decrease from 1.21 billion to costs (shown in Table 4) are divided by 900 million, a reduction of 310 million 1 1.2 120,000 the present values of the expected defective gloves. At the rates of reductions to arrive at the cost per potential identification (5 percent) and 2 1.2 125,000 avoided event. This is shown in Table reports of contact with pathogens (1 4.

TABLE 4.—REGULATORY COST-EFFECTIVENESS PER INCIDENCE OF BLOOD-BORNE PATHOGEN TRANSMISSION AVOIDED AND UNNECESSARY BLOOD SCREEN AVOIDED

Present Value of Cost per Blood- Present Value of Blood-Borne Borne Pathogen Present Value of Cost per Blood Annual Discount Rate Costs (in millions) Pathogens Avoid- Avoided (in mil- Blood Screens Screen Avoided ed lions) Avoided

3 percent $56.8 12.2 $4.7 1,191,000 $48

7 percent $46.3 9.8 $4.7 971,000 $48

The cost-effectiveness of the final rule 5. Value of Avoiding Blood-borne avoid the probability of a statistical is $4.7 million per transmission of Pathogens death (Refs. 11, 12, and 13). That is, blood-borne pathogen avoided, or $48 social values appear to show that people per unnecessary blood screen avoided a. Quality adjusted life-years. The are WTP a significant amount to reduce for both discount rates. We note that economic literature includes many even a small risk of death; or similarly, attempts to quantify societal values of both reductions should occur and the to demand significant payments to health. A widely cited methodology allocation of costs to each outcome accept marginally higher risks. assesses wage differentials necessary to would reduce the costs per avoided attract labor to riskier occupations. This Because this estimate is event for both. research indicates that society appears predominantly based on blue-collar to be WTP approximately $5 million to occupations that mainly attract males

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75873

between the ages of 30 and 40, FDA FDA compared this methodology to a If HIV progresses to AIDS, a patient’s adjusted the life-expectancy of a 35- variety of published estimates of functional state is likely to be more year-old male to account for future bed preference ratings of morbidity prepared restricted. An AIDS patient requires and non-bed disability (Refs. 14, 15, and by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis some assistance with transportation, is 16), and amortized the $5 million (at (HCRA) (Ref. 17a). The published limited in physical activity, and is both 3 percent and 7 percent discount ratings of 14 studies of chronic HBV limited in work, school, or household rates) over the resulting quality-adjusted ranged from 0.75 to 1.00 (no impact). activity. The relative weight for this life span. The results were estimates of While the estimate used in this analysis functional state is 0.5402. The main $213,000 per quality adjusted life-year (0.746) is in the low end of collected problem/symptom of AIDS remains (QALY) using a 3 percent discount rate published studies, FDA notes that most general tiredness and loss of weight (as and $373,000 per QALY using a 7 of the expressed preferences that were with HIV and HBV), so the adjusted percent discount rate, which implies derived from time trade-off and health state is 0.5429. This results in a that society is WTP between $213,000 standard gamble methodologies, as derived societal willingness to pay to and $373,000 for the statistical compared to author judgment, were avoid the statistical probability of a case probability of a year of perfect health, closer to the FDA estimate. A health of AIDS of about $97,000 (3 percent) or depending on the discount rate. care worker who may contract HBV may $170,000 (7 percent) per year (QALY b. Value of morbidity losses. In typically have a life expectancy of value x (1.0000 minus 0.5429)). The theory, loss of health reduces the approximately 40 years (as of 2000, a HCRA’s Catalog of Preference Scores willingness to pay for additional 40-year-old female had a future life (ref. 17a) reports average preference longevity. Many studies have attempted expectancy of 41.1 years (Ref. 14)). The ratings of 0.375 for cases of AIDS with to estimate the relative loss of health for present value (PV) of $54,000 (3 ranges from 0.0 to 0.5. many different conditions of morbidity. percent) and $93,000 (7 percent) for 40 As discussed earlier, the derived One method utilizes the Kaplan-Bush years implies that society is WTP $1.25 societal willingness to pay to avoid a Index of Well-Being. This index assigns million (3 percent) or $1.24 million (7 statistical mortality has been estimated relative weights to functional states, and percent) to avoid the statistical to equal approximately $5 million. then adjusts the resulting weighted likelihood of a case of chronic HBV in Using these estimates, the WTP to value by the problem/symptom complex health care personnel. avoid the statistical probability of an HIV transmission in health care that contributed to loss of function Deriving society’s implied WTP to personnel is calculated as the sum of: (Refs. 16 and 17). Functional state is avoid HIV is more complicated. The • measured in three areas: Mobility, social 20 percent of the PV (at 3 percent CDC has published data indicating that and 7 percent discount rates) of activity, and physical activity. For approximately 80 percent of all HIV example, with most treatment, chronic avoiding 40 years of HIV infection. infections progress to AIDS within 5 • 32 percent of the sum of the PV of HBV is unlikely to have a major impact years. Of the cases of AIDS, over half avoiding 5 years of a HIV infection plus on any of these functions; a patient (approximately 60 percent) result in the PV of avoiding 35 years of AIDS could drive a car, walk without a mortality within an additional 5 years. infection occurring 5 years in the future. physical problem, and conduct work, Thus, for a 10-year period, FDA tracked • 48 percent of the sum of the PV of school, housework and other activities. 3 potential outcomes: Patients who avoiding 5 years of HIV infection plus However, because a patient with HBV contract HIV but do not progress to the PV of avoiding 5 years of AIDS has an ongoing problem/symptom AIDS (20 percent), patients who infection occurring 5 years in the future complex the relative weight of this contract HIV and progress to AIDS in 5 2 plus the discounted WTP of avoiding a functional state is 0.7433 . years and survive (32 percent), and statistical mortality occurring 10 years This methodology then adjusts the patients who contract HIV, progress to in the future. weighted value of the functional state by AIDS within 5 years and then die within The PV of avoiding 40 years of health the most severe problem/symptom an additional 5 years (48 percent). loss valued at $68,000 per year (3 complex contributing to that state. In HIV infection is not expected to affect percent) is approximately $1.6 million the case of chronic HBV, the most either mobility or social activity. and if valued at $120,000 per year (7 common symptom is general tiredness, However, such an infection is likely to percent) is also approximately $1.6 weakness, or weight loss. This complex somewhat inhibit physical activity. HIV million. Twenty percent of this figure has a derived relative weight of +0.0027, patients are expected to be able to walk, equals $320,000. which when added to the weighted but with some physical limitations. This The PV of avoiding 5 years of health functional state value results in a functional state has a relative weight of loss to due HIV infection is equal to relative weight of 0.7460. The loss of 0.6769. The main problem/symptom $311,000 (3 percent) or $492,000 (7 relative health due to HBV, therefore, is complex of HIV is general tiredness (as percent). The PV of avoiding the health expected to equal 1.0000 minus 0.7460, for HBV), so the selected functional loss expected from 35 years of AIDS or 0.2540 of perfect health. When this weight is adjusted by +0.0027 to result infection (valued at $97,000 (3 percent) relative health loss is applied to the in relative well-being of 0.6796. As a and $170,000 (7 percent) per year) is derived value of a QALY, it implies that result, the relative societal willingness equivalent to $2.1 million (3 percent) society would be WTP between $54,000 to pay to avoid the statistical probability and $2.2 million (7 percent). The (3 percent) and $93,000 (7 percent) per of a case of HIV in health care personnel present values of these amounts year to avoid a case of HBV (QALY is approximately $68,000 (3 percent) or occurring 5 years in the future are $1.8 value x 0.2540). This value includes the $120,000 (7 percent) per year (QALY million (3 percent) and $1.6 million (7 potential costs of treatment and value x [1.0000 minus 0.6796]). percent). When added to the PV of additional prevention, as well as any According to the collected preference avoiding the health loss associated with perceived pain and suffering. scores (ref. 17a) in the HCRA’s Catalog 5 years of HIV infection ($311,000 (3 of Preference Scores, the average percent) and $492,000 (7 percent)), the 2The implication is that an ideal health state is valued as 1.0000 and mortality at 0.0000. Each estimated published preference rating total estimated PV of the societal functional state between these extremes is a for HIV infection was 0.7 (range 0.3 to willingness to pay to avoid a statistical proportionate value of ‘‘perfect’’ health. 1.00). case of this outcome is about $2.1

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

million (for both 3 percent and 7 societal WTPs of $1.25 million (3 American Red Cross (Ref. 5) on the costs percent discount rates). Thirty-two percent) and $1.24 million (7 percent) to of conducting blood screening tests in percent of this figure equals $660,000. avoid the probability of an HBV order to ensure the safety of the blood The PV of avoiding the health loss infection, the expected benefit of supply. These estimates include the associated with 5 years of AIDS avoiding these transmissions is $0.8 costs of collection (including personnel, infection ($445,000 (3 percent) and million (3 percent) and $0.7 million (7 needles, bags, and other supplies) at $700,000 (7 percent)) occurring 5 years percent). By the 10th evaluation year, $47.66 per sample; sample testing at in the future is equivalent to $384,000 0.8 annual transmissions are expected to $25.16 per sample; and overhead at (3 percent) and $497,000 (7 percent). be avoided at a value of $1.0 for either $3.26 per sample. The estimated direct The PV of the societal value of avoiding discount rate. The PV of avoiding testing cost per blood sample is the sum a statistical mortality ($5 million) 10 approximately 7 chronic HBV of these amounts, or $76 per test. years in the future is $3.72 million (at transmissions over a 10-year period b. Anxiety and stress associated with 3 percent) and $2.54 million (at 7 equals $7.6 million (at 3 percent potential transmission of pathogens. percent). The total societal WTP to discount rate) and $6.1 million (at 7 The psychological literature has noted avoid a case of HIV with mortality as an percent discount rate). This is equal to that levels of anxiety and stress impact outcome, therefore, is $4.4 million using an average annualized value of $0.9 participation in public health screening a 3 percent discount rate ($311,000 plus million for the entire 10-year evaluation programs and thereby affect $384,000 plus $3.72 million) and $3.5 period at either discount rate. physiological health (Refs. 19, 20, and million using a 7 percent discount rate Also, in the first evaluation year, FDA 21). Also, patients with high levels of ($493,000 plus $497,000 plus $2.54 expects that the final rule will result in uncertainty about whether they have million). Forty-eight percent of these the probability of 0.6 fewer contracted serious, threatening diseases figures equals approximately $2.1 transmissions of HIV caused by experience heightened levels of stress million (3 percent) and $1.7 million (7 defective gloves. Assuming that society and anxiety until they learn the results percent). is WTP $3.08 million (at 3 percent of any testing screens are negative (Ref. Summing the weighted amounts of discount rate) and $2.68 million (at 7 20). According to one measurement the three expected outcomes for a case percent discount rate) to avoid the scale of well-being, reduced mental of HIV infection equals an estimated probability of a single HIV transmission, lucidity, depression, crying, lack of societal willingness to pay of $3.08 the benefit of avoiding these concentration, or other signs of adverse million using a 3 percent discount rate transmissions equals $1.8 million (3 psychological sequelae may detract as ($320,000 plus $660,000 plus $2.1 percent) and $1.6 million (7 percent). By much as 8 percent from overall feelings million) and $2.68 million using a 7 the 10th evaluation year, FDA expects of well-being (Ref. 16) and have percent discount rate ($320,000 plus the final rule to result in 0.8 fewer HIV outcomes similar to physiological $660,000 plus $1,700,000). transmissions, which are valued at $2.5 morbidity. Scaling of the relative stress In sum, the estimated societal values million (3 percent) and $2.1 million (7 caused by events shows that concerns of avoiding morbidity and mortality due percent). The societal PV of avoiding about personal health, by themselves, to transmission of blood-borne seven transmissions of HIV over the 10- are likely, on average, to contribute pathogens are estimated to be equivalent year evaluation period is $18.8 million approximately one-sixth of the total to $1.25 million per transmission of (at 3 percent discount rate) and $13.1 weighting required to trigger a major chronic HBV and $3.08 million per million (at 7 percent discount rate). stressful episode (Refs. 20, 21, and 22). transmission of HIV using a 3 percent These values are equivalent to average Thus, FDA approximates that increased discount rate and $1.24 million per annualized benefits of $2.2 million (at 3 stress and anxiety concerning possible transmission of HBV and $2.68 million percent discount rate) and $1.9 million exposure to pathogens may reduce per transmission of HIV using a 7 (at 7 percent discount rate). overall sense of well-being and result in percent discount rate. FDA notes that In sum, FDA estimates that the health loss of approximately 1.3 percent other cost-effectiveness research (Ref. reduction in blood-borne pathogen (0.013). 18) has determined cost-effectiveness transmissions due to this final rule As described earlier, FDA has estimates (excluding pain and suffering) should produce health benefits valued calculated an assumed WTP of $213,000 of $2.1 million per avoided case of HIV. at $3.1 million (at 3 percent discount (at 3 percent) and $373,000 (at 7 FDA believes the methodology used rate) and $2.8 million (at 7 percent percent) for a statistical QALY. These to estimate the value of avoided HBV discount rate) per year. Most of this figures imply that the probability of and HIV infection is reasonable and benefit (over 67 percent) is attributable each day of quality adjusted life has a supportable. However, comparative to reducing the incidence of HIV. social value of about $585 (at 3 percent methodologies that demonstrate both discount rate; $213,000 divided by 365) higher and lower values on avoidance 6. Value of Avoiding Unnecessary Blood and $1,020 (at 7 percent discount rate; have been reported. FDA acknowledged Screens $373,000 divided by 365). If blood test these differences in the proposed rule The expected decline in the number results are usually obtained within 24 and solicited comment on other of defective medical gloves should lead hours, the resultant loss of societal well- appropriate measures for estimating the to fewer unnecessary blood screens and being for each test subject is valued at societal value of avoiding blood-borne thereby provide two potential benefits. approximately $8 (at 3 percent discount pathogens. FDA received no responses. First, the direct cost of conducting rate; $585 x 0.013) and $13 (at 7 percent c. Benefit of morbidity avoidance. The screens to determine whether the discount rate, $1,020 x 0.013). rule is expected to reduce both HBV and pathogen was transmitted to health care c. Benefit of test avoidance. By HIV transmissions by reducing the personnel should decrease. Second, the combining avoided direct costs of tests prevalence of defective medical gloves psychological anxiety and stress that and the value of avoided anxiety and used as barrier protection. During the accompanies the possibility that a stress, FDA estimates that the societal first evaluation year, the rule is pathogen was transmitted to an benefit of avoiding an unnecessary expected to result in 0.6 fewer chronic individual should also decrease. blood test is $84 per sample (at 3 HBV transmissions to health care a. Cost of conducting blood screens. percent discount rate) and $89 per personnel. Applying the assumed FDA has collected data from the sample (at 7 percent discount rate).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75875

During the first evaluation year, FDA annual discount rate or a 7 percent 9. Bonel, L., Johns Hopkins University, expects that there will be 120,000 fewer annual discount rate. Benefits of correspondence with John Farnham, July 12, unnecessary blood screens because of avoiding transmissions of blood-borne 2002. the expected reduction in defective pathogens and unnecessary blood 10. Budnick, L., Michigan State University, medical gloves due to the final rule. The correspondence with John Farnham, July 19, screens have been estimated to equal 2002. implied societal WTP to avoid these $14.8 million (using a 3 percent 11. Viscusi, K., ‘‘Fatal Tradeoffs: Public unnecessary screens is $10.1 million (3 discount rate) or $15.1 million (using a and Private Responsibilities for Risk,’’ Oxford percent) and $10.7 million (7 percent). 7 percent discount rate). The final rule University Press, 1992. During the 10th evaluation year, is estimated to result in average 12. Fisher, A., L. Chestnut, et al., ‘‘The approximately 155,000 fewer annualized net benefits of $8.2 million Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on unnecessary blood screens are expected (using a 3 percent discount rate) or $8.5 New Evidence,’’ Journal of Policy, Analysis, with a resultant benefit of $13.0 million million (using a 7 percent discount and Management, 8(1):88–100, 1989. (3 percent) and $14.0 million (7 rate). 13. Mudarri D., EPA, ‘‘The Costs and percent). The PV of each year’s reduced Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An cost of testing and anxiety totals $100.0 IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Assessment of the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993,’’ (HR 3434), 1994. million (at 3 percent discount rate) and This final rule contains no collections 14. U.S. National Center for Health $86.4 million (at 7 percent discount of information that are subject to review Statistics, ‘‘Vital Statistics of the United rate). The average annualized equivalent by OMB under the Paperwork States,’’ 2002. amounts are $11.7 million (3 percent) Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 15. Chen M., J. Bush, et al., ‘‘Social and $12.3 million (7 percent). Between 3501–3520). The information collection Indicators for Health Planning and Policy 85 percent and 90 percent of the average described in this rule regarding testing Analysis,’’ Policy Sciences, 6:71–89, 1975. annualized amounts represent to establish the reconditioning of 16. Kaplan R., J. Bush, et al., ‘‘Health reductions in the direct testing costs adulterated gloves is exempted from the Status: Types of Validity and the Index of Well-Being,’’ Health Services Research, rather than the reduced anxiety requirements of the PRA under 5 CFR associated with possible infection by a winter, 478–507, 1976. 1320.4(a)(2) and (c): The rule describes 17. Kaplan R., J. Bush, ‘‘Health Related contagious agent. testing to be conducted on specific lots Quality of Life Measurement for Evaluation 7. Total Benefits of adulterated gloves ‘‘during the Research and Policy Analysis,’’ Health conduct of an administrative action, Psychology, 1(1):61–80, 1982. FDA estimates that the final rule will investigation, or audit involving the 17a. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, reduce the availability of defective agency against specific individuals’’ 2002, ‘‘CUA Database: Catalog of Preference medical gloves by over 25 percent, (1320.4(a)(2)) and ‘‘after a case file or Scores,’’ Harvard School of Public Health, resulting in over 2.8 billion fewer equivalent is opened with respect to a www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/preferencescores/ pdf, accessed October 26, 2002. defective gloves over a 10-year period. particular party’’ (1320.4(c)). During this time, FDA expects that the 18. Marin M., J. Van Lieu, et al., ‘‘Cost- reduction in defective gloves will result V. References Effectiveness of a Post-Exposure HIV in approximately 7 fewer cases of Chemoprophylaxis Program for Blood The following references have been Exposures in Health Care Workers,’’ Journal chronic HBV, 7 fewer cases of HIV, and placed on display in the Division of of Occupational and Environmental 1.4 million fewer unnecessary blood Dockets Management and may be seen Medicine, 41:9, 754–60, 1999. screens. Based on an implied societal by interested persons between 9 a.m. 19. Radloff L., ‘‘The CES-D Scale: A Self- WTP, the average annualized benefits of and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Report Depression Scale for Research in the the fewer pathogen transmissions and FDA has verified the Web site General Population,’’ Applied Psychological unnecessary blood screens should equal addresses, but is not responsible for Measurement, 1(3):385–401, 1977. $14.8 million (at 3 percent annual 20. Shrout, P., ‘‘The Scaling of Stressful subsequent changes to the Web site after Life Events,’’ (in) Stressful Life Events and discount rate) and $15.1 million (at 7 this document publishes in the Federal percent discount rate). Their Contents, B.S. Dohrenwend and B.P. Register. Dohrenwend (eds), Rutgers University Press, G. Conclusion 1. U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and 1984. Control, ‘‘HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet,’’ 21. Holmes, T. and R. Rahe, ‘‘The Social As noted in the introduction to the www.cdc.gov, 2002. Readjustment Rating Scale,’’ Journal of analysis of impacts section, FDA is 2. U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Psychosomatic Research, 11:213–218, 1967. certifying that the final rule will not Control, ‘‘Surveillance of Health Care 22. Davis M., E. Eshelman, et al., ‘‘The have a significant impact on a Workers with HIV/AIDS,’’ www.cdc.gov, Relaxation and Stress Reduction Workbook,’’ substantial number of small entities. We 2001. MJF Books, 1995. provided the above information to 3. U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 800 explain the costs and benefits of the Control, ‘‘Hepatitis Fact Sheet,’’ www.cdc.gov, 2002. Administrative practice and rule. There are currently over 400 4. U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and manufacturers of medical gloves, a vast Control, ‘‘Updated U.S. Public Health Service procedure, Medical devices, Opthalmic majority of which are foreign and not Guidelines for the Management of goods and services, Packaging and covered by the Regulatory Flexibility Occupational Exposures to HBV, HCV, and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping Act. There will be little to no impact on HIV and Recommendations for Postexposure requirements. domestic entities. Moreover, FDA does Prophylaxis,’’ Morbidity and Mortality I Therefore, under the Federal Food, not expect any increased manufacturer Weekly Report, July 17, 2002. Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 5. American Red Cross, Washington Post, costs to be directly passed on to end authority delegated to the Commissioner users because the cost increases will June 12, 2001. 6. U.S. International Trade Commission, of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 800 is affect only a minority of global ‘‘Import Statistics,’’ www.itc.gov, 2001. amended as follows: manufacturers and, therefore, 7. Eastern Research Group, ‘‘Labeling and competition will likely force these Related Testing Costs for Medical Glove PART 800—GENERAL manufacturers to absorb these costs. Manufacturers,’’ April 17, 2002. The estimated annualized costs equal 8. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, I 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR $6.6 million using either a 3 percent ‘‘Industrial Outlooks,’’ www.bls.gov, 2002. part 800 continues to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75876 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 334, 351, 352, (iii) Automatic water-dispensing assembly upright and hang the assembly 355, 360e, 360i, 360k, 361, 362, 371. apparatus or manual device capable of vertically from the horizontal rod, using I 2. Section 800.20 is amended by delivering 1,000 ml of water; the wire hook on the open end of the fill revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to (iv) Stand with horizontal rod for tube (do not support the filled glove read as follows: hanging the hook end of the plastic while transferring). tube. The horizontal support rod must § 800.20 Patient examination gloves and (B) Make a second observation for surgeons’ gloves; sample plans and test be capable of holding the weight of the leaks 2 minutes after the water is added method for leakage defects; adulteration. total number of gloves that will be to the glove. Use only minimum suspended at any one time, e.g., five * * * * * manipulation of the fingers to check for (b)(1) General test method. For the gloves suspended will weigh about 5 leaks. purposes of this part, FDA’s analysis of kilograms (kg); (v) Timer capable of measuring two (C) Record the number of defective gloves for leaks and visual defects will gloves. be conducted by a visual examination minute intervals. (3) Visual defects and leak test (c) Sampling, inspection, acceptance, and by a water leak test method, using procedures. Examine the sample and and adulteration. In performing the test 1,000 milliliters (ml) of water. (i) Units examined. Each medical identify code/lot number, size, and for leaks and other visual defects glove will be analyzed independently. brand as appropriate. Continue the described in paragraph (b) of this When packaged as pairs, each glove is visual examination using the following section, FDA will collect and inspect considered separately, and both gloves procedures: samples of medical gloves, and will be analyzed. (i) Visual defects examination. determine when the gloves are (ii) Identification of defects. For this Inspect the gloves for visual defects by acceptable as set out in paragraphs (c)(1) test, defects include leaks detected carefully removing the glove from the through (c)(3) of this section. when tested in accordance with wrapper, box, or package. Visually (1) Sample plans. FDA will collect paragraph (b)(3) of this section. A leak examine each glove for defects. As samples from lots of medical gloves in is defined as the appearance of water on noted in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this accordance with agency sampling plans. the outside of the glove. This emergence section, a visual defect observed in the These plans are based on sample sizes, of water from the glove constitutes a top 40 mm of a glove will not be levels of sample inspection, and watertight barrier failure. Other defects counted as a defect for the purpose of acceptable quality levels (AQLs) found include tears, embedded foreign objects, this part. Visually defective gloves do in the International Standard extrusions of glove material on the not require further testing, although Organization’s standard ISO 2859, exterior or interior surface of the glove, they must be included in the total ‘‘Sampling Procedures For Inspection gloves that are fused together so that number of defective gloves counted for By Attributes.’’ individual glove separation is the sample. (ii) Leak test set-up. (A) During this (2) Sample sizes, inspection levels, impossible, gloves that adhere to each and minimum AQLs. FDA will use other and tear when separated, or other procedure, ensure that the exterior of the glove remains dry. Attach the glove single normal sampling for lots of 1,200 visual defects that are likely to affect the gloves or less and multiple normal barrier integrity. to the plastic fill tube by bringing the cuff end to the 40 mm mark and sampling for all larger lots. FDA will use (iii) Factors for counting defects. One general inspection level II in defect in one glove is counted as one fastening with elastic strapping to make a watertight seal. determining the sample size for any lot defect. A defect in both gloves in a pair size. As shown in the tables following of gloves is counted as two defects. If (B) Add 1,000 ml of room temperature paragraph (c)(3) of this section, FDA multiple defects, as defined in water (i.e., 20 (deg)C to 30 (deg)C) into considers a 1.5 AQL to be the minimum paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, are the open end of the fill tube. The water level of quality acceptable for surgeons’ found in one glove, they are counted as should pass freely into the glove. (With gloves and a 2.5 AQL to be the one defect. Visual defects and leaks that some larger sizes of long-cuffed minimum level of quality acceptable for are observed in the top 40 millimeters surgeons’ gloves, the water level may patient examination gloves. (mm) of a glove will not be counted as reach only the base of the thumb. With a defect for the purposes of this part. some smaller gloves, the water level (3) Adulteration levels and accept/ (2) Leak test materials. FDA considers may extend several inches up the fill reject criteria. FDA considers a lot of the following to be the minimum tube.) medical gloves to be adulterated when materials required for this test : (iii) Leak test examination. the number of defective gloves found in (i) A 60 mm by 380 mm (clear) plastic Immediately after adding the water, the tested sample meets or exceeds the cylinder with a hook on one end and a examine the glove for water leaks. Do applicable rejection number at the 1.5 mark scored 40 mm from the other end not squeeze the glove; use only AQL for surgeons’ gloves or the 2.5 AQL (a cylinder of another size may be used minimum manipulation to spread the for patient examination gloves. These if it accommodates both cuff diameter fingers to check for leaks. Water drops acceptance and rejection numbers are and any water above the glove capacity); may be blotted to confirm leaking. identified in the tables following (ii) Elastic strapping with velcro or (A) If the glove does not leak paragraph (c)(3) of this section as other fastening material; immediately, keep the glove/filling tube follows:

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 1.5 AQL FOR SURGEONS’ GLOVES

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Number Examined Accept Reject

8 to 90 Single sample 8 0 1

91 to 280 Single sample 32 1 2

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75877

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 1.5 AQL FOR SURGEONS’ GLOVES—Continued

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Number Examined Accept Reject

281 to 500 Single sample 50 2 3

501 to 1,200 Single sample 80 3 4

1,201 to 3,200 First 32 32 — 4 Second 32 64 1 5 Third 32 96 2 6 Fourth 32 128 3 7 Fifth 32 160 5 8 Sixth 32 192 7 9 Seventh 32 224 9 10

3,201 to 10,000 First 50 50 0 4 Second 50 100 1 6 Third 50 150 3 8 Fourth 50 200 5 10 Fifth 50 250 7 11 Sixth 50 300 10 12 Seventh 50 350 13 14

10,001 to 35,000 First 80 80 0 5 Second 80 160 3 8 Third 80 240 6 10 Fourth 80 320 8 13 Fifth 80 400 11 15 Sixth 80 480 14 17 Seventh 80 560 18 19

35,000 First 125 125 1 7 Second 125 250 4 10 Third 125 375 8 13 Fourth 125 500 12 17 Fifth 125 625 17 20 Sixth 125 750 21 23 Seventh 125 875 25 26

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 2.5 AQL FOR PATIENT EXAMINATION GLOVES

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Number Examined Accept Reject

5 to 50 Single sample 5 0 1

51 to 150 Single sample 20 1 2

151 to 280 Single sample 32 2 3

281 to 500 Single sample 50 3 4

501 to 1,200 Single sample 80 5 6

1,201 to 3,200 First 32 32 0 4 Second 32 64 1 6 Third 32 96 3 8 Fourth 32 128 5 10 Fifth 32 160 7 11 Sixth 32 192 10 12 Seventh 32 224 13 14

3,201 to 10,000 First 50 50 0 5 Second 50 100 3 8 Third 50 150 6 10 Fourth 50 200 8 13 Fifth 50 250 11 15 Sixth 50 300 14 17 Seventh 50 350 18 19

10,001 to 35,000 First 80 80 1 7 Second 80 160 4 10

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75878 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 2.5 AQL FOR PATIENT EXAMINATION GLOVES—Continued

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Number Examined Accept Reject

Third 80 240 8 13 Fourth 80 320 12 17 Fifth 80 400 17 20 Sixth 80 480 21 23 Seventh 80 560 25 26

35,000 and above First 125 125 2 9 Second 125 250 7 14 Third 125 375 13 19 Fourth 125 500 19 25 Fifth 125 625 25 29 Sixth 125 750 31 33 Seventh 125 875 37 38

(d) Compliance. Lots of gloves that are (i) Modified sampling, inspection, and of a lot of adulterated gloves, that is sampled, tested, and rejected using acceptance. If FDA authorizes reconditioned in accordance with procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of reconditioning of a lot or portion of a lot paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, to be this section, are considered adulterated of adulterated gloves, testing to confirm acceptable when the number of within the meaning of section 501(c) of that the reconditioned gloves meet defective gloves found in the tested the act. AQLs must be performed by an sample does not exceed the acceptance (1) Detention and seizure. Lots of independent testing facility. The number in the appropriate tables in gloves that are adulterated under section following tightened sampling plan must paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section for 501(c) of the act are subject to be followed, as described in ISO 2859 reconditioned surgeons’ gloves or administrative and judicial action, such ‘‘Sampling Procedures for Inspection by patient examination gloves. as detention of imported products and Attributes:’’ seizure of domestic products. (A) General inspection level II, (B) FDA considers a reconditioned lot (2) Reconditioning. FDA may (B) Single sampling plans for of medical gloves to be adulterated authorize the owner of the product, or tightened inspection, within the meaning of section 501(c) of the owner’s representative, to attempt to (C) 1.5 AQL for surgeons’ gloves, and the act when the number of defective recondition, i.e., bring into compliance (D) 2.5 AQL for patient examination gloves found in the tested sample meets with the act, a lot or part of a lot of gloves. or exceeds the applicable rejection foreign gloves detained at importation, (ii) Adulteration levels and number in the tables following or a lot or part of a lot of seized acceptance criteria for reconditioned paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section: domestic gloves. gloves. (A) FDA considers a lot or part

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 1.5 AQL FOR RECONDITIONED SURGEONS’ GLOVES

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Accept Reject

13 to 90 Single sample 13 0 1

91 to 500 Single sample 50 1 2

501 to 1,200 Single sample 80 2 3

1,201 to 3,200 Single sample 125 3 4

3,201 to 10,000 Single sample 200 5 6

10,001 to 35,000 Single sample 315 8 9

35,000 and above Single sample 500 12 13

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 2.5 AQL FOR RECONDITIONED PATIENT EXAMINATION GLOVES

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Accept Reject

8 to 50 Single sample 8 0 1

51 to 280 Single sample 32 1 2

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75879

ACCEPT/REJECT CRITERIA AT 2.5 AQL FOR RECONDITIONED PATIENT EXAMINATION GLOVES—Continued

Number Defective Lot Size Sample Sample Size Accept Reject

281 to 500 Single sample 50 2 3

501 to 1,200 Single sample 80 3 4

1,201 to 3,200 Single sample 125 5 6

3,201 to 10,000 Single sample 200 8 9

10,001 to 35,000 Single sample 315 12 13

35,000 and above Single sample 500 18 19

Dated: December 12, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a reorganization are, in pursuance of the Jeffrey Shuren, plan of reorganization, exchanged solely Background Assistant Commissioner for Policy. for stock or securities in such [FR Doc. E6–21591 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] The IRS and Treasury Department corporation or in another corporation a have received requests for immediate BILLING CODE 4160–01–S party to the reorganization. Section guidance regarding whether certain 354(b)(1)(B) provides that section acquisitive transactions can qualify as 354(a)(1) shall not apply to an exchange reorganizations described in section DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY in pursuance of a plan of reorganization 368(a)(1)(D) where no stock of the described in section 368(a)(1)(D) unless Internal Revenue Service transferee corporation is issued and the transferee corporation acquires distributed in the transaction. Currently, substantially all of the assets of the 26 CFR Part 1 the IRS and Treasury Department are transferor corporation, and the stock, undertaking a broad study of issues securities, and other properties received [TD 9303] related to acquisitive section by such transferor corporation, as well RIN 1545–BF84 368(a)(1)(D) reorganizations. In the as the other properties of such transferor interest of efficient tax administration, corporation, are distributed in Corporate Reorganizations; the IRS and Treasury Department are pursuance of the plan of reorganization. Distributions Under Sections issuing these temporary regulations to 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) provide the requested certainty for Further, section 356 provides that if taxpayers regarding these acquisitive section 354 or 355 would apply to an AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), transactions pending the broader study exchange but for the fact that the Treasury. of issues. Although these rules also are property received in the exchange ACTION: Final and temporary being proposed in the Proposed Rules consists not only of property permitted regulations. section in this issue of the Federal by section 354 or 355 without the Register, the IRS and Treasury recognition of gain or loss but also of SUMMARY: This document contains Department contemplate that the other property or money, then the gain, temporary regulations under section 368 proposed rules may change upon if any, to the recipient shall be of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 completion of this broader study and recognized, but not in excess of the (Code). The temporary regulations the comments received. amount of money and fair market value provide guidance regarding the The Code provides general of such other property. Accordingly, in qualification of certain transactions as nonrecognition treatment for the case of an acquisitive transaction, reorganizations described in section reorganizations specifically described in there can only be a distribution to 368(a)(1)(D) where no stock and/or section 368(a). Section 368(a)(1)(D) which section 354 or 356 applies where securities of the acquiring corporation is describes as a reorganization a transfer the target shareholder(s) receive at least issued and distributed in the by a corporation (transferor corporation) some property permitted to be received transaction. These regulations affect of all or a part of its assets to another by section 354. corporations engaging in such corporation (transferee corporation) if, Notwithstanding the requirement in transactions and their shareholders. The immediately after the transfer, the section 368(a)(1)(D) that ‘‘stock or text of the temporary regulations also transferor corporation or one or more of securities of the corporation to which serves as the text of the proposed its shareholders (including persons who the assets are transferred are distributed regulations set forth in the notice of were shareholders immediately before in a transaction which qualifies under proposed rulemaking on this subject in the transfer), or any combination section 354, 355, or 356’’, the IRS and the Proposed Rules section in this issue thereof, is in control of the transferee the courts have not required the actual of the Federal Register. corporation; but only if stock or issuance and distribution of stock and/ DATES: Effective Date: These regulations securities of the controlled corporation or securities of the transferee are effective on December 19, 2006. are distributed in pursuance of a plan of corporation in circumstances where the Applicability Date: For dates of reorganization in a transaction that same person or persons own all the applicability, see § 1.368–2T(l)(4)(i). qualifies under section 354, 355, or 356. stock of the transferor corporation and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Section 354(a)(1) provides that no the transferee corporation. In such Bruce A. Decker at (202) 622–7550 (not gain or loss shall be recognized if stock circumstances, the IRS and the courts a toll-free number). or securities in a corporation a party to have viewed an issuance of stock to be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75880 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

a ‘‘meaningless gesture’’ not mandated stock would not be a mere formality and These temporary regulations are being by sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b). refused to apply the meaningless gesture issued in response to requests for In Revenue Ruling 70–240, 1970–1 CB doctrine. Accordingly, the transaction immediate guidance regarding whether 81 (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter), failed to qualify as a section 368(a)(1)(D) transactions otherwise described in B owned all of the stock of both reorganization because there was no section 368(a)(1)(D) qualify as corporation X and corporation Y. X sold distribution of stock of the transferee reorganizations where no stock and/or its operating assets to Y for $34x dollars, corporation under sections 368(a)(1)(D) securities of the transferee corporation which represented the fair market value and 354(b)(1)(B). are actually issued in the transaction. of X’s assets. X had $33x of other assets, The IRS and Treasury Department Explanation of Provisions consisting generally of cash, accounts currently are undertaking a broad study receivables, and investments in stocks These temporary regulations provide of issues related to acquisitive and bonds, so that the assets sold by X guidance regarding the circumstances in reorganizations, including issues to Y constituted approximately 51% of which the distribution requirement addressed by these temporary X’s total assets. Following the sale to Y, under sections 368(a)(1)(D) and regulations. The IRS and Treasury X paid its debts, which amounted to 354(b)(1)(B) is deemed satisfied despite Department are issuing these temporary $38x, and then liquidated, distributing the fact that no stock and/or securities regulations in order to provide certainty $29x to B, while Y continued to conduct are actually issued in a transaction for taxpayers while these issues are the business formerly operated by X. otherwise described in section under study. The IRS concluded that ‘‘although no 368(a)(1)(D). In cases where the same The IRS and Treasury Department actual shares of the stock of Y were person or persons own, directly or believe that these temporary regulations distributed to B as a result of the indirectly, all of the stock of the are a reasonable interpretation of section transaction, B is treated as having transferor and transferee corporations in 368(a)(1)(D) and section 354(b)(1)(B) received Y stock since he already owned identical proportions, these temporary given the history of those provisions all the stock of Y.’’ Accordingly, the IRS regulations provide that the distribution and the manner in which they have held that the sale of the operating assets requirement under sections 368(a)(1)(D) previously been interpreted by the by X to Y, followed by the liquidation and 354(b)(1)(B) will be treated as courts and the IRS. However, no and distribution of X’s assets to B, satisfied even though no stock is inference should be drawn from these resulted in a reorganization under actually issued in the transaction. For temporary regulations regarding the law section 368(a)(1)(D) and a distribution purposes of determining whether the prior to the effective date of these under section 356(a), despite the same person or persons own all of the temporary regulations. In the Proposed absence of an actual issuance and stock of the transferor and transferee Rules section in this issue of the Federal distribution of Y stock. corporations in identical proportions, Register, the IRS and Treasury When considering a similar these temporary regulations provide that Department are requesting comments on transaction between two corporations an individual and all members of his several issues relating to acquisitive owned in identical proportions by a family that have a relationship reorganizations described in section husband and wife, the Tax Court described in section 318(a)(1) will be 368(a)(1)(D). concluded that there was in substance treated as one individual. In addition, the IRS and Treasury an exchange of stock which meets the The temporary regulations also Department note that these temporary requirements of section 354 and 356, provide that the distribution regulations do not expressly implement and stated, ‘‘[t]he issuance of further requirement under sections 368(a)(1)(D) Prop. Reg. § 1.368–1(f)(4) (FR 70, 11903– stock would have been a meaningless and 354(b)(1)(B) will be treated as 11912), which provides that there must gesture, and we cannot conclude that satisfied in the absence of any issuance be an exchange of net value except in the statute requires such a vain act.’’ of stock and/or securities where there is the case of a transaction that would James Armour, Inc. v. Commissioner, 43 a de minimis variation in shareholder otherwise qualify as a reorganization T.C. 295, 307 (1964). See also Wilson v. identity or proportionality of ownership described in section 368(a)(1)(D), Commissioner, 46 T.C. 334 (1966). The in the transferor and transferee provided that the fair market value of IRS has also applied this meaningless corporations. Further, stock described in the property transferred to the acquiring gesture doctrine to circumstances where section 1504(a)(4) is disregarded for corporation by the target corporation the transferor corporation and the purposes of determining whether the exceeds the amount of liabilities of the transferee corporation are wholly owned same person or persons own all of the target corporation immediately before by a single party directly or indirectly stock of the transferor and transferee the exchange (including any liabilities through subsidiaries, or as a result of corporations in identical proportions. cancelled, extinguished, or assumed in family attribution pursuant to section Under these temporary regulations, in connection with the exchange), and the 318(a)(1). each case where it is determined that fair market value of the assets of the However, the application of this the same person or persons own all of acquiring corporation equals or exceeds meaningless gesture doctrine has the stock of the transferor and transferee the amount of its liabilities immediately generally been limited to situations in corporations in identical proportions, a after the exchange. The solvency which there is identical shareholder nominal share of stock of the transferee requirement remains the IRS’s and identity and proportionality of interest corporation will be deemed issued in Treasury Department’s proposal but the in the transferor corporation and the addition to the actual consideration IRS and Treasury Department continue transferee corporation. For example, in exchanged in the transaction. The to consider whether this solvency Warsaw Photographic Associates, Inc. v. nominal share of stock in the transferee requirement should be applied to the Commissioner, 84 T.C. 21 (1985), there corporation will then be deemed transactions described in these was no issuance of stock by the distributed by the transferor corporation temporary regulations. transferee corporation to the transferor to its shareholders and, in appropriate corporation, and the stock ownership in circumstances, further transferred to the Special Analyses the two corporations was not identical. extent necessary to reflect the actual It has been determined that this On the basis of these facts, the Tax ownership of the transferor and Treasury decision is not a significant Court concluded that the distribution of transferee corporations. regulatory action as defined in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75881

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a (2) Distribution requirement—(i) In Example 1. A owns all the stock of T and regulatory assessment is not required. It general. For purposes of paragraph (l)(1) S. The T stock has a fair market value of also has been determined that section of this section, a transaction otherwise $100x. T sells all of its assets to S in exchange for $100x of cash and immediately 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure described in section 368(a)(1)(D) will be liquidates. Because there is complete Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply treated as satisfying the requirements of shareholder identity and proportionality of to these regulations. For the sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) ownership in T and S, under paragraph applicability of the Regulatory notwithstanding that there is no actual (l)(2)(i) of this section, the requirements of Flexibility Act, please refer to the cross- issuance of stock and/or securities of the sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) are reference notice of proposed rulemaking transferee corporation if the same treated as satisfied notwithstanding the fact published elsewhere in this Federal person or persons own, directly or that no S stock is issued. Pursuant to Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of indirectly, all of the stock of the paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, S will be deemed to issue a nominal share of S stock the Internal Revenue Code, these transferor and transferee corporations in to T in addition to the $100x of cash actually regulations were submitted to the Chief identical proportions. In such cases, the exchanged for the T assets, and T will be Counsel for Advocacy of the Small transferee corporation will be deemed to deemed to distribute all such consideration Business Administration for comment issue a nominal share of stock to the to A. The transaction qualifies as a on their impact on small business. transferor corporation in addition to the reorganization described in section 368(a)(1)(D). Drafting Information actual consideration exchanged for the transferor corporation’s assets. The Example 2. The facts are the same as in The principal author of these nominal share of stock in the transferee Example 1 except that C, A’s son, owns all regulations is Bruce A. Decker of the corporation will then be deemed of the stock of S. Under paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, A and C are treated as one Office of the Associate Chief Counsel distributed by the transferor corporation (Corporate). individual. Accordingly, there is complete to its shareholders and, where shareholder identity and proportionality of List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 appropriate, further transferred through ownership in T and S. Therefore, under chains of ownership to the extent paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, the Income taxes, Reporting and necessary to reflect the actual requirements of sections 368(a)(1)(D) and recordkeeping requirements. ownership of the transferor and 354(b)(1)(B) are treated as satisfied Amendments to the Regulations transferee corporations. notwithstanding the fact that no S stock is issued. Pursuant to paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is (ii) Attribution. For purposes of section, S will be deemed to issue a nominal amended as follows: paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, share of S stock to T in addition to the $100x ownership of stock will be determined of cash actually exchanged for the T assets, PART 1—INCOME TAXES by applying the principles of section and T will be deemed to distribute all such consideration to A. A will be deemed to Paragraph 1. The authority citation 318(a)(2) without regard to the 50 percent limitation in section transfer the nominal share of S stock to C. for part 1 continues to read in part as The transaction qualifies as a reorganization follows: 318(a)(2)(C). In addition, an individual described in section 368(a)(1)(D). and all members of his family described Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Example 3. P owns all of the stock of S1 in section 318(a)(1) shall be treated as and S2. S1 owns all of the stock of S3, which Par. 2. Section 1.368–2 is amended by one individual. owns all of the stock of T. S2 owns all of the adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: (iii) De minimis variations in stock of S4, which owns all of the stock of ownership and certain stock not taken S. The T stock has a fair market value of § 1.368–2 Definition of terms. $70x. T sells all of its assets to S in exchange into account. For purposes of paragraph for $70x of cash and immediately liquidates. * * * * * (l)(2)(i) of this section, the same person (l) [Reserved]. For further guidance, Under paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, or persons will be treated as owning, there is indirect, complete shareholder see § 1.368–2T(l). directly or indirectly, all of the stock of Par. 3. Section 1.368–2T is added to identity and proportionality of ownership in the transferor and transferee T and S. Accordingly, the requirements of read as follows: corporations in identical proportions sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) are § 1.368–2T Definition of terms (temporary). notwithstanding the fact that there is a treated as satisfied notwithstanding the fact that no S stock is issued. Pursuant to (a) through (k) [Reserved]. For further de minimis variation in shareholder identity or proportionality of paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, S will be guidance, see § 1.368–2(a) through (k). deemed to issue a nominal share of S stock (l) Certain transactions treated as ownership. Additionally, for purposes to T in addition to the $70x of cash actually reorganizations described in section of paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, exchanged for the T assets, and T will be 368(a)(1)(D)—(1) General rule. In order stock described in section 1504(a)(4) is deemed to distribute all such consideration to qualify as a reorganization under not taken into account. to S3. S3 will be deemed to distribute the section 368(a)(1)(D), a corporation (3) Examples. The following examples nominal share of S stock to S1, which, in turn, will be deemed to distribute the (transferor corporation) must transfer all illustrate the principles of paragraph (l) nominal share of S stock to P. P will be or part of its assets to another of this section. For purposes of these deemed to transfer the nominal share of S corporation (transferee corporation) and examples, each of A, B, C, and D is an stock to S2, which, in turn, will be deemed immediately after the transfer the individual, T is the acquired to transfer such share of S stock to S4. The transferor corporation, or one or more of corporation, S is the acquiring transaction qualifies as a reorganization its shareholders (including persons who corporation, P is the parent corporation, described in section 368(a)(1)(D). were shareholders immediately before and each of S1, S2, S3, and S4 is a direct Example 4. A, B, and C own 34%, 33%, the transfer), or any combination or indirect subsidiary of P. Further, all and 33%, respectively, of the stock of T. The thereof, must be in control of the of the requirements of section T stock has a fair market value of $100x. A, transferee corporation; but only if, in 368(a)(1)(D) other than the requirement B, and C each own 33% of the stock of S. D owns the remaining 1% of the stock of S. T pursuance of the plan, stock or that stock or securities be distributed in sells all of its assets to S in exchange for securities of the transferee are a transaction to which section 354 or $100x of cash and immediately liquidates. distributed in a transaction which 356 applies are satisfied. The examples For purposes of determining whether the qualifies under section 354, 355, or 356. are as follows: distribution requirement of sections

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75882 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) is met, under provisions of these temporary misleading and are in need of paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, D’s regulations to transactions occurring clarification. ownership of a de minimis amount of stock before March 19, 2007. However, the Correction of Publication of S is disregarded and the transaction is transferor corporation, the transferee treated as if there is complete shareholder Accordingly, the final regulations (TD identity and proportionality of ownership in corporation, any direct or indirect transferee of transferred basis property 9297) that were the subject of FR Doc. T and S. Because there is complete E6–19135 are corrected as follows: shareholder identity and proportionality of from either of the foregoing, and any ownership in T and S, under paragraph shareholder of the transferor or 1. On page 66232, column 2, in the (l)(2)(i) of this section, the requirements of transferee corporation may not apply preamble, under the ‘‘Title Headings’’, sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) are the provisions of these temporary the language [TD[9297]]’’ is corrected to treated as satisfied notwithstanding the fact regulations unless all such taxpayers read ‘‘[TD 9297].’’ that no S stock is issued. Pursuant to apply the provisions of the temporary 2. On page 66232, column 2, in the paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, S will be regulations. preamble, under the paragraph heading, deemed to issue a nominal share of S stock (ii) Expiration. This section expires on ‘‘Background’’, first paragraph of the to T in addition to the $100x of cash actually or before December 18, 2009. column, lines 1 through 5 from the exchanged for the T assets, T will be deemed bottom of the paragraph, the language to distribute all such consideration to A, B, Mark E. Matthews, ‘‘section 937(a) dealing with and C, and the nominal S stock will be Deputy Commissioner for Services and deemed transferred among the S shareholders determining residency in a territory, Enforcement. to the extent necessary to reflect their actual adopting with amendments the ownership of S. The transaction qualifies as Approved: December 6, 2006. proposed regulations (specifically, a reorganization described in section Eric Solomon, § 1.937–1 and 1.881–5T(f)(4))’’ is 368(a)(1)(D). Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the corrected to read ‘‘section 937(a) Example 5. The facts are the same as in Treasury, (Tax Policy). concerning the determination of Example 4 except that A, B, and C own 34%, [FR Doc. E6–21565 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] residency in a territory and adopting 33%, and 33%, respectively, of the common BILLING CODE 4830–01–P with amendments the proposed stock of T and S. D owns preferred stock in regulations (specifically, §§ 1.937–1 and S described in section 1504(a)(4). For 1.881–5(f)(4)).’’ purposes of determining whether the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 3. On page 66232, column 3, in the distribution requirement of sections preamble, under the paragraph heading, 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) is met, under Internal Revenue Service paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, D’s ‘‘Background’’, second paragraph of the ownership of S stock described in section column, line 8 from the bottom of the 1504(a)(4) is ignored and the transaction is 26 CFR Part 1 paragraph, the language ‘‘relevant treated as if there is complete shareholder [TD 9297] territory for the purposes of the’’ is identity and proportionality of ownership in corrected to read ‘‘relevant territory for T and S. Because there is complete RIN 1545–BG02 purposes of the’’. shareholder identity and proportionality of 4. On page 66232, column 3, in the ownership in T and S, under paragraph Residence Rules Involving U.S. preamble, under the paragraph heading, (l)(2)(i) of this section, the requirements of Possessions; Correction ‘‘Background’’, third paragraph of the sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) are column, line 10 from the bottom of the treated as satisfied notwithstanding the fact AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), that no S stock is issued. Pursuant to Treasury. paragraph, the language ‘‘presence test of section 7701(b) on the’’ is corrected paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section, S will be ACTION: Correction to final regulations. deemed to issue a nominal share of S stock to read ‘‘presence test of section 7701(b) to T in addition to the $100x of cash actually SUMMARY: This document contains to determine bona fide residency in a exchanged for the T assets, and T will be corrections to final regulations that were territory on the’’. deemed to distribute all such consideration published in the Federal Register on 5. On page 66233, column 1, in the to A, B, and C. The transaction qualifies as Tuesday, November 14, 2006 (71 FR preamble, under the paragraph heading, a reorganization described in section ‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’, first 368(a)(1)(D). 66232) relating to rules for determining bona fide residency in the following paragraph of the column, lines 12 and Example 6. A and B each own 50% of the 13, the language, ‘‘for business pursuits, stock of T. The T stock has a fair market U.S. territories: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto have concluded nonetheless that such a value of $100x. B and C own 90% and 10%, rule would be’’ is corrected to read ‘‘for respectively, of the stock of S. T sells all of Rico, and the United States Virgin its assets to S in exchange for $100x of cash Islands. business pursuits but have concluded and immediately liquidates. Because that such a rule would be’’. DATES: These corrections are effective 6. On page 66233, column 1, in the complete shareholder identity and November 14, 2006. proportionality of ownership in T and S does preamble, under the paragraph heading, not exist, paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’, first does not apply. The requirements of sections David Varley, (202) 435–5262 (not a toll- paragraph, line 4 from the bottom of the 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) are not satisfied, free number). paragraph, the language ‘‘the final and the transaction does not qualify as a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulations, provide sufficient’’ is reorganization described in section corrected to read ‘‘these final 368(a)(1)(D). Background regulations, provide sufficient’’. (4) Effective date—(i) In general. This The final regulations (TD 9297) that 7. On page 66233, column 1, in the section applies to transactions occurring are the subject of these corrections are preamble, under the paragraph heading, on or after March 19, 2007, except that under section 937 of the Internal ‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’, second they do not apply to any transaction Revenue Code. paragraph, lines 15 through 19 from the occurring pursuant to a written bottom of the paragraph, the language agreement which is binding before Need for Correction ‘‘States, even though the individual is December 19, 2006, and at all times As published, the final regulations not present in the United States, and thereafter. A taxpayer may apply the (TD 9297) contain errors that may be will treat such days as days of presence

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75883

in the relevant territory. In addition, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for subsistence take of species in regulations provide for relief in case’’ is Peter J. Probasco, Office of Subsistence specific areas. Subpart D regulations for corrected to read ‘‘States, even if the Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the 2006 fishing seasons, harvest limits, individual is physically present in the Service, telephone (907) 786–3888. For and methods and means were published United States, and will treat such days questions specific to National Forest on March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15569). as days of presence in the relevant System lands, contact Steve Kessler, Because this action relates to public territory. In addition, the regulations Subsistence Program Manager, USDA— lands managed by an agency or agencies provide for similar relief in case’’. Forest Service, Alaska Region, in both the Departments of Agriculture 8. On page 66233, column 2, in the telephone (907) 786–3592. and the Interior, identical closures and preamble, under the paragraph heading, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: adjustments would apply to 36 CFR part ‘‘Explanation of Provisions’’, third 242 and 50 CFR part 100. paragraph of the column, lines 8 and 9, Background The Alaska Department of Fish and the language ‘‘accommodate the realities Title VIII of the Alaska National Game (ADF&G), under the direction of of business cycles and life in the Interest Lands Conservation Act the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF), territories. The IRS’’ is corrected to read (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126) manages sport, commercial, personal ‘‘accommodate the reality that business requires that the Secretary of the Interior use, and State subsistence harvest on all cycles and life in the territories may and the Secretary of Agriculture lands and waters throughout Alaska. require more time away from the (Secretaries) implement a joint program However, on Federal lands and waters, territories in some years than in others. to grant a preference for subsistence the Federal Subsistence Board The IRS’’. uses of fish and wildlife resources on implements a subsistence priority for rural residents as provided by title VIII La Nita VanDyke, public lands in Alaska, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of ANILCA. In providing this priority, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, the Board may, when necessary, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate of general applicability that are preempt State harvest regulations for Chief Counsel (Procedure and consistent with ANILCA and that Administration). provide for the subsistence definition, fish or wildlife on Federal lands and waters. [FR Doc. E6–21566 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] preference, and participation specified BILLING CODE 4830–01–P in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of Current Management Actions ANILCA. In December 1989, the Alaska These actions are authorized and in Supreme Court ruled that the rural accordance with 50 CFR 100.19(d–e) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE preference in the State subsistence and 36 CFR 242.19(d–e). statute violated the Alaska Constitution Forest Service and, therefore, negated State compliance Tustumena Lake with ANILCA. The Ninilchik Traditional Council 36 CFR Part 242 The Department of the Interior and requested a special winter subsistence the Department of Agriculture fishery through the ice in Tustumena DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, Lake. The Southcentral Alaska Regional responsibility for implementation of Advisory Council recommended Fish and Wildlife Service title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. adopting this seasonal adjustment with The Departments administer title VIII minor modifications during their fall 50 CFR Part 100 through regulations at title 50, part 100 2006 meeting. The Board met in public and title 36, part 242 of the Code of work session on November 16–17, 2006, Subsistence Management Regulations Federal Regulations (CFR). Consistent for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart D; during which it took up and approved with subparts A, B, and C of these this request with modifications. The Seasonal Adjustments—Tustumena regulations, as revised January 8, 1999 Lake resulting seasonal adjustment will (64 FR 1276), the Departments expire March 31, 2007. AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Fish established a Federal Subsistence Board The season adjustment provides for and Wildlife Service, Interior. to administer the Federal Subsistence the take of fish in Tustumena Lake using ACTION: Seasonal adjustment. Management Program. The Board’s a single gillnet not to exceed 10 fathoms composition includes a Chair appointed fished under the ice or jigging gear used SUMMARY: This provides notice of the by the Secretary of the Interior with through the ice, under authority of a Federal Subsistence Board’s action to concurrence of the Secretary of Federal subsistence fishing permit. The provide winter subsistence harvest Agriculture; the Alaska Regional total annual harvest quota for this opportunities for lake trout, Dolly Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; fishery is 200 lake trout, 200 rainbow Varden, and rainbow trout in the Alaska Regional Director, National trout, and 500 Dolly Varden. Gillnets are Tustumena Lake. The fishing Park Service; the Alaska State Director, not allowed within 1⁄4 mile of any opportunity in Tustumena Lake Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska tributary or outlet stream of Tustumena provides an exception to the Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Lake. All harvests must be reported to Subsistence Management Regulations Affairs; and the Alaska Regional the Federal fisheries manager within 72 for Public Lands in Alaska, published in Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through hours upon leaving the fishing location. the Federal Register on March 29, 2006. the Board, these agencies participate in Gill nets must be checked at least once Those regulations established seasons, the development of regulations for in every 48-hour period. Incidentally harvest limits, methods, and means subparts A, B, and C, which establish caught fish may be retained and must be relating to the taking of fish and the program structure and determine recorded on the permit. When a harvest shellfish for subsistence uses during the which Alaska residents are eligible to quota for any of the three species is 2006 regulatory year. take specific species for subsistence reached, the gillnet fishery will be DATES: This Board action is effective uses, and the annual subpart D closed. November 17, 2006, through March 31, regulations, which establish seasons, This fishery, along with ongoing 2007. harvest limits, and methods and means existing fisheries, is within

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75884 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

recommended sustainable harvest impacts on subsistence uses, but the The Service has determined and guidelines based upon currently program is not likely to significantly certifies under the Unfunded Mandates available information. restrict subsistence uses. Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that the adjustment will not impose a cost of Conformance With Statutory and Paperwork Reduction Act $100 million or more in any given year Regulatory Authorities The information collection on local or State governments or private Administrative Procedure Act requirements contained in this seasonal entities. The implementation is by adjustment have been approved by the Federal agencies, and no cost is The Board finds that additional public Office of Management and Budget notice and comment requirements involved to any State or local entities or (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Tribal governments. under the Administrative Procedure Act Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and The Service has determined that the (APA) for this adjustment is assigned OMB control number 1018– adjustment meets the applicable impracticable, unnecessary, and 0075, which expires October 31, 2009. contrary to the public interest. Lack of Federal Agencies may not conduct or standards provided in Sections 3(a) and appropriate and immediate measures sponsor, and a person is not required to 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, could adversely impact subsistence respond to, a collection of information regarding civil justice reform. opportunities for rural Alaskans and unless it displays a currently valid OMB In accordance with Executive Order would generally fail to serve the overall control number. 13132, the adjustment does not have public interest. Therefore, the Board sufficient federalism implications to finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Other Requirements warrant the preparation of a Federalism 553(b)(3)(B) to waive additional public This seasonal adjustment has been Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA notice and comment procedures prior to exempted from OMB review under precludes the State from exercising implementation of this action and Executive Order 12866. subsistence management authority over pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 fish and wildlife resources on Federal this rule effective as indicated in the (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires lands. Cooperative salmon run DATES section. preparation of flexibility analyses for assessment efforts with ADF&G will rules that will have a significant effect continue. National Environmental Policy Act on a substantial number of small In accordance with the President’s Compliance entities, which include small memorandum of April 29, 1994, A Final Environmental Impact businesses, organizations, or ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Statement (FEIS) was published on governmental jurisdictions. The exact with Native American Tribal February 28, 1992, and a Record of number of businesses and the amount of Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive Decision on Subsistence Management trade that will result from this Federal Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have for Federal Public Lands in Alaska land-related activity is unknown. The evaluated possible effects on Federally (ROD) was signed April 6, 1992. The aggregate effect is an insignificant recognized Indian tribes and have final rule for Subsistence Management economic effect (both positive and determined that there are no significant Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, negative) on a small number of small direct effects. The Bureau of Indian subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940, entities supporting subsistence Affairs is a participating agency in this published May 29, 1992), implemented activities, such as boat, fishing gear, and rulemaking. the Federal Subsistence Management gasoline dealers. The number of small Program and included a framework for entities affected is unknown; however, On May 18, 2001, the President issued an annual cycle for subsistence hunting the effects will be seasonally and Executive Order 13211 on regulations and fishing regulations. An geographically limited in nature and that significantly affect energy supply, environmental assessment related to will likely not be significant. The distribution, or use. This Executive expansion of jurisdiction for fisheries Departments certify that the adjustment Order requires agencies to prepare was prepared in November 1998. A final will not have a significant economic Statements of Energy Effects when rule that redefined the jurisdiction of effect on a substantial number of small undertaking certain actions. As this the Federal Subsistence Management entities within the meaning of the action is not expected to significantly Program to include waters subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the affect energy supply, distribution, or subsistence priority was published on Small Business Regulatory Enforcement use, it is not a significant energy action January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276). Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this and no Statement of Energy Effects is rule is not a major rule. It does not have required. Section 810 of ANILCA an effect on the economy of $100 Drafting Information The intent of all Federal subsistence million or more, will not cause a major regulations is to accord subsistence uses increase in costs or prices for Bill Knauer drafted this document of fish and wildlife on public lands a consumers, and does not have under the guidance of Peter J. Probasco, priority over the taking of fish and significant adverse effects on of the Office of Subsistence wildlife on such lands for other competition, employment, investment, Management, Alaska Regional Office, purposes, unless restriction is necessary productivity, innovation, or the ability U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to conserve healthy fish and wildlife of U.S.-based enterprises to compete Anchorage, Alaska. Chuck Ardizzone, populations. A section 810 analysis was with foreign-based enterprises. Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land completed as part of the FEIS process. Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Management; Jerry Berg, Alaska The final section 810 analysis Secretaries to administer a subsistence Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife determination appeared in the April 6, preference on public lands. The scope of Service; Nancy Swanton, Alaska 1992, ROD, which concluded that the this program is limited by definition to Regional Office, National Park Service; Federal Subsistence Management certain public lands. Likewise, the Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Program, under Alternative IV with an adjustment has no potential takings of Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Steve annual process for setting hunting and private property implications as defined Kessler, USDA-Forest Service, provided fishing regulations, may have some local by Executive Order 12630. additional guidance.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75885

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, by contacting the office where the maps from the requirements of 44 CFR part 3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C. are available for inspection as indicated 10, Environmental Consideration. An 1733. on the table below. environmental impact assessment has Dated: December 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each not been prepared. Peter J. Probasco, community are available for inspection Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. at the office of the Chief Executive elevation determinations are not within Dated: December 1, 2006. Officer of each community. The the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Steve Kessler, respective addresses are listed in the Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest table below. flexibility analysis is not required. Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Classification. This final [FR Doc. 06–9761 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P Management Section, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Executive Order 12866 of September 30, Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. SECURITY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Federal Emergency Management Agency This final rule involves no policies that Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) makes the final determinations have federalism implications under Agency listed below for the modified BFEs for Executive Order 13132. each community listed. These modified Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 44 CFR Part 67 elevations have been published in Reform. This final rule meets the newspapers of local circulation and applicable standards of Executive Order Final Flood Elevation Determinations ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 12988. publication. The Mitigation Division AGENCY: Federal Emergency List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Director of FEMA has resolved any Management Agency, DHS. appeals resulting from this notification. Administrative practice and ACTION: Final rule. This final rule is issued in accordance procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting with section 110 of the Flood Disaster and recordkeeping requirements. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has BFEs are made final for the amended as follows: developed criteria for floodplain communities listed below. The BFEs management in floodprone areas in and modified BFEs are the basis for the PART 67—[AMENDED] accordance with 44 CFR part 60. floodplain management measures that 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 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, remain qualified for participation in the 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] DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood selected locations in each community Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing are shown. I 2. The tables published under the BFEs and modified BFEs for each National Environmental Policy Act. authority of § 67.11 are amended as community. This date may be obtained This final rule is categorically excluded follows:

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

Town of Brockton, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... Town of Brockton ...... Missouri River ...... Approximately 12.7 miles downstream of +1,930 County Road Bridge. Approximately 13.0 miles downstream of +1,931 County Road Bridge.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Brockton Maps available for inspection at: City Office, 716 B Avenue, Brockton, Montana.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75886 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 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

Town of Culbertson, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... Town of Culbertson ...... Missouri River ...... Approximately 7.76 miles downstream of +1,910 confluence of Big Muddy Creek. Approximately 7.0 miles downstream of +1,910 confluence of Big Muddy Creek.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Culbertson Maps available for inspection at: Town Hall, 210 Broadway, Culbertson, Montana.

McCone County and Unincorporated Areas, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... McCone County (Unin- Missouri River...... Approximately 20 miles downstream of +1,956 corporated Areas). State Route 13. Approximately 26.9 miles upstream of +2,038 confluence of Little Porcupine Creek.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES McCone County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at: County Courthouse, 1004 C Avenue, Circle, Montana.

Town of Medicine Lake, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... Town of Medicine Lake Big Muddy Creek ...... Approximately 1,000 feet south of West +1,944 Lake Road. Approximately 2,500 feet north of West +1,948 Lake Road.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Medicine Lake Maps are available for inspection at 103 E. Hamilton St., Sheridan, Montana 59749.

City of Nashua, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... City of Nashua ...... Porcupine Creek ...... Approximately 0.41 miles downstream of +2,058 U.S. Highway 2. Approximately 0.78 miles upstream of +2,068 U.S. Highway 2.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Nashua Maps available for inspection at: Civic Center, 805 Front Street, Nashua, Montana.

City of Poplar, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... City of Poplar ...... Poplar River ...... Approximately 0.23 miles upstream of +1,966 U.S. Highway 2. Approximately 0.27 miles upstream of +1,966 U.S. Highway 2.

# Depth in feet above ground.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75887

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

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Poplar Maps available for inspection at: City Hall, 406 2nd Avenue West, Poplar, Montana.

City of Wolf Point, Montana Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Montana ...... City of Wolf Point ...... Missouri River ...... Static flooding along 6th Avenue S. from +1,985 Helena Street south to Idaho Street.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES City of Wolf Point Maps available for inspection at: City Office, 201 4th Avenue South, Wolf Point, Montana.

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

Boone County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7468

Ohio River ...... At confluence of Dry Creek ...... +495 Boone County (Unincorporated Areas). At confluence of Big Bone Creek ...... +478

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + National American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Boone County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Boone County Planning Commission, Boone County Administration Building, 3rd Floor, 2950 Wash- ington Street, Burlington, KY 41005.

De Soto County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7459

Arkabutla Reservoir ...... Flood pool ...... +245 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). Bean Patch Creek ...... At confluence with Camp Creek ...... +273 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City At Pleasant Hill Road ...... +302 of Southaven. At College Road ...... +328 200 feet downstream of Getwell Road ...... +372 Bean Patch Creek Trib- At confluence with Bean Patch Creek ...... +282 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). utary 1. 2444 feet upstream of Sandy Betts Road ...... +331 Bean Patch Creek Trib- At confluence with Bean Patch Creek ...... +296 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). utary 2. 78 feet upstream of Itasca Drive ...... +347 Bean Patch Creek Trib- At confluence with Bean Patch Creek ...... +303 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). utary 3. 1467 feet upstream of College Road ...... +337 Byhalia Creek ...... At confluence with Pigeon Roost Creek ...... +275 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 2638 feet upstream of Myers Road ...... +298 Camp Creek ...... At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +256 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas) City of At College Road ...... +299 Olive Branch. At Goodman Road ...... +331 At Germantown Road ...... +346 At Montrose Drive ...... +361 1790 feet upstream of Alexander Road ...... +372 Camp Creek Tributary 1 At confluence with Camp Creek ...... +273 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 180 feet upstream of Ross Road ...... +317 Camp Creek Tributary 2 At confluence with Camp Creek ...... +292 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 170 feet upstream of Dunn Lane ...... +348 Cane Creek Tributary 1 At confluence with Arkabutla Reservoir ...... +245 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 2100 feet upstream of Robertson Gin Road ..... +251

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75888 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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

Cane Creek Tributary At confluence with Cane Creek Tributary 1 ...... +245 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 1.1. 4300 feet upstream of confluence with Cane +245 Creek Tributary 1. Coldwater River ...... 16200 feet downstream of Arkabutla Dam ...... +191 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 3318 feet downstream of Arkabutla Dam ...... +195 26735 feet downstream of Holly Springs Road +245 2010 feet upstream of confluence with +301 Coldwater River Tributary 8. Coldwater River Tribu- At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +279 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 5. 2390 feet upstream of Bethel Road ...... +299 Coldwater River Tribu- At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +283 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 6. 160 feet downstream of Red Banks Road ...... +308 Coldwater River Tribu- At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +298 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 7. 13233 feet upstream of Center Hill Road ...... +365 Coldwater River Tribu- At confluence with Coldwater River Tributary 7 +298 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 7.1. 2515 feet upstream of Center Hill Road ...... +341 Coldwater River Tribu- At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +300 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 8. 2038 feet upstream of Center Hill Road ...... +365 Coldwater River Tribu- At confluence with Coldwater River Tributary 8 +315, De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 8.1. 5004 feet upstream of confluence with +368 Coldwater River Tributary 8. Cow Pen Creek ...... At Goodman Road ...... +261 City of Horn Lake At Nail Road ...... +274 Dry Creek ...... At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +271 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 8348 feet upstream of Byhalia Road ...... +303 Horn Lake Creek Tribu- 790 feet upstream of Goodman Road ...... +264 City of Horn Lake. tary 1. 407 feet upstream of Nail Road ...... +292 Hurricane Creek ...... 1535 feet upstream of Odom Road ...... +265 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City 423 feet upstream of Bridgemore Drive ...... +346 of Hernando. Hurricane Creek Tribu- 1022 feet downstream of Horn Lake Road ...... +245 De Soto County Unincorporated Areas), City of tary 2. 12800 feet upstream of Horn Lake Road ...... +275 Hernando. Hurricane Creek Tribu- 1079 feet downstream of Nesbit Road ...... +262 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 3.1. 740 feet downstream of Highway 51 ...... +300 of Hernando, City of Horn Lake, City of Southaven. Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek Tributary +262 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 3.1.1. 3.1. +297 600 feet upstream of Starlanding Road ...... Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek Tributary +291 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 3.1.2. 3.1. +301 of Southaven. 255 feet downstream of Highway 51 ...... Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +266 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 4. 850 feet downstream of Harrow Cove ...... +329 of Hernando. Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +268 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 5. 4236 feet upstream of Pleasant Hill Road ...... +310 of Hernando. Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +273 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 6. 90 feet downstream of Clubhouse Drive ...... +316 of Hernando. Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +284 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 7. 423 feet upstream of Starlanding Road ...... +339 of Southaven. Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek Tributary 7 +294 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City tary 7.1. 760 feet upstream of Starlanding Road ...... +354 of Southaven. Hurricane Creek Tribu- At confluence with Hurricane Creek ...... +295 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 8. 940 feet upstream of Getwell Road ...... +324 Jackson Creek ...... 4620 feet upstream of confluence with Lake +200 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). Cormorant Bayou. +201 712 feet upstream of confluence with Jackson Creek Tributary 1. Jackson Creek Tributary At confluence with Jackson Creek ...... +201 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 1. 4665 feet upstream of Wilson Mills Road ...... +208 Johnson Creek ...... At confluence with Lake Cormorant Bayou ...... +208 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City 3645 feet upstream of Church Road ...... +249 of Horn Lake, Village of Memphis. Johnson Creek Tributary At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +208 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), Vil- 1. 1810 feet upstream of Cheatham Road ...... +208 lage of Memphis. Johnson Creek Tributary At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +210 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), Vil- 2. 300 feet upstream of Starlanding Road ...... +227 lage of Memphis. Johnson Creek Tributary At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +212 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), Vil- 3. 1490 feet downstream of Poplar Corner Road +244 lage of Memphis. Johnson Creek Tributary At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +215 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), Vil- 4. 4171 feet upstream of Starlanding Road ...... +231 lage of Memphis.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75889

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

Johnson Creek Tributary At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +226 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 5. 35 feet upstream of Fogg Road ...... +269 Johnson Creek Tributary At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +235 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 6. 20 feet upstream of Fogg Road ...... +256 Lake Cormorant Bayou At Green River Road ...... +200 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 500 feet downstream of confluence with John- +208 son Creek. Lateral A ...... At confluence with Horn Lake Creek ...... +243 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City 2506 feet upstream of Goodman Road ...... +276 of Horn Lake, City of Southaven. Lateral A Tributary 1 ..... At confluence with Lateral A ...... +246 City of Horn Lake. 148 feet downstream of Horn Lake Road ...... +259 Licks Creek ...... At confluence with Camp Creek ...... +306 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City At U.S. Highway 78 ...... +334 of Olive Branch. At Lancaster Drive ...... +358 7700 feet upstream of Hacks Cross Road ...... +388 Mussacuna Creek ...... 4630 feet downstream of Highway 51 ...... +280 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City 1480 feet upstream of Highway 51 ...... of Hernando. +307 Nolehoe Creek ...... At confluence with Camp Creek ...... +308 City of Olive Branch, City of Southaven. At Goodman Road ...... +348 Norfolk Bayou ...... At confluence with Johnson Creek ...... +208 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 175 feet downstream of Highway 161 ...... +208 Pigeon Roost Creek ...... At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +267 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 1550 feet downstream of Ingrams Mill Road .... +277 Red Banks Creek ...... 4330 feet upstream of Red Banks Road ...... +299 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 13140 feet upstream of Red Banks Road ...... +312 Short Creek ...... At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +267 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 9228 feet upstream of Byhalia Road ...... +331 Short Creek Tributary 1 At confluence with Short Creek ...... +271 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 3636 feet upstream of Byhalia Road ...... +297 Short Fork Creek ...... At confluence with Coldwater River ...... +255 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas), City 2953 feet upstream of Jaybird Road ...... +309 of Hernando. Short Fork Creek Tribu- At confluence with Short Fork Creek ...... +265 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 1. 1731 feet upstream of Byhalia Road ...... +341 Short Fork Creek Tribu- At confluence with Short Fork Creek ...... +278 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 2. 5387 feet upstream of Brights Road ...... +325 Short Fork Creek Tribu- At confluence with Short Fork Creek ...... +296 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). tary 3. 2594 feet upstream of confluence with Short Fork Creek. +304 Turkey Creek ...... At confluence with Camp Creek ...... +287 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 758 feet upstream of Woolsly Road ...... +351 Whites Creek ...... 3740 feet upstream of confluence with Lake +199 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). Cormorant Bayou. 7410 feet upstream of Wetonga Lane ...... +234 Whites Creek Tributary At confluence with Whites Creek ...... +224 De Soto County (Unincorporated Areas). 1. 2117 feet upstream of confluence with Whites +233 Creek.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Unincorporated Areas of De Soto County Maps are available for inspection at 365 Losher Street, Suite 310, Hernando, MS 38632. City of Hernando Maps are available for inspection at 475 W. Commerce Street, Hernando, MS 38632. City of Horn Lake Maps are available for inspection at 3101 Goodman Road, Horn Lake, MS 38637. City of Olive Branch Maps are available for inspection at 9189 Pigeon Root, Olive Branch, MS 38654. City of Southaven Maps are available for inspection at 8710 Northwest Drive, Southaven, MS 38671. Village of Memphis

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75890 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

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

Maps are available for inspection at P.O. Box 35, Walls, MS 38630.

Richland County, Montana and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA–B–7464

Lone Tree Creek ...... Approximately 0.47 miles downstream of Coun- +1,908 Richland County (Unincorporated Areas), City try Road 351. of Sidney. At 22nd Avenue Northwest ...... +1,969 Missouri River ...... Approximately 8.14 miles downstream of con- +1,910 Richland County (Unincorporated Areas). fluence with Big Muddy Creek. Approximately 11 miles upstream of confluence +1,995 with Wolf Creek.

# Depth in feet above ground. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Richland County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps available for inspection at: The County Courthouse, 201 West Main, Sidney, Montana. City of Sidney Maps are available for inspection at: City Hall, 115 2nd Street, SE., Sidney, Montana.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Material Inspection and Receiving 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition Report, to clarify that contractors are Dated: December 11, 2006. Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) required to include a copy of the David I. Maurstad, DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 receiving report (either the paper DD Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC Form 250 or the Wide Area WorkFlow- Emergency Management Agency, Department 20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0326; Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF–RA) of Homeland Security. facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite receiving report) with the shipment. As [FR Doc. E6–21574 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] DFARS Case 2003–D085. a result of this comment, the proposed BILLING CODE 9110–12–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: change to F–401(a), which stated that use of WAWF–RA satisfies DD Form A. Background 250 distribution requirements, has been DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE This final rule updates DFARS excluded from this final rule; and DoD Appendix F requirements for published another proposed rule at 71 Defense Acquisition Regulations preparation of DD Form 250, Material FR 65769 on November 9, 2006, to System Inspection and Receiving Report. The request comments on the recommended changes to Appendix F include— revision. 48 CFR Chapter 2 Æ Clarification of requirements for This rule was not subject to Office of marking of shipments when a Management and Budget review under RIN 0750–AE73 contractor’s certificate of conformance is Executive Order 12866, dated Defense Federal Acquisition used as the basis for acceptance; September 30, 1993. Æ Relocation of the requirement for Regulation Supplement; Material B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Inspection and Receiving Report the contractor to provide sufficient (DFARS Case 2003–D085) copies of DD Form 250, from F–701 to DoD certifies that this final rule will F–103; and not have a significant economic impact AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Æ Deletion of procedures for on a substantial number of small entities Regulations System, Department of documenting Government contract within the meaning of the Regulatory Defense (DoD). quality assurance performed at a Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., ACTION: Final rule. subcontractor’s facility and for because the rule makes no significant distribution and correction of DD Form change to DoD policy for the SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule 250–1 documents. This text has been preparation and use of material amending the Defense Federal relocated to the DFARS companion inspection and receiving reports. Acquisition Regulation Supplement resource, Procedures, Guidance, and C. Paperwork Reduction Act (DFARS) to clarify requirements for Information (PGI), at http:// preparation of material inspection and www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi. The information collection receiving reports under DoD contracts. DoD published a proposed rule at 70 requirements of DD Form 250, Material In addition, the rule relocates text to the FR 39975 on July 12, 2005. One Inspection and Receiving Report, have DFARS companion resource, respondent submitted comments on the been approved by the Office of Procedures, Guidance, and Information. proposed rule. The respondent Management and Budget under Control DATES: Effective Date: December 19, recommended revision of Appendix F Number 0704–0248, for use through 2006. and the clause at DFARS 252.246–7000, March 31, 2008.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75891

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Chapter 2 ‘‘CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE’’ A. Background Government procurement. as required by paragraph (b)(21)(iii) of This final rule implements Section this section. 807 of the National Defense Michele P. Peterson, * * * * * Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations I 5. Appendix F to Chapter 2 is (Pub. L. 108–375). Section 807 provides System. amended by revising Part 7 to read as for adjustment of statutory acquisition- I Therefore, 48 CFR Appendix F to follows: related dollar thresholds every 5 years, Chapter 2 is amended as follows: except for those established by the I 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR PART 7—DISTRIBUTION OF THE DD Davis-Bacon Act, the Service Contract Appendix F to subchapter I continues to FORM 250–1 Act, or trade agreements. This case read as follows: F–701 Distribution. presented an opportunity to review all Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR acquisition-related dollar thresholds, Chapter 1. Follow the procedures at PGI F–701 including those that are non-statutory. for distribution of DD Form 250–1. DoD published a proposed rule at 71 FR Appendix F to Chapter 2—Material 3446 on January 23, 2006. DoD received Inspection and Receiving Report F–702 Corrected DD Form 250–1. one comment from a public-private Follow the procedures at PGI F–702 I partnership in response to the proposed 2. Appendix F to Chapter 2 is when corrections to DD Form 250–1 are rule. That comment related to the amended in Part 1, Section F–103, by needed. revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: proposed increase in the micro- [FR Doc. E6–21515 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] purchase spending limit for the General F–103 Use. BILLING CODE 5001–08–P Services Administration SmartPay * * * * * Purchase Card Program. The comment (c) The contractor prepares the MIRR, did not specifically relate to this DFARS except for entries that an authorized DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE case and, therefore, has been forwarded Government representative is required to the General Services Administration to complete. The contractor shall Defense Acquisition Regulations for consideration. furnish sufficient copies of the System A matrix showing the thresholds completed form, as directed by the reviewed in preparation of this final Government representative. 48 CFR Parts 201, 205, 207, 211, 217, rule is available at http:// 219, 223, 225, 228, 232, 237, and 252 * * * * * www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/ I 3. Appendix F to Chapter 2 is changenotice/index.htm, within the RIN 0750–AF16 amended by revising Part 2 to read as change notice summary containing the same date as this final rule. The statute follows: Defense Federal Acquisition requires adjustment of acquisition- Regulation Supplement; Inflation PART 2—CONTRACT QUALITY related thresholds for inflation using the Adjustment of Acquisition-Related ASSURANCE ON SHIPMENTS Consumer Price Index for all-urban Thresholds (DFARS Case 2004–D022) BETWEEN CONTRACTORS consumers. Acquisition-related AGENCY: thresholds in statutes that were in effect F–201 Procedures. Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of on October 1, 2000, are subject to 5 Follow the procedures at PGI F–201 Defense (DoD). years of inflation. The inflation for evidence of required Government ACTION: Final rule. adjustment factors in the proposed rule contract quality assurance at a were calculated on the basis of subcontractor’s facility. SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule December 2004 data. For the final rule, I 4. Appendix F to Chapter 2 is amending the Defense Federal data through October 2005 was used. amended in Part 3, Section F–301, by Acquisition Regulation Supplement This resulted in a slight increase in the revising paragraph (b)(21)(iii) in the first (DFARS) to adjust acquisition-related calculated inflation adjustment factors. sentence and paragraph (b)(21)(iv)(D) thresholds for inflation. Section 807 of For the 5-year period from October 2000 introductory text to read as follows: the National Defense Authorization Act through October 2005, the inflation adjustment factor increased from 13 F–301 Preparation instructions. for Fiscal Year 2005 requires periodic adjustment of statutory acquisition- percent to 14.5 percent. However, due to * * * * * related dollar thresholds, except those rounding, most thresholds shown in the (b) * * * established by the Davis-Bacon Act, the proposed rule did not change. The (21) * * * Service Contract Act, or trade exceptions are— (iii) When contract terms provide for agreements. This rule also amends other • DFARS 217.170 and 217.171 use of Certificate of Conformance and acquisition-related thresholds that are (Multiyear Contracting)—Increased from shipment is made under these terms, the BASED on policy rather than statute. $565.5 million to $572.5 million; and • contractor shall enter in capital letters DATES: Effective Date: December 19, DFARS 237.170–2 (Service ‘‘CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE’’ 2006. Contracting)—Increased from $77.5 in Block 21a on the next line following million to $78.5 million. the CQA and acceptance statements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. The threshold at DFARS 207.170–3 *** Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition (Consolidation of Contract (iv) * * * Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) Requirements) is the only threshold in (D) When Certificate of Conformance DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 the final rule that was not addressed in procedures apply, inspection or Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC the proposed rule, because the inspection and acceptance are at source, 20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0328; calculated threshold now rounds up to and the contractor’s Certificate of facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite $5.5 million, from $5 million. Conformance is required, the contractor DFARS Case 2004–D022. The threshold at DFARS 216.203–4, shall enter in capital letters SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: for use of the economic price

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75892 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

adjustment clause at FAR 52.216–4, was I 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR million’’ and adding in its place ‘‘$572.5 increased from $50,000 to $55,000 in Parts 201, 205, 207, 211, 217, 219, 223, million’’. the proposed rule. This threshold 225, 228, 232, 237, and 252 continues to change is no longer applicable as a read as follows: PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS result of the final rule published at 71 Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR FR 39006 on July 11, 2006, which Chapter 1. 219.502–2 [Amended] specified the simplified acquisition threshold as the general threshold for PART 201—FEDERAL ACQUISITION I 8. Section 219.502–2 is amended in DoD use of the FAR economic price REGULATIONS SYSTEM paragraph (a)(i) by removing ‘‘$2 adjustment clauses. million’’ and adding in its place ‘‘$2.5 The threshold at DFARS 236.601, for I 2. Section 201.109 is added to read as million’’. congressional notification of certain follows: architect-engineer or construction PART 223—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY 201.109 Statutory acquisition-related AND WATER EFFICIENCY, design contracts, was increased from dollar thresholds-adjustment for inflation. $500,000 to $550,000 in the proposed RENEWABLE ENERGY (d) A matrix showing the most recent rule. This threshold change is no longer TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL escalation adjustments of statutory applicable as a result of the interim rule SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE acquisition-related dollar thresholds is published at 71 FR 58540 on October 4, WORKPLACE available at PGI 201.109. 2006, which increased the threshold to I $1 million to implement a statutory PART 205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT 9. Section 223.803 is revised to read change. ACTIONS as follows: The threshold in the clause at DFARS 223.803 Policy. 252.232–7009, Mandatory Payment by 205.303 [Amended] Governmentwide Commercial Purchase I 3. Section 205.303 is amended by No DoD contract may include a Card, was increased from $2,500 to removing ‘‘$5 million’’ and adding in its specification or standard that requires $3,000 in the proposed rule. The final place ‘‘$5.5 million’’ as follows: the use of a class I ozone-depleting rule revises this threshold to the micro- I a. In paragraph (a)(i) introductory text, substance or that can be met only purchase threshold, for consistency in the first and second sentences; through the use of such a substance with the corresponding clause I b. In paragraph (a)(i)(A), in the second unless the inclusion of the specification prescription at DFARS 232.1110. sentence; and or standard is specifically authorized at This rule was not subject to Office of I c. In paragraph (a)(i)(B), in the first a level no lower than a general or flag Management and Budget review under and second sentences. officer or a member of the Senior Executive Order 12866, dated Executive Service of the requiring September 30, 1993. PART 207—ACQUISITION PLANNING activity in accordance with Section 326, Public Law 102–484 (10 U.S.C. 2301 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 207.170–3 [Amended] (repealed) note). This restriction is in DoD certifies that this final rule will I 4. Section 207.170–3 is amended in addition to any imposed by the Clean not have a significant economic impact paragraph (a) introductory text by Air Act and applies after June 1, 1993, on a substantial number of small entities removing ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and adding in to all DoD contracts, regardless of place within the meaning of the Regulatory its place ‘‘$5.5 million’’. of performance. Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the adjustment of acquisition- PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION related dollar thresholds is intended to NEEDS 225.7204 [Amended] keep pace with inflation and thus 211.503 [Amended] maintain the status quo. I 10. Section 225.7204 is amended as I 5. Section 211.503 is amended in C. Paperwork Reduction Act follows: paragraph (b), in the first and second I a. In paragraphs (a) and (b) by This rule does not impose any new sentences, by removing ‘‘$500,000’’ and removing ‘‘$10 million’’ and adding in information collection requirements that adding in its place ‘‘$550,000’’. its place ‘‘$11.5 million’’; and require the approval of the Office of I Management and Budget (OMB) under PART 217—SPECIAL CONTRACTING b. In paragraph (c) by removing 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information METHODS ‘‘$500,000’’ and adding in its place collection requirements of the provision ‘‘$550,000’’. I 6. Section 217.170 is amended by and clauses at 252.225–7003, 252.225– PART 228—BONDS AND INSURANCE 7004, and 252.225–7006 are approved revising paragraph (d)(1)(i) to read as for use through May 31, 2007, under follows: 228.102–1 [Amended] OMB Control Number 0704–0229. 217.170 General. I 11. Section 228.102–1 is amended in List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 201, * * * * * the second sentence of the introductory 205, 207, 211, 217, 219, 223, 225, 228, (d)(1) * * * text and in paragraph (1) by removing 232, 237, and 252 (i) Exceed $500 million for supplies ‘‘$25,000’’ and adding in its place Government procurement. (see 217.172(c) and 217.172(e)(4)) or ‘‘$30,000’’. $572.5 million for services (see Michele P. Peterson, 217.171(a)(6)); PART 232—CONTRACT FINANCING Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations * * * * * System. 232.404 [Amended] I Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 201, 205, 207, 217.171 [Amended] I 12. Section 232.404 is amended in 211, 217, 219, 223, 225, 228, 232, 237, I 7. Section 217.171 is amended in paragraph (a)(9) by removing ‘‘$2,500’’ and 252 are amended as follows: paragraph (a)(6) by removing ‘‘$500 and adding in its place ‘‘$3,000’’.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75893

232.502–1 [Amended] I b. In paragraph (f)(1) by removing DoD Appropriations Acts (the most I 13. Section 232.502–1 is amended in ‘‘$500,000’’ and adding in its place recent being Section 8024 of Pub. L. paragraph (b)(1) by removing ‘‘$50,000’’ ‘‘$550,000’’. 109–289) contain a restriction on the and adding in its place ‘‘$55,000’’. acquisition of carbon, alloy, or armor 252.232–7009 [Amended] steel plate, that is not melted and rolled PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING I 19. Section 252.232–7009 is amended in the United States or Canada, for use as follows: in any Government-owned facility or 237.170–2 [Amended] I a. By revising the clause date to read property under the control of the I 14. Section 237.170–2 is amended in ‘‘(DEC 2006)’’; and Department of Defense. This restriction paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) by removing I b. By removing ‘‘$2,500’’ and adding is implemented in the DFARS at ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and adding in its place in its place ‘‘the micro-purchase 225.7011–1 through 225.7011–3 and in ‘‘$78.5 million’’. threshold in Part 2 of the Federal the corresponding contract clause at Acquisition Regulation,’’. 252.225–7030. PART 252—SOLICITATION DoD published a proposed rule at 70 PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 252.249–7002 [Amended] FR 73189 on December 9, 2005, to CLAUSES I 20. Section 252.249–7002 is amended clarify the applicability of the as follows: restriction. Two respondents provided I 15. Section 252.209–7004 is amended I a. By revising the clause date to read comments on the proposed rule. One of by revising the clause date and ‘‘(DEC 2006)’’; and the respondents applauded DoD’s paragraph (a) to read as follows: I b. In paragraph (d)(1) by removing initiative to clarify the restriction and recommended adoption of the rule as 252.209–7004 Subcontracting with Firms ‘‘$500,000’’ and adding in its place That are Owned or Controlled by the ‘‘$550,000’’. proposed. The other respondent raised two issues regarding the proposed rule. Government of a Terrorist Country. [FR Doc. E6–21513 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] A discussion of these issues is provided * * * * * BILLING CODE 5001–08–P below. Subcontracting With Firms That are 1. Property under the control of DoD. The respondent interpreted the statutory Owned or Controlled by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Government of a Terrorist Country (Dec phrase ‘‘property under the control of 2006) Defense Acquisition Regulations the Department of Defense’’ to mean System personal property as well as real (a) Unless the Government determines property, and recommended that there is a compelling reason to do 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 amendment of the rule to reflect this so, the Contractor shall not enter into interpretation. any subcontract in excess of $30,000 RIN 0750–AF17 DoD has not adopted this with a firm, or a subsidiary of a firm, recommendation, as DoD believes that that is identified in the Excluded Parties Defense Federal Acquisition limitation of the restriction to real List System as being ineligible for the Regulation Supplement; Restriction on property is consistent with the statutory award of Defense contracts or Carbon, Alloy, and Armor Steel Plate provisions; and that, if the statutory subcontracts because it is owned or (DFARS Case 2005–D002) phrase ‘‘for use in any * * * property controlled by the government of a under the control of the Department of terrorist country. AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense’’ were intended to include all * * * * * Defense (DoD). personal property controlled by DoD, the words of the statute ‘‘for use in any 252.225–7003 [Amended] ACTION: Final rule. Government-owned facility’’ would be I 16. Section 252.225–7003 is amended SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule without added meaning. The current as follows: amending the Defense Federal interpretation of the statute has been in I a. By revising the clause date to read Acquisition Regulation Supplement use since 1992 without objection. ‘‘(DEC 2006)’’; (DFARS) to clarify the restriction on the 2. Use as a raw material. The I b. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing acquisition of foreign carbon, alloy, or respondent stated that the rule’s ‘‘$10 million’’ and adding in its place armor steel plate. The restriction limitation of the restriction to plate used ‘‘$11.5 million’’; and implements provisions of annual DoD as a ‘‘raw material’’ sets a limitation that I c. In paragraph (b)(2)(i) by removing appropriations acts. does not appear in the statute. In ‘‘$500,000’’ and adding in its place addition, the respondent stated that DATES: Effective Date: December 19, ‘‘$550,000’’. carbon, alloy, and armor steel plate is 2006. not a ‘‘raw material’’; it is a finished 252.225–7004 [Amended] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. steel mill product that can be used ‘‘as I 17. Section 252.225–7004 is amended Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition is’’ in certain applications or as an as follows: Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) intermediate material for the fabrication I a. By revising the clause date to read DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 of other products. Therefore, the ‘‘(DEC 2006)’’; and Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC respondent recommended that the I b. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing 20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0328; phrase ‘‘as a raw material’’ be removed ‘‘$500,000’’ and adding in its place facsimile (703) 602–0350. Please cite from the rule. ‘‘$550,000’’. DFARS Case 2005–D002. DoD notes that the phrase ‘‘as a raw SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: material’’ has been in the clause at 252.225–7006 [Amended] 252.225–7030 since 1992 without I 18. Section 252.225–7006 is amended A. Background objection. The phrase was added to the as follows: Section 8111 of the Fiscal Year 1992 clause as a result of a public comment I a. By revising the clause date to read DoD Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 102– submitted by an industry association in ‘‘(DEC 2006)’’; and 172) and similar sections in subsequent response to the interim rule published

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75894 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

at 57 FR 14988 on April 23, 1992 I 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR United States or Canada if the carbon, (Defense Acquisition Circular 91–2, parts 225 and 252 continues to read as alloy, or armor steel plate— Item XI). The industry association did follows: (1) Is in Federal Supply Class 9515 or not believe that the statute was intended Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR is described by specifications of the to apply to end items (hardware) Chapter 1. American Society for Testing Materials delivered to the Government and used or the American Iron and Steel Institute; in Government facilities. The PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION and association recommended revision of (2)(i) Will be delivered to the the prescriptive language to require I 2. Section 225.7011–1 is revised to Government for use in a Government- application of the clause to only those read as follows: owned facility or a facility under the contracts for the direct acquisition of 225.7011–1 Restriction. control of the Department of Defense; or carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate. As a (ii) Will be purchased by the (a) In accordance with Section 8111 of result, the final rule published at 57 FR Contractor for use in a Government- the Fiscal Year 1992 DoD 53596 on November 12, 1992 (Defense owned facility or a facility under the Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 102–172) Acquisition Circular 91–4, Item XI), control of the Department of Defense. and similar sections in subsequent DoD required application of the clause to (b) This restriction— appropriations acts, do not acquire any carbon, alloy, and armor steel plate (1) Applies to the acquisition of of the following types of carbon, alloy, furnished as a deliverable under the carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate as a or armor steel plate for use in a contract or purchased by the contractor finished steel mill product that may be Government-owned facility or a facility as a raw material. The statutory used ‘‘as is’’ or may be used as an under the control of (e.g., leased by) language addressing use of the plate in intermediate material for the fabrication DoD, unless it is melted and rolled in a Government-owned facility or of an end product; and the United States or Canada: property under the control of DoD (1) Carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate (2) Does not apply to the acquisition expresses an intent not to apply the in Federal Supply Class 9515. of an end product (e.g., a machine tool), restriction to the manufacture of items (2) Carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate to be used in the facility, that contains in the plants of commercial contractors. described by specifications of the carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate as a For example, the restriction should not American Society for Testing Materials component. apply if a contractor acquires a machine or the American Iron and Steel Institute. (End of clause) tool for use in a Government-owned (b) This restriction— facility, if the machine tool is (1) Applies to the acquisition of [FR Doc. E6–21511 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] manufactured by another contractor in a carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate as a BILLING CODE 5001–08–P facility that is not Government-owned. finished steel mill product that may be DoD has amended the rule to make this used ‘‘as is’’ or may be used as an concept clearer, without use of the term intermediate material for the fabrication DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ‘‘raw material’’. of an end product; and This rule was not subject to Office of (2) Does not apply to the acquisition National Oceanic and Atmospheric Management and Budget review under of an end product (e.g., a machine tool), Administration Executive Order 12866, dated to be used in the facility, that contains September 30, 1993. carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate as a 50 CFR Part 622 component. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act [Docket No. 990506119–9236–02; I.D. I 3. Section 225.7011–3 is amended by 121106C] DoD certifies that this final rule will revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: not have a significant economic impact Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of on a substantial number of small entities 225.7011–3 Contract clause. Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish within the meaning of the Regulatory * * * * * Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Closure Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., (a) Require the delivery to the of the 2006 Red Snapper Commercial because the rule clarifies existing policy Government of carbon, alloy, or armor Fishery regarding the statutory restriction on the steel plate that will be used in a AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries acquisition of foreign carbon, alloy, or Government-owned facility or a facility Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and armor steel plate. under the control of DoD; or Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), * * * * * C. Paperwork Reduction Act Commerce. The Paperwork Reduction Act does PART 252—SOLICITATION ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. not apply, because the rule does not PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial impose any information collection fishery for red snapper in the exclusive requirements that require the approval I 4. Section 252.225–7030 is revised to economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of of the Office of Management and Budget read as follows: Mexico. NMFS has determined the fall under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. portion of the annual commercial quota List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252.225–7030 Restriction on Acquisition for red snapper will have been reached of Carbon, Alloy, and Armor Steel Plate. 252 by December 26, 2006. This closure is As prescribed in 225.7011–3, use the necessary to protect the red snapper Government procurement. following clause: resource. Michele P. Peterson, Restriction on Acquisition of Carbon, DATES: Closure is effective noon, local Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Alloy, and Armor Steel Plate (DEC time, December 26, 2006, until 12:01 System. 2006) a.m., local time, on January 1, 2007. I Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 (a) Carbon, alloy, and armor steel FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: are amended as follows: plate shall be melted and rolled in the Jason Rueter, telephone 727–824–5350,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 75895

fax 727–824–5308, e-mail quota for that species or species group from the fishery. The Administrator, [email protected]. is reached, or is projected to be reached, Southeast Region, NMFS, finds the need by filing a notification to that effect with to immediately implement this action to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef the Office of the Federal Register. Based close the fishery constitutes good cause fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is on current statistics, NMFS has to waive the requirements to provide managed under the Fishery determined that the available fall prior notice and opportunity for public Management Plan for the Reef Fish commercial quota of 1.65 million lb comment pursuant to the authority set Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). (0.75 million kg) for red snapper will be forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), as such The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of reached when the fishery closes on procedures would be unnecessary and Mexico Fishery Management Council December 26, 2006. Accordingly, NMFS contrary to the public interest. and is implemented under the authority is closing the commercial red snapper Similarly, there is a need to implement of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery fishery in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ from these measures in a timely fashion to Conservation and Management Act noon, local time, on December 26, 2006, prevent an overage of the commercial (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January quota of Gulf of Mexico red snapper, at 50 CFR part 622. Those regulations 1, 2007, when the red snapper given the capacity of the fishing fleet to set the commercial quota for red individual fishing quota (IFQ) program harvest the quota quickly. Any delay in snapper in the Gulf of Mexico at 4.65 becomes effective. The operator of a implementing this action would be million lb (2.11 million kg) for the vessel with a valid commercial vessel impractical and contrary to the current fishing year, January 1 through permit for Gulf reef fish having red Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and December 31, 2006. The red snapper snapper aboard must have landed and the public interest. For these same commercial fishing season was split into bartered, traded, or sold such red reasons, NMFS finds good cause that the two time periods, the first commencing snapper prior to noon, local time, implementation of this action cannot be at noon on February 1 with two-thirds December 26, 2006. delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under of the annual quota (3.10 million lb During the closure, the sale or 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delay in the (1.41 million kg)) available, and the purchase of red snapper taken from the effective date is waived. second commencing at noon on October EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on This action is required under 50 CFR 1 with the remainder of the annual sale or purchase does not apply to sale 622.43(a) and is exempt from review quota available. During the commercial or purchase of red snapper that were under Executive Order 12866. season, the red snapper commercial harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. fishery opens at noon on the first of to noon, local time, December 26, 2006, each month and closes at noon on the and were held in cold storage by a Dated: December 12, 2006. th 10 of each month, until the applicable dealer or processor. Alan D. Risenhoover, commercial quotas are reached. Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Under 50 CFR 622.43(a), NMFS is Classification National Marine Fisheries Service. required to close the commercial fishery This action responds to the best [FR Doc. E6–21536 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] for a species or species group when the available information recently obtained BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:56 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DER1.SGM 19DER1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES 75896

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 243

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. contains notices to the public of the proposed the plaza level of the Nassif Building, FAA–2006–26570; Directorate Identifier issuance of rules and regulations. The 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 2006–NE–39–AD’’ at the beginning of purpose of these notices is to give interested DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday your comments. We specifically invite persons an opportunity to participate in the through Friday, except Federal holidays. comments on the overall regulatory, rule making prior to the adoption of the final • rules. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// economic, environmental, and energy www.regulations.gov. Follow the aspects of this proposed AD. We will instructions for submitting comments. consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Examining the AD Docket proposed AD based on those comments. Federal Aviation Administration You may examine the AD docket on We will post all comments we the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in receive, without change, to http:// 14 CFR Part 39 person at the Docket Management dms.dot.gov, including any personal Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., information you provide. We will also [Docket No. FAA–2006–26570; Directorate Monday through Friday, except Federal post a report summarizing each Identifier 2006–NE–39–AD] holidays. The AD docket contains this substantive verbal contact we receive RIN 2120–AA64 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, about this proposed AD. any comments received, and other Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca information. The street address for the Discussion S.A. Makila 1A and 1A1 Turboshaft Docket Office (telephone (800) 647– The European Aviation Safety Agency Engines 5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. (EASA), which is the airworthiness Comments will be available in the AD authority for the European Union, has AGENCY: Federal Aviation docket shortly after receipt. issued EASA Airworthiness Directive Administration (FAA), DOT. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2006–0070, dated April 13, 2006, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Christopher Spinney, Aerospace (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to (NPRM). Engineer, Engine Certification Office, correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 airworthiness directive (AD) for the New England Executive Park 01803; The control system of the engines covered products listed above. This proposed telephone (781) 238–7175; fax (781) by this Airworthiness Directive includes an AD results from mandatory continuing 238–7199. electrical back-up mode at 85% N1 (gas generator speed) activated on the detection of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: airworthiness information (MCAI) certain occurrences affecting engine control. issued by an aviation authority of Streamlined Issuance of AD The activation of the back-up mode is another country to identify and correct irreversible and freezes the engine at 85% an unsafe condition on an aviation The FAA is implementing a new N1. product. The MCAI describes the unsafe process for streamlining the issuance of An analysis of reported occurrences in condition as: ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined service showed that the back-up mode can be process will allow us to adopt MCAI activated by an electrostatic discharge or by The back-up mode can be activated by an a malfunction of the collective pitch signal. electrostatic discharge or by a malfunction of safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to The two engines fitted on the same helicopter the collective pitch signal. The two engines can therefore be frozen in this back-up fitted on the same helicopter can therefore be the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to position at 85% N1. frozen in this back-up position at 85% N1. The present Airworthiness Directive meet legal, economic, Administrative Freezing both engines in the back-up therefore imposes the application of Procedure Act, and Federal Register mode can lead to an inability to modification TU241 on the LPG board of the requirements. We also continue to meet continue safe flight and forced landing. Makila 1A and 1A1 ECU, which reduces the our technical decision-making The proposed AD would require actions aforementioned risk by changing the responsibilities to identify and correct conditions in which the engines switch to that are intended to address the unsafe unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated and are maintained in the 85% NG back-up condition described in the MCAI. products. mode. DATES: We must receive comments on This proposed AD references the Freezing both engines in the back-up this proposed AD by January 18, 2007. MCAI and related service information mode can lead to an inability to ADDRESSES: You may send comments by that we considered in forming the continue safe flight and forced landing. any of the following methods: engineering basis to correct the unsafe You may obtain further information • DOT Docket Web Site: Go to condition. The proposed AD contains by examining the MCAI in the AD http://dms.dot.gov and follow the text copied from the MCAI and for this docket. instructions for sending your comments reason might not follow our plain electronically. language principles. Relevant Service Information • Fax: (202) 493–2251. Turbomeca has issued Mandatory • Mail: Docket Management Facility, Comments Invited Service Bulletin No. 298 73 0241, dated U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 We invite you to send any written April 5, 2006. The actions described in Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, relevant data, views, or arguments about this service information are intended to Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– this proposed AD. Send your comments correct the unsafe condition identified 0001. to an address listed under the in the MCAI.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75897

FAA’s Determination and Requirements detail the scope of the Agency’s Comments Due Date of This Proposed AD authority. (a) We must receive comments by January This product has been approved by We are issuing this rulemaking under 18, 2007. the aviation authority of another the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, Affected ADs Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: country, and is approved for operation (b) None. in the United States. Pursuant to our General requirements.’’ Under that bilateral agreement with this State of section, Congress charges the FAA with Applicability Design Authority, they have notified us promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in (c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Makila of the unsafe condition described in the air commerce by prescribing regulations 1A and 1A1 turboshaft engines. These MCAI and service information for practices, methods, and procedures engines are used on, but not limited to Eurocopter AS 332 Super Puma helicopters. referenced above. We are proposing this the Administrator finds necessary for AD because we evaluated all safety in air commerce. This regulation Reason information provided by the State of is within the scope of that authority (d) European Aviation Safety Agency Design Authority and determined the because it addresses an unsafe condition (EASA) AD No. 2006–0070, dated March 30, unsafe condition exists and is likely to that is likely to exist or develop on 2006, states: exist or develop on other products of the products identified in this rulemaking The control system of the engines covered same type design. action. by this Airworthiness Directive includes an electrical back-up mode at 85% N1 (gas Differences Between This AD and the Regulatory Findings generator speed) activated on the detection of MCAI or Service Information We determined that this proposed AD certain occurrences affecting engine control. The activation of the back-up mode is We have reviewed the MCAI and would not have federalism implications irreversible and freezes the engine at 85% related service information and, in under Executive Order 13132. This N1. general, agree with their substance. But proposed AD would not have a An analysis of reported occurrences in we might have found it necessary to use substantial direct effect on the States, on service showed that the back-up mode can be different words from those in the MCAI the relationship between the national activated by an electrostatic discharge or by to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. Government and the States, or on the a malfunction of the collective pitch signal. operators and is enforceable. In making distribution of power and The two engines fitted on the same helicopter these changes, we do not intend to differ responsibilities among the various can therefore be frozen in this back-up substantively from the information levels of government. position at 85% N1. The present Airworthiness Directive provided in the MCAI and related For the reasons discussed above, I therefore imposes the application of service information. certify this proposed regulation: modification TU241 on the LPG board of the We might also have proposed 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Makila 1A and 1A1 ECU, which reduces the different actions in this AD from those action’’ under Executive Order 12866; aforementioned risk by changing the in the MCAI in order to follow FAA 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the conditions in which the engines switch to policies. Any such differences are DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures and are maintained in the 85% NG back-up described in a separate paragraph of the (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and mode. proposed AD. These requirements, if 3. Will not have a significant Freezing both engines in the back-up mode ultimately adopted, will take can lead to an inability to continue safe flight economic impact, positive or negative, and forced landing. precedence over the actions copied from on a substantial number of small entities the MCAI. under the criteria of the Regulatory Actions and Compliance Costs of Compliance Flexibility Act. (e) Unless already done, before January 31, We prepared a regulatory evaluation 2007, apply the modification TU 241 by Based on the service information, we of the estimated costs to comply with replacing the LPG board of the ECU in estimate that this proposed AD would this proposed AD and placed it in the accordance with the mandatory Turbomeca Service Bulletin No. 298 73 0241, dated April affect about five products of U.S. AD docket. registry. We also estimate that it would 5, 2006. take about 1.0 work-hours per product List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 FAA AD Differences to comply with this proposed AD. The Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation (f) None. average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. safety, Safety. Required parts would cost about $3,500 Other FAA AD Provisions per product. Where the service The Proposed Amendment (g) The following provisions also apply to information lists required parts costs Accordingly, under the authority this AD: that are covered under warranty, we delegated to me by the Administrator, (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification have assumed that there will be no the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part charge for these costs. As we do not Office, has the authority to approve AMOCs 39 as follows: for this AD, if requested using the procedures control warranty coverage for affected found in 14 CFR 39.19. parties, some parties may incur costs PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement higher than estimated here. Based on DIRECTIVES in this AD to obtain corrective actions from these figures, we estimate the cost of the a manufacturer or other source, use these proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 1. The authority citation for part 39 actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective $17,900, or $3,580 per product. continues to read as follows: actions are considered FAA-approved if they Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. are approved by the State of Design Authority Authority for This Rulemaking (or their delegated agent). You are required Title 49 of the United States Code § 39.13 [Amended] to assure the product is airworthy before it specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding is returned to service. the following new AD: (3) Reporting Requirements: For any rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, reporting requirement in this AD, under the section 106, describes the authority of Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA–2006– provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 26570; Directorate Identifier 2006–NE– the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 39–AD. has approved the information collection

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75898 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

requirements and has assigned OMB Control Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or include conditions for the appropriate Number 2120–0056. submit electronically at http:// use of, and expenditure of funds for, Related Information dmses.dot.gov/submit or fax comments uniformed law enforcement officers, (h) Contact Christopher Spinney, to (202) 493–2251. Alternatively, positive protective measures between Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification comments may be submitted via the workers and motorized traffic, and Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// installation and maintenance of 12 New England Executive Park 01803; www.regulations.gov. All comments temporary traffic control devices during telephone (781) 238–7175; fax (781) 238– should include the docket number that construction, utility, and maintenance 7199 for more information about this AD. appears in the heading of this operations. The proposed changes are (i) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness document. All comments received will intended to decrease the likelihood of Directive 2006–0070, dated March 30, 2006, be available for examination at the fatalities and injuries to workers who and Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. e.t., are exposed to motorized traffic No. 298 73 0241, dated April 5, 2006, for related information. Monday through Friday, except Federal (vehicles using the highways for the holidays. Those desiring notification of purposes of travel) while working on Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on receipt of comments must include a self- Federal-aid highway projects. December 13, 2006. addressed, stamped postcard or print The original comment period for the Peter A. White, the acknowledgement page that appears NPRM closes on January 2, 2007. The Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller after submitting comments NCUTCD has expressed concern that Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. electronically. Anyone is able to search this closing date does not provide [FR Doc. E6–21586 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] the electronic form of all comments sufficient time to review and discuss the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P received into any of our dockets by the proposed changes; and then, develop name of the individual submitting the and submit complete responses to the comment (or signing the comment, if docket. To allow time for this DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION submitted on behalf of an association, organization and others to submit business, labor union, etc.). Persons comprehensive comments, the closing Federal Highway Administration making comments may review DOT’s date is changed from January 2, 2007, to complete Privacy Act Statement in the February 16, 2007. 23 CFR Part 630 Federal Register published on April 11, Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(c) and 112; Sec. [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2006–25203] 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 1110 of Pub. L. 109–59; 23 CFR 1.32; and 49 19477–78) or may visit http:// RIN 2125–AF10 CFR 1.48(b). dms.dot.gov. Issued on: December 12, 2006. Temporary Traffic Control Devices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Richard Capka, Chung Eng, Office of Transportation AGENCY: Federal Highway Federal Highway Administrator. Operations, (202) 366–8043; or Mr. Administration (FHWA), DOT. [FR Doc. E6–21579 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the Chief BILLING CODE 4910–22–P ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; Counsel, (202) 366–0791, U.S. extension of comment period. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh SUMMARY: The FHWA is extending the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY comment period for a notice of Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 Internal Revenue Service request for comments, which was p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, published on November 1, 2006, at 71 except Federal holidays. 26 CFR Part 1 FR 64173. The original comment period SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [REG–125632–06] is set to close on January 2, 2007. The Electronic Access and Filing extension is based on concern expressed RIN 1545–BF83 by the National Committee on Uniform You may submit or retrieve comments Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) that online through the Document Corporate Reorganizations; the January 2 closing date does not Management System (DMS) at: http:// Distributions Under Sections provide sufficient time for discussion of dmses.dot.gov/submit. The DMS is 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B) the issues in committee and a available 24 hours each day, 365 days AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), subsequent comprehensive response to each year. Electronic submission and Treasury. the docket. The FHWA recognizes that retrieval help and guidelines are others interested in commenting may available under the help section of the ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making have similar time constraints and agree Web site. by cross-reference to temporary An electronic copy of this document that the comment period should be regulations. may also be downloaded from the Office extended. Therefore, the closing date for of the Federal Register’s home page at: SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations comments is changed to February 16, http://www.archives.gov and the section of this issue of the Federal 2007, which will provide the NCUTCD Government Printing Office’s Web page Register, the IRS is issuing temporary and others interested in commenting at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. regulations that provide guidance additional time to discuss, evaluate, and regarding the qualification of certain submit responses to the docket. Background transactions as reorganizations DATES: Comments must be received on On November 1, 2006, the FHWA described in section 368(a)(1)(D) where or before February 16, 2007. published in the Federal Register an no stock and/or securities of the ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver NPRM that proposes to supplement its acquiring corporation is issued and comments to the U.S. Department of regulation governing work zone safety distributed in the transaction. These Transportation, Dockets Management and mobility in highway and street regulations affect corporations engaging Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh work zones. The NPRM proposes to in such transactions and their

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75899

shareholders. The text of those regulatory assessment is not required. It Drafting Information regulations also serves as the text of also has been determined that section The principal author of these these proposed regulations. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure regulations is Bruce A. Decker, Office of DATES: Written or electronic comments Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). and requests for a public hearing must to these regulations, and because the be received by March 19, 2007. regulation does not impose a collection List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: of information on small entities, the Income taxes, Reporting and CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–125632–06), Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. recordkeeping requirements. Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to Proposed Amendments to the Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Regulations 20044. Submissions may be hand Code, this notice of proposed delivered to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG– rulemaking will be submitted to the Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 125632–06), Courier Desk, Internal Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small proposed to be amended as follows: Revenue Service, Crystal Mall 4, 1901 Business Administration for comment South Bell Street, Arlington, Virginia, or on its impact on small business. PART 1—INCOME TAXES sent electronically, via the IRS Internet Comments and Requests for a Public Paragraph 1. The authority citation site at http://www.irs.gov/regs or via the Hearing for part 1 continues to read in part as Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// Before these proposed regulations are follows: www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–125632– adopted as final regulations, Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 06). consideration will be given to any Par. 2. Section 1.368–2 is amended by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: written (a signed original and eight (8) revising paragraph (l) to read as follows: Concerning the proposed regulations, copies) or electronic comments that are Bruce A. Decker, (202) 622–7550; submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS § 1.368–2 Definition of terms. concerning submissions of comments, and Treasury Department request the hearing, and/or to be placed on the * * * * * comments on the clarity of the proposed (l) [The text of this proposed access list to attend the hearing, Kelly rules and how they can be made easier amendment to § 1.368–2(l) is the same Banks, (202) 622–7180 (not toll-free to understand. The IRS and Treasury as the text of § 1.368–2T(l)(1) through numbers). Department request comments on (l)(4)(i) published elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: several issues relating to acquisitive issue of the Federal Register] reorganizations described in section Background 368(a)(1)(D). Specifically, the IRS and Mark E. Matthews, Temporary regulations in the Rules Treasury Department request comments Deputy Commissioner for Services and and Regulations section of this issue of on whether the meaningless gesture Enforcement. the Federal Register amend 26 CFR part doctrine is inconsistent with the [FR Doc. E6–21572 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] 1. The temporary regulations provide distribution requirement in sections BILLING CODE 4830–01–P guidance on circumstances where the 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B), especially distribution of stock and/or securities in situations in which the cash under section 354(b)(1)(B) will be consideration received equals the full DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE deemed satisfied in the absence of an fair market value of the property actual issuance of stock and/or transferred such that there is no missing Forest Service securities pursuant to a reorganization consideration for which the nominal described in section 368(a)(1)(D). The share of stock deemed received and 36 CFR Part 242 text of those regulations also serves as distributed could substitute. The IRS the text of these proposed regulations. and Treasury Department also request DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The preamble to the temporary comments on the extent, if any, to regulations explains the amendments. which the continuity of interest Fish and Wildlife Service requirement should apply to a Explanation of Provisions reorganization described in section 50 CFR Part 100 These temporary regulations provide 368(a)(1)(D). The IRS and Treasury guidance regarding the circumstances in Department request comments on RIN 1018–AU71 which the distribution requirement whether these temporary regulations Subsistence Management Regulations under sections 368(a)(1)(D) and should apply when the parties to the for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C 354(b)(1)(B) is deemed satisfied despite reorganization are members of a and Subpart D: 2008–09 Subsistence the fact that no stock and/or securities consolidated group. Finally, the IRS and Taking of Fish and Shellfish are actually issued in a transaction Treasury Department request comments Regulations otherwise described in section on the continued vitality of various 368(a)(1)(D). These regulations will liquidation-reincorporation authorities AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; affect certain cash sales of assets after the enactment of the Tax Reform Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. between two corporations that have the Act of 1986, Public Law 99–514 (100 ACTION: Proposed rule. same direct or indirect shareholders or Stat. 2085 (1986)). All comments will be a de minimis variation in shareholder available for public inspection and SUMMARY: This proposed rule would identity and proportionality. copying. A public hearing will be establish regulations for fishing seasons, scheduled if requested in writing by any harvest limits, methods, and means Special Analyses person that timely submits written related to taking of fish and shellfish for It has been determined that this notice comments. If a public hearing is subsistence uses during the 2008–09 of proposed rulemaking is not a scheduled, notice of the date, time, and regulatory year. The rulemaking is significant regulatory action as defined place for the public hearing will be necessary because Subpart D is subject in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a published in the Federal Register. to an annual public review cycle. When

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75900 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

final, this rulemaking would replace the Region 6—Western Interior Regional facilitated if you provide the following fish and shellfish taking regulations Council, Aniak, March 6, 2007 information: (a) Your name, address, included in the ‘‘Subsistence Region 7—Seward Peninsula Regional and telephone number; (b) The section Management Regulations for Public Council, Nome, February 20, 2007 and/or paragraph of the proposed rule Lands in Alaska, Subpart D: 2007–08 Region 8—Northwest Arctic Regional for which your change is being Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife Council, Kotzebue, March 8, 2007 suggested; (c) A statement explaining Regulations,’’ which expire on March Region 9—Eastern Interior Regional why the change is necessary; (d) The 31, 2008. This rule would also amend Council, Arctic Village, March 20, proposed wording change; (e) Any the Customary and Traditional Use 2007 additional information you believe will Determinations of the Federal Region 10—North Slope Regional help the Board in evaluating your Subsistence Board and the General Council, Barrow, March 1, 2007 proposal. Proposals that fail to include Regulations related to the taking of fish We will publish notice of specific the above information, or proposals that and shellfish. dates, times, and meeting locations in are beyond the scope of authorities in DATES: The Federal Subsistence Board local and Statewide newspapers prior to § l.24, subpart C, and §§ l.25,l .27, must receive your written public the meetings. We may need to change or l.28, subpart D, may be rejected. The comments and proposals to change this locations and dates based on weather or Board may defer review and action on proposed rule no later than March 23, local circumstances. The amount of some proposals to allow time for local 2007. Federal Subsistence Regional work on each Regional Councils agenda cooperative planning efforts, or to Advisory Councils (Regional Councils) will determine the length of each acquire additional needed information, will hold public meetings to receive Regional Council meetings. or if workload exceeds work capacity of proposals to change this proposed rule Electronic filing of comments staff, Regional Councils, or Board. These between February 19, 2007, and March (preferred method): Please submit deferrals will be based on 21, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY electronic comments (proposals) and recommendations of the affected INFORMATION for additional information other data to [email protected]. Regional Council, staff members, and on on the public meetings. Please submit as either MS Word or the basis of least harm to the subsistence user and the resource involved. ADDRESSES: You may submit proposals Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files. During May 2007, we will compile Proposals should be specific to by any of the following methods: customary and traditional use • E-mail: [email protected]. and distribute for additional public determinations or to subsistence fishing • Fax: 907–786–3898. review the written proposals to change • Mail: Office of Subsistence Subpart D fishing regulations and seasons, harvest limits, and/or methods and means. Management, 3601 C Street, Suite 1030, Subpart C customary and traditional use Anchorage, Alaska 99503. determinations. A 30-day public Background comment period will follow distribution See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for Title VIII of the Alaska National of the compiled proposal packet. We file formats and other information about Interest Lands Conservation Act will accept written public comments on electronic filing. The public meetings (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126) distributed proposals during the public will be held at various locations in requires that the Secretary of the Interior comment period, which is presently Alaska. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and the Secretary of Agriculture scheduled to end on June 29, 2007. for additional information on locations (Secretaries) implement a joint program We will hold a second series of of the public meetings. to grant a preference for subsistence Regional Council meetings in September FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: uses of fish and wildlife resources on and October 2007, at which the Regional Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o public lands, unless the State of Alaska Councils will develop recommendations U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, enacts and implements laws of general Attention: Peter J. Probasco, Office of to the Board. You may also present applicability that are consistent with Subsistence Management; (907) 786– comments on published proposals to ANILCA and that provide for the 3888. For questions specific to National change fishing and customary and subsistence definition, preference, and Forest System lands, contact Steve traditional use determination participation specified in sections 803, Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program regulations to the Regional Councils at 804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska those fall meetings. implemented a program that the Region; (907) 786–3592. The Federal Subsistence Board Department of the Interior previously (Board) will discuss and evaluate SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: found to be consistent with ANILCA. proposed changes to the subsistence However, in December 1989, the Alaska Public Review Process—Regulation taking of fish and shellfish regulations Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. Comments, Proposals, and Public during a public meeting to be held in State of Alaska that the rural preference Meetings Anchorage in January 2008. You may in the State subsistence statute violated The Federal Subsistence Program will provide additional oral testimony on the Alaska Constitution. The Court’s hold meetings on this proposed rule at specific proposals before the Board at ruling in McDowell required the State to the following locations in Alaska: that time. The Board will then delete the rural preference from the deliberate and take final action on Region 1—Southeast Regional Council, subsistence statute and, therefore, proposals received that request changes Kake, February 26, 2007 negated State compliance with ANILCA. Region 2—Southcentral Regional to this proposed rule at that public The Court stayed the effect of the Council, Anchorage, March 13, 2007 meeting. decision until July 1, 1990. Region 3—Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Please Note: The Board will not consider As a result of the McDowell decision, Council, King Cove, March 12, 2007 proposals for changes relating to hunting or the Department of the Interior and the Region 4—Bristol Bay Regional Council, trapping regulations at this time. The Board Department of Agriculture Naknek, February 20, 2007 anticipates calling for proposed changes to (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, Region 5—Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta those regulations in August 2007. responsibility for implementation of Regional Council, Hooper Bay, March The Board’s review of your comments Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. 15, 2007 and fish and shellfish proposals will be On June 29, 1990, the Temporary

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75901

Subsistence Management Regulations The Regional Councils have a Federal Subsistence Board and the for Public Lands in Alaska were substantial role in reviewing the Department of the Interior’s Subsistence published in the Federal Register (55 proposed rule and making Policy Group, it was the decision of the FR 27114). Consistent with subparts A, recommendations for the final rule. Secretary of the Interior, with the B, and C of these regulations, as revised Moreover, the Council Chairs, or their concurrence of the Secretary of October 14, 2004 (69 FR 60957), the designated representatives, will present Agriculture, through the U.S. Departments established a Federal their Council’s recommendations at the Department of Agriculture–Forest Subsistence Board to administer the Board meeting in January 2008. Service, to implement Alternative IV as Federal Subsistence Management Proposed Changes From 2007–08 identified in the DEIS and FEIS (Record Program. The Board’s composition Seasons and Harvest Limit Regulations of Decision on Subsistence Management includes a Chair appointed by the for Federal Public Lands in Alaska Secretary of the Interior with Subpart D regulations are subject to (ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS concurrence of the Secretary of an annual cycle and require and the selected alternative in the FEIS Agriculture; the Alaska Regional development of an entire new rule each defined the administrative framework of Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; year. Customary and traditional use an annual regulatory cycle for the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. determinations (§ l.24 of subpart C) are subsistence hunting and fishing National Park Service; the Alaska State also subject to an annual review process regulations. The final rule for Director, U.S. Bureau of Land providing for modification each year. Subsistence Management Regulations Management; the Alaska Regional The text of the 2006–07 subparts C and for Public Lands in Alaska, subparts A, Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; D final rule, as modified by Federal B, and C (57 FR 22940, published May and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Subsistence Board actions during their 29, 1992), implemented the Federal Forest Service. Through the Board, these January 9–11, 2007, public meeting, Subsistence Management Program and agencies participate in the development serves as the foundation for the 2008– included a framework for an annual of regulations for subparts A, B, and C, 09 subparts C and D proposed rule. cycle for subsistence hunting and and the annual subpart D regulations. Please see the 2006–07 subparts C and fishing regulations. D final rule published in the March 29, All Board members have reviewed An environmental assessment was 2006 (71 FR 15569), issue of the Federal this proposed rule and agree with its prepared in 1997 on the expansion of Register. The modifications for 2007–08 substance. Because this proposed rule Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is made by the Board during their January relates to public lands managed by an available from the office listed under agency or agencies in both the 2007 meeting may be viewed on the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Departments of Agriculture and the Office of Subsistence Management Web site at www.alaska.fws.gov/asm/ Secretary of the Interior, with the Interior, identical text would be concurrence of the Secretary of incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and home.html. The regulations contained Agriculture determined that the 50 CFR part 100. in this proposed rule would take effect on April 1, 2008, unless elements are expansion of Federal jurisdiction did Applicability of Subparts A, B, and C changed by subsequent Board action not constitute a major Federal action Subparts A, B, and C (unless following the public review process significantly affecting the human otherwise amended) of the Subsistence outlined herein. environment, and has, therefore, signed Management Regulations for Public a Finding of No Significant Impact. Lands in Alaska, 50 CFR 100.1 to 100.23 Conformance With Statutory and Compliance with section 810 of and 36 CFR 242.1 to 242.23, remain Regulatory Authorities ANILCA—A section 810 analysis was effective and apply to this proposed National Environmental Policy Act completed as part of the FEIS process on rule. Therefore, all definitions located at Compliance—A Draft Environmental the Federal Subsistence Management 50 CFR 100.4 and 36 CFR 242.4 would Impact Statement (DEIS) that described Program. The intent of all Federal apply to regulations found in this four alternatives for developing a subsistence regulations is to accord subpart. Federal Subsistence Management subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on Program was distributed for public public lands a priority over the taking Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory comment on October 7, 1991. That of fish and wildlife on such lands for Councils document described the major issues other purposes, unless restriction is Pursuant to the Record of Decision, associated with Federal subsistence necessary to conserve healthy fish and Subsistence Management Regulations management as identified through wildlife populations. The final section for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, public meetings, written comments, and 810 analysis determination appeared in April 6, 1992, and the Subsistence staff analysis and examined the the April 6, 1992, ROD, which Management Regulations for Federal environmental consequences of the four concluded that the Federal Subsistence Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR 242.11 alternatives. Proposed regulations Management Program, under (2004) and 50 CFR 100.11 (2004), and (subparts A, B, and C) that would Alternative IV with an annual process for the purposes identified therein, we implement the preferred alternative for setting hunting and fishing divide Alaska into 10 subsistence were included in the DEIS as an regulations, may have some local resource regions, each of which is appendix. The DEIS and the proposed impacts on subsistence uses, but it does represented by a Regional Council. The administrative regulations presented a not appear that the program may Regional Councils provide a forum for framework for an annual regulatory significantly restrict subsistence uses. rural residents with personal knowledge cycle regarding subsistence hunting and During the environmental assessment of local conditions and resource fishing regulations (subpart D). The process, an evaluation of the effects of requirements to have a meaningful role Final Environmental Impact Statement this rule was also conducted in in the subsistence management of fish (FEIS) was published on February 28, accordance with section 810. This and wildlife on Alaska public lands. 1992. evaluation supports the Secretaries’ The Regional Council members Based on the public comment determination that the rule will not represent varied geographical, cultural, received, the analysis contained in the reach the ‘‘may significantly restrict’’ and user diversity within each region. FEIS, and the recommendations of the threshold for notice and hearings under

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75902 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

ANILCA section 810(a) for any within the meaning of the Regulatory action is not a significant action and no subsistence resources or uses. Flexibility Act. Under the Small Statement of Energy Effects is required. Paperwork Reduction Act—The Business Regulatory Enforcement Drafting Information—William information collection requirements Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this Knauer drafted these regulations under contained in this rule have been rule is not a major rule. It does not have the guidance of Peter J. Probasco, of the approved by the Office of Management an effect on the economy of $100 Office of Subsistence Management, and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork million or more, will not cause a major Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 increase in costs or prices for Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. et seq.) and assigned OMB control consumers, and does not have Chuck Ardizzone, Alaska State Office, number 1018–0075, which expires significant adverse effects on Bureau of Land Management; Nancy October 31, 2009. We may not conduct competition, employment, investment, Swanton, Alaska Regional Office, or sponsor, and you are not required to productivity, innovation, or the ability National Park Service; Dr. Glenn Chen, respond to, a collection of information of U.S.-based enterprises to compete Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of unless it displays a current valid OMB with foreign-based enterprises. Indian Affairs; Jerry Berg, Alaska control number. Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Economic Effects—This rule is not a Secretaries to administer a subsistence Service; and Steve Kessler, USDA-Forest significant rule subject to OMB review priority on public lands. The scope of Service provided additional guidance. under Executive Order 12866. This this program is limited by definition to rulemaking will impose no significant certain public lands. Likewise, these List of Subjects costs on small entities; this rule does regulations have no potential takings of 36 CFR Part 242 not restrict any existing sport or private property implications as defined Administrative practice and commercial fishery on the public lands, by Executive Order 12630. and subsistence fisheries will continue The Secretaries have determined and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National at essentially the same levels as they certify pursuant to the Unfunded forests, Public lands, Reporting and presently occur. The exact number of Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. businesses and the amount of trade that seq., that this rulemaking will not 50 CFR Part 100 will result from this Federal land- impose a cost of $100 million or more Administrative practice and related activity is unknown. The in any given year on local or State procedure, Alaska, Fish, National aggregate effect is an insignificant governments or private entities. The forests, Public lands, Reporting and positive economic effect on a number of implementation of this rule is by recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. small entities, such as tackle, boat, and Federal agencies and there is no cost gasoline dealers. The number of small imposed on any State or local entities or For the reasons set out in the entities affected is unknown; however, tribal governments. preamble, the Federal Subsistence the fact that the positive effects will be The Secretaries have determined that Board proposes to amend 36 CFR 242 seasonal in nature and will, in most these regulations meet the applicable and 50 CFR 100 for the 2008–09 cases, merely continue preexisting uses standards provided in Sections 3(a) and regulatory year. The text of the of public lands indicates that they will 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, amendments would be the same as the not be significant. regarding civil justice reform. final rule for the 2006–07 regulatory In general, the resources to be In accordance with Executive Order year (71 FR 15569) as modified by harvested under this rule are already 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Federal Subsistence Board actions on being harvested and consumed by the federalism implications to warrant the January 9–11, 2007. local harvester and do not result in an preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Dated: December 1, 2006. additional dollar benefit to the Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State Peter J. Probasco, economy. However, we estimate that from exercising subsistence Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. about 26.2 million pounds of fish management authority over fish and (including about 9 million pounds of wildlife resources on Federal lands Dated: December 1, 2006. salmon) are harvested Statewide by the unless it meets certain requirements. Steve Kessler, local subsistence users annually and, if In accordance with the President’s Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest based on a replacement value of $3.00 memorandum of April 29, 1994, Service. per pound, would equate to $78.6 ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations [FR Doc. 06–9760 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] million in food value Statewide. The with Native American Tribal BILLING CODE 4310–55–P; 3410–11–P cultural benefits of maintaining a Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive subsistence lifestyle can be of Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have considerable value to the participants. evaluated possible effects on Federally ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION This makes the $78.6 million estimate recognized Indian tribes and have AGENCY for the consumptive value of this rule an determined that there are no significant underestimate of the total benefit. direct effects. The Bureau of Indian 40 CFR Part 51 The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Affairs is a participating agency in this [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0079, FRL–8256–8] (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires rulemaking. preparation of flexibility analyses for On May 18, 2001, the President issued RIN 2060–AJ99 rules that will have a significant Executive Order 13211 on regulations economic effect on a substantial number that significantly affect energy supply, Phase 2 of the Final Rule To Implement of small entities, which include small distribution, or use. This Executive the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air businesses, organizations, or Order requires agencies to prepare Quality Standard—Notice of governmental jurisdictions. The Statements of Energy Effects when Reconsideration Departments certify based on the above undertaking certain actions. As this rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection figures that this rulemaking will not is not a significant regulatory action Agency (EPA). have a significant economic effect on a under Executive Order 13211, affecting ACTION: Proposed rule. substantial number of small entities energy supply, distribution, or use, this

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75903

SUMMARY: On November 29, 2005, EPA NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please information is not publicly available, published Phase 2 of the final rule to include two copies if possible. i.e., CBI or other information whose implement the 8-hour ozone national • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center disclosure is restricted by statute. ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. Certain other material, such as Subsequently, EPA received a petition EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0079, copyrighted material, is not placed on to reconsider specific aspects of this Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 the Internet and will be publicly final rule. In this action, EPA is Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, available only in hard copy form. announcing its decision to reconsider Washington, DC. Such deliveries are Publicly available docket materials are and take additional comment on three only accepted during the Docket available either electronically in provisions in the final Phase 2 8-hour Center’s normal hours of operation, and www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at ozone implementation rule: The special arrangements should be made the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), determination that electric generating for deliveries of boxed information. EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 • units (EGUs) that comply with rules Instructions: Direct your comments Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, implementing the Clean Air Interstate to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– DC. The Public Reading Room is open Rule (CAIR) and that are located in 0079. The EPA’s policy is that all from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday States where all required CAIR comments received will be included in through Friday, excluding legal emissions reductions are achieved from the public docket without change and holidays. The telephone number for the EGUs meet the 8-hour ozone State may be made available on-line at Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. implementation plan (SIP) requirement www.regulations.gov, including any For information on accessing docket for application of reasonably available personal information provided, unless materials during the temporary closure control technology (RACT) for nitrogen the comment includes information of the EPA docket center see note above. oxide (NOX) emissions; a new source claimed to be confidential business review (NSR) requirement allowing information (CBI) or other information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For sources to use certain emission whose disclosure is restricted by statute. further information on the issue relating reductions as offsets under certain Do not submit information that you to NOX RACT for EGU sources in CAIR circumstances; and an NSR provision consider to be CBI or otherwise States, contact Mr. John Silvasi, Office addressing when requirements for the protected through www.regulations.gov, of Air Quality Planning and Standards, lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and emission offsets may be waived. In site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, (C539–01), Research Triangle Park, NC addition, EPA requests comment on which means EPA will not know your 27711, phone number (919) 541–5666, postponing the submission date for the identity or contact information unless fax number (919) 541–0824 or by e-mail RACT SIP for RACT SIPs for EGUs in you provide it in the body of your at [email protected] or Ms. Denise the CAIR region. The EPA is seeking comment. If you send an e-mail Gerth, Office of Air Quality Planning comment only on the three issues comment directly to EPA without going and Standards, U.S. Environmental specifically identified in this notice and through www.regulations.gov, your e- Protection Agency, (C539–01), Research the submission date issue. We do not mail address will be automatically Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number intend to respond to comments captured and included as part of the (919) 541–5550, fax number (919) 541– addressing other provisions of the final comment that is placed in the public 0824 or by e-mail at 8-hour ozone implementation rule that docket and made available on the [email protected]. For further we are not reconsidering. Internet. If you submit an electronic information on the NSR issues DATES: Comments. Comments must be comment, EPA recommends that you discussed in this notice, contact Mr. received on or before January 18, 2007. include your name and other contact David Painter, Office of Air Quality If anyone contacts us requesting a information in the body of your Planning and Standards, (C504–03), public hearing by December 29, 2006, comment and with any disk or CD–ROM U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North the hearing will be held on January 3, you submit. If EPA cannot read your Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 2007. If a public hearing is requested, comment due to technical difficulties 541–5515, fax number (919) 541–5509, the record for this action will remain and cannot contact you for clarification, e-mail: [email protected]. open until February 2, 2007 to EPA may not be able to consider your SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: accommodate submittal of information comment. Electronic files should avoid related to the public hearing. For the use of special characters, any form I. General Information additional information on the public of encryption, and be free of any defects A. Does This Action Apply to Me? hearing, see the SUPPLEMENTARY or viruses. For additional information INFORMATION section of this notice of about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 1. Issue on Determination of CAIR/ reconsideration. Docket Center homepage at http:// RACT Equivalency for NOX EGUs ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– For additional instructions on Entities potentially affected by the OAR–2003–0079, by one of the submitting comments, go to the subject rule for today’s action include following methods: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of States (typically State air pollution • www.regulations.gov: Follow the this document. control agencies), and, in some cases, on-line instructions for submitting Public Hearing: If a hearing is held it local governments that develop air comments. will be held at the U.S. Environmental pollution control rules, in the region • E-mail: [email protected]. Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander affected by the CAIR.1 The EGUs are • Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Drive, Research Triangle Park, North also potentially affected by virtue of (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. Carolina 27709, Building C. State action in SIPs that implement EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0079, Docket: All documents in the docket provisions resulting from final Environmental Protection Agency, Mail are listed in www.regulations.gov. rulemaking on today’s action; these Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Although listed in the index, some sources are in the following groups:

1 Federal Register of May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75904 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Industry group SIC a NAICS b

Electric Services ...... 492 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122. a Standard Industrial Classification. b North American Industry Classification System.

2. NSR Issues sources in all industry groups. The are expected to be in the following Entities potentially affected by the majority of sources potentially affected groups. subject rule for today’s action include

Industry group SIC a NAICS b

Electric Services ...... 492 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122. Petroleum Refining ...... 291 324110. Industrial Inorganic Chemicals ...... 281 325181, 325120, 325131, 325182, 211112, 325998, 331311, 325188. Industrial Organic Chemicals ...... 286 325110, 325132, 325192, 325188, 325193, 325120, 325199. Miscellaneous Chemical Products ...... 289 325520, 325920, 325910, 325182, 325510. Natural Gas Liquids ...... 132 211112. Natural Gas Transport ...... 492 486210, 221210. Pulp and Paper Mills ...... 261 322110, 322121, 322122, 322130. Paper Mills ...... 262 322121, 322122. Automobile Manufacturing ...... 371 336111, 336112, 336211, 336992, 336322, 336312, 336330, 336340, 336350, 336399, 336212, 336213. Pharmaceuticals ...... 283 325411, 325412, 325413, 325414. a Standard Industrial Classification. b North American Industry Classification System.

Entities potentially affected by the • Explain why you agree or disagree; 2006. Any person who plans to attend subject rule for today’s action also suggest alternatives and substitute the hearing should visit the EPA’s Web include State, local, and Tribal language for your requested changes. site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ governments that are delegated • Describe any assumptions and ozone/o3imp8hr/ and contact Ms. authority to implement these provide any technical information and/ Pamela S. Long at (919) 541–0641 to regulations. or data that you used. learn if a hearing will be held. • If you estimate potential costs or If a public hearing is held on today’s B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare burdens, explain how you arrived at My Comments for EPA? notice, it will be held on January 3, 2007 your estimate in sufficient detail to at the EPA, Building C, 109 T.W. 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this allow for it to be reproduced. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle • information to EPA through Provide specific examples to Park, NC 27709. Because the hearing www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly illustrate your concerns, and suggest will be held at a U.S. Government mark the part or all of the information alternatives. • facility, everyone planning to attend that you claim to be CBI. For CBI Explain your views as clearly as should be prepared to show valid information in a disk or CD ROM that possible, avoiding the use of profanity picture identification to the security you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the or personal threats. staff in order to gain access to the • Make sure to submit your disk or CD ROM as CBI and then meeting room. Please check our Web comments by the comment period identify electronically within the disk or site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ CD ROM the specific information that is deadline identified. ozone/o3imp8hr/ for information and claimed as CBI. In addition to one C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This updates concerning the public hearing. complete version of the comment that Document and Other Related includes information claimed as CBI, a If held, the public hearing will begin Information? copy of the comment that does not at 10 a.m. and end at 2 p.m. The hearing contain the information claimed to be In addition to being available in the will be limited to the subject matter of CBI must be submitted for inclusion in docket, an electronic copy of today’s this document. Oral testimony will be the public docket. Information so notice is also available on the World limited to 5 minutes. The EPA marked will not be disclosed except in Wide Web. A copy of today’s notice will encourages commenters to provide accordance with procedures set forth in be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ written versions of their oral testimony 40 CFR part 2. naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/. either electronically (on computer disk 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. or CD ROM) or in paper copy. The list D. What Information Should I Know When submitting comments, remember of speakers will be posted on EPA’s Web About the Public Hearing? to: site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ • Identify the rulemaking by docket If requested, EPA will hold a public ozone/o3imp8hr/. Verbatim transcripts number and other identifying hearing on today’s notice. The EPA will and written statements will be included information (subject heading, Federal hold a hearing only if a party notifies in the rulemaking docket. Register date and page number). EPA by December 29, 2006, expressing A public hearing would provide • Follow directions—The agency may its interest in presenting oral testimony interested parties the opportunity to ask you to respond to specific questions on issues addressed in today’s notice. present data, views, or arguments or organize comments by referencing a Any person may request a hearing by concerning issues addressed in today’s Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part calling Ms. Pamela S. Long at (919) 541– notice. The EPA may ask clarifying or section number. 0641 before 5 p.m. by December 29, questions during the oral presentations,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75905

but would not respond to the F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation that date. In addition, the CAIR’s 2015 presentations or comments at that time. and Coordination With Indian Tribal NOX cap will eliminate all NOX Written statements and supporting Governments emissions from EGUs that are highly G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of information submitted during the Children From Environmental Health cost effective to control, and the 2009 comment period will be considered Risks and Safety Risks cap represents an interim step toward with the same weight as any oral H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that end. We also noted additional comments and supporting information Concerning Regulations That arguments in the phase 2 rule, which we presented at a public hearing. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, are summarizing below under Section If a public hearing is held, the record Distribution, or Use III. A. 1. below. for this action will remain open until I. National Technology Transfer and February 2, 2007 to accommodate Advancement Act 2. Petition for Reconsideration submittal of information related to the J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions The EPA received a petition for To Address Environmental Justice in public hearing. Otherwise, if a hearing Minority Populations and Low-Income reconsideration of the final Phase 2 rule is not held, the record for this action Populations from the NRDC. This petition raised will remain open until January 18, 2007. V. Statutory Authority several objections to EPA’s determination that, in certain E. How Is This Notice Organized? II. Background circumstances, EGUs in CAIR States The information presented in this On November 29, 2005, EPA may satisfy the NOX RACT requirement notice is organized as follows: published the final Phase 2 rulemaking for ozone if they comply with rules I. General Information to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS implementing the CAIR. Specifically, A. Does This Action Apply to Me? (the Phase 2 Rule). That rule established they argued that: B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My requirements relating to several specific • The EPA unlawfully and arbitrarily Comments for EPA? elements of the SIPs for nonattainment failed to seek public comment on the C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This areas for the 8-hour ozone standard final rule’s determination that the CAIR Document and Other Related including: The attainment satisfies NOX RACT requirements. Information? • D. What Information Should I Know About demonstration; the RACT requirement; The EPA’s CAIR–RACT the Public Hearing? the reasonable further progress (RFP) determinations are unlawful and E. How Is This Notice Organized? requirement; and new source review. arbitrary because EPA’s action illegally II. Background The Natural Resources Defense abrogates the Act’s RACT requirements. A. NOX RACT for EGUs in CAIR States Council (NRDC) filed a petition for The EPA granted NRDC’s petition by 1. Proposed and Final Rules and Guidance reconsideration dated January 30, 2006 letter of June 21, 2006. In this action, 2. Petition for Reconsideration under section 307(d) of the Clean Air EPA is announcing the initiation of the B. NSR Issues Act (CAA) concerning three provisions reconsideration process and requesting 1. Our Previous Proposed and Final Rules of the Phase 2 rule. The EPA has granted additional public comment on this 2. Petition for Reconsideration III. This Action the petition and, in this notice, EPA issue. Also, EPA is supplementing the announces its decision to reconsider the A. NOX RACT for EGUs in CAIR States record with additional technical 1. Reconsideration and Request for three provisions discussed below and analyses that addresses the Comment on NOX RACT for EGUs in requests public comment on these determination that the CAIR satisfies the CAIR States issues. NOX RACT requirement for covered 2. Supplemental Technical Analysis EGUs. 3. Request for Public Comment Period on A. NOX RACT for EGUs in CAIR States Submission Date for RACT SIP for NOX 1. Proposed and Final Rules and B. NSR Issues for EGUs in CAIR Region Guidance B. Provisions of Final Rule Regarding the 1. Our Previous Proposed and Final Criteria for Emission Reduction Credits In the Phase 2 rulemaking to Rules From Shutdowns and Curtailments implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, The major NSR provisions in the 1. Why We Changed Major Source NSR EPA determined that EGU sources November 29, 2005 Phase 2 rulemaking Criteria for Emission Reduction Credits complying with rules implementing the were proposed as part of two different (ERC) From Shutdowns and CAIR requirements meet ozone NO Curtailments X regulatory packages. On July 23, 1996 2. Legal Basis for Changes to Criteria for RACT requirements in States where all (61 FR 38250), we proposed changes to Emission Reduction Credits From required CAIR emissions reductions are the major NSR program, including Shutdowns and Curtailments achieved from EGUs only.2 We noted codification of the requirements of part 3. Reconsideration of Emission Reduction that the CAIR final rulemaking D of title I of the 1990 CAA Credits Final Rule Language and Request established a region-wide NOX Amendments for major stationary for Public Comments emissions cap, effective in 2009, at a sources of volatile organic compounds C. Applicability of Appendix S, Section VI level that, assuming the reductions are (VOC), NOX, particulate matter having a 1. Final Changes to Applicability of achieved from EGUs, would result in Appendix S, Section VI nominal aerodynamic diameter less 2. Legal Basis for Changes to Applicability EGUs installing emission controls on than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), and of Appendix S and the Transitional NSR the maximum total capacity on which it CO. On June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802), we Program is feasible to install emission controls by proposed a rule to implement the 8-hour 3. Reconsideration of Appendix S, Section ozone NAAQS. In the 2003 action, we VI Final Rule Language and Request for 2 However, as noted below, a State that elects to proposed a rule to identify the statutory Public Comments bring its NOX SIP Call non-EGU sources into the CAIR ozone season trading program may continue requirements that apply for purposes of IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews developing SIPs under the CAA to A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory to rely on EPA’s determination that RACT is met Planning and Review for EGU sources covered by the CAIR trading implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS program. It may rely on this determination if and (68 FR 32802). We did not propose B. Paperwork Reduction Act only if the State retains a summer season EGU C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) budget under the CAIR that is at least restrictive as specific regulatory language for D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the EGU budget that was set in the State’s NOX SIP implementation of NSR under the 8- E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism call SIP. hour NAAQS. However, we indicated

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

that we intended to revise the (ban) prohibiting construction of new or required CAIR emissions reductions are nonattainment NSR regulations to be modified major stationary sources in achieved from EGUs only.4 We noted consistent with the rule for nonattainment areas where the State that the CAIR final rulemaking implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS fails to have an implementation plan established a region-wide NOX (68 FR 32844). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR meeting all of the requirements of part emissions cap, effective in 2009, at a 23951), we published a final rule that D. level that, assuming the reductions are addressed classifications for the 8-hour achieved from EGUs, would result in 2. Petition for Reconsideration NAAQS. The April 2004 rule also EGUs installing emission controls on included the NSR permitting The NRDC petition for the maximum total capacity on which it requirements for the 8-hour ozone reconsideration raised two objections to is feasible to install emission controls by standard, which necessarily follow from the major NSR aspects of the Phase 2 that date. In addition, the CAIR’s 2015 the classification scheme chosen under rulemaking: NOX cap will eliminate all NOX the terms of subpart 1 and subpart 2. • Allowing sources to use emission emissions from EGUs that are highly In 1996, we proposed to revise the reductions as offsets if they occur after cost effective to control, and the 2009 regulations limiting offsets from the last day of the base year for the SIP cap represents an interim step toward emissions reductions due to shutting planning process; and that end. We also noted the following in • down an existing source or curtailing Changes to Section VI of Appendix the Phase 2 rulemaking: production or operating hours below S allowing for waiver of nonattainment • The EPA’s prior views on the baseline levels (‘‘shutdowns/ major NSR requirements for some details of the NOX RACT program were curtailments’’). We proposed source categories. set forth in the ‘‘NOX Supplement to the substantive revisions in two alternatives The EPA granted the petition by letter General Preamble,’’ November 25, 1992 that would ease, under certain of June 21, 2006 and in this action EPA (57 FR 55620). In that document, EPA circumstances, the existing restrictions announces its decision to reconsider determined that in the majority of cases, on the use of emission reduction credits and to request additional public RACT will result in an overall level of from source shutdowns and comment on these issues. control equivalent to specified curtailments as offsets. maximum allowable emission rates (in On July 23, 1996, we proposed to III. This Action pounds of NOX per million Btu) for revise 40 CFR 52.24 to incorporate A. NOX RACT for EGUs in CAIR States certain specified electric utility boilers. changes made by the 1990 CAA 1. Reconsideration and Request for Section 4.6 of this document (57 FR Amendments related to the applicability 55625) noted in part, ‘‘In general, EPA of construction bans (61 FR 38305). To Comment on NOX RACT for EGUs in CAIR States considers RACT for utilities to be the clarify our intent, our proposed 8-hour most effective level of combustion ozone NAAQS implementation rule in In this notice, EPA announces its modification reasonably available to an June 2003 explained that section decision to reconsider and request individual unit. This implies low NO 52.24(k) remained in effect and would additional comment on the X burners, in some cases with overfire air be retained. In that action, we also determination that EGU sources and in other instances without overfire proposed that we would revise section complying with rules implementing air; flue gas recirculation; and 52.24(k) to reflect the changes in the CAIR requirements meet ozone NO X conceivably some situations with no 1990 CAA Amendments (68 FR 32846). RACT requirements in States where all control at all.’’ The NO Supplement On June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802), we required CAIR reductions are achieved X also provided, ‘‘* * * the State may explained implementation of the major from EGUs only.3 This determination allow individual owners/operators in NSR program under the 8-hour ozone provided the basis for our determination the nonattainment area (or, NAAQS during the SIP development that, for purposes of meeting the NO X alternatively, Statewide within an ozone period, and proposed flexible NSR RACT requirement, States need not transport region) to have emission limits requirements for areas that expected to perform (or submit) NO RACT analyses X which result in greater or lesser attain the 8-hour NAAQS within 3 years for sources subject to a NO trading X emission reductions so long as the after designation. program meeting the CAIR NO X areawide average emission rates In the final regulations, we included requirements (in a State achieving all described above are met on a Btu- several revisions to the regulations CAIR reductions from EGUs only). weighted average.’’ (57 FR at 55625). governing the nonattainment NSR According to this provision, States The NO Supplement also set forth (in programs mandated by section relying on this conclusion for the X section 4.7) guidance on RACT for 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I of the affected EGU sources need to document utility boilers other than those specified CAA. First, we codified requirements their reliance on EPA’s determination in in section 4.6 and also for other source added to part D of title I of the CAA in their RACT SIPs. A full discussion of categories. This section noted in part, the 1990 Amendments related to EPA’s rationale and the conditions ‘‘In general, EPA expects that NO permitting of major stationary sources in under which the above determination is X RACT for these other sources will be set areas that are nonattainment for the 8- valid appears in the Phase 2 Rule at levels that are comparable to the hour ozone, particulate matter (PM), and preamble at FR 71656–71658 (November RACT guidance specified above [in carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. Second, 29, 2005). However, we are section 4.6] * * *’’ we revised the criteria for crediting summarizing that rationale here: emissions reductions credits from In the Phase 2 rulemaking to 4 shutdowns and curtailments as offsets. implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, However, as noted below, a State that elects to bring its NOX SIP Call non-EGU souces into the Third, we revised the regulations for EPA determined that EGU sources CAIR ozone season trading program may continue permitting of major stationary sources in complying with rules implementing the to rely on EPA’s determination that RACT is met for EGU sources covered by the CAIR trading nonattainment areas in interim periods CAIR requirements meet ozone NOX between designation of new program. It may rely on this determination if and RACT requirements in States where all only if the State retains a summer season EGU nonattainment areas and EPA’s approval budget under the CAIR that is at least as restrictive 3 of a revised SIP. Also, we changed the However, see footnote 1 above and exception as the EGU budget that was set in the State’s NOX regulations that impose a moratorium described below. SIP call SIP.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75907

• ‘‘The [CAIR] budgets are based on same total emissions reductions as the highly cost effective to control (the 2009 the level of emissions that can be CAIR alone, in a more costly way. cap represents an interim step toward achieved through highly cost-effective • As a result, we believe that EGUs that end). In general, we expect that the controls that EPA determined are subject to the CAIR NOX emissions cap largest-emitting EGU sources will be the available from EGUs; however, States meet the RACT requirement for NOX (in first to install NOX control technology have flexibility to choose the measures States that require all CAIR NOX and that such control technology will they will use to achieve the necessary reductions from EGUs). gradually be installed on progressively emissions reductions. Due to feasibility The EPA made the finding for all smaller-emitting EGU sources until the constraints, EPA is requiring the CAIR areas in the CAIR region, such that ultimate cap is reached. If States choose budgets to be achieved in two phases. States meeting the CAIR emissions to require smaller-emitting EGU sources For summertime NOX, the first phase reduction requirements with reductions in nonattainment areas to meet source- starts in 2009 (covering 2009–2014); 5 from EGUs only, need not submit RACT specific RACT requirements by 2009 the second phase of NOX reductions analyses for covered EGU sources (the required compliance date for begins in 2015 (covering 2015 and subject to and in compliance with rules RACT), they would likely use labor and thereafter).’’ (70 FR 71621). We also implementing CAIR requirements. At other resources that would otherwise be noted in the June 2, 2003, proposal that this time, EPA is not proposing to make used for emission controls on larger we considered highly-cost effective any changes to this provision. The EGU sources. Because of economies of petition for reconsideration did not controls for NOX for EGUs and non- scale, more boiler-makers (skilled EGUs that were used to establish the provide information sufficient to workers needed to install control convince EPA that any aspect of the Statewide NOX emission caps in the equipment on EGUs) and other determination in the final Phase 2 8- NOX SIP call to constitute a greater level resources may be required per megawatt of control than RACT. (68 FR 32839.) hour ozone rule was in error, and EPA’s of power generation for smaller units • In general, we expect that the supplemental technical analysis lends than for larger units. Thus, the cost of largest-emitting EGU sources will be the support to this determination. However, achieving such reductions would be EPA acknowledges that the agency did first to install NO control technology greater on a per ton basis. If it were X not provide sufficient opportunity for and that such control technology will possible to strategically target source- public comment on this determination. gradually be installed on progressively specific requirements at the EGUs that We recognize the significant public smaller-emitting EGU sources until the can be controlled most cost effectively, interest in this issue and request ultimate cap is reached. then the imposition of source-specific additional comment on this • We do not believe that requiring controls would achieve the same determination. temporal and spatial distribution of source-specific RACT controls on EGUs As explained in the preamble to the controls as the projected CAIR cap-and- in nonattainment areas will reduce total final Phase 2 Rule, EPA does not believe trade program. But this would require NOX emissions from EGU sources that requiring source-specific RACT accurate forehand knowledge of each covered by the CAIR below the levels controls on EGUs in nonattainment EGU’s control costs, which would be that would be achieved under the CAIR areas will reduce total NOX emissions alone. from sources covered by the CAIR below practically difficult for regulators to • We believe that EGU source-specific the levels that would be achieved under obtain. Without this accurate source- RACT would result in more costly the CAIR alone. As discussed more fully specific control cost information, the emission reductions on a per ton basis. in the CAIR final rulemaking, EPA has imposition of EGU source-specific requirements would make any given We noted the following: ‘‘As discussed set the 2009 CAIR NOX cap at a level more fully in the CAIR final rulemaking, that, assuming the reductions are level of emission reduction more costly than it would be under the cap-and- EPA has set the 2009 CAIR NOX cap at achieved from EGUs, would result in a level that, assuming the reductions are EGUs installing emission controls on trade program alone. Thus, in States that achieved from EGUs, would result in the maximum total capacity on which it achieve all CAIR reductions from EGUs, EGUs installing emission controls on is feasible to install emission controls by requiring both source-specific RACT on the maximum total capacity on which it that date. Under cap-and-trade programs EGUs and compliance with rules is feasible to install emission controls by such as the CAIR program, there is a implementing the CAIR would not those dates. The 2015 NOX cap is direct relationship between the total achieve greater collective total specifically designed to eliminate all number of allowances held by emissions reductions from EGUs NOX emissions from EGUs that are participating sources and the collective covered by the CAIR, and the collective highly cost effective to control (the first emissions from those sources. EGU reductions would likely be achieved at cap represents an interim step toward source-specific control requirements higher overall cost. that end) * * * In general, we expect (such as EGU source-by-source RACT) The CAIR is implemented on an that the largest-emitting sources will be layered on top of the overall allowance- annual and (for ozone) a seasonal basis. the first to install NOX control based emissions cap may affect the We believe that these averaging periods technology and that such control temporal distribution of emissions (by on which RACT is being implemented technology will gradually be installed reducing banking and thus delaying under the Phase 2 Rule are not in on progressively smaller-emitting early reductions) or the spatial conflict with existing EPA policy. In sources until the ultimate cap is distribution of emissions (by moving general, the RACT requirement is reached.’’ (70 FR 71657, col. 3). them around from one place to another), applied on a short-term basis up to 24 • The combination of EGU source but such requirements do not affect total hours.6 However, EPA guidance permits specific RACT and the CAIR emissions allowed emissions in the CAIR region. cap would not reduce the collective Furthermore, we believe that EGU 6 6 See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108 col. 2, ‘‘Compliance total emissions from EGUs covered by source-specific RACT could result in Periods’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘VOC rules should the CAIR, but would likely achieve the more costly emission reductions on a describe explicitly the compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g., per ton basis. The 2015 NOX cap is instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules 5 The CAIR first phase also provides an annual specifically designed to eliminate all are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret NOX budget, which also starts in 2009. NOX emissions from EGUs that are it as instantaneous.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

averaging times longer than 24 hours level of control significantly over short CAIR trading programs. Additionally, under certain conditions.7 Although periods, since it will generally be in separate provisions of the CAIR rule these earlier EPA guidance documents their economic interest to control in allow States to choose to allow large were directed at VOC, the NOX order to generate emission allowances NOX sources that are not EGUs to opt- Supplement to the General Preamble 8 for sale to EGUs that opt not to install in to the trading programs. States that provides, ‘‘While this guidance has been controls. Sources that comply with the elect to allow such opt-ins, and States largely directed at application within CAIR comply with the overall NOX that require reductions from sources the VOC program, much of the guidance emission caps on an annual and (for other than EGUs in implementing CAIR, is also applicable to RACT for stationary ozone) a seasonal basis. We note that may not rely on EPA’s determination sources of NOX.’’ Section 4.6 (‘‘RACT sources covered by the CAIR are that EGUs complying with rules for Certain Electric Utility Boilers’’) of expected to reduce emissions to either implementing the CAIR satisfy NOX the NOX Supplement provides generally comply with State emission limits (or to RACT. If only part of the CAIR applicable NOX RACT emission rates for ‘‘overcontrol’’ beyond mere compliance reductions are required from EGUs, and certain utility boilers on a pounds of and create surplus emission reduction the balance of the reductions obtained NOX per million Btu basis and credits that would be used to provide from non-EGU sources, then the indicates, ‘‘Compliance with these allowances to under-controlling stringency of the CAIR EGU control limits may be determined on a sources) through permanent installation would be diminished to some extent (an continuous basis through the use of a 30 of emission controls such as selective amount that cannot be determined until day rolling average emission rate, catalytic reduction or selective non- a State submits a SIP indicating which calculated each operating day as the catalytic reduction or combustion sources are participating in the average of all hourly data for the modification. As we noted in the Phase program). Therefore, in these cases, the pr[e]ceeding 30 operating days.’’ 2 Rule preamble in relation to the NOX rationale for our determination that Other EPA guidance and policy allow SIP call, ‘‘In addition to operating these sources satisfy the RACT for longer averaging times in certain advanced controls at least in the ozone requirement would not necessarily circumstances. The EPA’s ‘‘Economic season, many sources have installed apply. Incentive Policy’’ 9 (EIP) provides combustion controls that function all Nonetheless, a State that elects to guidance on use of long-term averages the time; emissions reductions from bring its NO SIP Call non-EGU sources for RACT and generally provides for these controls will occur year round.’’ X into the CAIR ozone season trading averaging times of no greater than 30 (70 FR 71656). Therefore, because of the program may continue to rely on EPA’s days. However, that guidance also expected general level of permanence of determination that RACT is met for EGU states, ‘‘For NOX sources that are the controls on individual sources, EPA sources covered by the CAIR trading required to comply with the [Ozone believes that sources that install program. It may rely on this Transport Region] NOX MOU regulation controls will generally continue to determination if and only if the State or the NOX SIP call, the averaging time provide the level of control for an retains a summer season EGU budget of an emission limit must not exceed a extended period of time. compliance period of an area’s ozone For these reasons, we continue to under the CAIR that is at least as season. Sources involved with EIP believe that EGUs subject to rules restrictive as the EGU budget that was set in the State’s NOX SIP call SIP. The trades must meet all requirements implementing the CAIR NOX emission applicable to the program.’’ The EPA reduction requirements satisfy the rationale for this determination is that the sources covered by the NOX SIP call interprets this policy as applying to all RACT requirements for NOX (in States were shown to meet a level of NOX trading programs and providing that the that require all CAIR NOX reductions averaging time may not exceed the from EGUs). Thus, at this time, EPA is control that exceeds EPA’s presumption period for determining compliance with not proposing to make any changes to of control under NOX RACT. Note that EPA is not reconsidering or requesting the trading program (e.g., one year for the determination concerning NOX the CAIR annual trading programs—and RACT for EGUs in CAIR States in the additional comment on its the ozone season for the CAIR ozone Phase 2 Rule. The EPA continues to determination that the NOX SIP Call season trading program). support its determination that States constitutes RACT for sources covered by In addition, the RACT emission achieving all CAIR reductions from the NOX SIP Call. Therefore, as reductions need to be permanent, i.e., EGUs need not submit RACT analyses explained in the final Phase 2 Rule, if once implemented, they also need to be for EGU sources that are subject to and the summer season EGU budget under continuously implemented. The EPA in compliance with rules implementing CAIR is at least as restrictive as set out believes that emissions reductions from the CAIR requirements. in the NOX SIP call SIP, and if non-EGU the CAIR will continue to be applied on The determination that EGU sources sources after 2008 continue to be subject a permanent basis. The EPA believes complying with rules implementing to a SIP that regulates those non-EGU that EGUs covered by the CAIR that CAIR requirements thereby also meet sources equally or more stringently than make the economic decision to install ozone NOX RACT requirements applies the State’s current rules meeting the permanent controls will generally only to EGUs in States achieving all NOX SIP call, then those EGUs are reduce their emissions for an extended required CAIR reductions from EGUs, meeting a level of control at least as period of time and not fluctuate in their except as noted below. As explained in stringent as RACT. (See 68 FR 32839, the preamble to the final Phase 2 Rule, col. 1 ‘‘Proposed Approach for NOX 7 Memorandum from John O’Connor, Acting under the CAIR, a State may elect to RACT Determinations in Areas Affected Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and meet its State budget for NOX emissions by the NOX SIP Call;’’ and 70 FR 71656, Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits—SIP solely through requiring reductions col. 2, ‘‘Response,’’ and col. 3, ‘‘NOX SIP Revision Policy.’’ from EGUs or through requiring Call.’’) If the State does not meet these 8 57 FR at 55625, col. 1 sec. 4.5 ‘‘Relation to VOC reductions from a combination of conditions, the State would need to RACT Policies’’ (November 25, 1992). sources, including non-EGUs. If the conduct RACT analyses for those EGUs 9 Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive State requires reductions from sources (either on an individual basis, or using Programs, January 2001, available at http:// www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/ other than EGUs, it is not eligible to the averaging approach within the search.htm. participate in the EPA-administered nonattainment area). The published

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75909

CAIR summer season NOX budgets for analysis illustrates that the CAIR that are reasonable to achieve. Because each State are at least as stringent as the achieves greater overall emissions the CAIR achieves more NOX emission NOX budgets for the NOX SIP call. Also, reductions across the CAIR region and reductions overall across the CAIR the CAIR rule permits a State to bring across the OTR than would be achieved region and the OTR than EGU-by-EGU its NOX SIP Call non-EGU sources into through the application of EGU source- application of RACT, we believe this the CAIR ozone season trading program by-source RACT controls. The docket will result in more region-wide air only if they continue to be regulated at contains a Technical Support quality improvements than application the same level of stringency as under Document 12 describing the analysis. of RACT in the absence of the CAIR. the NOX SIP call. 40 CFR 96.340 This emissions analysis, though not The CAIR is projected to improve ozone (published at 70 FR 25392, May 12, quantitatively definitive, is suggestive of air quality across much of the eastern 2005)). the appropriateness of the half of the country, including many In addition, as we noted in the Phase determination that areas meet the 8- current and projected future 2 Rule, a State has discretion to require hour ozone SIP requirement for nonattainment areas. A list of the beyond-RACT NOX reductions from any application of RACT for NOX emissions counties projected to be in source (including sources covered by where all EGUs comply with rules nonattainment in 2010 and 2015 (in the the CAIR or NOX SIP Call programs), implementing the CAIR and those areas absence of the CAIR and 8-hour ozone and has an obligation to demonstrate are located in States where all required SIPs), and the air quality improvement attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard CAIR emissions reductions are achieved provided by the CAIR in each county, is as expeditiously as practicable. In exclusively from EGUs. There is provided in the preamble to the final certain areas, States may require NOX uncertainty in the assumptions made in CAIR (70 FR 91, May 12, 2005, pp. controls based on more advanced the analysis, although, as noted in the 25254–25255, Tables VI–12 and VI–13) control technologies as necessary to Technical Support Document, the and in the final Air Quality Modeling provide for attainment of the ozone assumptions tended to be conservative, Technical Support Document in the standards. i.e., erring on the side of projecting more CAIR final rule docket (docket emission reductions under the RACT 2. Supplemental Technical Analysis document EPA–OAR–2003–0053–2123). scenario. The analysis does not project The CAIR improves air quality in all of To provide further support for the that CAIR emission reductions are the 40 projected 2010 nonattainment determination regarding CAIR and equivalent to or exceed the reductions counties, and in all 22 of the projected ozone NOX RACT, EPA conducted an from source-by-source RACT for EGUs 2015 nonattainment counties, that were additional technical analysis. For each for every relevant nonattainment area identified in the CAIR rule modeling. geographic area within the CAIR region and every State within the OTR. The modeling also showed air quality where 8-hour ozone RACT However, CAIR emission reductions are improvement in numerous counties determinations are required, EPA overall significantly greater regionwide projected to be in attainment. examined whether the emissions than reductions obtained from source- reductions projected from the CAIR by-source RACT for EGUs in both the 3. Request for Public Comment Period equal or exceed the emissions CAIR region and the OTR. It is our belief on Submission Date for RACT SIP for reductions projected to occur from that, due to the nature of regional RACT SIPs for EGUs in CAIR Region 10 application of source-by-source RACT. emissions transport, local Because EPA is reconsidering the Specifically, this analysis was nonattainment area emissions RACT determination discussed above, conducted for operating coal-, oil-, and reductions alone will not achieve the we believe it is appropriate to postpone gas-fired EGUs for each ozone transport most effective or economically efficient the submission date for the portion of region (OTR) State within the CAIR impact on ozone air quality in the 8-hour ozone SIP that addresses region and for each nonattainment area nonattainment areas. We believe a NOX RACT for EGUs in the CAIR region. in the CAIR region for which a RACT combination of local and broader The EPA therefore proposes a new date SIP, separate from an attainment regional reductions, such as those of June 15, 2007 for States in the CAIR demonstration SIP, is expected to be driven by the CAIR requirements for region to submit RACT SIPs for these 11 required. The analysis was conducted EGUs, will achieve a more effective and sources. on the basis of annual emissions and economically efficient air quality Such a postponement would affect also summer season emissions. This improvement in nonattainment areas only moderate 8-hour ozone than application of source-by-source nonattainment areas in the CAIR region 10 Since RACT is a technology requirement RACT. and only the portion of the RACT SIPs prescribing year-round controls, it is appropriate to Further, EPA believes that the term that covers EGUs. For moderate areas in consider how participation in both CAIR trading ‘‘reasonable’’ in RACT may be construed the CAIR region, the States must still programs (annual and seasonal) will affect annual to allow consideration of the air quality emissions of NOX and to compare that to how submit RACT SIPs for all other affected impact of required emissions reductions RACT will affect annual emissions of NOX. sources per 40 CFR 51.912(a) by 11 from a region-wide cap and trade 40 CFR 51.912(c)(1) (promulgated in the Phase September 15, 2006. 2 Rule) provides that for a subpart 1 area ‘‘*** program such as the CAIR. As stated that submits an attainment demonstration that earlier, the region-wide CAIR NOX B. Provisions of Final Rule Regarding requests an attainment date 5 or less years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, the State shall emissions cap for 2009 was established the Criteria for Emission Reduction meet the RACT requirement by submitting an based on the maximum total capacity on Credits from Shutdowns and attainment demonstration SIP demonstrating that which it was possible to install controls Curtailments the area has adopted all control measures necessary by that date. So by design, the 2009 to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as CAIR region-wide NO emissions cap 1. Why We Changed Major Source NSR practicable.’’ Thus, these areas are not required to X Criteria for Emission Reduction Credits submit RACT SIPs separate from their attainment for EGUs represents the most reductions demonstrations. However, a State must submit a (ERC) from Shutdowns and RACT SIP separate from an attainment 12 Technical Support Document for Phase 2 of the Curtailments demonstration SIP for the following areas: Under 40 Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone The final 8-hour ozone CFR 51.912(a), subpart 2 moderate and above areas; National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Notice of and under 40 CFR 51.912(c)(2), subpart 1 areas with Reconsideration; NOX RACT for EGUs in CAIR implementation rule removed the attainment dates beyond 5 years after designation. States—Supplemental Technical Analysis. requirement that a State must have an

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75910 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

approved attainment plan before a regulatory language is consistent with as offsets, but made that requirement source may use pre-application credits our previous guidance on how emission inapplicable where the credits occurred from shutdowns or curtailments as reduction credits from shutdowns and after the last day of the base year for the offsets. It also revised the availability of curtailments are used in attainment SIP planning process or where they creditable offsets, consistent with the planning.14 The base year inventory were included in the most recent requirements of section 173 of the CAA. includes actual emissions from existing emissions inventory. Our final rule We revised the provisions at 40 CFR sources and would not normally reflect recognized there is no requirement for 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C) and appendix S emissions from units that were an approved attainment demonstration concerning emission reduction credits shutdown or curtailed before the base in those circumstances, and thus generated from shutdowns and year, as these emissions are not ‘‘in the deleted the reference to that former curtailments as proposed in Alternative air.’’ To the extent that these emission requirement since under the revised 2 of the 1996 proposal, with one reduction credits are to be considered rule it would never apply. exception. Alternative 2 of the 1996 available for use as offsets and are thus 2. Legal Basis for Changes to Criteria for proposal provided that, in order to be ‘‘in the air’’ for purposes of Emission Reduction Credits From creditable, the shutdown of an existing demonstrating attainment, they must be Shutdowns and Curtailments emission unit or curtailing of specifically included in the projected production or operating hours must emissions inventory used in the The revisions made to the rules have occurred after the ‘‘most recent attainment demonstration along with governing use of emissions reductions emissions inventory.’’ We agreed with other growth in emissions over the base from shutdowns/curtailments as offsets the commenter who found the year inventory. This step assures that were warranted by the more detailed regulatory term ‘‘most recent emissions emissions from shutdown and curtailed attainment planning and sanction inventory’’ confusing. In particular, the units are accounted for in attainment provisions of the 1990 CAA commenter believed this language could planning.15 As with the prior rules, Amendments. These provisions be mistaken to mean that the base year reviewing authorities thus retain the specifically address air quality concerns for the purpose of determining ability to consider a prior shutdown or in nonattainment areas lacking EPA- emissions that may be used as creditable curtailment to have occurred after the approved attainment demonstrations. offsets would continue to shift. The last day of the base year if emissions As a threshold matter, we noted (see 70 commenter noted that it would be more that are eliminated by the shutdown or FR 71677, November 29, 2005) that CAA accurate to state that the base year curtailment are emissions that were section 173 does not mandate the prior emissions inventory is the starting accounted for in the attainment restrictions on shutdown credits, point, and all creditable emissions demonstration. However, in no event specifically, the requirement to have an reductions must result from the may credit be given for shutdowns that approved attainment demonstration shutdown or curtailment of emissions occurred before August 7, 1977, a before shutdown credits may be that have been reported in the base year provision carried over from the previous allowed. (See 48 FR 38742, 38751; inventory or a subsequent emissions regulation. See 40 CFR August 25, 1983.) Rather, in inventory. (For the 8-hour ozone 51.165(a)(3)(C)(1)(ii) and 40 CFR part 51 promulgating these restrictions in 1989, NAAQS, the base year is 2002.13) We Appendix S paragraph IV.C.3. EPA recognized that it had a large agreed with the commenter that the Other changes made to the provisions degree of discretion under the CAA to terminology ‘‘most recent emissions of the final Phase 2 Rule regarding shape implementing regulations, as well inventory’’ could be confusing and emissions reduction credits from as the need to exercise that discretion revised 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(C)(1) and shutdowns and curtailments were such that offsets are consistent with Appendix S paragraph IV.C.3. nonsubstantive and merely clarified the reasonable further progress (RFP) as accordingly, specifying the cutoff date restrictions on credits from shutdowns required in CAA section 173. (See 54 FR 27286, 27292; June 28, 1989.) after which the shutdown or curtailment or curtailments. Specifically, the rule Originally, EPA believed that areas of emissions must occur as ‘‘the last day proposed on June 2, 2003 retained the without approved attainment of the base year for the SIP planning requirement that a State have an demonstrations lacked adequate process. For purposes of this paragraph, approved attainment demonstration safeguards to ensure that shutdown/ a reviewing authority may choose to before a source may use preapplication curtailment credits would be consistent consider a prior shutdown or credits from shutdowns or curtailments with RFP. We thus subjected those areas curtailment to have occurred after the 14 to more restrictive requirements to last day of the base year if the projected See 57 FR 13553. After the 1990 CAA Amendments were enacted, 1990 was the base year ensure a link between the new source emissions inventory used to develop the for 1-hour ozone NAAQS attainment planning and the source being shutdown/ attainment demonstration explicitly purposes. See 57 FR 13502. The EPA encouraged States to allow sources to use pre-enactment banked curtailed (that is, shutdown/curtailment includes the emissions from such must occur after the application for a previously shutdown or curtailed emissions reductions credits for offsetting purposes. States have been allowed to do so if the restored new or modified major source is filed). emission units.’’ This provision is credits meet all other offset creditability criteria, The 1990 CAA Amendments changed consistent with the previous regulation and States consider such credits as part of the the considerations involved. For areas attainment emissions inventory when developing which also allowed the reviewing subject to subpart 2 of CAA part D, authority to treat prior shutdowns or their post-enactment attainment demonstration. 15 For a discussion of emission inventories for the Congress emphasized the emission curtailments as occurring after the date 8-hour ozone standard, see our emission inventory inventory requirement in section of the most recent emissions inventory, guidance, ‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 172(c)(3) as a fundamental tool in air but we have modified the regulatory Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter quality planning (see section 182(a)(1)). language to clarify the appropriate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations—Final,’’ at http:// Congress also added new provisions emissions inventory. Further, this www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html. keyed to the inventory requirement, For a discussion of emission projections used in including specific reduction strategies 13 68 FR 32833. See also ‘‘2002 Base Year attainment demonstrations, see Emission Inventory Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr. Ozone, Improvement Program, Volume X, Emission (e.g., section 182(b)(3) and (4) (regarding PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,’’ U.S. EPA, pg. Projections, December 1999, available at http:// gasoline vapor recovery and motor 1 (November 18, 2002). www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/. vehicle inspection and maintenance

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75911

programs)) and ‘‘milestones’’ that in CAA section 173(a)(1)(A) provided consideration of the public comments. measure progress toward attainment they are included in the baseline We thus propose for reconsideration from the base year emissions inventory emissions inventory. and seek public comment on the ERC provisions in the final Phase 2 Rule set or subsequent revised inventories (see 3. Reconsideration of Emission forth at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) and section 182(b)(1)). Where the emission Reduction Credits Final Rule Language reduction credits pre-date the base year, and Request for Public Comments (2), and Appendix S paragraph IV.C.3. State and local agencies must include In its January 30, 2006, petition for C. Applicability of Appendix S, Section the credits from the shutdown/ VI curtailment in the projected emissions reconsideration, NRDC requested that inventory used to develop the EPA reconsider provisions in the final 1. Final Changes to Applicability of attainment demonstration. Subpart 4 Phase 2 Rule that pertain to ERC. NRDC Appendix S, Section VI sets forth specific reduction strategies argued that EPA failed to present portions of the rule’s ‘‘shutdown- Section VI allows new sources and milestones for attainment of the locating in an area designated as PM standards. Additionally, there are curtailment offset provisions’’ and 10 accompanying rationales to the public nonattainment to be exempt from the now several adverse consequences for comment. As noted above, the EPA requirements of Section IV.A. of where States fail to meet the planning is of the opinion that the basis for the Appendix S if the date for attainment or emissions reductions requirements of ERC provisions of the final rule were has not yet passed. Section VI provides the CAA. For example, the CAA fully explained in the November 29, a management tool to provide a limited contains mandatory increased new 2005 rulemaking and in earlier actions degree of flexibility in situations where source offset sanctions at a 2:1 ratio leading to that rulemaking. The a new source would not interfere with where the Administrator finds that a November 29, 2005 preamble included an area’s ability to meet an attainment State failed to submit a required a lengthy description of preceding deadline. The final Phase 2 Rule made attainment demonstration (see section actions in which our rationale was a procedural change to limit the 179). In areas that are subject to subpart developed. Furthermore, the November applicability of appendix S, section VI 2 and subpart 4, failure to attain the air 29, 2005 preamble detailed our response to only those instances in which the quality standard by the attainment to comments pertaining to the proposal. Administrator has specifically approved deadline results in the area being The particular comments that triggered doing so. Although we did not include bumped up to a higher classification the change in wording from usage of the the regulatory language to accomplish (see sections 181(b)(2) and 188(b)(2)). term ‘‘most recent emissions inventory’’ this goal in the June 2, 2003 proposal, Additional regulatory requirements are to the term ‘‘projected emissions we did clearly state our intention of imposed as a result of the higher inventory used to develop the doing so. As we noted at 68 FR 32848, classification (see, e.g., section 182(c), attainment demonstration’’ directly section VI as worded without any (d), and (e), and section 189(b)). These resulted from public comments we amendment could apply in any statutory changes justify shifting the received in response to the July 23, 1996 nonattainment area where the dates for focus of the prior regulations from proposal. The commenters voiced attainment have not passed even if the individual offset transactions between a concerns that emission inventory source meets all applicable SIP emission specific new source and shutdown updates would periodically eliminate limitations and would not interfere with source and towards a systemic emissions that could be used as the area’s ability to meet its attainment approach. Considering the changes to emission reduction credits even though date. As codified prior to the the 1990 CAA Amendments, we now those emissions had been included in amendment in the Final Phase 2 Rule, believe that continuing the prohibition the projected inventory to be used for section VI contained no provision on the use of shutdown/curtailment establishing attainment progress. Such conditioning its applicability on credits generated in a nonattainment was not our intent and we changed the approval by the Administrator. We area that is without an approved language specific to the inventory in noted at proposal, however, that States attainment demonstration is not question in the interest of making a generally would not be able to show that warranted. We believe that use of clarification. Petitioners assert in their a nonattainment area would continue to emission reduction credits from request for reconsideration that our meet its attainment date if it does not shutdowns/curtailments will be clarifying amendments to the ERC apply LAER or offsets to major new consistent with RFP towards attainment provisions of the final rule were not a sources and major modifications in the under CAA section 173, even in the logical outgrowth of the ERC provisions absence of safeguards (68 FR 32848). absence of an approved attainment we proposed. In contrast, we saw our Further, we stated in the preamble to demonstration, if the shutdown or language change in the final rule as a the Phase 2 Rule that we continued to curtailment occurs after the last day of technical clarification and not as a believe, as we stated in the proposal, the base year for the SIP planning change to the nature or scope of our that States should not interpret section process or is included in the projected proposal. VI as allowing a blanket exemption from emissions inventory used to develop the Nonetheless, we do see value in LAER and offsets for all major new attainment demonstration. From an air presenting the final rule language for sources and major modifications in a quality planning perspective, emissions public comment as requested by the given area before attainment dates have from the shutdown source actually petitioners. It was and is our position passed for that area. At proposal, we impacted the measurements of air that the changes reflected in the final also offered for comment two broad quality used in determining the rule were made in a procedurally programmatic proposals to modify the nonattainment status of an area. correct manner and that the public then-existing section VI for the purpose Therefore, emissions reductions from comments reflected in the final rule of providing greater flexibility. Overall, such source shutdowns/curtailments are were factually and logically compelling. commenters considered the actual emissions reductions, and their Nevertheless, we encourage and programmatic options to be use as emission offsets at a ratio of 1:1 welcome additional input. At proposal, impracticable. However most or greater is consistent with RFP we presented two options, one of which commenters did express support for the towards improved air quality as set forth was adopted following our flexibility provided by section VI. For

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75912 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

this reason, we retained the original intent that standards equivalent to part role of the Administrator to determine eligibility conditions for determining D govern the issuance of NSR permits, whether waiver of the appendix S when section VI applies, but added the subject to a limited degree of flexibility provisions in question might be procedural requirement that the under conditions where attainment of appropriate. Administrator determine that the two the NAAQS by the attainment deadline The change made to Section VI in the previously existing conditions of is assured. final rule providing that the Section VI are satisfied, and that the 3. Reconsideration of Appendix S, Administrator provide public notice of Administrator must determine whether Section VI Final Rule Language and that determination. Thus, in the final the conditions of Section VI have been Request for Public Comments rule we retained the previously existing satisfied provides a positive safeguard to requirements of Section VI, and added In its January 30, 2006, petition, prevent just the kinds of unchecked a further requirement that the NRDC requested that EPA reconsider application of its provisions as Administrator independently determine provisions in the final Phase 2 Rule that envisioned by the petitioners. We and provide public notice that those pertain to Appendix S, section VI. continue to see section VI as a gap-filler requirements have been met. This NRDC argued that EPA failed to provide that goes away as of the attainment date. requirement will achieve the proposal’s the public with an opportunity to It was and is our position that the purpose of assuring that States do not comment on the language of Appendix changes reflected in the final rule were interpret section VI to provide a broad S, Section VI that was included in the made in a procedurally correct manner exemption to all major new sources and final rule. As is the case with respect to and that the public comments reflected major modifications in any the ERC provisions, EPA believes that in the final rule were factually and nonattainment area for which the our rationale was fully explained in the logically compelling. Nonetheless, we November 29, 2005 rulemaking and in attainment date has not passed. see value in presenting for public earlier actions leading to that comment the changes made to Section 2. Legal Basis for Changes to rulemaking. The preamble to the final Applicability of Appendix S and the rule included a lengthy description of VI of Appendix S in the final Phase 2 Transitional NSR Program preceding actions in which our rationale Rule. Therefore, we seek comment on For the purposes of today’s was developed. Further, the preamble to subsection C. of Section VI of Appendix reconsideration, we will not expand our the final rule detailed our response to S as added in the final Phase 2 rule as prior expressions of the legal basis for comments pertaining to the proposal. In requested by the petitioners. section VI of Appendix S. The legal our June 2, 2003 notice we proposed Following today’s action, we basis for Appendix S, including section two possible programs for the anticipate two possible outcomes. First, VI, was discussed in detail in section implementation of the provisions should we not receive compelling V.B.3.b. of the preamble to the final contained in Section VI. Commenters arguments to the contrary, the provision Phase 2 Rule. We have historically recommended against the proposed promulgated on November 29, 2005, recognized that the SIP development approaches and we responded by and proposed today in section VI.C. period provided for in section 172(b) dropping both proposed programs at would remain as promulgated. That is, leaves a gap in part D major NSR promulgation. As noted above, what we the language proposed herein is actually permitting and have determined that did in the final rule was add one already codified in the Code of Federal this gap is to be filled with an interim provision to the already existing major NSR program that is substantially language of Appendix S, section VI to Regulations and we would make no similar to the requirements of part D, limit use of Section VI to only those further changes. The second possible including the LAER and offset instances publicly approved of by the outcome of our reconsideration of this requirements from part D, subject to a Administrator. Although we did not provision could be that commenters limited exemption where the attainment include in the June 2, 2003 proposal the might make compelling arguments that deadline will be met (57 FR 18070, regulatory language added to the final it was inappropriate for us to add to the 18076). This interim NSR program has rule at Appendix S, Section VI.C., we final Phase 2 Rule the requirement of been implemented to date through did clearly state our intention as to the Section VI.C. that the Administrator Appendix S. change to be made. From our determine that requirements A and B of The section VI exemption, as limited perspective, we made the smallest Section VI have been satisfied and to by the final Phase 2 Rule, is consistent change possible and achieved closure of provide notice of such determination. with the section 110(a)(2)(C) a gap in section VI. Thus, we disagree Should that occur, our final rule would requirement that preconstruction with the petitioner’s assertion that the consist of amendatory language to revert permitting is implemented ‘‘as final rule language is not a logical the text of section VI to that which necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] outgrowth of the proposal. As well, we existed prior to November 29, 2005. are achieved.’’ While the Phase 2 Rule disagree with the petitioner’s assertion That is, we would retract section VI.C. did not adopt the eligibility criteria that that the final rule constitutes an open- and remove the specification for the were proposed to ensure satisfaction of ended scheme to evade the strictures of Administrator to be the determinant of the original section VI conditions, we Part D. If anything, the prior rule when section VI might be applied. We did add the proposed requirement that language could have been construed as invite comment on these two options. the Administrator determine that open-ended. The sole intention of our sources exempted from LAER and language change was to close what we We currently believe that the correct offsets under section VI will meet those perceived to be a loophole allowing just approach is the approach we took in the conditions, in particular, the type of outcome to which the final Phase 2 Rule. While section 129 noninterference with the attainment petitioners object. Congress required has been amended to address matters deadline. Section VI also is consistent just such closure through the provisions largely unrelated to those addressed in with the exercise of our gap filling of the original section 129 as included 1977, Congress did previously legislate authority under section 301, as in the August 7, 1977 amendments to a course parallel to that which we have informed by the legislative history. That the Act. At that time, Congress made thus far chosen to pursue. is, Appendix S reflects Congressional clear its opinion that it would be the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75913

IV. Statutory and Executive Order and maintaining information, and (1) A small business as defined by the Reviews disclosing and providing information; Small Business Administration’s (SBA) adjust the existing ways to comply with regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory any previously applicable instructions governmental jurisdiction that is a Planning and Review and requirements; train personnel to be government of a city, county, town, Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 able to respond to a collection of school district or special district with a (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this information; search data sources; population of less than 50,000; and (3) action is a ‘‘significant regulatory complete and review the collection of a small organization that is any not-for- action.’’ This action is significant information; and transmit or otherwise profit enterprise which is independently because it raises novel legal or policy disclose the information. owned and operated and is not issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this An agency may not conduct or dominant in its field. action to the Office of Management and sponsor, and a person is not required to After considering the economic Budget (OMB) for review under EO respond to a collection of information impacts of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 12866 and any changes made in unless it displays a currently valid OMB Rules, we concluded that those actions response to OMB recommendations control number. The OMB control did not have a significant economic have been documented in the docket for numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 impact on a substantial number of small this action. CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When entities. For those same reasons, I certify B. Paperwork Reduction Act the ICR for the Phase 2 rule is approved that this action will not have a by OMB, the Agency will publish a significant economic impact on a The information collection technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 requirements in this reconsideration substantial number of small entities. in the Federal Register to display the This notice of reconsideration will not notice are addressed along with those OMB control number for the approved covering the Phase 1 Rule (April 30, impose any requirements on small information collection requirements entities. We continue to be interested in 2004; 69 FR 23951) and the Phase 2 contained in this final rule. However, Rule (November 29, 2005; 70 FR 71612) the potential impacts of our proposed the failure to have an approved ICR for rules on small entities and welcome which was submitted for approval to this rule does not affect the statutory OMB under the Paperwork Reduction comments on issues related to such obligation for the States to submit SIPs impacts. Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. [EPA ICR # as required under part D of the CAA. 2236.01.] The information collection The information collection Concerning the NSR portion of this requirements are not enforceable until requirements associated with NSR notice of reconsideration, a Regulatory OMB approves them other than to the permitting for ozone are covered by Flexibility Act Screening Analysis extent required by statute. EPA’s request to renew the approval of (RFASA) was developed as part of a This action announces EPA’s decision the ICR for the NSR program, ICR 1994 draft Regulatory Impact Analysis to reconsider and take additional 1230.17, which was approved by OMB (RIA) and incorporated into the comment on several provisions of the on January 25, 2005. The information September 1995 ICR renewal. This Phase 2 Rule, namely the RACT collection requirements associated with analysis showed that the changes to the provisions and selected NSR provisions. NSR permitting were previously NSR program due to the 1990 CAA This action does not establish any new covered by ICR 1230.10 and 1230.11. Amendments would not have an information collection burden on States The OMB previously approved the adverse impact on small entities. This beyond what was required in the Phase information collection requirements analysis encompassed the entire 2 Rule. contained in the existing NSR universe of applicable major sources The EPA has projected cost and hour regulations at 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 that were likely to also be small burden for the statutory SIP under the provisions of the Paperwork businesses (approximately 50 ‘‘small development obligation for the Phase 2 Reduction Act, and assigned OMB business’’ major sources). Because the Rule, and prepared an Information control number 2060–0003. A copy of administrative burden of the NSR Collection Request (ICR). Assessments the approved ICR may be obtained from program is the primary source of the of some of the administrative cost Susan Auby, Collection Strategies NSR program’s regulatory costs, the categories identified as a part of the SIP Division; U.S. Environmental Protection analysis estimated a negligible ‘‘cost to for an 8-hour standard are already Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania sales’’ (regulatory cost divided by the conducted as a result of other provisions Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by business category mean revenue) ratio of the CAA and associated ICRs (e.g. calling (202) 566–1672. for this source group. The incorporation emission inventory preparation, air of the major source thresholds and offset quality monitoring program, conformity C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ratios from the 1990 CAA Amendments assessments, NSR, inspection and The Regulatory Flexibility Act in section 51.165 and appendix S for the maintenance program). generally requires an Agency to prepare purpose of implementing NSR for the 8- The burden estimates in the ICR for a regulatory flexibility analysis of any hour standard does not change this the Phase 2 rule are incremental to what rule subject to notice-and-comment conclusion. Under section 110(a)(2)(C), is required under other provisions of the rulemaking requirements under the all States must implement a CAA and what would be required under Administrative Procedures Act or any preconstruction permitting program ‘‘as a 1-hour standard. Burden means the other statute unless the Agency certifies necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] total time, effort, or financial resources the rule will not have a significant are achieved,’’ regardless of changes to expended by persons to generate, economic impact on a substantial today’s regulations. Thus, small maintain, retain, or disclose or provide number of small entities. Small entities businesses continue to be subject to information to or for a Federal agency. include small businesses, small regulations for construction and This includes the time needed to review organizations, and small governmental modification of stationary sources, instructions; develop, acquire, install, jurisdictions. whether under State and local agency and utilize technology and systems for For purposes of assessing the impacts minor NSR programs, SIPs to implement the purposes of collecting, validating, of today’s notice of reconsideration on section 51.165, or appendix S, to ensure and verifying information, processing small entities, small entity is defined as: that the 8-hour standard is achieved.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75914 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act governments, including Tribal appropriate elements of a program, they Title II of the Unfunded Mandates governments. will adopt. Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism For the same reasons stated in the Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, this action Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Federal agencies to assess the effects of does not have Tribal implications as August 10, 1999), requires EPA to their regulatory actions on State, local, defined by Executive Order 13175. It develop an accountable process to and Tribal governments and the private does not have a substantial direct effect sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the on one or more Indian Tribes, since no EPA generally must prepare a written Tribe has implemented a CAA program statement, including a cost-benefit development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at analysis, for proposed and final rules this time. If a Tribe does implement with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to such a plan, it would not impose result in expenditures to State, local, substantial direct costs upon it. and Tribal governments, in the include regulations that have Furthermore, this action does not affect aggregate, or to the private sector, of ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship or distribution of power $100 million or more in any 1 year. on the relationship between the national and responsibilities between the Federal Before promulgating an EPA rule for government and the States, or on the which a written statement is needed, distribution of power and government and Indian Tribes. The section 205 of the UMRA generally responsibilities among the various CAA and the TAR establish the requires EPA to identify and consider a levels of government.’’ relationship of the Federal government reasonable number of regulatory This action does not have federalism and Tribes in developing plans to attain alternatives and adopt the least costly, implications. It will not have substantial the NAAQS, and this action does most cost-effective or least burdensome direct effects on the States, on the nothing to modify that relationship. alternative that achieves the objectives relationship between the national Because this action does not have Tribal of the rule. The provisions of section government and the States, or on the implications, Executive Order 13175 205 do not apply when they are distribution of power and does not apply. inconsistent with applicable law. responsibilities among the various G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to levels of government, as specified in Children From Environmental Health adopt an alternative other than the least Executive Order 13132. This notice of costly, most cost-effective or least reconsideration requests comment on and Safety Risks three aspects of the Phase 2 Rule. For burdensome alternative if the Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Administrator publishes with the final the same reasons stated in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, Executive Order April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that rule an explanation why that alternative (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, significant’’ as defined under Executive any regulatory requirements that may Order 12866, and (2) concerns an significantly or uniquely affect small and consistent with EPA policy to environmental health or safety risk that governments, including Tribal promote communications between EPA EPA has reason to believe may have governments, it must have developed and State and local governments, EPA under section 203 of the UMRA a small specifically solicits comment on this disproportionate effect on children. If government agency plan. The plan must action from State and local officials. the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the provide for notifying potentially F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation affected small governments, enabling environmental health or safety effects of and Coordination With Indian Tribal the planned rule on children, and officials of affected small governments Governments to have meaningful and timely input in explain why the planned regulation is the development of EPA regulatory Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, preferable to other potentially effective proposals with significant Federal November 9, 2000), requires EPA to and reasonably feasible alternatives intergovernmental mandates, and develop an accountable process to considered by the Agency. informing, educating, and advising ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by This notice of reconsideration Tribal officials in the development of small governments on compliance with addresses several provisions in the regulatory policies that have Tribal the regulatory requirements. Phase 2 Rule that the Agency was implications.’’ This notice of The EPA has determined that this requested to reconsider and requests reconsideration does not have ‘‘Tribal notice of reconsideration does not comment on those provisions. The contain a Federal mandate that may implications’’ as specified in Executive action is not subject to Executive Order result in expenditures of $100 million or Order 13175. 13045 because the Agency does not more for State, local, and Tribal The purpose of this notice of governments, in the aggregate, or the reconsideration is to announce our have reason to believe the private sector in any 1 year. In decision to reconsider and request environmental health risks or safety promulgating the Phase 1 and Phase 2 comment on specific aspects of the risks addressed by this action present a Rules, we concluded that they were not Phase 2 Rule. The CAA provides for disproportionate risk to children. subject to the requirements of sections States and Tribes to develop plans to Nonetheless, we have evaluated the 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For those regulate emissions of air pollutants environmental health or safety effects of same reasons, this notice of within their jurisdictions. The Tribal the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on children. reconsideration and request for Authority Rule (TAR) gives Tribes the The results of this evaluation are comment is not subject to the UMRA. opportunity to develop and implement contained in 40 CFR part 50, National The EPA has determined that this CAA programs such as the 8-hour ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards for notice of reconsideration contains no NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion Ozone, Final Rule (July 18, 1997; 62 FR regulatory requirements that may of the Tribes whether to develop these 38855–38896, specifically, 62 FR 38860 significantly or uniquely affect small programs and which programs, or and 62 FR 38865).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75915

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 2; (November 29, 2005)); for the same occurred after the last day of the base Significantly Affect Energy Supply, reasons, since this action announces our year if the projected emissions Distribution, or Use decision to reconsider and requests inventory used to develop the This action is not a ‘‘significant comment on several aspects of the Phase attainment demonstration explicitly energy action’’ as defined in Executive 2 rule, this reconsideration notice does includes the emissions from such Order 13211, ‘‘Actions That not raise any environmental justice previously shutdown or curtailed Significantly Affect Energy Supply, issues. The health and environmental emission units. However, in no event Distribution, or Use,’’ (66 FR 28355, risks associated with ozone were may credit be given for shutdowns that May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to considered in the establishment of the occurred before August 7, 1977. (2) Emissions reductions achieved by have a significant adverse effect on the 8-hour, 0.08 ppm ozone NAAQS (62 FR shutting down an existing emissions supply, distribution, or use of energy. 38856 (July 18, 1997)). The level is unit or curtailing production or The notice of reconsideration designed to be protective with an operating hours and that do not meet announces our decision to reconsider adequate margin of safety. The Phase 2 the requirements in paragraph and requests comment on several Rule provides a framework for improving environmental quality and (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii) of this section may be aspects of the Phase 2 Rule, for which generally credited only if: EPA did perform an analysis of the reducing health risks for areas that may be designated nonattainment. (i) The shutdown or curtailment energy impacts under Executive Order occurred on or after the date the 16 13211. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 construction permit application is filed; I. National Technology Transfer Environmental protection, Air or Advancement Act pollution control, Carbon monoxide, (ii) The applicant can establish that the proposed new emissions unit is a Section 12(d) of the National Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. replacement for the shutdown or Technology Transfer Advancement Act curtailed emissions unit, and the of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, Dated: December 11, 2006. emissions reductions achieved by the section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) Stephen L. Johnson, shutdown or curtailment met the directs EPA to use voluntary consensus Administrator. requirements of paragraph standards (VCS) in its regulatory For the reasons stated in the (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) of this section. activities unless to do so would be preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code * * * * * inconsistent with applicable law or of Federal Regulations is proposed to be otherwise impractical. Voluntary amended as follows: Appendix S to Part 51—[Amended] consensus standards are technical 3. Appendix S to part 51 is amended standards (e.g., materials specifications, PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR by revising paragraphs IV.C.3 and VI to test methods, sampling procedures, and PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND read as follows: business practices) that are developed or SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA PLANS Appendix S to Part 51—Emission Offset directs EPA to provide Congress, Interpretative Ruling 1. The authority citation for part 51 through OMB, explanations when the * * * * * Agency decides not to use available and continues to read as follows: IV. * * * applicable VCS. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– C. * * * This action does not involve technical 7671q. 3. Emission Reduction Credits from standards. Therefore, EPA is not Shutdowns and Curtailments. considering the use of any VCS. Subpart I—[Amended] (i) Emissions reductions achieved by The EPA will encourage the States shutting down an existing source or 2. Section 51.165 is amended by curtailing production or operating hours may and Tribes to consider the use of such revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) to read as be generally credited for offsets if they meet standards, where appropriate, in the follows: the requirements in paragraphs IV.C.3.i.1. development of the implementation through 2 of this section. plans. § 51.165 Permit requirements. (1) Such reductions are surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally J. Executive Order 12898: Federal (a) * * * (3) * * * enforceable. Actions To Address Environmental (2) The shutdown or curtailment occurred Justice in Minority Populations and (ii) * * * after the last day of the base year for the SIP Low-Income Populations (C) Emission reduction credits from planning process. For purposes of this shutdowns and curtailments. (1) paragraph, a reviewing authority may choose Executive Order 12898 requires that Emissions reductions achieved by to consider a prior shutdown or curtailment each Federal agency make achieving shutting down an existing emission unit to have occurred after the last day of the base environmental justice part of its mission or curtailing production or operating year if the projected emissions inventory by identifying and addressing, as hours may be generally credited for used to develop the attainment appropriate, disproportionate high and demonstration explicitly includes the offsets if they meet the requirements in emissions from such previously shutdown or adverse human health or environmental paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) through (ii) effects of its programs, policies, and curtailed emission units. However, in no of this section. event may credit be given for shutdowns that activities on minorities and low-income (i) Such reductions are surplus, occurred before August 7, 1977. populations. permanent, quantifiable, and federally (ii) Emissions reductions achieved by The EPA concluded that the Phase 2 enforceable. shutting down an existing source or Rule does not raise any environmental (ii) The shutdown or curtailment curtailing production or operating hours and justice issues (See 70 FR at 71695, col. occurred after the last day of the base that do not meet the requirements in paragraphs IV.C.3.i.1. through 2 of this year for the SIP planning process. For 16 Technical Appendix: Potential Impacts of section may be generally credited only if: Implementation of the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS; purposes of this paragraph, a reviewing (1) The shutdown or curtailment occurred Technical Support Document. July 21, 2005. Docket authority may choose to consider a prior on or after the date the new source permit Document EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0079–0860. shutdown or curtailment to have application is filed; or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75916 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(2) The applicant can establish that the ACTION: Proposed rule. Docket: The index to the docket for proposed new source is a replacement for the this action is available electronically at shutdown or curtailed source, and the SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve www.regulations.gov and in hard copy emissions reductions achieved by the revisions to the Kern County Air at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, shutdown or curtailment met the Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) San Francisco, California. While all requirements of paragraphs IV.C.3.i.1. portion of the California State through 2 of this section. documents in the docket are listed in Implementation Plan (SIP). The * * * * * KCAPCD revisions concern permitting the index, some information may be VI. Policy Where Attainment Dates Have requirements. We are proposing to publicly available only at the hard copy Not Passed approve local rules that administer location (e.g., copyrighted material), and In some cases, the dates for attainment of some may not be publicly available in primary standards specified in the SIP under regulations under the Clean Air Act as section 110 have not yet passed due to a amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the delay in the promulgation of a plan under are taking comments on this proposal hard copy materials, please schedule an this section of the Act. In addition the Act and plan to follow with a final action. appointment during normal business provides more flexibility with respect to the DATES: Any comments must arrive by hours with the contact listed in the FOR dates for attainment of secondary NAAQS FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. than for primary standards. Rather than January 18, 2007. setting specific deadlines, section 110 ADDRESSES: Submit comments, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: requires secondary NAAQS to be achieved identified by docket number EPA–R09– Manny Aquitania, Permits Office (AIR- within a ‘‘reasonable time’’. Therefore, in OAR–2005–CA–0013, by one of the 3), U.S. Environmental Protection some cases, the date for attainment of following methods: Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3977, secondary standards specified in the SIP • Federal eRulemaking Portal: under section 110 may also not yet have [email protected]. passed. In such cases, a new source locating www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in an area designated in 40 CFR 81.300 et • seq. as nonattainment (or, where section III E-mail: [email protected]. Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ of this Ruling is applicable, a new source that • Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air- and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. would cause or contribute to a NAAQS 3), U.S. Environmental Protection violation) may be exempt from the Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, Table of Contents Conditions of section IV.A if the conditions San Francisco, CA 94105. in paragraphs VI.A through C are met. I. The State’s Submittal Instructions: All comments will be A. What rules did the State submit? A. The new source meets the applicable included in the public docket without SIP emission limitations. B. Are there other versions of these rules? B. The new source will not interfere with change and may be made available C. What is the purpose of the submitted the attainment date specified in the SIP online at www.regulations.gov, rule revisions? under section 110 of the Act. including any personal information II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action C. The Administrator has determined that provided, unless the comment includes A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? conditions A and B of this section are Confidential Business Information (CBI) B. Do the rules meet the evaluation satisfied and such determination is published or other information whose disclosure is criteria? in the Federal Register. restricted by statute. Information that C. What is the deficiency in Rule 203? [FR Doc. E6–21379 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] you consider CBI or otherwise protected D. EPA recommendation to further BILLING CODE 6560–50–P should be clearly identified as such and improve a rule should not be submitted through E. Public comment and final action www.regulations.gov or e-mail. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous AGENCY access’’ system, and EPA will not know I. The State’s Submittal 40 CFR Part 52 your identity or contact information A. What rules did the State submit? unless you provide it in the body of [EPA–R09–OAR–2005–CA–0013, FRL–8257– your comment. If you send e-mail Table 1 lists the rules we are 7] directly to EPA, your e-mail address proposing to approve and Table 2 lists Revisions to the California State will be automatically captured and the rule we are proposing to disapprove Implementation Plan, Kern County Air included as part of the public comment. with the date that they were amended Pollution Control District If EPA cannot read your comment due by the local air agency and submitted by to technical difficulties and cannot the California Air Resources Board AGENCY: Environmental Protection contact you for clarification, EPA may (CARB). Agency (EPA). not be able to consider your comment.

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES PROPOSED FOR FULL APPROVAL

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted

KCAPCD ...... 201 Permits Required...... 05/02/96 07/23/96 KCAPCD ...... 202 .1 Experimental Research Oper- 05/02/96 07/23/96 ations. KCAPCD ...... 209 .1 Permit Conditions...... 05/02/96 07/23/96 KCAPCD ...... 210 .2 Standards for Permits to Operate 05/02/96 07/23/96 KCAPCD ...... 210 .5 Visibility Protection...... 05/02/96 07/23/96

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75917

TABLE 2.—SUBMITTED RULE PROPOSED FOR FULL DISAPPROVAL

Rule Local agency No. Rule title Amended Submitted

KCAPCD ...... 203 Transfer ...... 05/02/96 07/23/96

On October 30, 1996, the submittal of • Rule 203 replaces the prohibition recommended for the next time the local Rules 201, 202.1, 203, 209.1, 210.2, and from transferring a permit with the agency modifies the rule. 210.5 was found to meet the allowance to transfer a permit from one E. Public comment and final action completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, person to another or from one location appendix V, which must be met before to another, providing a new application As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of formal EPA review. is filed and approved by the APCO. the CAA, we are proposing full approval • Rule 210.2 deletes the severability of the submitted KCAPCD Rules 201, B. Are there other versions of these provision. 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5. rules? The TSD has more information about As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of We approved Rules 201 and 202.1 these rules. the CAA, we are proposing a full disapproval of the submitted KCAPCD into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 FR II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 29233). We approved Rule 203 into the Rule 203. If finalized, this action would SIP on September 22, 1972 (37 FR A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? retain the present SIP-approved rule in the SIP. Sanctions would not be 19812). We approved Rule 210.2 into Generally, SIP rules must be the SIP on August 21, 1981 (46 FR imposed as described in CAA section enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 179 and 40 CFR 52.30–52.32, because 42460). There are no versions of Rules CAA) and must not relax existing 209.1 and 210.5 in the SIP. the present SIP-approved rule fulfills requirements (see sections 110(l) and CAA requirements. C. What is the purpose of the submitted 193). rule revisions? The following guidance documents III. Statutory and Executive Order were used for reference: Reviews Section 110(a) of the CAA requires • Requirements for Preparation, states to submit regulations that control A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Adoption, and Submittal of Planning and Review volatile organic compounds, oxides of Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 nitrogen, particulate matter, and other CFR part 51. The Office of Management and Budget air pollutants which harm human health • Issues Relating to VOC Regulation (OMB) has exempted this regulatory and the environment. These rules were Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, action from Executive Order 12866, developed as part of the local agency’s EPA (May 25, 1988). (The Blue Book) entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and program to control these pollutants. • Guidance Document for Correcting Review.’’ The purposes of the new rules are as Common VOC & Other Rule B. Paperwork Reduction Act follows: Deficiencies, EPA Region IX (August 21, This rule does not impose an • Rule 209.1 adds a prohibition to 2001). (The Little Bluebook) information collection burden under the operate equipment contrary to B. Do the rules meet the evaluation provisions of the Paperwork Reduction conditions in the Permit to Operate criteria? Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PTO) issued in accordance with the provisions of Rule 209 in order to We believe Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, C. Regulatory Flexibility Act comply with the standards of Rules 208 210.2, and 210.5 are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and 208.1. generally requires an agency to conduct • Rule 210.5 adds a requirement that enforceability and SIP relaxations. A provision in Rule 203 which does a regulatory flexibility analysis of any the Air Pollution Control Officer not meet the evaluation criteria is rule subject to notice and comment (APCO) not issue an Authority to summarized below and discussed rulemaking requirements unless the Construct (ATC) unless the analysis further in the TSD. agency certifies that the rule will not required by this rule demonstrates that have a significant economic impact on an adverse impact on visibility in C. What is the deficiency in Rule 203? a substantial number of small entities. Federal Class I Areas will not occur for This provision conflicts with section Small entities include small businesses, any new major stationary source or 110 and part D of the CAA and prevents small not-for-profit enterprises, and major modification which would have full approval of the SIP revision: small governmental jurisdictions. the potential to emit nitrogen oxides, • The revision to Rule 203 to allow This rule will not have a significant sulfur dioxide or particulate matter in transfer of a permit from one location to impact on a substantial number of small significant amounts and is required to another is prohibited, because entities because SIP approvals under utilize BACT/LAER for such pollutants. permitting requirements may be section 110 and subchapter I, part D of The purposes of revisions relative to the different at different locations. A New the Clean Air Act do not create any new SIP rules are as follows: Source Review must be performed upon requirements but simply approve • Rule 201 adds a provision that the changing location. See 40 CFR part 51, requirements that the State is already ATC will serve as the temporary PTO sections 165–166. imposing. Therefore, because the after notifying the APCO of the intent to Federal SIP approval does not create start-up new or modified equipment and D. EPA Recommendation to further any new requirements, I certify that this adds a provision that the application for improve a rule action will not have a significant a PTO will serve as the temporary PTO The TSD describes an additional economic impact on a substantial for existing equipment. revision to Rule 201 that does not affect number of small entities. Moreover, due • Rule 202.1 is reformatted for clarity. EPA’s current action but is to the nature of the Federal-State

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75918 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

relationship, under the Clean Air Act required by statute, unless the Federal the regulatory action meets both criteria, preparation of flexibility analysis would government provides the funds the Agency must evaluate the constitute Federal inquiry into the necessary to pay the direct compliance environmental health or safety effects of economic reasonableness. The Clean Air costs incurred by State and local the planned rule on children, and Act forbids EPA to base its actions governments, or EPA consults with explain why the planned regulation is concerning SIPs on such grounds. State and local officials early in the preferable to other potentially effective Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. process of developing the proposed and reasonably feasible alternatives 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 10(a)(2). regulation. EPA also may not issue a considered by the Agency. regulation that has federalism D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act implications and that preempts State This rule is not subject to Executive Under sections 202 of the Unfunded law unless the Agency consults with Order 13045 because it does not involve Mandates Reform Act of 1995 State and local officials early in the decisions intended to mitigate (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed process of developing the proposed environmental health or safety risks. into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must regulation. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That prepare a budgetary impact statement to This rule will not have substantial accompany any proposed or final rule direct effects on the States, on the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, that includes a Federal mandate that relationship between the national Distribution, or Use may result in estimated costs to State, government and the States, or on the This rule is not subject to Executive local, or tribal governments in the distribution of power and Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning aggregate; or to the private sector, of responsibilities among the various Regulations That Significantly Affect $100 million or more. Under section levels of government, as specified in Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 205, EPA must select the most cost- Executive Order 13132, because it effective and least burdensome merely approves a state rule FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is alternative that achieves the objectives implementing a federal standard, and not a significant regulatory action under of the rule and is consistent with does not alter the relationship or the Executive Order 12866. statutory requirements. Section 203 distribution of power and I. National Technology Transfer and requires EPA to establish a plan for responsibilities established in the Clean Advancement Act informing and advising any small Air Act. Thus, the requirements of governments that may be significantly section 6 of the Executive Order do not Section 12 of the National Technology or uniquely impacted by the rule. apply to this rule. Transfer and Advancement Act EPA has determined that the approval (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal action proposed does not include a F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments agencies to evaluate existing technical Federal mandate that may result in standards when developing a new estimated costs of $100 million or more Executive Order 13175, entitled regulation. To comply with NTTAA, to either State, local, or tribal ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary governments in the aggregate, or to the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available private sector. This Federal action 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA and applicable when developing proposes to approve pre-existing to develop an accountable process to requirements under State or local law, ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by programs and policies unless doing so and imposes no new requirements. tribal officials in the development of would be inconsistent with applicable Accordingly, no additional costs to regulatory policies that have tribal law or otherwise impractical. The EPA State, local, or tribal governments, or to implications.’’ This proposed rule does believes that VCS are inapplicable to the private sector, result from this not have tribal implications, as specified this action. Today’s action does not action. in Executive Order 13175. It will not require the public to perform activities conducive to VCS. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, between the Federal government and 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Environmental protection, Air Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 power and responsibilities between the pollution control, Incorporation by (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Federal government and Indian tribes. reference, Intergovernmental relations, Partnership). Executive Order 13132 Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not Reporting and recordkeeping requires EPA to develop an accountable apply to this rule. requirements. process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and EPA specifically solicits additional timely input by State and local officials comment on this proposed rule from Dated: November 28, 2006. in the development of regulatory tribal officials. Wayne Nastri, policies that have federalism G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Regional Administrator, Region IX. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have [FR Doc. E6–21497 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] federalism implications’’ is defined in Children From Environmental Health the Executive Order to include Risks and Safety Risks BILLING CODE 6560–50–P regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Protection of Children from effects on the States, on the relationship Environmental Health Risks and Safety between the national government and Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), the States, or on the distribution of applies to any rule that: (1) Is power and responsibilities among the determined to be ‘‘economically various levels of government.’’ Under significant’’ as defined under Executive Executive Order 13132, EPA may not Order 12866, and (2) concerns an issue a regulation that has federalism environmental health or safety risk that implications, that imposes substantial EPA has reason to believe may have a direct compliance costs, and that is not disproportionate effect on children. If

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75919

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: impact assessment has not been SECURITY William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering prepared. Management Section, Mitigation Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood Federal Emergency Management Division, Federal Emergency elevation determinations are not within Agency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151. Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 44 CFR Part 67 flexibility analysis is not required. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Classification. This Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket No. FEMA–B–7701] proposed rule is not a significant (FEMA) proposes to make regulatory action under the criteria of Proposed Flood Elevation determinations of BFEs and modified section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of Determinations BFEs for each community listed below, September 30, 1993, Regulatory in accordance with section 110 of the Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. AGENCY: Federal Emergency Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Management Agency, DHS. 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). This proposed rule involves no policies ACTION: Proposed rule. These proposed BFEs and modified that have federalism implications under BFEs, together with the floodplain Executive Order 13132. SUMMARY: Technical information or management criteria required by 44 CFR Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice comments are requested on the 60.3, are the minimum that are required. Reform. This proposed rule meets the proposed Base (1% annual chance) They should not be construed to mean applicable standards of Executive Order Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed that the community must change any 12988. BFEs modifications for the communities existing ordinances that are more listed below. The BFEs are the basis for List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 stringent in their floodplain the floodplain management measures management requirements. The Administrative practice and that the community is required either to community may at any time enact procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting adopt or to show evidence of being stricter requirements of its own, or and recordkeeping requirements. already in effect in order to qualify or pursuant to policies established by other remain qualified for participation in the Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is Federal, State or regional entities. These National Flood Insurance Program proposed to be amended as follows: proposed elevations are used to meet (NFIP). the floodplain management PART 67—[AMENDED] DATES: The comment period is ninety requirements of the NFIP and are also 1. The authority citation for part 67 (90) days following the second used to calculate the appropriate flood continues to read as follows: publication of this proposed rule in a insurance premium rates for new newspaper of local circulation in each buildings built after these elevations are Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; community. made final, and for the contents in these Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, buildings. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, ADDRESSES: The proposed BFEs for each 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. community are available for inspection National Environmental Policy Act. at the office of the Chief Executive This proposed rule is categorically § 67.4 [Amended] Officer of each community. The excluded from the requirements of 44 2. The tables published under the respective addresses are listed in the CFR part 10, Environmental authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be table below. Consideration. An environmental 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

Bartow County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

Raccoon Creek ...... Approximately 19,930 feet upstream of the confluence None +705 Bartow County ((Unincor- with Etowah River. porated Areas). Approximately 22,900 feet upstream of the confluence None +708 with Etowah River.

*National Geodetic Vertical Datum #Depth in feet above ground +North American Vertical Datum ADDRESSES Bartow County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, 135 West Cherokee Avenue, Suite 124, Cartersville, Georgia 30120. Send comments to Mr. Clarence Brown, Presiding Commissioner, Bartow County, 135 West Cherokee Avenue, Suite 251, Cartersville, Georgia 30120.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75920 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 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 1 Modified

Carroll County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

Beulah Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Tallapoosa River ...... +986 +988 City of Carrollton. At Columbia Drive ...... +986 +988 Buffalo Creek ...... At Strickland Road ...... +1042 +1043 City of Carrollton. Tributary 1 ...... Approximately 900 feet upstream of Strickland Road +1042 +1043 Chandler’s Spring Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Tallapoosa River ...... +989 +992 City of Carrollton. Just upstream of William Street ...... +989 +992 Curtis Creek ...... At the confluence with Little Tallapoosa River ...... +991 +994 City of Carrollton. At Lake Carroll Dam ...... +991 +994 Little Tallapoosa River ...... Approximately 2,275 feet upstream of confluence of +977 +978 City of Carrollton. Buck Creek. Approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Northside Drive +992 +995 Little Tallapoosa River Tribu- At the confluence with Little Tallapoosa River ...... +990 +993 City of Carrollton. tary. Approximately 2,870 feet upstream of confluence with +992 +993 Little Tallapoosa River. Sweetwater Creek ...... At Carroll/Douglas County boundary ...... None +979 Carroll County. Approximately 1,510 feet upstream of the Carroll/ None +982 (Unincorporated Areas). Douglas county boundary. Tanyard Branch ...... At confluence with Little Tallapoosa River ...... +989 +992 City of Carrollton. Approximately 135 feet upstream of River Drive ...... +991 +992

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + 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 add 0.2 feet. ADDRESSES Carroll County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, Carroll County Engineering Department, 315 Bradley Street, Carrollton, Georgia 30117. Send comments to The Honorable Robert Barr, Chairman, Carroll County Board of Commissioners, 315 Bradley Street, Georgia, 30117. City of Carrollton Maps are available for inspection at the Community Map Repository, Carroll County Engineering Department, 315 Bradley Street, Carrollton, Georgia 30117. Send comments to The Honorable Weigh Garner, Mayor, City of Carrollton, 315 Bradley Street, Georgia, 30117.

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

Forsyth County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

Hurricane Creek ...... At the confluence with Settingdown Creek ...... +969 +970 Forsyth County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 1,010 feet upstream of the confluence +969 +970 with Settingdown Creek. James Creek ...... At the confluence with Chattahoochee River ...... +917 +918 Forsyth County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 2,400 feet upstream of the confluence +917 +918 with Chattahoochee River. Tributary G ...... At the confluence with Settingdown Creek ...... +1,141 +1,140 Forsyth County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 100 feet upstream of the confluence +1,141 +1,140 with Settingdown Creek. Tributary J ...... At the confluence with Settingdown Creek ...... +1,157 +1,156 Forsyth County (Unincor- porated Areas). Approximately 60 feet upstream of the confluence +1,157 +1,156 with Settingdown Creek.

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75921

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

ADDRESSES Forsyth County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 110 East Main Street, Suite 100, Cumming, Georgia 30040. Send comments to Mr. Jack Conway, Commission Chairman, Forsyth County, 110 East Main Street, Suite 210, Cumming, Georgia 30040.

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

Whitfield County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas

Poplar Springs Creek ...... Approximately 660 feet downstream of Poplar Springs None +747 Whitfield County (Incor- Road. porated Areas). Approximately 1,270 feet upstream of Reed Pond None +771 Road Northwest.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Whitfield County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at 1407 Burleyson Drive, Dalton, Georgia 30720. Send comments to Brian D. Anderson, Sr., Commission Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Whitfield County, 301 West Crawford Street, Dal- ton, Georgia 30720.

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

Choctaw County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas

Yockanookany River ...... At Highway 407 ...... None +454 Town of Weir. Approximately 400 feet upstream of South Union None +513 Choctaw County (Unincor- Road. porated Areas). Yockanookany River Tribu- At Kansas City Southern Railroad Bridge ...... None +516 Town of Ackerman Choc- tary 2. taw County. Approximately 120 feet upstream of McKnight Road .. None +534 (Unincorporated Areas). Yockanookany River Tribu- At West Main Street ...... None +510 Town of Ackerman tary 3. Approximately 90 feet upstream of State Highway 12 None +538 Choctaw County (Unincor- porated Areas). Yockanookany River Tribu- Approximately 70 feet downstream of Commerce None +521 Town of Ackerman. tary 4. Street. Approximately 320 feet upstream of College Street .... None +534

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Town of Ackerman Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 45 East Main Street, Ackerman, MS 39735. Send comments to The Honorable Bruce Burney, Mayor, 45 East Main Street, Ackerman, MS 39735. Choctaw County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at County Courthouse, 22 East Quinn Street, Ackerman, MS 39735. Send comments to Mr. Thomas Higgins, Board President, Choctaw County Board of Supervisors, 22 East Quinn Street, Ackerman, MS 39735. Town of Weir Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 217 Front Street, Weir, MS 39772. Send comments to The Honorable Lee James, Mayor, Town Hall, 217 Front Street, Weir, MS 39772.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75922 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 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

Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, and Incorporated Areas

Boile Run ...... Approximately 690 feet upstream of State Road 147 .. *433 +432 Township of Lower Au- gusta. Approximately 905 feet downstream of State Road *431 +432 147. Dalmatia Creek ...... Approximately at 90 feet downstream of State Road *416 +416 Township of Lower 147. Mahanoy. Approximately at 900 feet upstream of State Road *417 +416 147. Limestone Run...... Approximately at 1110 feet downstream of Filbert *468 +468 Borough of Milton, Town- Street. ship of Turbot. Approximately at 1600 feet upstream of Township *520 +519 Route 594. Mahanoy Creek ...... Approximately 2120 feet downstream of State Road *426 +427 Township of Jackson. 147. Approximately 2900 feet upstream of State Road 147 *427 +427 Mahantango Creek ...... Approximately 1000 feet downstream of State Road *404 +400 Township of Lower 147. Mahanoy. Approximately at 3000 feet upstream of State Road *404 +404 147. Muddy Run ...... Approximately at 3120 feet downstream of Legislative *472 +472 Township of Turbot. Route 49102. Approximately at 50 feet downstream of Township *472 +472 Route 572. Shamokin Creek ...... Approximately 2500 feet downstream of State Road *587 +583 Township of Ralpho, 61. Township of Shamokin. Approximately 2250 feet upstream of Irish Valley *617 +617 Road. Susquehanna River ...... Approximately 18.6 miles downstream of Route 61, at *404 +400 Borough of Herndon, Bor- Northumberland/Dauphin County line. ough of Northumberland, Approximately 3.9 miles upstream of Route 54, at *464 +468 Borough of Riverside, City Northumberland/Montour County line. of Sunbury, Township of Lower Augusta, Town- ship of Lower Mahanoy, Township of Point, Township of Rush, Township of Upper Au- gusta. Tributary No. 1 to Limestone Approximately 2055 feet downstream of State Road *481 +476 Township of Turbot. Run. 254. Approximately 250 feet downstream of State Road *481 +476 254.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Borough of Herndon Maps are available for inspection at Herndon Borough Municipal Building, P.O. Box 385, Herndon, PA 17830 Send comments to The Honorable Richard Sweppenhiser, Mayor, North Main Street, P.O. Box 385, Herndon, PA 17830 Borough of Milton Maps are available for inspection at Milton Borough Office, 2nd Filbert Street, Milton, Milton, PA 17847. Send comments to The Honorable Charles Beck, Jr, Borough Manager, 2nd Filbert Street, Milton, PA 17847. Borough of Northumberland Maps are available for inspection at Northumberland Borough Building, 221 Second Street, Northumberland, PA 17857. Send comments to The Honorable Brian M. Wolf, Chairman of Borough Council, 221 Second Street, Northumberland, PA 17857. Borough of Riverside Maps are available for inspection at Riverside Borough Building, 301 Dewart Street, Riverside, PA 17868. Send comments to The Honorable Peter T. Fleming, President of Borough Council, P.O. Box 307, Riverside, PA 17868. City of Sunbury Maps are available for inspection at Sunbury City Code Administration Office, 225 Market Street,Sunbury, PA 17801. Send comments to The Honorable Jess Woodring, Mayor, 225 Market Street, Sunbury, PA 17801. Township of Jackson Maps are available for inspection at Jackson Township Municipal Building, RR 2 Box 605, Herndon, PA 17830. Send comments to The Honorable LaVerne Forman, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, RR 2 Box 605, Herndon, PA 17830. Township of Lower Augusta Maps are available for inspection at Lower Augusta Township Building, Rd #3, Box 28, Sunbury, PA 17801. Send comments to The Honorable Talmage Johnson, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, Rd #3, Box 28, Sunbury, PA 17801.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75923

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

Township of Lower Mahanoy Maps are available for inspection at Lower Mahanoy Township Hall, Rd 1, Box 38, Dalmatia, PA 17017. Send comments to The Honorable Larry L. Adams, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, Rd 1, Box 11, Dalmatia, PA 17017. Township of Point Maps are available for inspection at Point Township Municipal Building, 759 Ridge Road, Northumberland, PA 17857.

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

Roane County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas

Clinch River ...... At confluence with Tennessee River ...... None +746 City of Kingston, At confluence with Emory River ...... None +746 Roane County (Unincor- porated Areas) Clinch River ...... At confluence with Brashear Creek ...... None +747 City of Oak Ridge, At Roane County-Knox County Boundary ...... None +796 Roane County (Unincor- porated Areas).

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES Roane County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at: Roane County Mayor’s Office, 200 Race Street, Kingston, TN 37763. Send comments to the Honorable Ken Yager, Mayor Roane County, 200 Race Street, Kingston, TN 37763. City of Kingston Maps are available for inspection at: City of Kingston Mayor’s Office, 125 W. Cumberland Street, Kingston, TN 37763. Send comments to the Honorable Diane McKeetham, Mayor City of Kingston, 125 W. Cumberland Street, Kingston, TN 37763. City of Oak Ridge Maps are available for inspection at: Community Development Department, 200 South Tulane Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN 37830. Send comments to the Honorable David Bradshaw, Mayor City of Oak Ridge, 200 South Tulane Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN 37830.

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

White County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas

Calfkiller River ...... At Wagner Street ...... None +867 City of Sparta. At West Bronson Street ...... None +963 Town Creek B ...... At Highway 111 ...... None +896 White County At Highway 70/North ...... None +906 (Unincorporated Areas).

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. + North American Vertical Datum. ADDRESSES White County (Unincorporated Areas) Maps are available for inspection at White County Executive Office, Room 205, Courthouse, 1 West Bockmen Way, Sparta, TN 38583. Send comments to: The Honorable Herd Sullivan, Mayor White County, White County Courthouse, Room 205, Sparta, TN 38583. City of Sparta Maps are available for inspection at White County Executive Office, Room 205, Courthouse, 1 West Bockmen Way, Sparta, TN 38583. Send comments to: The Honorable Tommy Pedigo, Mayor City of Sparta, 6 Liberty Square, Sparta, TN 38583.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75924 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate Unsupported assertions will not meet 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. this burden. In the absence of Dated: December 11, 2006. 2. You may hand-deliver written exceptional, documentable David I. Maurstad, comments to our Northeast Regional circumstances, this information will be Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Office, at the above address. released. We will always make Emergency Management Agency, Department 3. You may fax your comments to submissions from organizations or of Homeland Security. 413–253–8482. businesses, and from individuals [FR Doc. E6–21577 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] 4. You may use the Federal identifying themselves as BILLING CODE 9110–12–P Rulemaking Portal: http:// representatives or officials of www.regulations.gov. Follow the organizations or businesses, available instructions for submitting comments. for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Comments and other information be available for public inspection, by received, as well as supporting Fish and Wildlife Service appointment, during normal business documentation used to write this rule, hours at the above address. will be available for public inspection, 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: by appointment, during normal business Diane Lynch at the above address hours at our Northeast Regional Office RIN 1018–AT37 (telephone: 413–253–8628) or the Field (see ADDRESSES). In making a final Office Supervisor, West Virginia Field decision on this proposal, we will take Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, WV and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove into consideration the comments and 26241 (telephone: 304–636–6586, any additional information we receive. the Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel extension 15). (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) From the Such communications may lead to a Federal List of Endangered and Public Comments Solicited final rule that differs from this proposal. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Threatened Wildlife We intend for any final action resulting from this proposal to be as Background AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. accurate as possible. Therefore, we The northern flying squirrel, solicit data, comments, or suggestions ACTION: Proposed rule. Glaucomys sabrinus, is comprised of 25 from the public, other concerned subspecies, including the Virginia government agencies, the scientific SUMMARY: Under the authority of the northern flying squirrel, G. s. fuscus. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), community, industry, Tribes, or any Miller (1936, p. 143) first described as amended, we, the U.S. Fish and other interested party concerning this G. s. fuscus, based on specimens Wildlife Service (Service, us, our, or proposed rule. We particularly seek collected in the Appalachian Mountains we), propose to remove the West comments concerning: (1) Biological, of eastern West Virginia. The Virginia commercial, trade, or other relevant data Virginia northern flying squirrel northern flying squirrel was listed as concerning any threat (or lack thereof) (WVNFS) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) endangered under the Endangered to the WVNFS; (2) additional from the Federal List of Endangered and Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended information on the range, distribution, Threatened Wildlife, due to recovery. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on July 1, 1985 and population size of the WVNFS and This action is based on a review of the (Service 1985 (50 FR 26999, p. 27002)). its habitat; (3) the location of any best available scientific and commercial However, it was subsequently additional populations of the WVNFS; data, which indicates that the determined that a more suitable and (4) data on population trends. subspecies is no longer endangered or common name for G. s. fuscus is the Please note that comments merely threatened with extinction, or likely to West Virginia northern flying squirrel stating support or opposition to the become so within the foreseeable future. (WVNFS), due to the majority of the actions under consideration without Recovery actions have resulted in a range of the subspecies occurring in providing supporting information, reduction in the threats which has led West Virginia, and will be referred to as although noted, will not be considered to: (1) A significant increase in the such throughout the rest of this in making a determination, as section number of known WVNFS capture sites; document. Information about the 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et (2) an increase in the number of WVNFS’ life history can be found in the seq.) directs that determinations as to individual squirrels; (3) multiple final listing rule (50 FR 26999), the whether any species is a threatened or generation reproduction; (4) the proven Appalachian Northern Flying Squirrels endangered species shall be made resiliency of the squirrels; and (5) the Recovery Plan (Service 1990, pp. 1–11), ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific vast improvement and continued and the recent 5-year review (Service and commercial data available.’’ 2006b, pp. 6–10). expansion of suitable habitat. Our practice is to make comments, DATES: We will consider comments on including names and home addresses of Previous Federal Actions this proposed delisting if they are respondents, available for public review Additional information regarding received by February 20, 2007. Public during regular business hours. previous Federal action for the WVNFS hearing requests must be received by Individual respondents may request that can be obtained by consulting the February 2, 2007. we withhold their name and/or home subspecies’ regulatory profile found at: ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on address, etc., but if you wish us to http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/ this proposed delisting, you may submit consider withholding this information, servlet/ your comments and materials you must state this prominently at the gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.Species concerning this proposal by any one of beginning of your comments. In Profile?spcode=A09R. several methods: addition, you must present rationale for 1. You may submit written comments withholding this information. This Recovery Planning and information to the Assistant Chief, rationale must demonstrate that Recovery plans are not regulatory Division of Endangered and Threatened disclosure would constitute a clearly documents and are instead intended to Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unwarranted invasion of privacy. provide guidance to the Service, States,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75925

and other partners on methods of legal status of the WVNFS based either NWR, The Nature Conservancy, and the minimizing threats to listed species and on alleviating the specific factors that West Virginia Department of Natural on criteria that may be used to resulted in its initial listing as an Resources (WVDNR). This MOU determine when recovery is achieved. endangered species or on addressing demonstrates a long-term commitment There are many paths to accomplishing new risk factors that may have emerged to continue protecting, managing for, recovery of a species and recovery may since listing. Additionally, the current and monitoring the red spruce-northern be achieved without all criteria being known range of the WVNFS (Service hardwood ecosystem, WVNFS, and fully met. For example, one or more 2006b, pp. 7–10) is much more other species. Furthermore, non-Federal criteria may have been exceeded while widespread than the Geographic land managers in several key areas other criteria may not have been Recovery Areas designated in the (Kumbrabow State Forest, accomplished. In that instance, the recovery plan (Service 1990, p. 16). MeadWestvaco Ecosytem Research Service may judge that, over all, the Thus, these focus areas for recovery, Forest, Snowshoe Mountain, Blackwater threats have been minimized which do not have formal or regulatory Canyon, and Canaan Valley) have sufficiently, and the species is robust distinction, are outdated. Therefore, our expressed an interest to further red enough, to reclassify the species from analysis of the threats to the WVNFS spruce conservation, regardless of the endangered to threatened or perhaps was based largely on the recently regulatory status of the WVNFS (Service delist the species. In other cases, completed 5-year review (Service 2006b, 2006b, pp. 13–14). recovery opportunities may have been pp. 1–20). This review is available at recognized that were not known at the http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/ Summary of Factors Affecting the time the recovery plan was finalized. flysqrev.pdf. Species These opportunities may be used Recovery efforts have provided Section 4 of the Act and its instead of methods identified in the increased attention and focus on the implementing regulations (50 CFR part recovery plan. Likewise, information on WVNFS and the habitat upon which it 424) set forth the procedures for listing the species may be learned that was not depends. Numerous conservation known at the time the recovery plan was actions have been implemented since species, reclassifying species, or finalized. The new information may 1985 by land stewards, biologists, and removing species from listed status. We change the extent that criteria need to be conservation groups. These include may determine a species to be an met for recognizing recovery of the research and recovery actions specified endangered or threatened species species. Overall, recovery of species is in the 1990 recovery plan and 2001 because of one or more of the five a dynamic process requiring adaptive recovery plan update for the WVNFS; factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the management, and judging the degree of minimization and mitigation measures Act, and we must consider these same recovery of a species is also an adaptive specified in two Habitat Conservation five factors in delisting a species. We management process that may, or may Plans (HCPs) at Snowshoe Mountain, may delist a species according to not, fully follow the guidance provided specifically the protection of § 424.11(d) if the best available in a recovery plan. approximately 200 acres of WVNFS scientific and commercial data indicate When the 1990 final recovery plan habitat in perpetuity (BHE 2003, pp. 34– that the species is neither endangered was approved, the recovery criteria as 42, Appendix F; BHE 2005, pp. 49–55); nor threatened for the following reasons: they apply to the WVNFS were deemed red spruce plantings; and conservation (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species objective, measurable, and adequate provisions in the 1986 MNF Land and has recovered and is no longer (Service 1990, p. 19). The recovery Resource Management Plan (U.S. endangered or threatened (as is the case criteria did not change with a 2001 Department of Agriculture (USDA) with the WVNFS); and/or (3) the recovery plan amendment (Service Forest Service (Forest Service) 1986, pp. original scientific data used at the time 2001, pp. 1–6). However, the 2001 X–1 – X–3), 2004 Forest Plan the species was classified were in error. amendment included an update to Amendment (USDA Forest Service The five factors listed under section Appendix A, Guidelines for Habitat 2004, pp. 84, 84a, 84c, 87, 234–234b), 4(a)(1) of the Act and their application Identification and Management for the and Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest to the WVNFS are as follows: WVNFS. Implementation of the Service 2006 pp. 12, 19–20, 27). Of A. The Present or Threatened amended Appendix A Guidelines by the particular note are the habitat protection Destruction, Modification, or Monongahela National Forest (MNF) initiatives that have occurred on both Curtailment of its Habitat or Range effectively abated the main threat to the public and private lands, the squirrel (i.e., habitat loss from timber development of a habitat model and WVNFS Distribution management) throughout the majority of research on red spruce habitat its range, by eliminating adverse restoration, the establishment of Canaan At the time of listing (1985), 10 impacts on all suitable habitat on the Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), WVNFS individuals were known from MNF without having to prove WVNFS and the growing interest in spruce Randolph and Pocahontas Counties, presence (Service 2001, pp. 1–6; Service ecosystem restoration. WV, and Highland County, VA (Service 2006b, pp. 3–4). For example, we continue to work 2006b, p. 8). It was thought that vast With the exception of the 2001 with interested land management and stretches of unsuitable habitat separated amendment to Appendix A, the conservation entities to secure long-term the four known population centers and recovery plan is no longer actively used commitments to continue conservation that the WVNFS still existed but that it to guide recovery of the WVNFS efforts already initiated to protect, was very rare, and perhaps no longer because it is outdated (Service 2006b, manage, and monitor the habitat upon present in much of its former range (50 pp. 4–6). The recovery criteria do not which the WVNFS depends. Although FR 26999, p. 26999). The final listing specifically address the five threat not one of the bases for the proposed rule qualitatively described historic factors used for listing, reclassifying, or WVNFS delisting, the Service is habitat losses and suggested that, ‘‘[I]n delisting a species (Service 2006b, pp. developing a long-term Memorandum of these last occupied zones, the squirrels 5–6). Consequently, the recovery plan Understanding (MOU) with several [G. s. fuscus and G. s. coloratus] and does not provide an explicit reference Federal and non-federal entities, their habitat may be coming under point for determining the appropriate including the MNF, Canaan Valley increasing pressure from human

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75926 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

disturbances such as logging and Habitat Quantity and Quality high quality habitat in the Allegheny development’’ (50 FR 26999, p. 27000). Prior to European settlement, there Highlands (Menzel et al. 2006a, p. 7), The current known range of WVNFS were in excess of 500,000 acres (some prioritize areas for restoration and follows the spine of the high Allegheny sources suggest 600,000+ acres) of old- recovery (Menzel et al. 2006a, p. 7), Plateau in a northeast to southwest growth red spruce-northern hardwood assess anthropogenic (manmade) and geologic fragmentation of the spruce alignment. Helmick Run (Grant County, forests, the preferred habitat of the forest, and analyze stewardship of the WV) marks the northeast periphery and WVNFS, in the Allegheny Highlands. suitable habitat (Menzel et al. 2006b, p. Briery Knob (Greenbrier County, WV) These forests (occupying ridges, slopes, and drainages) in West Virginia 15). the southwest periphery, covering seven The forested areas used by the extended from the vicinity of Mount counties in West Virginia and Highland WVNFS across most of its range have Storm (Grant County) in the north to County, Virginia (Service 2006b, p. 25). continued to mature in the 20 years Cold Knob (Greenbrier County) in the There is a total of 107 WVNFS capture since listing. For example, about half of south, east to the Allegheny Front sites, 105 of which are in West Virginia the rangewide area modeled as optimal (Pendleton County), and west to and 2 in Highland County, Virginia habitat are red-spruce northern (Service 2006b, pp. 8, 25; WVDNR 2005, Webster and Nicholas Counties. These hardwood forest stands on the MNF that pp. 1–105). These capture sites are red spruce-northern hardwood forests are over 75 years old (Menzel et al. dispersed across seven general areas of were more contiguous across the 2006b, p. 4; Service 2006b, pp. 10–11; relict habitat in the Allegheny Allegheny Highlands than are the well- USDA Forest Service Northeastern Highlands region (Service 2006b, pp. 9, known ‘‘sky-islands’’ of the Southern Research Station 2006, unpublished 26). Appalachians, which support G. s. data, p. 2). Even though current habitat coloratus (Service 1990, pp. 16–17; conditions are not as favorable for the As of 2005, there had been 1,141 USDA Forest Service Northeastern captures (including 78 recaptures) WVNFS as historic conditions, current Research Station 2006, unpublished conditions are much improved distributed throughout the 107 capture data, pp. 2–3). sites (Service 2006b, p. 7; WVDNR 2005, compared to that at the time of listing. Logging activity and associated With the exception of localized habitat pp. 1–105). Sixty percent of these sites widespread fires at the turn of the 20th document WVNFS occurrence through impacts, forest succession has resulted century decimated the red spruce- in older forest stands with improved time (WVDNR 2005, pp. 1–16, 18–20, northern hardwood forests, resulting in forest structure, reflecting a continuing, 22–24, 26, 28–33, 35–36, 39–49, 52–53, younger forests with less red spruce, positive rangewide trend (Service 59–60, 62–64, 66–71, 73–75, 77–82, 84– and in many areas, a mixed mesophytic 2006b, pp. 11–14, 19–20). With regard 87, 89, 92–93, 95–96, 98–102, 104–105). (moderately moist environment), oak- to forest composition, the amount and WVNFS are nocturnal, leaving the nest dominated forest (Menzel et al. 2006a, extent of red spruce also appears to be to forage at night and returning during p. 6; Rollins 2005, pp. 12–13; Schuler et gradually increasing, as suggested by the day. Nest box monitoring results are al. 2002, pp. 88–89). Consequently, this Rollins (2005, pp. 39–51). contingent upon WVNFS occupying the resulted in less, and poorer quality, We analyzed impacts the balsam and box on the day of the survey (Service WVNFS habitat because younger forests hemlock woolly adelgids, insect 2006, p. 7). Therefore, considering that with fewer red spruce provided reduced parasites accidentally introduced from the nest box monitoring program has foraging and sheltering opportunities Europe (Service 1990, p. 13), may be had only a 2 percent average success (Service 2006b, p. 6). Also, the presence having on the WVNFS’ habitat (Service rate of squirrel occupancy per box of oak and its associated mast (i.e., 2006b, p. 17). The balsam woolly checked (Service 2006b, p. 7), the acorns), provided a competitive adelgid infects balsam fir (Abies presence of long-term nest box advantage of food resources for the more balsamea) trees, causing damage or monitoring data provides strong aggressive southern flying squirrel mortality to the host trees (Service 1990, evidence of the WVNFS’ continued (Glaucomys volans). The WVNFS’ rarity p. 13). However, we believe the effect of presence throughout its range over the was understood to be a consequence of the balsam woolly adelgid on WVNFS last couple of decades (WVDNR 2005, its specialized use of a precipitously habitat is discountable because balsam pp. 1–16, 18–20, 22–24, 26, 28–33, 35– declining habitat type (Service 2006b, p. fir is limited to a minor component of 36, 39–49, 52–53, 59–60, 62–64, 66–71, 11). the WVNFS habitat. Red spruce occurs 73–75, 77–82, 84–87, 89, 92–93, 95–96, Currently, it is estimated that there in or near stands of balsam fir, 98–102, 104–105). are approximately 242,000 acres of providing the WVNFS with alternative WVNFS habitat (USDA Forest Service and higher value habitat where damage We now know that the WVNFS Northeastern Research Station 2006, from the balsam woolly adelgid may continues to occupy the areas identified unpublished data, p. 4). This estimate is have occurred. In addition, the impact in the 1985 final listing rule as well as based in part on the results of several of the balsam woolly adelgid on the numerous additional sites dispersed habitat models, and includes all small component of balsam fir within throughout its historical range, ‘‘optimal’’ habitat as well as ‘‘likely’’ WVNFS habitat has already occurred suggesting that its current range roughly habitat located in close proximity to red (Service 2006b, p 17). approximates the extent of its historical spruce-northern hardwood forests. The hemlock woolly adeglid has been range. Studies have confirmed the ‘‘Likely’’ and ‘‘optimal’’ are terms and in the United States since 1924. The ability of the WVNFS to adjust its definitions imparted by the Menzel insect damages eastern hemlock (Tsuga foraging and denning behavior (i.e., the model, with ‘‘likely’’ areas having a canadensis) trees by damaging new ability to nest in a wide variety of trees) greater than 50 percent chance of being growth, which can cause defoliation and to persist in and around relict red occupied by the WVNFS, and ‘‘optimal’’ mortality (Service 2006b, p. 17). Only spruce-northern hardwood forest areas having a greater than 75 percent seven percent of the WVNFS capture patches (Menzel et al. 2004, pp. 360, probability of being occupied (Menzel sites are dominated by Eastern hemlock 363–364; Menzel et al. 2006a, pp. 1–3, 2003, pp. 84–85, 87–89; Menzel et al. instead of red spruce (Service 2006b, p. 6, 7; Menzel et al. 2006b, p. 208; Ford 2006b, pp. 15–16). The models allow us 17). Loss of Eastern hemlock, due to the et al. 2004, p. 430). to estimate the amount of potential and hemlock woolly adelgid, may reduce the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75927

chances of WVNFS dispersal between high energy food source for that species, to analyses using the Menzel model, patches and within metapopulations, and, therefore, would counter any small over 60% of areas modeled as likely potentially having a very local, isolating amount of direct competition between habitat are now considered secured by impact in a limited number of the WVNFS and the southern flying public ownership and/or managed for situations. While hemlock woolly squirrel. Therefore, while beech bark the protection of the WVNFS (Menzel et adelgid may remove the montane disease affects a minor component of al. 2006b, p. 4). These areas include conifer component at less than 10 WVNFS habitat rangewide, we consider Canaan Valley NWR (created in 1994), percent of the known capture sites, it to pose an overall low-to-moderate Blackwater Falls and Canaan Valley most, if not all, of these areas are in degree of risk for WVNFS, and this risk State parks, Handley Wildlife close proximity to red spruce-northern may be offset by the potential benefits Management Area, Kumbrabow State hardwood forests, significantly reducing of creation of new nest cavities, increase Forest, and the MNF (Service 2006b, pp. the occasions where loss of Eastern in a primary food source, and potential 12–14). hemlock will be detrimental to the harm to the food supply of the southern Activities that have contributed to WVNFS (Service 2006b, p. 17). flying squirrel (Service 2006b, p. 18). habitat loss and degradation since the time of listing have been localized and/ Additionally, the West Virginia Land Use Planning Department of Agriculture has an active or have occurred on the periphery of the detection program for hemlock woolly Available information indicates that WVNFS’ range (Service 2006b, pp. 11, adelgid and a treatment program that the threat posed by past habitat loss has 14, 20). These activities include limited will remain in place regardless of the been largely abated across most of the highway development, recreational listing status of the WVNFS. Therefore, WVNFS’ range. Implementation of the development, mining and gas even though the hemlock woolly 2001 recovery plan amendment (Service exploration, timber management, and adelgid may impact a minor component 2001, p. 4) by the MNF and the 2004 wind farm development. With regard to of the squirrel’s habitat, we consider it amendment to the MNF Land and activities that are reasonably foreseeable to pose a negligible degree of risk to the Resource Management Plan (USDA to occur, some low level of local WVNFS, because of the limited role of Forest Service 2004, pp. 84a–84c, 87, impacts are likely to continue into the hemlock in the species’ survival, and 234–234b) significantly removed the future; however, there is no indication presence of red spruce in the majority threat of habitat loss (via logging) across that the activities would ever be likely of the areas (Service 2006b, p. 17). much of the WVNFS’ range. The to occur over a landscape level, or at recovery plan amendment such a magnitude as to pose a threat to The potential impact of beech bark recommended that suitable WVNFS the continued existence of WVNFS disease was also analyzed. Beech bark habitat be considered during (Service 2006b, pp. 11, 14, 19–20). For disease is caused by the beech scale consultation with Federal agencies. The example, in addition to the majority of insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga), followed Forest Service reinforced this WVNFS habitat being publicly owned by one of two fungi (Nectria coccinea recommendation through an and managed, future development var. faginata or N. galligena). The scale amendment to the MNF Land and throughout the range of the WVNFS is stresses and weakens the American Resource Management Plan, that limited expected to be minimal. The entire beech tree (Fagus grandifolia) and the vegetation management in all ‘‘suitable range of the WVNFS is within the fungi then causes either localized habitat’’ (as determined collaboratively Allegheny Mountains Valley lesions or decay and death of the entire by the Forest, Service, and WVDNR) to Physiographic Region, an area of steep tree (Service 2006b, pp. 17–18). only certain activities: Research covered terrain and low human population Although American beech trees are under an Endangered Species Act density and growth. In 2005, the common to the spruce-northern section 10 permit; actions to improve or proportion of land use classified as low hardwood forests of the Allegheny maintain WVNFS populations after density and high density development Highlands, in WVNFS habitat they research has demonstrated the within this physiographic region in usually occur in combination with beneficial effects of the proposed West Virginia was 0.4% and 0.1%, spruce and other hardwoods, management; or when project-level respectively (WVDNR 2006, p. 10). particularly birch and maple. Therefore, assessment results in no adverse effects. During 2000, population densities in the despite having a devastating impact on This conservation strategy has been counties in West Virginia in which the the American beech component of the carried forward into the MNF’s recent WVNFS occurs were among the lowest red spruce-northern hardwood forest, Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest in the State, ranging from 9.7–40.4 beech bark disease is not thought to Service 2005, pp. II–20, II–24, III–9–III– persons per square mile (WVDNR 2006, render WVNFS habitat unsuitable 16; USDA Forest Service 2006, pp. 12, p. 17); and with the exception of (Service 2006b, p. 18). There is actually 19–20, 27). The former primary cause of Randolph County (0.3% increase), the a potential short-term benefit to the habitat loss (detrimental logging 10-year population trend (1990–2000) in WVNFS due to the creation of new nest practices) has been abated on the MNF, all of these counties decreased (WVDNR cavities in the holes of dead and and proactive conservation throughout 2006, p. 18). decaying beech. Foraging habitat for the much of the WVNFS’ range has and will Summary of Factor A: Although the WVNFS may also improve with continue to eliminate impacts from past quantity and quality of WVNFS habitat increases in large woody debris on the logging practices, and focus on is reduced from historical levels, we forest floor from the dead beech trees, restoration of this ecosystem. For now know that the WVNFS is more which could promote the growth of example, tens of thousands of red resilient in its habitat use than formerly underground fungi, one of the WVNFS’ spruce trees have been planted over the thought (probably because of its primary food sources (Carey et al. 1999, last 4 years and more is being done to mobility and plasticity in nest tree p. 54; Pyare and Longland 2001, p. protect and restore this ecosystem (West selection), and that habitat trends are 1008; Rosenberg and Anthony 1992, p. Virginia Highlands Conservancy 2006, moving in a positive direction in terms 161; Waters et al. 2000, p. 85). p.10). of forest regeneration and conservation. Additionally, the removal of beech nuts There is no evidence of any new Therefore, the present or threatened is thought to be more detrimental to the sources of habitat loss throughout the destruction, modification, or southern flying squirrel because it is a current range of the WVNFS. According curtailment of its habitat or range is no

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75928 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

longer considered a threat to the 15), or to suggest that natural predation Federal Laws WVNFS. limits populations of WVNFS. As The MNF and the George Washington analyzed in our biological opinion for B. Overutilization for Commercial, National Forest (GWNF) each developed the Camp Wilderness HCP (Service Recreational, Scientific, or Educational forest management plans that contain 2003, pp. 12, 23), there are no Purposes provisions to protect, manage, restore, documented deaths of northern flying and monitor the WVNFS and its habitat The final listing rule concluded that squirrels, particularly the WVNFS, as a (USDA Forest Service 2006, pp. 12, 19– the WVNFS was not known to be result of impacts of human recreational 20, 27; USDA Forest Service 1997, pp. jeopardized by human utilization but use or occupancy in, or near, its habitat, 3–4, 3–23, 3–28, 3–110). These noted that flying squirrels are highly and pets are not predicted to be a provisions, contained in both Forests’ desirable as pets to some persons, and substantial threat in the future (Service current plan revisions, will be retained collecting for such purposes is at least 2003, pp. 12, 23–25). Since the majority by the Forests, irrespective of the a potential threat to the already rare of WVNFS habitat is found on the MNF, WVNFS’ Federal listing status. WVNFS (50 FR 26999, p. 27000). The human encroachment into WVNFS Additionally, the National Forest WVNFS has been captured only for habitat is uncommon and localized (e.g., Management Act and other Forest scientific purposes through nest box and Canaan Valley and Snowshoe Service implementing guidance and live trap methods, and not for market Mountain) (Service 2003, pp. 12, 23–25; regulations, state that national forests collecting or commercial use. Capture Service 2006a, p. 15; Service 2006b, pp. should be managed to preserve and for scientific purposes has been very 15, 20), and is therefore precluded from enhance the diversity of plant and limited, and has not proven to be becoming a threat in the future to the animal communities, and will continue detrimental to the continued existence WVNFS. to apply if the WVNFS is delisted. of the WVNFS. Summary of Factor C: Disease and In the 21 years since listing, the According to the Forest Service Manual, predation are not currently considered a if a species is removed from the Federal Service has not received any evidence threat to the WVNFS and are not List of Threatened and Endangered that commercial use in the pet trade or considered to become a threat in the Wildlife, that species would be placed recreational use of the WVNFS is a foreseeable future. on a list of sensitive species for 5 years, threat. The WVNFS is a thinly during which time the Forest Service dispersed, nocturnal mammal that is D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory would evaluate whether any of their very difficult to catch. For example, Mechanisms proposed actions would result in a trend Menzel captured the WVNFS at a rate of The final listing rule stated that this toward Federal relisting (USDA Forest 0.227 captures per100 trap nights factor was not known to be applicable Service 2001, p. 3). (Menzel 2003, p. 65), and the WVDNR’s (50 FR 26999, p. 27000). Prior to its Overall, improving habitat conditions, nest box monitoring program has had listing in 1985, there were no known the WVNFS’ resiliency, and lack of only a 2 percent average success rate of existing regulatory mechanisms rangewide threats indicate that the long- squirrel occupancy per box checked protecting the WVNFS. term survival of the WVNFS can be (Service 2006b, p. 7). Additionally, due sustained without the protections of the to its nocturnal nature, this squirrel has State Laws Act. In addition, the binding standards not been widely hunted. of the MNF’s Forest Plan will remain in Summary of Factor B: Overutilization The State of West Virginia does not effect after delisting, providing an for any purpose is not currently currently have any State laws protecting existing regulatory mechanism for considered a threat, and is not endangered species. However, for the addressing the historical threat of loss of anticipated to emerge as a threat in the reasons stated in the discussions of Factors A, B, C and E, there are no forest habitat. future, given the difficulties in Summary of Factor D: Given the collecting the WVNFS (i.e., its nocturnal current threats to the species as a whole that require additional regulation. MNF’s Forest Plan’s standards that and secretive habits, and the remoteness apply to a majority of the range and the of its habitat (Service 2006b, p. 14)). Therefore, the lack of an endangered species State law in West Virginia is not resiliency and lack of rangewide threats C. Disease or Predation expected to negatively impact the to the species, the inadequacy of The final listing rule made no WVNFS. regulatory mechanisms is not now, or mention of disease as a threat to the In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the for the foreseeable future, considered a WVNFS, and we are not aware of any WVNFS has been listed as endangered threat to the WVNFS. evidence since the time of listing that under the Commonwealth’s endangered E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors suggests the health of WVNFS species act since its Federal listing in Affecting the Continued Existence of the individuals is threatened by disease. Of 1985. This Commonwealth law, which Species the more than 1,100 individual squirrels is administered by the Virginia captured since 1985, none have shown Department of Game and Inland Competition With Southern Flying signs of disease (Service 2006b, p. 15). Fisheries, prohibits take of Squirrel The final listing rule predicted that Commonwealth-listed species and is The final listing rule concluded that increasing human recreational use of applicable to the WVNFS regardless of the WVNFS was threatened by northern flying squirrel habitat might the squirrel’s status under the federal competition with the southern flying result in predation on the WVNFS by Endangered Species Act. The WVNFS squirrel for habitat and by the spread of pets, especially cats (50 FR 26999, p. will remain listed under the Virginia a parasite from the southern flying 27000). While natural predators of the law if it is removed from the Federal squirrel to the WVNFS (50 FR 26999, p. WVNFS may include weasel, fox, mink, List of Threatened and Endangered 27000). However, evidence collected owl, hawks, bobcat, skunk, raccoon, Wildlife (VDGIF 2006, p 2). Lack of since the time of listing indicates that snakes, and fisher, we are not aware of current threats, along with the the occurrence and potential severity of any scientific or circumstantial evidence Commonwealth’s endangered species the southern flying squirrel’s impacts since the time of listing to support pets act, ensures the WVNFS’ persistence in are limited. The sympatric occurrence of preying upon WVNFS (Service 2006a, p. Virginia into the foreseeable future. the two subspecies has been

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75929

documented for decades at 23 of the 107 analysis of the status of the WVNFS in management practices and rangewide WVNFS capture sites, most notably at the 5-year review (Service 2006b, pp. 4– proactive conservation activities, a Stuart Knob (Randolph County, WV) 6). substantial amount of WVNFS habitat is since the 1950s (Service 2006b, p. 16). Acid precipitation (more now considered secure and improving These occurrences span multiple appropriately referred to as acid in quality. Relative to the information generations of WVNFS (WVDNR 2005, deposition) and climate change have available at the time of listing, recovery pp. 1–105), indicating that over- been cited as potentially damaging actions have resulted in a reduction of competition by the southern flying forest ecosystems, especially the spruce- threats that have led to a (1) a significant squirrel for den sites does not appear to fir forests in portions of the increase in the number of known be affecting population persistence of Appalachian Mountains (NAPAP 2005, WVNFS capture sites; (2) an increase in the WVNFS. In addition, any p. 41). Although empirical data are the number of individual squirrels; (3) competition between the two subspecies lacking regarding specific effects on the multiple generation reproduction; (4) may be somewhat ameliorated by the WVNFS, the long-term potential exists the proven resiliency of the squirrels; spread of beech bark disease, which for anthropogenic acid deposition and and (5) the vast improvement and results in the reduced availability of climate change to diminish the extent continued expansion of suitable habitat. beech nuts, an important food source for and quality of the boreal-like spruce The biological principles under which the southern flying squirrel. forests that have survived on the high we evaluate the rangewide population The final listing rule cited evidence ridges and plateaus, by pushing them status of the WVNFS relative to its long- from a captive study in the 1960s that farther up the slopes, and, if warming term conservation are representation, a nematode parasite, possibly carried by continues, reducing and eventually redundancy, and resiliency. At the time the southern flying squirrel, might be eliminating habitat at higher elevations. of listing, the WVNFS was thought to be lethal to the WVNFS (50 FR 26999, p. However, there has been no evidence of an extremely rare and declining taxon 26999). The rule stated that while the acid deposition or climate change that had disappeared from most of its southern flying squirrels appeared reducing the extent of red spruce- historical range. We now know that healthy, all the northern flying squirrels northern hardwood forests in the occupancy of available habitat has weakened and died within 3 months, Allegheny Highlands since the WVNFS’ increased and is much more widespread and this mortality was associated with listing in 1985 (Rollins 2005, pp. 39–51; than formerly thought, and that the heavy infestations of the nematode Service 2006b, p. 10), and it is not geographic extent of the WVNFS’ range parasite. All the southern flying possible to predict measurable impacts approximates historical range squirrels also carried the parasite, but on WVNFS habitat through the boundaries. Although the red spruce- they remained in apparent good health foreseeable future. Thus, the effects of northern hardwood forests have not and continued to breed (50 FR 26999, p. acid deposition and climate change on rebounded to pre-logging conditions, we 27001). Based on review of the original G. s. fuscus and its habitat are not have learned that the WVNFS can dissertation, the cause of the northern predictable, and it is beyond our utilize sub-optimal habitat adjacent to flying squirrel mortality was never capacity to eliminate such threats these forests that constitutes the most completely understood (Weigl 1968, pp. through interventions at the species essential landscape-level component of 129–150). Weigl et al. (1999, pp. 74–75) level. Land managers can, however, the WVNFS’ habitat. From this, we can hypothesized that survival and develop contingency plans to deal with infer that there is more habitat maturation rates of the parasite are these concerns through mitigation and connectivity than previously thought, limited by below-freezing temperatures remediation measures. The MNF Forest although there remains geographic that occur within the range of the Plan Revision calls for monitoring and separation (and likely has been since the WVNFS, but were not replicated in the management responses to any potential end of the Pleistocene era) between 1960s captive study. The conditions effects of acid deposition that may some of the habitat areas supporting created in the captive study apparently emerge in the future, and the GWJF population centers. Thus, there is do not closely relate to naturally Forest Plan makes a commitment to adequate representation (i.e., occupancy occurring conditions, and observations retain the integrity of high-elevation of representative habitats formerly of WVNFS individuals captured in the forests. Other entities have also occupied by the squirrel across its last 20 years (including areas also expressed an interest in perpetuating a range) and redundancy (i.e., distribution occupied by the southern flying healthy red spruce ecosystem in the of populations in a pattern that offsets squirrel) have revealed no signs of Allegheny Highlands (Service 2006b, unforeseen losses across a portion of the sickness, debilitation, or death due to pp. 18–19). WVNFS’ range) of the WVNFS. parasitic infestation. Summary of Factor E: Overall, our Also, despite the difficulties inherent analysis of the other natural and in conducting population studies for the Other Natural or Manmade Threats manmade factors, either alone or in WVNFS, it has proven to be resilient. The 1985 final listing rule did not combination, indicates that the WVNFS The WVNFS has been shown to be more address additional threats under Factor is not in danger of extinction throughout mobile and flexible in its habitat use E. However, the delisting criterion all or a significant portion of its range, than previously thought. Specifically, within the 1990 recovery plan or likely to become endangered within survey and monitoring efforts at 107 addressed potential threats, such as the foreseeable future. sites over the past 21 years have shown forest pests (see Factor A), acid rain, and that it is persistent at multiple locations climate change, to the existence of the Summary of Findings for multiple generations, and there is no high elevation forests on which the We have carefully assessed the best evidence of extirpation of a local squirrels (G. s. fuscus and G. s. scientific and commercial data available population. As previously described, coloratus) depend (Service 1990, p. 19). regarding the past, present, and future the current and future trend for habitat Although the delisting criterion in the threats faced by the WVNFS, and quantity and quality is expected to be recovery plan is out of date and not conclude that the species has recovered, favorable because of the gradual based on the five threat factors (as and is not threatened with extinction or recovery of the red spruce-northern previously described), these potential likely to become endangered within the hardwood ecosystem and the lack of threats were included in the overall foreseeable future. Due to forest rangewide threats to WVNFS habitat. As

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75930 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

habitat availability increases into the whose land the majority of habitat box monitoring on their property, foreseeable future, the carrying capacity occurs, should afford adequate particularly in their approximately 200- of secured and protected habitat should protection to the WVNFS into the acre conservation area already allow for persistence of viable foreseeable future upon delisting. In established as part of their HCPs. The populations of the WVNFS. addition to the previously described Service will effectively monitor the In summary, the threats to the conservation measures, the Forest implementation of commitments by WVNFS have either been eliminated or Service (MNF and GWNF) would entities, particularly the MNF, to largely abated. The current available maintain protection of the WVNFS by conserve red spruce-northern hardwood information shows that the WVNFS is considering it a sensitive species for a forests for the first 5 years following persisting throughout its historic range, minimum of 5 years after delisting delisting. During this time, the Forest with areas of known occupancy much (USDA Forest Service 2006, p. 18). Plan Revision, and other commitments more widespread than at the time of Sensitive species designation ensures of the MNF and other entities will be listing. Therefore, the WVNF does not that the Forest Service would continue reviewed annually by the Service. meet the definition of endangered or to monitor the status of the WVNFS, and Additionally, as part of the Forest threatened, and should be removed from to conduct management activities on Service monitoring for sensitive species the List of Endangered and Threatened Forest Service lands in a manner that and/or management indicator species, Wildlife, due to recovery. strives to ensure that such actions do and the WVDNR monitoring as part of Effects of This Rule not contribute to a trend toward federal their Action Plan, the Service, WVDNR, listing. In addition, the Forest Service and Forest Service will monitor the This rule, if made final, would revise and WVDNR have conducted nest box WVNFS and its relationship to habitat 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the WVNFS monitoring for the WVNFS in excess of affected by active and passive from the List of Endangered and 20 years and will continue to do so for management. Threatened Wildlife, due to recovery. the foreseeable future, regardless of The PDM plan is being designed to Because no critical habitat was ever whether the WVNFS is delisted. monitor the threats to the species by designated for this species, this rule Because of these past efforts, a PDM detecting changes in the status of the would not affect 50 CFR 17.95. The plan is being drafted in a cooperative WVNFS population and its habitat prohibitions and conservation measures effort with the Service, the MNF and the through continued nest box monitoring provided by the Act, particularly section WVDNR, and other appropriate land and monitoring of the quality and 7 and section 9, would no longer apply managers, with technical assistance quantity of WVNFS habitat throughout to the WVNFS. from USDA’s Northeastern Research its range. Thresholds that would trigger Removal of the WVNFS does not Station, to guide the collection and an extension of monitoring or a status supersede any State regulations. evaluation of pertinent information over review will be presented in the Service’s Additionally, for the 60 percent of the the monitoring period. In the near draft post-delisting monitoring plan. WVNFS habitat on the MNF, and the future, we will publish in the Federal small area of habitat located within the Register a notice of availability of the Clarity of the Rule GWNF, the activities impacting the proposed PDM plan, and solicit public Executive Order 12866 requires WVNFS and its habitat must comply comment on that proposed plan. agencies to write regulations that are with appropriate Forest Service easy to understand. We invite your regulations. Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan comments on how to make this rule Overview easier to understand, including answers Post-Delisting Monitoring Development of the PDM plan, to the following: (1) Is the discussion in Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the required under section 4 of the Act, will the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation be facilitated by the MNF’s Forest Plan of the preamble helpful in with the States, to implement a system Revision monitoring (USDA Forest understanding the proposal? (2) Does to monitor for not less than 5 years the Service 2005, pp. IV–1 – IV–12) and the the proposal contain technical language status of all species that have recovered monitoring specified in the West or jargon that interferes with its clarity? and been delisted. The purpose of this Virginia Conservation Action Plan (3) Does the format of the proposal post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to (WVDNR 2006, pp. 861–867, 959–969, (grouping and order of sections, use of verify that a species delisted, due to 1046–1049). The West Virginia headings, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? recovery, remains secure from risk of Conservation Action Plan is a result of and (4) What else could we do to make extinction after it no longer has the a charge from Congress to each State the rule easier to understand? protections of the Act. We are to make and territory to develop a Send a copy of any comments that prompt use of the emergency listing comprehensive plan for fish and concern how we could make this authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the wildlife conservation. Both of these proposed rule easier to understand to Act to prevent a significant risk to the management plans include requisite the Office of Regulatory Affairs, well being of any recovered species. monitoring of the WVNFS and its Department of the Interior, Room 7229, Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly habitat (red spruce-northern hardwood 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC requires cooperation with the States in forests) because of the importance 20240. development and implementation of placed on the red spruce ecosystem. PDM programs, but we remain Under these two plans and separate Peer Review responsible for compliance with section agreements, the Forest Service, WVDNR, In accordance with our policy 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively and other entities, will continue to published on July 1, 1994 (50 FR engaged in all phases of PDM. We also conduct nest box monitoring as well as 34270), we will solicit the expert seek active participation of other monitoring of habitat conditions and opinions of at least three appropriate entities that are expected to assume residual threats at representative sites and independent specialists for peer responsibilities for the species’ within the seven areas of relict habitat. review of this proposed rule. The conservation, post-delisting. For example, through a third party, purpose of such review is to ensure that The management practices of, and Snowshoe Mountain, Inc., has decisions are based on scientifically commitments by, primarily the MNF, on expressed an interest in continuing nest sound data, assumptions, and analyses.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 75931

We will send peer reviewers copies of Environmental Impact Statements, as recordkeeping requirements, this proposed rule immediately defined under the authority of the Transportation. following publication in the Federal National Environmental Policy Act of Register. We will invite peer reviewers 1969, need not be prepared in Regulation Promulgation to comment, during the public comment connection with regulations adopted Accordingly, we propose to amend period, on the specific assumptions and pursuant to section 4(a) of the part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title conclusions regarding the proposed Endangered Species Act. We published 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, delisting. We will summarize the a notice outlining our reasons for this as set forth below: opinions of these reviewers in the final determination in the Federal Register decision document, and we will on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). PART 17—[AMENDED] consider their input as part of our References Cited process of making a final decision on 1. The authority citation for part 17 the proposal. A complete list of all references cited continues to read as follows: Paperwork Reduction Act herein is available upon request from Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. the West Virginia Field Office (see FOR This rule does not contain any new 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). collections of information other than 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. those already approved under the Author § 17.11 [Amended] Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of The primary author of this proposed 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the Management and Budget (OMB) control rule is Diane Lynch, Endangered entry ‘‘Squirrel, Virginia northern number 1018–0094, which expires on Species Specialist, with technical flying’’ under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ from the September 30, 2007. An agency may not assistance from Shane Jones, former List of Endangered and Threatened conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Endangered Species Biologist and Wildlife. species lead for the WVNFS in our West required to respond to, a collection of Dated: December 6, 2006. information unless it displays a Virginia Field Office (see FOR FURTHER Marshall Jones, currently valid OMB control number. INFORMATION CONTACT section). Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Environmental Policy Act List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Service. We have determined that Endangered and threatened species, [FR Doc. E6–21530 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Environmental Assessments and Exports, Imports, Reporting and BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:40 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM 19DEP1 pwalker on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS 75932

Notices Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 243

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER encourage uniformity and consistency Consequently, AMS has added the contains documents other than rules or in commercial practices.’’ AMS is wording ‘‘minimum’’ to the section. proposed rules that are applicable to the committed to carrying out this authority The comments are available by public. Notices of hearings and investigations, in a manner that facilitates the accessing the AMS, Fresh Products committee meetings, agency decisions and marketing of agricultural commodities Branch Web site at: http:// rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency and makes copies of official standards www.ams.usda.gov/fv/ statements of organization and functions are available upon request. The United fpbdocketlist.htm. examples of documents appearing in this States Standards for Grades of Fruits The adoption of the U.S. grade section. and Vegetables not connected with standards will provide the cultivated Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import ginseng industry with U.S. grade Requirements, no longer appear in the standards similar to those extensively in DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Code of Federal Regulations, but are use by the fresh produce industry to maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and assist in orderly marketing of other Agricultural Marketing Service Vegetable Programs. commodities. [Docket No. FV–06–311] AMS established voluntary United The official grade of a lot of cultivated States Standards for Grades of ginseng covered by these standards will United States Standards for Grades of Cultivated Ginseng using the procedures be determined by the procedures set Cultivated Ginseng that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the forth in the Regulations Governing Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part Inspection, Certification, and Standards AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 36). of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other USDA. Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). ACTION: Notice. Background The United States Standards for AMS received a request from an Grades of Cultivated Ginseng will be SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing industry group representing cultivated effective 30 days after publication of Service (AMS) of the Department of this notice in the Federal Register. Agriculture (USDA) is establishing ginseng growers to develop a standard voluntary United States Standards for that will provide a common language for Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. trade and a means of measuring value in Grades of Cultivated Ginseng. AMS Dated: December 13, 2006. the marketing of cultivated ginseng. received a request from an industry Lloyd C. Day, group representing cultivated ginseng Based on information gathered and comments rendered by the industry, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing growers to develop a standard that will Service. provide the industry with a common AMS developed a proposed U.S. Standards for Grades of Cultivated [FR Doc. E6–21568 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] language and uniform basis for trading, BILLING CODE 3410–02–P thus promoting the orderly and efficient Ginseng. The proposed standards marketing of cultivated ginseng. contained the following grades, as well as a range of numerical values for each DATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Effective Date: January 18, 2007. grade: U.S. Premium, U.S. Select, U.S. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Medium and U.S. Standard. In addition, Agricultural Marketing Service Cheri L. Emery, Standardization proposed basic requirements for all Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit grades, size, sample size, color, wrinkle [Docket No. FV–06–378] and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural and a definitions section would be Marketing Service, U.S. Department of established. Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., On June 28, 2006, AMS published a Committee SW., Room 1661, South Building, Stop notice in the Federal Register (71 FR AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 0240, Washington, DC 20250–0240, 36753), soliciting comments on the USDA. (202) 720–2185, fax (202) 720–8871, or proposed United States Standards for ACTION: Notice of public meeting. e-mail [email protected]. Grades of Cultivated Ginseng. The United States Standards for In response to the notice, comments SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is Grades of Cultivated Ginseng are were received from two industry groups. to notify all interested parties that the available either from the above address One comment from an industry group Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) or by accessing the AMS, Fresh was in favor of the standards as will hold a Fruit and Vegetable Industry Products Branch Web site at: http:// proposed. Another comment was also in Advisory Committee (Committee) www.ams.usda.gov/standards/ favor of the proposed standards. meeting that is open to the public. The stanfrfv.htm. However, they suggested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section section concerning Sample and Sample established the Committee to examine 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act Size should be changed, and the words the full spectrum of issues faced by the of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627), as ‘‘at least’’ be added to the sample size fruit and vegetable industry and to amended, directs and authorizes the to allow for any needed adjustments by provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture ‘‘To develop the inspector while performing Secretary of Agriculture on how USDA and improve standards of quality, inspections. AMS agrees with this can tailor its programs to meet the fruit condition, quantity, grade and comment, because adjustments in the and vegetable industry’s needs. This packaging and recommend and sample size may be necessary when notice sets forth the schedule and demonstrate such standards in order to performing the inspection. location for the meeting.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75933

DATES: Tuesday, January 23, 2007, from transcript will be provided at the http://www.regulations.gov, select 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Wednesday, meeting. ‘‘Animal and Plant Health Inspection January 24, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 12 The Secretary of Agriculture selected Service’’ from the agency drop-down noon. a diverse group of members representing menu, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ In the a broad spectrum of persons interested Docket ID column, select APHIS–2006– ADDRESSES: The Committee meeting in providing suggestions and ideas on 0166 to submit or view public will be held at the Holiday Inn Central, how USDA can tailor its programs to comments and to view supporting and 1501 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., meet the fruit and vegetable industry’s related materials available Washington, DC. needs. Equal opportunity practices were electronically. Information on using FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: considered in all appointments to the Regulations.gov, including instructions Andrew Hatch, Designated Federal Committee in accordance with USDA for accessing documents, submitting Official, USDA, AMS, Fruit and policies. comments, and viewing the docket after Vegetable Programs. Telephone: (202) If you require special the close of the comment period, is 690–0182. Facsimile: (202) 720–0016. E- accommodations, such as a sign available through the site’s ‘‘User Tips’’ mail: [email protected]. language interpreter, please use either link. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant contact name listed above. Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: to the Federal Advisory Committee Act Dated: December 13, 2006. Please send four copies of your (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Secretary Lloyd Day, comment (an original and three copies) of Agriculture established the to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0166, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Committee in August 2001 to examine Service. Regulatory Analysis and Development, the full spectrum of issues faced by the PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 [FR Doc. E6–21567 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] fruit and vegetable industry and to River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD provide suggestions and ideas to the BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 20737–1238. Please state that your Secretary on how USDA can tailor its comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– programs to meet the fruit and vegetable DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2006–0166. industry’s needs. The Committee was Public Meetings: For the locations of re-chartered in July 2003 and again in Animal and Plant Health Inspection the public meetings regarding this June 2005 with new members appointed Service notice, see the Supplementary by USDA from industry nominations. Information section of this notice. [Docket No. APHIS–2006–0166] AMS Deputy Administrator for Fruit Reading Room: You may read any and Vegetable Programs, Robert C. Environmental Impact Statement; comments that we receive in our Keeney, serves as the Committee’s Genetically Engineered Fruit Fly and reading room. The reading room is Executive Secretary. Representatives Pink Bollworm located in room 1141 of the USDA from USDA mission areas and other South Building, 14th Street and government agencies affecting the fruit AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Independence Avenue SW., and vegetable industry will be called Inspection Service, USDA. Washington, DC. Normal reading room upon to participate in the Committee’s ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday meetings as determined by the environmental impact statement and through Friday, except holidays. To be Committee Chairperson. AMS is giving proposed scope of study. sure someone is there to help you, notice of the Committee meeting to the please call (202) 690–2817 before public so that they may attend and SUMMARY: We are advising the public coming. present their recommendations. that the Animal and Plant Health Other Information: Additional Reference the date and address section Inspection Service intends to prepare an information about APHIS and its of this announcement for the time and environmental impact statement relative programs is available on the Internet at place of the meeting. to the proposed use of genetically http://www.aphis.usda.gov. Topics of discussion at the advisory engineered fruit flies and pink bollworm FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. committee meeting will include: in certain plant pest control programs. David A. Bergsten, Biological Scientist, Invasive pests and disease initiatives; an This notice identifies potential issues Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, update on U.S. produce industry labor and alternatives that will be studied in 4700 River Road Unit 149, Riverdale, and immigration issues; Perishable the environmental impact statement, MD 20737–1238; (301) 734–4883. requests public comment to further Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program budget and fees; and food delineate the scope of the issues and safety initiatives. alternatives, and provides notice of Background Those parties that would like to speak public meetings. The Animal and Plant Health at the meeting should register on or DATES: We will consider all comments Inspection Service (APHIS) is before January 15, 2007. To register as that we receive on or before February considering using genetically a speaker, please e-mail your name, 20, 2007. We will also consider engineered fruit flies (Diptera: affiliation, business address, e-mail comments made at public meetings to Tephritidae) and pink bollworm address, and phone number to Mr. be held in Washington, DC, on January (Pectinophora gossypiella) in our Andrew Hatch at: 17, 2007; in Ontario, CA, on January 23, ongoing plant pest control programs for [email protected] or facsimile to 2007; in Tempe, AZ, on January 25, fruit flies and pink bollworm. Currently, (202) 720–0016. Speakers who have 2007; in Weslaco, TX, on January 30, these programs use a sterile insect registered in advance will be given 2007; and in Tampa, FL, on February 1, technique that involves mass-rearing priority. Groups and individuals may 2007. Each meeting will be held from 9 plant pests in a special facility, submit comments for the Committee’s a.m. to 12 p.m., local time. sterilizing the insects by irradiation, and consideration to the same e-mail ADDRESSES: You may submit comments releasing the insects to mate with wild address. The meeting will be recorded, by either of the following methods: plant pests. The release of sterile insects and information about obtaining a Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to reduces the pest population through

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75934 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

associated decreases in the potential any unique risks that APHIS should Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of reproduction rate. Genetically consider in detail for genetic December 2006. engineered fruit flies and pink bollworm engineering of pink bollworm and fruit Kevin Shea, could augment the sterile insect fly species? Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant technique by producing only male What are the potential risks of non- Health Inspection Service. insects, insects with a genetic target effects associated with this [FR Doc. E6–21612 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] identification marker, insects that technology? BILLING CODE 3410–34–P compete more effectively for mates, and/or insects that produce no viable All comments will be considered fully offspring. in developing a final scope of study. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Under the provisions of the National When the draft EIS is completed, a Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as notice announcing its availability and Commodity Credit Corporation amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an invitation to comment on it will be agencies must examine the potential published in the Federal Register. Amendment 2 of the Cotton Storage Agreement environmental effects of proposed Public Meetings Federal actions and alternatives. We AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, We are advising the public that we are intend to prepare an environmental USDA. impact statement (EIS) relative to the hosting five public meetings on this ACTION: proposed use of genetically engineered notice of intent to prepare an EIS. The Notice. public meetings will be held as follows: fruit flies and pink bollworm in the SUMMARY: This notice announces plant pest control programs for fruit Wednesday, January 17, 2007, in the Amendment 2 to the Commodity Credit flies and pink bollworm. The EIS will USDA Jamie L. Whitten Building, Corporation’s (CCC’s) Cotton Storage examine the range of potential effects Room 107–A, 1400 Independence Agreement. This amendment alters the that the proposed applications could Avenue SW., Washington, DC. agreement that regulates the storage of pose to the human environment. CCC interest and commercial cotton in This notice identifies potential issues Tuesday, January 23, 2007, in the Marriott Hotel, 2200 East Holt warehouses throughout the United and alternatives that we will study in States. the EIS and requests public comment to Boulevard, Ontario, CA. further delineate the issues and the Thursday, January 25, 2007, in the DATES: Effective Date: December 19, scope of the alternatives. Holiday Inn, 915 East Apache 2006. We have identified three broad Boulevard, Tempe, AZ. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: alternatives for study in the EIS. Tuesday, January 30, 2007, in the Kika Timothy R. Murray, Cotton Program Take no action. This alternative de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Manager, Warehouse and Inventory contemplates no change to the plant Research Center, 2413 East Highway Division, Farm Service Agency, USDA, pest control programs that use sterile 83, Bldg. 213, Bill Wilson Conference STOP 0553, 1400 Independence insect technique. It represents a baseline Room, Weslaco, TX. Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250– against which proposed revisions may Thursday, February 1, 2007, in the 0553. Telephone: (202) 720–6125. E- be compared. Embassy Suites Hotel Tampa-Airport/ mail: [email protected]. Persons Expansion of existing plant pest Westshore, 555 North Westshore with disabilities who require alternative control programs. This alternative Boulevard, Tampa, FL. means for communication (Braille, large contemplates improving the current print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the plant pest control programs by All of the public meetings will be held USDA Target Center at (202) 720–2600 expanding rearing operations, from 9 a.m. to noon, local time. (voice and TDD). irradiation treatment capacity, classical A representative of the Animal and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final genetic selection methods for separation Plant Health Inspection Service will rule published in the Federal Register of insect sexes, and the plant pest preside at the public meetings. Any on August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51422) species used in these programs. interested person may appear and be amended the regulations at 7 CFR Integrate genetically engineered heard in person, by attorney, or by other 1423.11 regarding delivery and shipping insects into existing plant pest control representative. Written statements may standards for CCC-approved cotton programs. This alternative contemplates be submitted and will be made part of warehouses. Amendment 2 to the CCC integrating genetically engineered fruit the meeting record. flies and pink bollworm into the current Cotton Storage Agreement updates Part Registration for each meeting will take plant pest control programs. III, S., Delivery and Shipping Standard, We welcome comments on these place 30 minutes prior to the scheduled to reflect the changes in 7 CFR 1423.11. alternatives and on other issues or start of the meeting. Persons who wish The new Section S redefines the alternatives that should be examined in to speak at a meeting will be asked to minimum weekly delivery and shipping the EIS. In addition, we invite responses sign in with their name and standard to 4.5 percent of the CSA- to the following questions: organization to establish a record for the approved storage capacity or the Are there any new or greater risks or meeting. We ask that anyone who reads maximum number of bales on hand at apparent benefits associated with the a statement provide two copies to the any time during the crop year. A new strategy of using genetic engineering presiding officer at the meeting. mandatory reporting requirement is also instead of classical genetic techniques to The presiding officer may limit the included. This provision applies to all develop new insect strains to improve time for each presentation so that all cotton shipped from the warehouse. ongoing APHIS plant pest control interested persons appearing at each Questions regarding Amendment 2, or programs? If so, please explain. meeting have an opportunity to any other aspects of the CCC Cotton The proposed EIS focuses on the participate. Each meeting may be Storage Agreement, should be addressed development and use of genetic terminated at any time if all persons to Paul Rodriguez at the Kansas City engineering to improve specific APHIS desiring to speak and that are present in Commodity Office (816) 929–6662 or e- plant pest control programs. Are there the meeting room have been heard. mail [email protected].

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75935

Amendment 2 can be found at http:// available through links on government DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE www.fsa.usda.gov/daco/cotton.htm. Web sites including creation.gov and International Trade Administration Signed at Washington, DC, December 6, through select third-party vendors. 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For (A–570–847) Teresa C. Lasseter, more information on the availability, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Persulfates from the People’s Republic price, and use of the new pass, after of China: Notice of Rescission of Corporation. January 1, 2007 please visit http:// [FR Doc. E6–21571 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Antidumping Duty Administrative www.recreation.gov or call 1–888– Review BILLING CODE 3410–05–P AskUSGS (1–888–275–8747), option 1. AGENCY: Import Administration, Dated: November 22, 2006. International Trade Administration, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Thomas Weimer, Department of Commerce. U.S. Department of the Interior, Assistant EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006. Forest Service Secretary—Policy, Management and Budget. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Dated: December 12, 2006. Charles Riggle or Marin Weaver Import Dave Tenney, Administration, Room 1870, National Park Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Deputy International Trade Administration, Under Secretary for Forestry, Natural U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Fish and Wildlife Service Resources and Environment. Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, [FR Doc. 06–9767 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20230; telephone: at Bureau of Land Management BILLING CODE 4310–RK–M (202) 482–0650 and (202) 482–2336, respectively. Bureau of Reclamation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Availability—America the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Background Beautiful—The National Parks and On July 3, 2006, the Department of Federal Recreational Lands Pass, International Trade Administration Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) Federal Lands Recreation published a notice of opportunity to Enhancement Act, Public Law 108–447, A–570–822 request an administrative review of the Div. J, Title VII antidumping duty order on persulfates AGENCY: USDA Forest Service; U.S. Helical Spring Lock Washers from the from the People’s Republic of China Department of the Interior, National People’s Republic of China: Notice of (‘‘PRC’’). See Antidumping or Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Court Decision Not In Harmony with Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Bureau of Land Management, and Final Results of Administrative Suspended Investigation: Opportunity Bureau of Reclamation, Office of the Review; Correction to Request Administrative Review, 71 Secretary, Interior. FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 31, AGENCY: ACTION: Notice of Availability—America Import Administration, 2006, FMC Corporation (‘‘FMC’’) the Beautiful—The National Parks and International Trade Administration, requested that the Department conduct Federal Recreational Lands Pass. Department of Commerce. an administrative review of Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This SUMMARY: Section 5 paragraph 3 of the (‘‘Shanghai AJ’’). No other parties Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement notice corrects the case number requested a review. The Department Act (REA) of December 2004 (16 U.S.C. previously published in the Federal published a notice of the initiation of 6804(a)(3)) requires that the Secretaries Register on November 30, 2006 (Helical the antidumping duty administrative of Interior and Agriculture publish a Spring Lock Washers from the People’s review of persulfates from the PRC for notice in the Federal Register when the Republic of China: Notice of Court the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, ‘‘America the Beautiful—the National Decision Not In Harmony with Final 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Results of Administrative Review, 71 FR Countervailing Duty Administrative Pass’’ is first established and available 69204). On page 69204, we used the Reviews and Requests for Revocation in for purchase. incorrect case number to reference this Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On The new pass program was created in case. The correct case number is ‘‘A– November 21, 2006, FMC withdrew its response to requirements of the REA. 570–822.’’ request for an administrative review. The new pass replaces the Golden Eagle, Dated: December 12, 2006. Golden Age, and the Golden Access Rescission of Review Passports, as well as the National Parks Stephen J. Claeys, The Department’s regulations at 19 Pass, which currently support recreation Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the opportunities on public lands managed Administration. Department will rescind an by the United States Forest Service, [FR Doc. E6–21609 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] administrative review if the party that National Park Service, U.S. Fish and BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S requested the review withdraws its Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land request for review within 90 days of the Management, and the Bureau of date of publication of the notice of Reclamation. initiation of the requested review, or Sales of the new pass are scheduled withdraws its request at a later date if to begin in January 2007. The new pass the Department determines that it is will be sold at Federal recreation sites reasonable to extend the time limit for that charge entrance and standard withdrawing the request. FMC amenity fees. The pass will also be withdrew its request before the 90–day

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75936 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

deadline. Therefore, we are rescinding differ from the preliminary results. The Rescission of Review this review of the antidumping duty final dumping margins for this review In our preliminary results, we stated order on persulfates from the PRC are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of we preliminarily rescinded the review covering the period July 1, 2005, Review’’ section below. with respect to Chin Jun Industrial Ltd. through June 30, 2006. The Department EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006. (‘‘Chin Jun’’), Peer Bearing Company— will issue appropriate assessment Changshan (‘‘CPZ’’), Weihai Machinery instructions directly to U.S. Customs FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Holding (Group) Company, Ltd. and Border Protection within 15 days of (‘‘Weihai Machinery’’), and Zhejiang publication of this rescission. Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Machinery Import & Export Corp Notification Regarding APOs U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th (‘‘ZMC’’) in accordance with 19 CFR This notice also serves as a reminder Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 351.213(d)(1). Chin Jun, CPZ, and ZMC to parties subject to administrative Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) had all reported that they had either no protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 482–0414. sales or no exports to the United States during the POR and we had no evidence responsibility concerning the return or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: destruction of proprietary information of shipments to the United States from disclosed under APO in accordance Background these companies during the POR. See with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues Preliminary Results, 71 FR at 40071. On July 14, 2006, the Department Additionally, in our preliminary results, to govern business proprietary published its preliminary results. See information in this segment of the for Weihai Machinery, we stated that Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts the customs inquiry provided no proceeding. Timely written notification Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from of the return/destruction of APO evidence that Weihai Machinery had the People’s Republic of China: any shipments of subject merchandise materials or conversion to judicial Preliminary Results of 2003–2004 protective order is hereby requested. during the POR and information on the Antidumping Administrative Review, record indicated that Weihai Machinery Failure to comply with the regulations and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, and terms of an APO is a violation had no shipments and may be out of 71 FR 40069 (July 14, 2006) which is subject to sanction. business, but indicated that we would (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On August 11, This notice is issued and published in continue to pursue this issue for the accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 2006, The Timken Company (i.e., final results. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 Petitioner) submitted a case brief. On On July 13, 2006, the Department CFR 351.213(d)(4). August 18, 2006, China National received confirmation from the Weihai Machinery Import & Export Corporation Dated: December 12, 2006. Administration for Industry and (‘‘CMC’’) submitted a rebuttal brief. Commerce that Weihai Machinery Stephen J. Claeys, On November 16, 2006, the terminated operations on or before Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Department published a notice December 16, 2003. See Memo to the Administration. extending the time limit for the final file: Weihai Machinery Industry Supply [FR Doc. E6–21628 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] results of review until December 11, Co., Ltd.: Cancellation of Company BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 2006. See Notice of Extension of Final Registration, dated November 29, 2006. Results of the 2003–2004 Administrative Accordingly, we are rescinding this Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE review with respect to Weihai Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished Machinery. In addition, since we have International Trade Administration from the People’s Republic of China, 71 received no new information since the FR 66750 (November 16, 2006). We have preliminary results that contradicts the A–570–601 conducted this administrative review in decision made in the preliminary results accordance with section 751 of the Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts with respect to Chin Jun, CPZ or ZMC, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the we are rescinding the administrative Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.213. the People’s Republic of China: Final review with respect to these companies Results of 2004–2005 Administrative Scope of Order as well. Review and Partial Rescission of Merchandise covered by this order is Analysis of Comments Received Review TRBs from the PRC; flange, take–up All issues raised in the post– AGENCY: Import Administration, cartridge, and hanger units preliminary comments by parties in this International Trade Administration, incorporating tapered roller bearings; review are addressed in the Department of Commerce. and tapered roller housings (except memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce pillow blocks) incorporating tapered Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import (‘‘the Department’’) published its rollers, with or without spindles, Administration, to David M. Spooner, preliminary results of administrative whether or not for automotive use. This Assistant Secretary for Import review of the antidumping duty order merchandise is currently classifiable Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision on tapered roller bearings and parts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule Memorandum for the Final Results of thereof, finished and unfinished of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item the 18th Administrative Review of the (‘‘TRBs’’), from the People’s Republic of numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, Antidumping Duty Order on Tapered China (‘‘PRC’’) on July 14, 2006. The 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, Finished and Unfinished, from the 2004, through May 31, 2005. We invited 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, People’s Republic of China,’’ dated interested parties to comment on our and 8708.99.80.80. Although the December 11, 2006 (‘‘Issues and preliminary results. Based on our HTSUS item numbers are provided for Decision Memorandum’’), which is analysis of the comments received, we convenience and customs purposes, the hereby adopted by this notice. A list of have made changes to our margin written description of the scope of the the issues which parties raised and to calculations. Therefore, the final results order is dispositive. which we responded in the Issues and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75937

Decision Memorandum is attached to derived from SKF India Limited, we Notification of Interested Parties this notice as an appendix. The Issues have excluded the line item This notice also serves as a final and Decision Memorandum is a public ‘‘consumption of traded goods’’ from the reminder to importers of their document which is on file in the Central denominator of the factory overhead responsibility under 19 CFR Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room B–099 in ratio. However, we continue to include 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate the main Department building, and is the line item ‘‘consumption of traded regarding the reimbursement of accessible on the Web at http:// goods’’ in the denominator of the antidumping duties prior to liquidation ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and selling, general, and administrative of the relevant entries during this electronic version of the memorandum expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), profit and interest review period. Failure to comply with are identical in content. ratios. For ratios derived from Timken this requirement could result in the Surrogate Country India Limited, we have added the line Secretary’s presumption that item ‘‘purchase of products for resale’’ In the Preliminary Results, we stated reimbursement of the antidumping to the denominators of the SG&A, profit, duties occurred and the subsequent that we treat the PRC as a non–market and interest ratios. economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and assessment of double antidumping • therefore, we calculated normal value in For the profit ratio derived from duties. accordance with section 773(c) of the Timken India Limited, we corrected a This notice also serves as a reminder Act which applies to NME countries. clerical error to use the value from to parties subject to administrative Also, we stated that we had selected ‘‘profit before tax’’ in this calculation. protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or India as the appropriate surrogate Final Results of Review country to use in this review for the destruction of proprietary information following reasons: (1) It is a significant We determine that the following disclosed under APO in accordance producer of comparable merchandise; dumping margins exist for the period with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues and (2) provides contemporaneous June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005: to govern business proprietary publicly available data to value the information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification factors of production, pursuant to TRBS FROM THE PRC section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See of the return/destruction of APO Preliminary Results. For the final Weighted– materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. results, we made no changes to our Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Average findings with respect to the selection of Margin Failure to comply with the regulations (Percent) a surrogate country. and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. Separate Rates China National Machinery Import We are issuing and publishing this & Export Corporation ...... 0.00 In proceedings involving NME determination and notice in accordance countries, the Department begins with a with sections 751(a)(1) and 77(i)(1) of Assessment Rates rebuttable presumption that all the Act. companies within the country are The Department intends to issue Dated: December 11, 2006. subject to government control and, thus, assessment instructions to U.S. Customs David M. Spooner, should be assigned a single and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 15 days Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the after the date of publication of these Appendix Department’s policy to assign all final results of administrative review. exporters of merchandise subject to List of Comments and Issues in the Cash Deposit Requirements review in an NME country this single Decision Memorandum rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is free of de jure and de facto The following deposit requirements Comment 1: Outdated TRBs tariff control over its export decisions, so as will be effective upon publication of classification to be entitled to a separate rate. this notice of final results of In the Preliminary Results, we found administrative review for all shipments Comment 2: Remove ‘‘consumption of that CMC demonstrated its eligibility for of TRBs from the PRC entered, or Traded Goods’’ from surrogate financial separate–rate status. For the final withdrawn from warehouse, for ratio results, we continue to find that the consumption on or after the date of Comment 3: Ministerial error on Timken evidence placed on the record of this publication, as provided by section India Limited’s ‘‘profit before tax’’ administrative review by CMC 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For CMC, the [FR Doc. E6–21632 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] demonstrates an absence of government cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S control, both in law and in fact, with previously reviewed or investigated respect to its exports of the merchandise companies not listed above that have a under review and thus determine CMC separate rate, the cash deposit rate will DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE is eligible for separate–rate status. continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent International Trade Administration Changes Since the Preliminary Results period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all [C–580–835] Based on our analysis of comments other PRC exporters will be 60.95 received, we have made changes in the percent, the current PRC–wide rate; and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils margin calculations for CMC. See Issues (4) the cash deposit rate for all non–PRC from the Republic of Korea: and Decision Memorandum at exporters will be the rate applicable to Preliminary Results of Countervailing Comments 2 and 3. the PRC exporter that supplied that Duty Changed Circumstances Review • For these final results, we have exporter. These deposit requirements, changed the surrogate value ratio when imposed, shall remain in effect AGENCY: Import Administration, calculations derived from each of the until publication of the final results of International Trade Administration, two surrogate companies. For ratios the next administrative review. Department of Commerce.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75938 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

SUMMARY: In response to a March 22, fourth review.2 In September 2001 and Scope of the Order 2006, request by Hyundai Steel June 2002, respectively, the Department The products covered by this order Company (Hyundai), claiming to be the initiated and published the preliminary are certain stainless steel sheet and strip successor–in-interest to INI Steel results of a changed circumstances in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel Company (INI), the Department of review to determine whether INI was containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 3 Commerce (the Department) initiated a entitled to Inchon’s cash deposit rate. less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more changed circumstances review of the In the Second Review the Department of chromium, with or without other countervailing duty (CVD) order on determined to assign Inchon’s cash elements. The subject sheet and strip is stainless steel sheet and strip in coils deposit rate to INI, thereby eliminating a flat–rolled product in coils that is (SSSS) from the Republic of Korea the need to complete the changed greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 4 (Korea). See Stainless Steel Sheet and circumstances review. The Department than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is Strip in Coils From the Republic of has also published notice of annealed or otherwise heat treated and Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty continuation of this order upon pickled or otherwise descaled. The Changed Circumstances Review, 71 FR completion of the first five–year (sunset) subject sheet and strip may also be 5 37541 (June 30, 2006) (Initiation review. further processed (e.g., cold–rolled, Notice). We invited interested parties to Hyundai asserts that INI changed its polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) comment on our Initiation Notice. We corporate name to Hyundai effective provided that it maintains the specific received no comments. March 10, 2006. On March 22, 2006, dimensions of sheet and strip following Based on the information submitted Hyundai requested that the Department such processing. by Hyundai, we preliminarily determine confirm that Hyundai is entitled to INI’s The merchandise subject to this order that: (1) Hyundai is the successor–in- cash deposit rate for the CVD order. is classified in the Harmonized Tariff interest to INI, formerly Inchon Iron and Simultaneously, Hyundai requested a Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) Steel Co., Ltd. (Inchon); and (2) upon changed circumstances review of the at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, publication of the final results of this antidumping duty (AD) order on SSSS 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, review, INI’s current CVD cash deposit from Korea for the purpose of 7219.1300.817, 7219.14.0030, rate shall be applied to entries of subject determining whether Hyundai is the 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, merchandise made by Hyundai. successor–in-interest to INI and is 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, Interested parties are invited to entitled to INI’s exclusion from the AD 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, comment on these preliminary results. order. On April 11, 20, and 27, 2006, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006. Hyundai submitted additional 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information in response to three 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, Darla Brown or Preeti Tolani, AD/CVD requests from the Department for 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, Operations, Office 3, Import additional information. In response to 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, Administration, International Trade Hyundai’s request regarding the AD 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, Administration, U.S. Department of order, on May 12, 2006, the Department 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and initiated a changed circumstances 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, review and preliminarily determined 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–2849 or that Hyundai is the successor–in- 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, (202) 482–0395, respectively. interest to INI and merchandise from 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hyundai should be excluded from the 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, AD order.6 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, Background 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, On August 6, 1999, the Department Republic of Korea, 69 FR 2113 (January 14, 2004), 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, as amended, Amended Final Results of published in the Federal Register the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, CVD order on SSSS from Korea. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, Amendment to Final Determination: 69 FR 7419 (February 17, 2004). 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 2 See Initiation of Antidumping and 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, From the Republic of Korea; and Notice Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless (September 28, 2005) (initiation of review of Dai 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Yang Metal Co., Ltd.). 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, France, Italy, and the Republic of South 3 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, Korea, 64 FR 42923 (August 6, 1999). the Republic of Korea; Notice of Initiation of 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and Changed Circumstances Countervailing Duty The Department has completed three Administrative Review, 66 FR 49639 (September 28, 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS administrative reviews of this CVD 2001), and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils subheadings are provided for order1 and is currently conducting a from the Republic of Korea; Notice of Preliminary convenience and customs purposes, the Results of Changed Circumstances Countervailing Department’s written description of the Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 38257 (June 3, 1 See Final Results and Partial Rescission of merchandise subject to this order is Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: 2002). Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the 4 See Second Review Decision Memorandum at dispositive. Republic of Korea, 67 FR 1964 (January 15, 2002), section ‘‘C: Name Changes.’’ Excluded from the scope of this order as amended, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 5 See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders are the following: (1) sheet and strip that from Korea: Amended Final Results of on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from is not annealed or otherwise heat treated Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) 8229 (February 22 2002); Final Results and Partial Mexico, and Taiwan, and Countervailing Duty Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Orders on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy and the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 44886 2006) (AD Changed Circumstances Preliminary from the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 13267 (March 19, (August 4, 2005). Results). 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision 6 See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results 7 Due to changes to the HTSUS numbers in 2001, Memorandum (Second Review); and Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the from the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 27680 (May 12, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75939

sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) specialty foil with a thickness of or less, with phosphorus and sulfur plate (i.e., flat–rolled stainless steel between 20 and 110 microns used to each comprising, by weight, 0.03 products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or produce a metallic substrate with a percent or less. This steel has copper, more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold–rolled honeycomb structure for use in niobium, and titanium added to achieve sections, with a prepared edge, automotive catalytic converters. The aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as rectangular in shape, of a width of not steel contains, by weight, carbon of no high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after steel. Razor blade steel is a flat–rolled more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no aging, with elongation percentages of 3 product of stainless steel, not further more than 1.0 percent, chromium of percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally worked than cold–rolled (cold– between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum provided in thicknesses between 0.635 reduced), in coils, of a width of not of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 more than 23 mm and a thickness of of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of mm. This product is most commonly 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum used in the manufacture of television 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 tubes and is currently available under certified at the time of entry to be used percent, and total rare earth elements of proprietary trade names such as in the manufacture of razor blades. See more than 0.06 percent, with the ‘‘Durphynox 17.’’10 Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional balance iron. Finally, three specialty stainless steels U.S. Note’’ 1(d). Permanent magnet iron–chromium- typically used in certain industrial The Department has determined that cobalt alloy stainless strip is also blades and surgical and medical certain additional specialty stainless excluded from the scope of this order. instruments are also excluded from the steel products are also excluded from This ductile stainless steel strip scope of this order. These include the scope of this order. These excluded contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent stainless steel strip in coils used in the products are described below. chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, production of textile cutting tools (e.g., Flapper valve steel is excluded from with the remainder of iron, in widths carpet knives).11 This steel is similar to the scope of this order. Flapper valve 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness AISI grade 420 but containing, by steel is defined as stainless steel strip in between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of coils containing, by weight, between magnetic remanence between 9,000 and molybdenum. The steel also contains, 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 50 and 300 oersteds. This 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or between 0.20 and 0.80 percent product is most commonly used in less, and includes between 0.20 and manganese. This steel also contains, by electronic sensors and is currently 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or available under proprietary trade names and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 such as ‘‘Arnokrome III.’’8 sold under proprietary names such as percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or Certain electrical resistance alloy steel ‘‘GIN4 Mo.’’ The second excluded less. The product is manufactured by is also excluded from the scope of this stainless steel strip in coils is similar to means of vacuum arc remelting, with order. This product is defined as a non– AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, inclusion controls for sulphide of no magnetic stainless steel manufactured to carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of American Society of Testing and percent, silicon of between 0.20 and no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper Materials (ASTM) specification B344 0.50 percent, manganese of between valve steel has a tensile strength of and containing, by weight, 36 percent 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or percent iron, and is most notable for its no more than 0.020 percent. This steel minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of resistance to high temperature has a carbide density on average of 100 between 460 and 590. Flapper valve corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 carbide particles per 100 square steel is most commonly used to produce degrees Celsius and displays a creep microns. An example of this product is specialty flapper valves in compressors. rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square ‘‘GIN5’’ steel. The third specialty steel Also excluded is a product referred to millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This has a chemical composition similar to as suspension foil, a specialty steel steel is most commonly used in the AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 product used in the manufacture of production of heating ribbons for circuit and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of suspension assemblies for computer breakers and industrial furnaces, and in between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but disk drives. Suspension foil is described rheostats for railway locomotives. The lower manganese of between 0.20 and as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless product is currently available under 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 proprietary trade names such as ‘‘Gilphy than 0.025 percent, silicon of between microns, with a thickness tolerance of 36.’’9 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no plus–or-minus 2.01 microns, and Certain martensitic precipitation– more than 0.020 percent. This product surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent hardenable stainless steel is also is supplied with a hardness of more Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in excluded from the scope of this order. than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer coil widths of not more than 407 mm, This high–strength, ductile stainless processing, and is supplied as, for and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll steel product is designated under the example, ‘‘GIN6’’. marks may only be visible on one side, Unified Numbering System (UNS) as with no scratches of measurable depth. S45500–grade steel, and contains, by Preliminary Results of Changed The material must exhibit residual weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and Circumstances Review stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, In accordance with section 751(b) of and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm manganese, silicon and molybdenum the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the length. each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 CFR Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also 8 ‘‘Arnokrome III’’ is a trademark of the Arnold 10 ‘‘Durphynox 17’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. excluded from the scope of this order. Engineering Company. 11 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for This stainless steel strip in coils is a 9 ‘‘Gilphy 36’’ is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. descriptive purposes only.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75940 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

351.221, the Department initiated this the current cash deposit rate applicable Administration, Department of changed circumstances review of the to INI shall be applicable to entries of Commerce. CVD order to determine whether subject merchandise made by Hyundai, ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel Hyundai is the successor–in-interest to entered on or after the publication date Review of the final injury determination INI. In the context of changed of the final results of this changed made by the U.S. International Trade circumstances reviews of an AD order circumstances review. Thus, if these Commission, in the matter of involving, E.G., a change in a company’s preliminary results are adopted in the Magnesium from Canada, Secretariat name, structure or ownership, the final results of this changed File No. USA–CDA–00–1904–09. Department relies on its successor–in- circumstances review, we will instruct interest analysis to determine whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection to SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Order of the the newly named or structured company collect a cash deposit at the rate of 0.54 Binational Panel dated October 6, 2006, remains essentially the same as the percent ad valorem on all entries of affirming the final remand predecessor company. See, e.g., Notice SSSS produced and exported by determination described above, the of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Hyundai on or after the publication of panel review was completed on Changed Circumstances Review; Certain the final results of this review. This cash November 17, 2006. Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From deposit rate shall remain in effect until FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: India, 71 FR 31156 (June 1, 2006), CITING publication of the final results of the Caratina L. Alston, United States INDUSTRIAL PHOSPHORIC ACID FROM next administrative review in which Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite ISRAEL; FINAL RESULTS OF ANTIDUMPING Hyundai participates. 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, DUTY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW, In addition, the Department intends to Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994). further consider the issue of whether SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On If the evidence demonstrates that, with alternative or additional successorship October 6, 2006, the Binational Panel respect to the production and sale of the criteria would be appropriate in the issued an order which affirmed the final subject merchandise, the successor CVD context, and therefore, the determination of the United States company operates as the same business Department anticipates releasing a International Trade Commission (ITC) entity as its predecessor, the Department separate Federal Register notice shortly concerning Magnesium from Canada will assign the successor the existing hereafter inviting parties to submit Injury Determination. The Secretariat cash deposit rate of its predecessor. public comments on the issue. was instructed to issue a Notice of For similar changed circumstances in Completion of Panel Review on the 31st Public Comment a CVD order, the appropriate focus of day following the issuance of the Notice the analysis for determining the cash Interested parties are invited to of Final Panel Action, if no request for deposit rate for a successor company is comment on these preliminary results. an Extraordinary Challenge was filed. usually whether the successor company Any written comments may be No such request was filed. Therefore, on operates as the same business entity as submitted no later than 14 days after the basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 its predecessor. For such determinations date of publication of this notice. of the Article 1904 Panel Rules, the in the context of a CVD order, however, Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments Panel Review was completed and the such an analysis may not always be raised in case briefs, are due five days panelists discharged from their duties sufficient, in itself, to determine after the case brief deadline. Case briefs effective November 17, 2006. whether it is appropriate to assign the and rebuttal briefs must be served on Dated: December 14, 2006. predecessor’s CVD cash deposit rate to interested parties in accordance with 19 the successor where the circumstances CFR 351.309. In accordance with 19 Caratina L. Alston, indicate that a change relevant to the CFR 351.216(e), the Department will United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. subsidy analysis may have occurred. We publish the final results of the changed [FR Doc. E6–21620 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] do not find, however, that there are any circumstances review including the BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P such circumstances in the instant results of its analysis of any issues review, such as a privatization or sale of raised in any such comments within 270 a company, that would warrant going days after the date on which the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE beyond the Department’s standard changed circumstances review was International Trade Administration successor–in-interest analysis. In the initiated. instant proceeding, we are only This notice is in accordance with North American Free-Trade examining a change in the name of the section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel company. Further, Hyundai has 351.216 and 351.221. Reviews; Request for Panel Review presented evidence establishing that its Dated: December 12, 2006. change in corporate name from INI to AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United Hyundai did not affect the company’s David M. Spooner, States Section, International Trade operations such that they are materially Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. Administration, Department of different to those of its predecessor. See [FR Doc. E6–21634 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Commerce. Hyundai’s March 22, 2006, submission BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel at Exhibits 2 though 4; see also Review. Hyundai’s April 11, 2006, submission at page 3 and Exhibit 7. The evidence DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUMMARY: On November 27, 2006, the indicates that Hyundai has essentially Northwest Fruit Exporters filed a First International Trade Administration the same corporate structure and Request for Panel Review with the operations as INI. North American Free-Trade Mexican Section of the NAFTA Therefore, based on the record Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of evidence, and consistent with the Reviews; Completion of Panel Review the North American Free Trade Department’s findings in the AD Agreement. Panel review was requested Changed Circumstances Preliminary AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United of the final revocation of the Results, we preliminarily determine that States Section, International Trade antidumping investigation, respecting

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75941

the Importation of Various Red including the jurisdiction of the questions should be addressed to: Dr. Delicious Table Apples, Its Variations, investigating authority, that are set out Peter J. Mohr at the address listed in the and Golden Delicious Apples in the Complaints filed in the panel Addresses section above, or at Tel: (301) Originating From The United States of review and the procedural and 975–3217; E-mail: [email protected].; Web America, Classified In Tariff item substantive defenses raised in the panel site: http://physics.nist.gov/pmg. Grants 08.08.10.01 This determination was review. Administration questions should be published in the Diario Oficial de la Dated: December 12, 2006. addressed to: Grants and Agreements Federacion, on November 2, 2006. The Caratina L. Alston, Management Division; National Institute NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case of Standards and Technology; 100 United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. Number MEX–USA–2006–1904–02 to Bureau Drive, Stop 1650; Gaithersburg, this request. [FR Doc. E6–21542 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] MD 20899–1650; Tel: (301) 975–6328. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P For assistance with using Grants.gov Caratina L. Alston, United States contact [email protected]. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Catalog of Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. Federal Domestic Assistance Name and National Institute of Standards and Number: Measurement and Engineering SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter Technology Research and Standards—11.609. 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a [Docket Number: 061128312–6312–01] Program Description: The National mechanism to replace domestic judicial Institute of Standards and Technology review of final determinations in Precision Measurement Grants (NIST) announces that the Precision antidumping and countervailing duty Program; Availability of Funds Measurement Grants Program is cases involving imports from a NAFTA AGENCY: National Institute of Standards soliciting applications for financial country with review by independent bi- and Technology, Commerce. assistance for FY 2007. The Precision national panels. When a Request for Measurement Grants Program is seeking ACTION: Notice. Panel Review is filed, a panel is proposals for significant research in the established to act in place of national SUMMARY: The National Institute of field of fundamental measurement or courts to review expeditiously the final Standards and Technology (NIST) the determination of fundamental determination to determine whether it announces that the Precision constants. As part of its research conforms with the antidumping or Measurement Grants Program is program, since 1970 NIST has awarded countervailing duty law of the country soliciting applications for financial Precision Measurement Grants primarily that made the determination. assistance for FY 2007. The Precision to universities and colleges so that Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, Measurement Grants Program is seeking faculty may conduct significant research which came into force on January 1, proposals for significant research in the in the field of fundamental 1994, the Government of the United field of fundamental measurement or measurement or the determination of States, the Government of Canada and the determination of fundamental fundamental constants. NIST sponsors the Government of Mexico established constants. these grants and cooperative agreements Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 primarily to encourage basic, Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’). DATES: Abbreviated proposals must be measurement-related research in These Rules were published in the received at the address listed below no universities and colleges and other Federal Register on February 23, 1994 later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time research laboratories and to foster (59 FR 8686). on February 2, 2007. Proposals received contacts between NIST scientists and A first Request for Panel Review was after this deadline will be returned with those faculty members of academic filed with the Mexican Section of the no further consideration. Finalists will institutions and other researchers who NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article be selected by approximately March 23, are actively engaged in such work. The 1904 of the Agreement, on November 2007, and will be requested to submit Precision Measurement Grants are also 27, 2006, requesting panel review of the full proposals to NIST. All full intended to make it possible for final determination described above. proposals, paper and electronic, must be researchers to pursue new ideas for The Rules provide that: received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern which other sources of support may be (a) a Party or interested person may Daylight Time on May 4, 2006. difficult to find. There is some latitude challenge the final determination in ADDRESSES: Abbreviated proposals and in research topics that will be whole or in part by filing a Complaint paper applications must be submitted considered under the Precision in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr; Manager, NIST Measurement Grants Program. The key days after the filing of the first Request Precision Measurement Grants Program; requirement is that the proposed project for Panel Review (the deadline for filing National Institute of Standards and is consistent with NIST’s ongoing work a Complaint is December 27, 2006); Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop in the field of basic measurement (b) a Party, investigating authority or 8420; Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8420; E- science. interested person that does not file a mail: [email protected]. Electronic final Complaint but that intends to appear in Funding Availability: Applicants proposals should be uploaded to support of any reviewable portion of the should propose multi-year projects for Grants.gov. final determination may participate in up to three years at no more than the panel review by filing a Notice of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 complete information about this spending $100,000 this year for two new within 45 days after the filing of the first program and instructions for applying grants at $50,000 each for the first year Request for Panel Review (the deadline by paper or electronically, read the of the research projects. NIST may for filing a Notice of Appearance is Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) award both, one, or neither of these new January 22, 2007); and Notice at http://www.grants.gov. A awards. Second and third year funding (c) the panel review shall be limited paper copy of the FFO may be obtained will be at the discretion of NIST, based to the allegations of error of fact or law, by calling (301) 975–6328. Technical on satisfactory performance, continuing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75942 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

relevance to program objectives, and the be considered further. Eight application for three years for record availability of funds. independent, objective individuals, at keeping purposes. The remaining copies Funding for the program listed in this least half of whom are NIST employees, will be destroyed. notice is contingent upon the and who are knowledgeable about the Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation availability of Fiscal Year 2007 scientific areas that the program criteria to be used in evaluating the appropriations. NIST issues this notice addresses will conduct a technical abbreviated application proposals and subject to the appropriations made review of each abbreviated proposal, full proposals are: available under the current continuing based on the evaluation criteria 1. The importance of the proposed resolution, H.R. 5631, ‘‘Continuing described in the Evaluation Criteria research—Does it have the potential of Appropriations Resolution, 2007,’’ section of this notice. Each reviewer answering some currently pressing Public Law 109–289, as amended by H.J. will rank all complete proposals. The question or of opening up a whole new Res. 100, Public Law 109–369. NIST proposals will then be ranked based on area of activity? anticipates making awards for the the average of the reviewers’ rankings. If 2. The relationship of the proposed program listed in this notice provided non-Federal reviewers are used, the research to NIST’s ongoing work—Will that funding for the program is reviewers may discuss the proposals it support one of NIST’s current efforts continued beyond December 8, 2006, with each other, but the ranking will be to develop a new or improved the expiration of the current continuing determined on an individual basis, not fundamental measurement method or resolution. as a consensus. physical standard, test the basic laws of Statutory Authority: The authority for The Chief of the Atomic Physics physics, or provide an improved value the Precision Measurement Grants Division of the Physics Laboratory, the for a fundamental constant? Program is as follows: As authorized by selecting official, will then select 3. The feasibility of the research and 15 U.S.C. 272 (b) and (c), NIST conducts approximately four to eight finalists. In the potential impact of the grant—Is it directly, and supports through grants, a selecting finalists, the selecting official likely that significant progress can be basic and applied research program in will take into consideration the results made in a three year time period with the general area of fundamental of the reviewers’ evaluations, including the funds and personnel available and measurement and the determination of rank, and relevance to the program that the funding will enable work that fundamental constants of nature. objectives described above in the would otherwise not be done with Eligibility: Eligible applicants are Program Description section. Applicants existing or potential funding? institutions of higher education; not selected as finalists will be notified 4. The qualifications of the hospitals; non-profit organizations; in writing. applicant—Does the educational and commercial organizations; State, local Finalists will then be asked in writing employment background and the quality and Indian tribal governments; foreign to submit full proposals in accordance of the research, based on recent governments; organizations under the with the requirements set forth in the publications, of the applicant indicate jurisdiction of foreign governments; Content and Form of Application that there is a high probability that the international organizations; and Federal Submission section of the FFO notice. proposed research will be carried out agencies with appropriate legal The same independent reviewers that successfully? authority. reviewed the abbreviated proposals will Each of these factors is given equal Review and Selection Process: All then evaluate the full proposals based weight in the evaluation process. abbreviated proposals and full on the same evaluation criteria, and the Cost Share Requirements: The applications received in response to this proposals will be ranked as previously Precision Measurement Grants Program announcement will be reviewed to described. In selecting proposals that does not require any matching funds. determine whether or not they are will be recommended for funding, the The Department of Commerce Pre- complete and responsive to the scope of selecting official will take into Award Notification Requirements for the stated objectives for each program. consideration the results of the Grants and Cooperative Agreements: Incomplete or non-responsive reviewers’ evaluations, including rank The Department of Commerce Pre- abbreviated proposals and full and relevance to the program objectives Award Notification Requirements for applications will not be reviewed for described in the Program Description Grants and Cooperative Agreements technical merit. The Program will retain section of this notice. contained in the Federal Register notice one copy of each non-responsive The final approval of selected of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) is abbreviated proposal and full applications and award of grants will be applicable to this notice. On the form application for three years for record made by the NIST Grants Officer based SF–424, the applicant’s 9-digit Dun and keeping purposes. The remaining copies on compliance with application Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering will be destroyed. requirements as published in this System (DUNS) number must be entered To simplify the proposal writing and notice, compliance with applicable legal in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR evaluation process, the following and regulatory requirements, 38402). selection procedure will be used: compliance with Federal policies that Collaborations with NIST Employees: All applicants must submit an best further the objectives of the All applications should include a abbreviated proposal (original and two Department of Commerce, and whether description of any work proposed to be signed copies), containing a description the recommended applicants appear to performed by an entity other than the of the proposed project, including be responsible. applicant, and the cost of such work sufficient information to address the Applicants may be asked to modify should ordinarily be included in the evaluation criteria, with a total length of objectives, work plans, or budgets and budget. no more than five (5) double spaced provide supplemental information If an applicant proposes collaboration pages, to the mailing address given required by the agency prior to award. with NIST, the statement of work above in the ADDRESSES section. These The decision of the Grants Officer is should include a statement of this proposals will be screened to determine final. intention, a description of the whether they address the requirements Unsuccessful applicants will be collaboration, and prominently identify outlined in this notice. Proposals that notified in writing. The Program will the NIST employee(s) involved, if do not meet those requirements will not retain one copy of each unsuccessful known. Any collaboration by a NIST

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75943

employee must be approved by and approval of the proposed usage. (FWA) from DHHS. NIST will not issue appropriate NIST management and is at Any unapproved facility use will be a single project assurance (SPA) for any the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to stricken from the proposal prior to the human subjects protocol proposed to beginning the merit review process, merit review. Examples of some NIST. NIST will verify the approval of the facilities that may be available for On August 9, 2001, the President proposed collaboration. Any collaborations are listed on the NIST announced his decision to allow Federal unapproved collaboration will be Technology Services Web site, http:// funds to be used for research on existing stricken from the proposal prior to the ts.nist.gov/. human embryonic stem cell lines as merit review. Initial Screening of all Applications: long as prior to his announcement (1) Use of NIST Intellectual Property: If All applications received in response to The derivation process (which the applicant anticipates using any this announcement will be reviewed to commences with the removal of the NIST-owned intellectual property to determine whether or not they are inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had carry out the work proposed, the complete and responsive to the scope of already been initiated and (2) the applicant should identify such the stated program objectives. embryo from which the stem cell line intellectual property. This information Incomplete or non-responsive was derived no longer had the will be used to ensure that no NIST applications will not be reviewed for possibility of development as a human employee involved in the development technical merit. The Program will retain being. NIST will follow guidance issued of the intellectual property will one copy of each non-responsive by the National Institutes of Health at participate in the review process for that application for three years for record http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/ competition. In addition, if the keeping purposes. The remaining copies humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf applicant intends to use NIST-owned will be destroyed. for funding such research. intellectual property, the applicant must Paperwork Reduction Act: The Research Projects Involving Vertebrate comply with all statutes and regulations standard forms in the application kit Animals: Any proposal that includes governing the licensing of Federal involve a collection of information research involving vertebrate animals government patents and inventions, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. must be in compliance with the described at 35 U.S.C. 200–212, 37 CFR The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, National Research Council’s ‘‘Guide for part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section 424B, SF–LLL, and CD–346 have been the Care and Use of Laboratory B.20 of the Department of Commerce approved by OMB under the respective Animals’’ which can be obtained from Pre-Award Notification Requirements Control Numbers 0348–0043, 0348– National Academy Press, 2101 published on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 0044, 0348–0040, 0348–0046, and 0605– Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 78389). Questions about these 0001. Notwithstanding any other DC 20055. In addition, such proposals requirements may be directed to the provision of the law, no person is must meet the requirements of the Counsel for NIST, 301–975–2803. required to respond to, nor shall any Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et Any use of NIST-owned intellectual person be subject to a penalty for failure seq.), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if property by a proposer is at the sole to comply with, a collection subject to appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These discretion of NIST and will be the requirements of the Paperwork regulations do not apply to proposed negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a Reduction Act, unless that collection of research using pre-existing images of project is deemed meritorious. The information displays a currently valid animals or to research plans that do not applicant should indicate within the OMB Control Number. include live animals that are being cared statement of work whether it already Research Projects Involving Human for, euthanized, or used by the project has a license to use such intellectual Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or participants to accomplish research property or whether it intends to seek Recordings Involving Human Subjects: goals, teaching, or testing. These one. Any proposal that includes research regulations also do not apply to If any inventions made in whole or in involving human subjects, human obtaining animal materials from part by a NIST employee arise in the tissue, data or recordings involving commercial processors of animal course of an award made pursuant to human subjects must meet the products or to animal cell lines or this notice, the United States requirements of the Common Rule for tissues from tissue banks. government may retain its ownership the Protection of Human Subjects, Limitation of Liability: Funding for rights in any such invention. Licensing codified for the Department of the program listed in this notice is or other disposition of NIST’s rights in Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In contingent upon the availability of such inventions will be determined addition, any proposal that includes Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. NIST solely by NIST, and include the research on these topics must be in issues this notice subject to the possibility of NIST putting the compliance with any statutory appropriations made available under the intellectual property into the public requirements imposed upon the current continuing resolution, H.R. domain. Department of Health and Human 5631, ‘‘Continuing Appropriations Collaborations Making Use of Federal Services (DHHS) and other Federal Resolution, 2007,’’ Public Law 109–289, Facilities: All applications should agencies regarding these topics, all as amended by H.J. Res. 100, Public Law include a description of any work regulatory policies and guidance 109–369 and H.J. Res. 102, Public Law proposed to be performed using Federal adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other 109–383. NIST anticipates making Facilities. If an applicant proposes use Federal agencies on these topics, and all awards for the program listed in this of NIST facilities, the statement of work Presidential statements of policy on notice provided that funding for the should include a statement of this these topics. program is continued beyond February intention and a description of the NIST will accept the submission of 15, 2007, the expiration of the current facilities. Any use of NIST facilities human subjects protocols that have been continuing resolution. In no event will must be approved by appropriate NIST approved by Institutional Review NIST or the Department of Commerce be management and is at the sole Boards (IRBs) possessing a current responsible for proposal preparation discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning registration filed with DHHS and to be costs if these programs fail to receive the merit review process, NIST will performed by institutions possessing a funding or are cancelled because of verify the availability of the facilities current, valid Federal-wide Assurance other agency priorities. Publication of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75944 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

this announcement does not oblige the trade associations, and consumer the area of legal metrology and engine agency to award any specific project or organizations on subjects related to the fuel quality and NIST Handbook 133 to obligate any available funds. Funding field of weights and measures ‘‘Checking the Net Contents of Packaged of any award under any program technology, administration, and Goods.’’ This notice contains announced in this notice is subject to enforcement. Pursuant to (15 U.S.C. information about significant items on the availability of funds. 272(b)(6)), the National Institute of the NCWM Committee agendas, and Executive Order 12866: This funding Standards and Technology (NIST) several issues are not presented in this notice was determined to be not supports the NCWM as one of the means notice. As a result, the following items significant for purposes of Executive it uses to solicit comments and are not consecutively numbered. Order 12866. recommendations on revising or Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): updating a variety of publications NCWM Specifications and Tolerances It has been determined that this notice related to legal metrology. NIST Committee does not contain policies with participates to promote uniformity The following items are proposals to federalism implications as that term is among the States in laws, regulations, amend NIST Handbook 44: defined in Executive Order 13132. methods, and testing equipment that General Code Executive Order 12372: Applications comprise the regulatory control of under this program are not subject to commercial weighing and measuring Item 310–3. Multiple Weighing and Executive Order 12372, devices and other practices used in Measuring Elements with a Single ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal trade and commerce. Publication of this Provision for Sealing: this item would Programs.’’ Notice on the NCWM’s behalf is require new commercial weighing and Administrative Procedure Act/ undertaken as a public service; NIST measuring devices with multiple Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and does not endorse, approve, or weighing or measuring elements to be comment are not required under the recommend any of the proposals equipped with one of several means to Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. contained in this notice or in the indicate when changes are made to 553) or any other law, for rules relating publications of the NCWM mentioned individual elements that affect to public property, loans, grants, below. Please see NCWM Publication 15 metrological parameters. benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). which contains detailed meeting Scales Code Because notice and comment are not agendas and schedules, registration required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any forms and hotel reservation information Item 320–1. Zero Indication; other law, for rules relating to public at http://www.ncwm.net. Requirements for Markings or Indications for Other than Digital Zero property, loans, grants, benefits or DATES: January 21–24, 2007. contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Indications: This proposal would clarify ADDRESSES: The Omni Jacksonville, the requirement’s original intent for Flexibility Analysis is not required and Jacksonville, Florida. has not been prepared for this notice, 5 marking zero indications on scales and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S.C. 601 et seq. The point-of-sale systems when there is no following are brief descriptions of some load on the load receiving element of a Dated: December 13, 2006. of the significant agenda items that will scale and where zero is represented by James E. Hill, be considered along with other issues at other than a digital zero (e.g., scrolling Acting Deputy Director, NIST. the NCWM Interim Meeting. Comments messages, dashes etc.) [FR Doc. E6–21605 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] will be taken on these and other issues Item 320–5. Tare Rounding on a BILLING CODE 3510–13–P during several public comment sessions. Multiple Range Scale: This proposal At this stage, the items are proposals. would modify indication and rounding This meeting also includes work requirements for scales which change DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE sessions in which the Committees may the value of the scale division at also accept comments and where they different weight loads. The requirement National Institute of Standards and will finalize recommendations for will prescribe how a multi-range scale Technology NCWM consideration and possible may operate to round and indicate the adoption at its Annual Meeting to be Notice of a Public Meeting of the weight of packaging material which held July 8 to 12, 2007, at the Snowbird Interim Meeting of National Conference must not be included in the net weight Resort in Salt Lake City, Utah. The on Weights and Measures in January of the commodity bought or sold over Committees may withdraw or carry over 2007 the device. items that need additional development. Item 320–9. Definitions for Tare AGENCY: National Institute of Standards The Specifications and Tolerances Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net and Technology, Commerce. Committee will consider proposed Weight, Net Weight Value, Tare, and ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. amendments to NIST Handbook 44, Tare Weight Value: This proposal is one ‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, and other of several that would adopt new or SUMMARY: The Interim Meetings of the Technical Requirements for Weighing modify existing definitions for terms for 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measuring Devices (NIST Handbook weight values (net, tare, and gross) and Measures (NCWM) will be held 44).’’ Those items address weighing and indicated by a scale during a weighing January 21 to 24, 2007, in Jacksonville, measuring devices used in commercial transaction to reduce the possibility of Florida. The majority of the meetings measurement applications, that is, misinterpretation or misapplication of are open to the public but registration is devices that are normally used to buy requirements in either type evaluation required. The NCWM is an organization from or sell to the general public or used or field applications of commercial of weights and measures officials of the for determining the quantity of product weighing devices. states, counties, and cities of the United sold among businesses. Issues on the States, Federal Agencies, and private agenda of the NCWM Laws and Liquid-Measuring Devices sector representatives. These meetings Regulations Committee relate to Item 330–1. Value of Smallest Unit of bring together government officials and proposals to amend NIST Handbook Measure for Meters with Flow-Rates up representatives of business, industry, 130, ‘‘Uniform Laws and Regulations in to or more than 750 liters (200 gallons)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75945

per-minute and Stationary Jet Refueling DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and tissue sampled. All animals will be Systems with maximum Flow Rates of released alive. The permit is issued for 375 liters (100 gallons) per-minute or National Oceanic and Atmospheric five years. more: This proposal would provide an Administration Issuance of this permit, as required by exemption and prescribe the conditions [I.D. 121106B] the ESA, was based on a finding that in which the handbook would allow 5 such permit (1) was applied for in good liter (1 gallon) increments to be used to Endangered Species; File No. 1581 faith, (2) will not operate to the indicate the quantity of fuel delivered disadvantage of any endangered or AGENCY: by the specific devices covered by this National Marine Fisheries threatened species, and (3) is consistent proposal. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and with the purposes and policies set forth Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in section 2 of the ESA. Item 330–2. Display of Quantity and Commerce. Dated: December 13, 2006. Total Price in Aviation Refueling ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. Applications: This is a proposal to P. Michael Payne, revise requirements related to the SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education display of delivered quantity and total the National Marine Fisheries Service, Division, Office of Protected Resources, price for the stationary liquid measuring Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service. devices (typically those used at small or (Responsible Official—Samuel Pooley, [FR Doc. E6–21608 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] midsized airports) to fuel small aircraft. Principal Investigator—George Balazs), BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822 Vehicle-Tank Meters has been issued a permit to take green DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Item 331–1. Temperature (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill Compensation: This is a proposal to add (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles for National Oceanic and Atmospheric provisions to Handbook 44 to allow purposes of scientific research. Administration vehicle-mounted measuring devices to ADDRESSES: The permit and related [I.D. 102406C] be equipped with the automatic means documents are available for review to deliver product with the volume upon written request or by appointment Nominations for the Annual compensated to a reference temperature. in the following office(s): Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Permits, Conservation and Education (See also Item 232–1 below under the Awards for 2007; Extension of Division, Office of Protected Resources, Laws and Regulations Committee). Nomination Deadline NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room NCWM Laws and Regulations 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Committee (301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The following item is a proposal to Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI Commerce. amend NIST Handbook 130: 96814–4700; phone (808)973–2935; fax ACTION: Notice; extension of nomination Method of Sale of Commodities (808)973–2941. deadline. Regulation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Patrick Opay (301)713–2289. SUMMARY: NOAA has established the Item 232–1. Temperature Sustainable Fisheries Leadership SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Awards Program to recognize Compensation for Petroleum Products: September 27, 2006 notice was outstanding performances, Several proposals will be considered published in the Federal Register (71 achievements and leadership by that would allow temperature FR 56478) that a request for a scientific industries, organizations and compensation to take place on a research permit to take green and individuals who promote best voluntary basis or limit compensation to hawksbill sea turtles had been stewardship practices for the metering systems with certain flow submitted by the above-named sustainable use of living marine capacities or specific sales applications. organization. The requested permit has resources and ecosystems, and who Most of the proposals allow been issued under the authority of the have fostered change and inspired a compensation to occur only if certain Endangered Species Act of 1973, as stewardship ethic within their conditions are met by the seller. amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) community. This notice extends the and the regulations governing the Item 232–2. Biodiesel and Fuel deadline for nominations for the second taking, importing, and exporting of Ethanol Labeling: This item requires the annual Sustainable Fisheries Leadership endangered and threatened species (50 identification and labeling of biodiesel Awards from January 8 to January 31, CFR parts 222–226). fuels and blends at retail service 2007. stations. Researchers will annually capture up to 600 green and 10 hawksbill sea DATES: The due date for nomination FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: turtles by hand, scoop net, entanglement forms and required supporting materials Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST, Weights and net, and bullpen net. All green sea has been extended from January 8, 2007 Measures Division, 100 Bureau Drive, turtles will be measured, weighed, (November 8, 2006; 71 FR 65471) to Stop 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899– passive integrated transponder tagged, January 31, 2007. 2600. Telephone (301) 975–5507, or e- and flipper tagged. A subset of green sea ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent mail: [email protected]. turtles will have their shell etched with electronically to the Fish for the Future Dated: December 13, 2006. an identification mark, be blood Foundation, nominations@ sampled, tissue sampled, lavaged, and fish4thefuturefoundation.org. James E. Hill, have an electronic tag attached to them. Nominations can also be mailed to Acting Deputy Director. Hawksbill sea turtles will be measured, Sustainable Fisheries Leadership [FR Doc. E6–21607 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] weighed, passive integrated transponder Awards, c/o Fish for the Future BILLING CODE 3510–13–P tagged, flipper tagged, blood sampled, Foundation, 3382 Gunston Road,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75946 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Alexandria, VA 22302, or faxed to (703) be obtained by writing to this address or mammals. Within 45 days of the close 379–5777. All information and official by telephoning the contact listed here. of the comment period, NMFS must nomination forms can be accessed The application is also available at: either issue or deny issuance of the electronically at the NMFS Web site http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ authorization. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/awards/ or incidental.htm. Summary of Request the Fish for the Future Foundation Web FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: On July 24, 2006, NMFS received an site http://www.fish4thefuture Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of FOR application from SIO for the taking, by foundation.org or by calling (see Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713– FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). harassment, of several species of marine 2289, ext 128. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: mammals (see Marine Mammals SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Michele Shea, Fish for the Future Affected by this Activity later in this Foundation, (703) 379–6101, Background document) incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey Michele.Shea@fish4thefuture Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the foundation.org or Laurel Bryant, NMFS, program during December 2006 and MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct January 2007 in the SPO. SIO plans to (301) 713–2379 x171, the Secretary of Commerce to allow, [email protected] conduct a seismic survey at several sites upon request, the incidental, but not in the SPO (as illustrated in Figure 1 in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS intentional, taking of marine mammals SIO’s application) as part of the published a notice in the Federal by U.S. citizens who engage in a Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Register on November 8, 2006 (71 FR specified activity (other than (IODP). 65471) that provided background commercial fishing) within a specified The purpose of the research program information as it relates to this geographical region if certain findings is to conduct a piston/ gravity coring, nomination process. The background are made and either regulations are magnetic, and seismic survey program information is not repeated in this issued or, if the taking is limited to at 12 sites in the SPO. The seismic document. Today’s notice extends the harassment, a notice of a proposed surveys will involve one vessel. The nomination deadline from January 8 to authorization is provided to the public source vessel, the R/V Roger Revelle, January 31, 2007. for review. will deploy a pair of low-energy Dated: December 12, 2006. An authorization shall be granted if Generator-Injector (GI) airguns as an William T. Hogarth, NMFS finds that the taking will have a energy source (each with a discharge 3 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, negligible impact on the species or volume of 45 in ), plus a 800–m (1476– National Marine Fisheries Service. stock(s), will not have an unmitigable ft) long, 48–channel, towed hydrophone [FR Doc. E6–21613 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] adverse impact on the availability of the streamer. The Revelle is scheduled to species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P depart from Apia, Samoa, on or about and that the permissible methods of December 7, 2006, and to arrive at taking and requirements pertaining to Dunedin, New Zealand, on or about DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the mitigation, monitoring and reporting January 17, 2007. The program will of such takings are set forth. NMFS has consist of approximately 1930 km (1042 National Oceanic and Atmospheric defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR nm) of surveys, including turns. The Administration 216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from surveys will be conducted entirely in the specified activity that cannot be [I.D. 083106B] international waters. The GI guns will reasonably expected to, and is not be operated on a small grid for about 6– Small Takes of Marine Mammals reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 10 hours at each of 12 sites during Incidental to Specified Activities; Low- species or stock through effects on approximately December 10, 2006, to Energy Seismic Surveys in the South annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ January 13, 2007. Pacific Ocean Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA A description of the Revelle’s established an expedited process by oceanographic research program is AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries which citizens of the United States can contained in SIO’s application (see Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and apply for an authorization to ADDRESSES for availability) and in Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), incidentally take small numbers of NMFS’ notice of receipt of SIO’s IHA Commerce. marine mammals by harassment. Except application (see 71 FR 56955 ACTION: Notice of issuance of an with respect to certain activities not (September 28, 2006)) and is not incidental harassment authorization. pertinent here, the MMPA defines repeated here. There have been no ‘‘harassment’’ as: significant changes in SIO’s SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions oceanographic research program of the Marine Mammal Protection Act any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance between the September 28, 2006 (MMPA) as amended, notification is which (i) has the potential to injure a marine Federal Register notice and NMFS’ hereby given that an Incidental mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential decision to issue the IHA Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take to disturb a marine mammal or marine small numbers of marine mammals, by mammal stock in the wild by causing Comments and Responses harassment, incidental to conducting an disruption of behavioral patterns, including, A notice of receipt and request for 30– oceanographic survey in the South but not limited to, migration, breathing, day public comment on the application Pacific Ocean (SPO) has been issued to nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering and proposed authorization was the Scripps Institution of Oceanography [Level B harassment]. published on September 28, 2006 (71 FR (SIO). Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45– 56955). During the 30–day public DATES: Effective from December 12, day time limit for NMFS review of an comment period, NMFS received 2006, through December 11, 2007. application followed by a 30–day public comments only from the Marine ADDRESSES: The authorization and notice and comment period on any Mammal Commission (Commission). application containing a list of the proposed authorizations for the Comment 1: The Commission references used in this document may incidental harassment of marine recommends that NMFS issue the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75947

requested authorization, provided the Comment 3: The Commission states Marine Mammals Affected by the applicant is required to conduct all that NMFS and/or the applicant should Activity practicable monitoring and mitigation provide additional information Forty species of cetacean (including measures that reasonably can be concerning the likely effectiveness of 31 odontocete (dolphins and small- and expected to protect the potentially the proposed monitoring program in large-toothed whales) species and nine affected marine mammal species from detecting an injured or dead beaked mysticete (baleen whales) species) and serious injury. In that regard, the whale or other small cetacean, should five species of pinnipeds (seals and sea Commission notes that it submitted an injury or death occur. For example, lions) could potentially occur in the similar comments on this concern in would any such animals likely be proposed seismic survey area are letters dated December 18, 2005 and sighted from a ship running transects believed by scientists to occur in the February 21, 2006 on SIO’s activities in through an area or retracing recently run SPO in the proposed seismic survey the southwestern Pacific Ocean (SWPO) transect lines? area. Detailed information on these and eastern tropical Pacific (ETP). As in Response: NMFS is unaware of any species is contained in the SIO those cases, since several species of scientific studies to demonstrate application and the National Science beaked whales occur in the proposed efficacy of conducting marine mammal Foundation (NSF) EA which are survey area, and given the uncertainties sightings from a moving vessel for available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ concern the effects of sound on these incapacitated or dead marine mammals. pr/permits/incidental.htm#iha. and possibly other species, caution is However, SIO notes that the Revelle will Table 2 in both the SIO application warranted. spend approximately 24 hours at each of and NSF EA summarizes the habitat, Response: NMFS responded to similar the 12 seabottom coring sites. As the occurrence, and regional population concerns from the Commission on inset to Figure 1 in SIO’s application estimate for these species. Please see January 30, 2006 (71 FR 3260), for SIO’s shows, the Revelle will run two parallel these documents and NMFS’ September ETP seismic survey and on February 6, and one perpendicular seismic lines at 28, 2006 (71 FR 56957) notice for 2006 (71 FR 6041), for SIO’s SWPO each coring station. In addition, the additional information on potentially survey. For this low-energy seismic Revelle will remain at the site for several affected marine mammal species. survey, the radius of the zone of hours while conducting its coring and potential serious injury for cetaceans is magnetics work. Using big-eye Potential Effects on Marine Mammals approximately 40 m (131 ft). For the 2– binoculars, injured or dead mammals As outlined in previous NMFS GI airgun seismic activity, the radius of that are floating should be readily documents, the effects of noise on the zone of potential Level B harassment visible to MMOs during daylight hours. marine mammals are highly variable, for cetaceans is approximately 400 m Comment 4: The Commission believes and can be categorized as follows (based (1312 ft). Considering the small size of NMFS should require that operations be on Richardson et al., 1995): the 2 GI-gun array compared to other suspended immediately if a dead or (1) The noise may be too weak to be high-energy sources used by the military seriously injured marine mammal is heard at the location of the animal (i.e., and industry; the small size of the found in the vicinity of the operations lower than the prevailing ambient noise potential impact zones; the speed of the and the death or injury could have level, the hearing threshold of the vessel when towing the airgun (7 knots); occurred incidental to the seismic animal at relevant frequencies, or both); the length of daylight at this time of the survey. Any such suspension should (2) The noise may be audible but not year in the South Pacific; and, the remain in place until NMFS has strong enough to elicit any overt marine mammal avoidance measures reviewed the situation and determined behavioral response; that are implemented by the vessel for that further deaths or serious injuries (3) The noise may elicit reactions of marine mammals on the vessel’s track, are unlikely to occur or has issued variable conspicuousness and variable it is very unlikely that any marine regulations authorizing such takes relevance to the well being of the mammals would enter the safety zone under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the marine mammal; these can range from undetected. If a marine mammal enters MMPA. temporary alert responses to active the small safety zone, operational Response: A standard condition in all avoidance reactions such as vacating an shutdown will be implemented until the seismic IHAs is for an emergency shut- area at least until the noise event ceases; animal leaves the safety zone. down. The IHA states that ‘‘If (4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine Comment 2: The Commission notes observations are made or credible mammal may exhibit diminishing that NMFS and SIO believe that the reports are received that one or more responsiveness (habituation), or proposed activities will result only in marine mammals or sea turtles are disturbance effects may persist; the Level B harassment of cetaceans and within the area of this activity in an latter is most likely with sounds that are pinnipeds. However, there is some injured or mortal state, or are indicating highly variable in characteristics, possibility that the proposed study acute distress, the seismic airguns will infrequent and unpredictable in could result in injuries or deaths to be immediately shut down and the occurrence, and associated with beaked whales or other species of small Chief of the Permits, Conservation and situations that a marine mammal cetaceans. Education Division, Office of Protected perceives as a threat; Response: NMFS is unaware of any Resources or a staff member contacted. (5) Any anthropogenic noise that is documented injuries or mortalities The airgun array will not be restarted strong enough to be heard has the caused by low-energy, low-frequency until review and approval has been potential to reduce (mask) the ability of sound sources, such as the 2 GI gun given by the Director, Office of a marine mammal to hear natural array on beaked whales or other marine Protected Resources or his designee.’’ sounds at similar frequencies, including mammals. If the Commission has any However, NMFS needs to make it clear calls from conspecifics, and underwater information on this subject, NMFS that this requirement pertains only to environmental sounds such as surf would appreciate obtaining this recently deceased marine mammals (as noise; additional information for its review of determined by the lead MMO onboard (6) If mammals remain in an area IHA applications for low-energy noise the vessel) and not for long-dead because it is important for feeding, sources. ‘‘floaters.≥ breeding or some other biologically

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75948 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

important purpose even though there is from the source vessel essentially marine mammals close enough to be chronic exposure to noise, it is possible continuously during much of the affected by the multi-beam and sub- that there could be noise-induced planned survey. Details about these bottom profiler sonars would already be physiological stress; this might in turn sonars and potential effects on marine affected by the airguns. Therefore, no have negative effects on the well-being mammals (masking, behavioral additional incidental takings are or reproduction of the animals involved; response, hearing impairment and other included for animals that might be and physical effects) have been provided in affected by the multi-beam sonar. Also, (7) Very strong sounds have the the SIO application and by NMFS given their characteristics (described in potential to cause temporary or previously (see 71 FR 6041, February 6, SIO’s application and analyzed by permanent reduction in hearing 2006, and 71 FR 14839, March 24, 2006) NMFS in previous SIO authorizations), sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and and are not repeated here. This no Level B harassment takings are presumably marine mammals, received information is incorporated herein by considered likely when the multibeam sound levels must far exceed the citation. Please refer to these documents and sub-bottom profiler are operating animal’s hearing threshold for there to for information and analyses on but the airguns are silent. be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) potential impacts to marine mammals SIO notes that it is difficult to make in its hearing ability. For transient by these mid-frequency sonar activities. accurate, scientifically defensible, and sounds, the sound level necessary to observationally verifiable estimates of cause TTS is inversely related to the Estimates of Take by Harassment for the number of individuals likely to be duration of the sound. Received sound the SPO Seismic Survey subject to low-level harassment by the levels must be even higher for there to Although information contained in noise from SIO’s GI guns. There are be risk of permanent hearing several documents cited and many uncertainties in marine mammal impairment. In addition, intense summarized in SIO’s application distribution and seasonally varying acoustic or explosive events may cause indicates that injury to marine mammals abundance, and in local horizontal and trauma to tissues associated with organs from seismic sounds potentially occurs vertical distribution; in marine mammal vital for hearing, sound production, at sound pressure levels significantly reactions to varying frequencies and respiration and other functions. This higher than 180 and 190 dB, NMFS’ levels of acoustic pulses; and in trauma may include minor to severe current criteria for onset of Level A perceived sound levels at different hemorrhage. harassment of cetaceans and pinnipeds horizontal and oblique ranges from the from impulse sound are, respectively, source. Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine 180 and 190 re 1 microPa rms. The rms The best estimate of the potential Mammals level of a seismic pulse is typically number of exposures to received levels The SIO application and two previous about 10 dB less than its peak level and equal to, or greater than, 160 dB re 1 SIO IHA notices (71 FR 6041, February about 16 dB less than its pk-pk level microPa (rms) was calculated by SIO by 6, 2006, and 71 FR 14839, March 24, (Greene, 1997; McCauley et al., 1998; multiplying the expected density of the 2006) provide information on what is 2000a). Given the small zone of impact species/stock; times the anticipated total known about the effects on marine due to the low-energy seismic sources line-kilometers of operations with the 2 mammals of the types of seismic and the mitigation and monitoring GI guns (including turns and additional operations planned by SIO. The types of required under the IHA for this survey buffer line km to allow for repeating of effects considered in these documents (see Mitigation and Monitoring later in lines due to equipment malfunction, are (1) tolerance, (2) masking of natural this document), all anticipated effects bad weather, etc.), times the cross-track sounds, (2) behavioral disturbance, (3) involve, at most, a temporary change in distances within which received sound potential hearing impairment, and (4) behavior that may constitute Level B levels are predicted to be 160 dB or other non-auditory physical effects. This (behavioral) harassment, and no injury greater. information is incorporated herein. or mortality is likely. The mitigation For the 2 GI guns, that cross track Please refer to these documents for measures will essentially eliminate the distance is 2x the predicted 160–dB information and analyses on potential possibility of Level A harassment or radii of 400 m (1312 ft) in water depths impacts to marine mammals by seismic mortality. As described later, SIO has greater than 1000 m (3281 ft). Based on activities. calculated the ‘‘best estimates’’ for the that method, SIO obtained the ‘‘best’’ Summarizing from these analyses, numbers of animals that could be taken and ‘‘maximum’’ estimates of the given the relatively small size of the by Level B harassment during the number of marine mammal exposures to airguns planned for the present project, proposed SPO seismic survey using data airgun sounds 160 dB re 1 microPa NMFS and SIO believe it is very on marine mammal density (numbers (rms) and higher for each of the unlikely that there would be any cases per unit area) and estimates of the size ecological provinces using the reported of temporary or permanent hearing of the affected area, as shown in the average and maximum densities from impairment, or non-auditory physical predicted RMS radii table (see Table 1 Tables 3 and 4 in SIO’s application. The effects. Also, behavioral disturbance is in 71 FR 56955 (September 28, 2006)). two estimates were then added to give expected to be limited to distances less The Level B harassment estimates are total estimated exposures. The estimates than 400 m (1312 ft) from the seismic based on a consideration of the number show that very small numbers of the source. This is the zone calculated for of marine mammals that might be five endangered large whale species 160 dB or the onset of Level B exposed to sound levels at or higher may be exposed to such noise levels (see (behavioral) harassment. As a result, than 160 dB, the criterion for the onset Table 5 in SIO’s application). SIO’s best acoustic effects are anticipated to be of Level B harassment, by operations estimates for these species are one considerably less than would be the with the 2 GI-gun array planned to be exposure each for the sperm whale, case with a large array of airguns. used for this project. The anticipated southern right whale, sei whale, and fin zones of influence of the multi-beam whale. The vast majority of the best Possible Effects of Mid-frequency Sonar sonar and sub-bottom profiler are less estimate for exposures to seismic Signals than that for the airguns, so it is sounds 160 dB and higher would A multi-beam bathymetric sonar and assumed that during simultaneous involve delphinids. Best estimates of the a sub-bottom profiler will be operated operations of these instruments that any number of exposures of cetaceans, in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75949

descending order, are bottlenose from seismic vessels. In fact, there are effects expected and the small dolphin (292 exposures), rough-toothed documented instances of dolphins percentages of affected stocks of and spotted dolphin (80 exposures approaching active seismic vessels. cetaceans, the action is expected to have each), and southern right whale dolphin However, dolphins as well as some no more than a negligible impact on the (73 exposures). SIO believes that based other types of odontocetes sometimes affected species or stocks of cetaceans. show avoidance responses and/or other on the empirical calibration data Effects on Pinnipeds collected in the Gulf of Mexico for 2– changes in behavior when near GI guns in deep water, actual 160–dB operating seismic vessels. Five pinniped species may be distances in deep water are likely to be Taking into account the small size encountered at the survey sites, but less than predicted (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and the relatively low sound output of their distribution and numbers have not and, therefore, the predicted numbers of the 2 GI-gun array to be used, and the been documented in the proposed marine mammals that might be exposed mitigation measures that are planned, survey area. In all likelihood, these to sounds 160 dB or greater may be effects on cetaceans are generally species will be in southern feeding areas somewhat overestimated. expected to be limited to avoidance of during the period for this survey. While data regarding distribution, a small area around the seismic However, to ensure that the SIO project seasonal abundance, and response of operation and short-term changes in remains in compliance with the MMPA pinnipeds to seismic sonar is sparse, behavior, falling within the MMPA in the event that a few pinnipeds are NMFS believes the Revelle is unlikely to definition of Level B harassment. encountered, SIO has requested an encounter any of the four pinniped Furthermore, the estimated numbers of authorization to expose up to 3–5 species that live, for at least part of the animals potentially exposed to sound individuals of each of the five pinniped year, in SIO’s proposed survey area levels sufficient to cause appreciable species to seismic sounds with rms because of the decreased likelihood of disturbance are very low percentages of levels 160 dB re 1 microPa or greater. encountering them in the very deep the affected populations. Therefore, the proposed survey would water, the relatively small area proposed Based on the 160–dB criterion, the have, at most, a short-term effect on to be ensonified, and the likely best estimates of the numbers of their behavior and no long-term impacts effectiveness of the required mitigation individual cetaceans that may be on individual pinnipeds or their measures in such a small area. exposed to sounds of 160 dB re 1 populations. Responses of pinnipeds to Table 2 (see 71 FR 56955 (September microPa (rms) or greater represent from acoustic disturbance are variable, but 28, 2006)) provides the best estimate of 0 to approximately 0.07 percent of the usually quite limited. Effects are the numbers of each species that could regional SPO species populations (see expected to be limited to short-term and be exposed to seismic sounds equal to, Table 2 in 71 FR 56955 (September 28, localized behavioral changes falling or greater than, 160 dB and the number 2006)). In the case of endangered within the MMPA definition of Level B of marine mammals requested to be balaenopterids, it is likely that no more harassment. As is the case for cetaceans, taken by Level B harassment. A detailed than 1 humpback, sei, or fin whale will the short-term exposures to sounds from description on the methodology used by be exposed to seismic sounds 160 dB re the two GI-guns are not expected to SIO to arrive at the estimates of Level 1 microPa (rms) or greater, based on result in any long-term consequences for B harassment takes that are provided in estimated densities of those species in the individuals or their populations and Table 2 can be found in SIO’s the survey region. Therefore, SIO has the activity is expected to have no more application for the SPO survey. requested an authorization to expose up than a negligible impact on the affected to 1 individuals of each of these species species or stocks of pinnipeds. Conclusions to seismic sounds of 160 dB or greater Potential Effects on Habitat during the proposed survey given the Effects on Cetaceans possibility of encountering one or more The proposed seismic survey will not Strong avoidance reactions by several groups. Best estimates of blue whales result in any permanent impact on species of mysticetes to seismic vessels are that no individuals would be habitats used by marine mammals, or to have been observed at ranges up to 6– potentially exposed to seismic pulses the food sources they utilize. The main 8 km (3.2–4.3 nm) and occasionally as with received levels 160 dB re 1 impact issue associated with the far as 20–30 km (10.8–16.2 nm) from the microPa (rms) or greater. proposed activity will be temporarily source vessel. However, reactions at the Higher numbers of delphinids may be elevated noise levels and the associated longer distances appear to be atypical of affected by the proposed seismic direct effects on marine mammals. most species and situations, particularly surveys, but the population sizes of One of the reasons for the adoption of when feeding whales are involved. Few species likely to occur in the survey area airguns as the standard energy source mysticetes are expected to be are large, and the numbers potentially for marine seismic surveys was that they encountered during the proposed survey affected are small relative to population (unlike the explosives used in the in the SPO (Table 2) and disturbance sizes. As a result, NMFS believes that distant past) do not result in any effects would be confined to shorter the seismic survey proposed by SIO will appreciable fish kill. Various distances given the low-energy acoustic result in only small numbers of experimental studies showed that source to be used during this project. In cetaceans being harassed incidental to airgun discharges cause little or no fish addition, the estimated numbers conducting that activity. kill, and that any injurious effects were presented in Table 2 are considered Mitigation measures such as generally limited to the water within a overestimates of actual numbers that controlled speed, course alteration, meter or so of an airgun. However, it has may be harassed. observers, ramp ups, and shut downs recently been found that injurious Odontocete reactions to seismic when marine mammals are seen within effects on captive fish, especially on fish pulses, or at least the reactions of defined ranges should further reduce hearing, may occur at somewhat greater dolphins, are expected to extend to short-term reactions, and minimize any distances than previously thought lesser distances than are those of effects on hearing. In all cases, the (McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2002; 2003). mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency effects are expected to be short-term, Even so, any injurious effects on fish hearing is less sensitive than that of with no lasting adverse biological would be limited to short distances from mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen consequence. In light of the type of the source. Also, many of the fish that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75950 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

might otherwise be within the injury- SPO, so the proposed SIO activities will If a marine mammal is detected zone are likely to be displaced from this not have any impact on the availability outside the safety radius and is likely to region prior to the approach of the of these species or stocks for subsistence enter the safety radius, and if the airguns through avoidance reactions to users. vessel’s speed and/or course cannot be the approaching seismic vessel or to the changed to avoid having the mammal Required Mitigation airgun sounds as received at distances enter the safety radius or an alternative beyond the injury radius. For the proposed seismic survey in ship speed or trackline is not effective Fish often react to sounds, especially the SPO, SIO will deploy 2 GI-airguns in preventing entry into the safety zone, strong and/or intermittent sounds of low as an energy source, each with a then the GI airguns must be shut down frequency. Sound pulses at received discharge volume of 45 in3. The energy immediately. Likewise, if a mammal is levels of 160 dB re 1 µPa (peak) may from the airguns is directed mostly already within the safety zone when cause subtle changes in behavior. Pulses downward. The directional nature of the first detected, the airguns must be shut at levels of 180 dB (peak) may cause airguns to be used in this project is an down immediately. noticeable changes in behavior important mitigating factor. This Following a shut-down, airgun (Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson directionality will result in reduced activity will not resume until the marine et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). It also sound levels at any given horizontal mammal has cleared the safety zone. appears that fish often habituate to distance as compared with the levels The animal will be considered to have repeated strong sounds rather rapidly, expected at that distance if the source cleared the safety zone if it: (1) is on time scales of minutes to an hour. were omnidirectional with the stated visually observed to have left the safety However, the habituation does not nominal source level. Also, the small zone, or (2) has not been seen within the endure, and resumption of the size of these airguns is an inherent and zone for 15 minutes in the case of small disturbing activity may again elicit important mitigation measure that will odontocetes and pinnipeds, or (3) has disturbance responses from the same reduce the potential for effects relative not been seen within the zone for a fish. to those that might occur with large minimum of 30 minutes in the case of Fish near the airguns are likely to dive airgun arrays. This measure is in mysticetes and large odontocetes, or exhibit some other kind of behavioral conformance with NMFS policy of including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf response. This might have short-term encouraging seismic operators to use the sperm, beaked and bottlenose whales. impacts on the ability of cetaceans to lowest intensity airguns practicable to During airgun operations following a feed near the survey area. However, accomplish research objectives. shut-down whose duration has only a small fraction of the available The following mitigation measures, as exceeded these specified limits, the habitat would be ensonified at any given well as marine mammal visual airgun array will be ramped-up time, and fish species would return to monitoring (discussed later in this gradually. their pre-disturbance behavior once the document), will be implemented for the seismic activity ceased. Thus, the subject seismic surveys: (1) Speed and Ramp-up Procedure proposed surveys would have little course alteration (provided that they do A ramp-up procedure will be impact on the abilities of marine not compromise operational safety followed when the airguns begin mammals to feed in the area where requirements); (2)shut-down operating after a period without airgun seismic work is planned. Fish that do procedures; and (3) ramp-up operations. The two GI guns will be not avoid the approaching airguns procedures. added in sequence 5 minutes apart. (probably a small number) may be During ramp-up procedures, the safety subject to auditory or other injuries. Speed and Course Alteration radius for the two GI guns will be Zooplankton that are very close to the If a marine mammal is detected maintained. source may react to the airgun’s shock outside its respective safety zone (180 During the day, ramp-up cannot begin wave. These animals have an dB for cetaceans, 190 dB for pinnipeds) from a shut-down unless the entire 180– exoskeleton and no air sacs; therefore, and, based on its position and the dB safety radius has been visible for at little or no mortality is expected. Many relative motion, is likely to enter the least 30 minutes prior to the ramp-up crustaceans can make sounds and some safety zone, the vessel’s speed and/or (i.e., no ramp-up can begin in heavy fog crustacea and other invertebrates have direct course will, when practicable and or high sea states). some type of sound receptor. However, safe, be revised to avoid the mammal in During nighttime operations, if the the reactions of zooplankton to sound a manner that also minimizes the effect entire safety radius is visible using are not known. Some mysticetes feed on to the planned science objectives. The vessel lights and night-vision devices concentrations of zooplankton. A marine mammal activities and (NVDs) (as may be the case in deep and reaction by zooplankton to a seismic movements relative to the seismic vessel intermediate waters), then start up of impulse would only be relevant to will be closely monitored to ensure that the airguns from a shut-down may whales if it caused a concentration of the marine mammal does not approach occur, after completion of the 30– zooplankton to scatter. Pressure changes the outer perimeter of safety zone. minute observation period. of sufficient magnitude to cause this Comments on past IHAs raised the Shut-down Procedures type of reaction would probably occur issue of prohibiting nighttime only very close to the source, so few Although power-down procedures are operations as a practical mitigation zooplankton concentrations would be often standard operating practice for measure. However, this is not affected. Impacts on zooplankton seismic surveys, power-down will not practicable due to cost considerations behavior are predicted to be negligible, be used or authorized for this activity and ship time schedules. If the Revelle and this would translate into negligible because powering down from two guns was prohibited from operating during impacts on feeding mysticetes. to one gun would make only a small nighttime, each trip could require an difference in the 180- or 190–dB radius- additional several days to complete. Potential Effects on Subsistence Use of -probably not enough to allow If a seismic survey vessel is limited to Marine Mammals continued one-gun operations if a daylight seismic operations, efficiency There is no known legal subsistence marine mammal came within the safety would also be much reduced. For hunting for marine mammals in the radius for two guns. seismic operations in general, a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75951

daylight-only requirement would be bridge personnel will watch for marine describe the operations that were expected to result in one or more of the mammals during this time and will call conducted and the marine mammals following outcomes: cancellation of for the airguns to be powered-down or that were detected. The report must potentially valuable seismic surveys; shut-down if marine mammals are provide full documentation of methods, reduction in the total number of seismic observed in or about to enter the safety results, and interpretation pertaining to cruises annually due to longer cruise radii. However, a biological observer all monitoring tasks. The report will durations; a need for additional vessels must be on call at night and available to summarize the dates and locations of to conduct the seismic operations; or assist the bridge watch if marine seismic operations, marine mammal work conducted by non-U.S. operators mammals are detected at any distance sightings (dates, times, locations, or non-U.S. vessels when in waters not from the Revelle. If the 2 GI-airgun is activities, associated seismic survey subject to U.S. law. ramped-up at night (see previous activities), and estimates of the amount section), two marine mammal observers and nature of potential take of marine Marine Mammal Monitoring will monitor for marine mammals for 30 mammals by harassment or in other SIO must have at least two minutes prior to ramp-up and during ways. experienced marine mammal observer the ramp-up using either deck lighting During the recent SIO cruise to the on board the Revelle, that NMFS has or NVDs that will be available (ITT F500 Louisville Ridge (71 FR 6041, February approved in advance of the start of the Series Generation 3 binocular image 6, 2006), there were 5 sightings of SPO cruise. These observers will be on intensifier or equivalent). marine mammals. All observed marine duty in shifts of no longer than 4 hours. mammals were non-evasive of the The visual observers will monitor Post-Survey Monitoring research vessel and its activities. Only marine mammals and sea turtles near The biological observers will be able one sighting occurred while the seismic the seismic source vessel during all to conduct monitoring of most recently- source was active. The animal’s closest daytime airgun operations, during any run transect lines as the Revelle returns approach to the ship was greater than 2 nighttime start-ups of the airguns, and at along parallel and perpendicular km (1.08 nm), well outside the 40 m night whenever daytime monitoring transect tracks (see inset of Figure 1 in (131.2 ft) safety radius for the seismic resulted in one or more shut-down the SIO application). This will provide source used on that cruise. For situations due to marine mammal the biological observers with additional information please see the presence. During daylight, vessel-based opportunities to look for injured or dead Louisville Ridge cruise report (http:// observers will watch for marine marine mammals (although no injuries www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ mammals and sea turtles near the or mortalities are expected during this incidental.htm#iha. seismic vessel during periods with research cruise). shooting (including ramp-ups), and for Endangered Species Act (ESA) 30 minutes prior to the planned start of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) NMFS has issued a biological opinion airgun operations after a shut-down. Because of the very small zone for regarding the effects of this action on Use of multiple observers will potential Level A harassment, use the ESA-listed species and critical habitat increase the likelihood that marine PAM system during this cruise is not under the jurisdiction of NMFS. That mammals near the source vessel are warranted and, therefore, is not biological opinion concluded that this detected. Revelle bridge personnel will required. action is not likely to jeopardize the also assist in detecting marine mammals continued existence of listed species or Summary and implementing mitigation result in the destruction or adverse requirements whenever possible (they Taking into consideration the modification of critical habitat. A copy will be given instruction on how to do additional costs of prohibiting nighttime of the Biological Opinion is available so), especially during ongoing operations and the likely impact of the upon request (see ADDRESSES). operations at night when the designated activity (including all mitigation and observers are on stand-by and not monitoring), NMFS has determined that National Environmental Policy Act required to be on watch at all times. the required mitigation and monitoring (NEPA) The observer(s) will watch for marine ensures that the activity will have the The NSF made a Finding of No mammals from the highest practical least practicable impact on the affected Significant Impact (FONSI) vantage point on the vessel, which is species or stocks. Due to seismic sound determination on November 3, 2005 (70 either the bridge or the flying bridge. propagation, marine mammals will have FR 68102, November 9, 2005), based on The observer(s) will systematically scan sufficient notice of a vessel approaching information contained within its EA the area around the vessel with Big Eyes with operating seismic airguns, thereby (see 70 FR 39346, July 7, 2005, for binoculars, reticulated binoculars (e.g., giving them an opportunity to avoid the public availability), that implement- 7 X 50 Fujinon) and with the naked eye approaching array; if ramp-up is ation of a low-energy seismic survey in during the daytime. Laser range-finding required, two marine mammal observers the SPO is not a major Federal action binoculars (Leica L.F. 1200 laser will be required to monitor the safety having significant effects on the rangefinder or equivalent) will be radii using shipboard lighting or NVDs environment within the meaning of available to assist with distance for at least 30 minutes before ramp-up NEPA. The NSF determined, therefore, estimation. The observers will be used begins and verify that no marine that an environmental impact statement to determine when a marine mammal or mammals are in or approaching the would not be prepared. sea turtle is in or near the safety radii safety radii; ramp-up may not begin NMFS noted that the NSF had so that the required mitigation unless the entire safety radii are visible. prepared an EA for a previous SIO 2– measures, such as course alteration and Reporting GI airgun survey in the SPO and made shut-down, can be implemented. If the SIO will submit a draft report to this EA available upon request (70 FR GI-airguns are shut down, observers will NMFS within 90 days after the end of 60287, October 17, 2005). In accordance maintain watch to determine when the the cruise, which is currently predicted with NOAA Administrative Order 216– animal is outside the safety radius. to occur during December, 2006 and 6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Observers will not be on duty during January, 2007. The report, which will be Implementing the National ongoing seismic operations at night; posted by NMFS on its web-site, will Environmental Policy Act, May 20,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75952 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

1999), NMFS reviewed the information survey activity, the number of potential receive briefings on topics related to contained in NSF’s EA and determined harassment takings is estimated to be mental health concerns among military that the NSF EA accurately and small. In addition, the proposed seismic service members and mental health care completely describes the proposed program will not interfere with any delivery. The Task Force will hold a action alternative, and the potential known legal subsistence hunts, since ‘‘Town Hall Meeting’’ session to hear impacts on marine mammals, seismic operations will not take place in concerns from the Washington, DC endangered species, and other marine subsistence whaling and sealing areas metro area active Duty Military, life that could be impacted by the and will not affect marine mammals National Guard and Reserve, and preferred alternative and the other used for subsistence purposes. Veterans communities and conduct alternatives. Accordingly, NMFS executive working sessions. Authorization adopted the NSF EA under 40 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1506.3 and made its own FONSI. The On this date, NMFS issues an IHA to Colonel Roger Gibson, Executive NMFS FONSI also took into SIO to take marine mammals, by Level Secretary, Defense Health Board, consideration additional mitigation B harassment, incidental to conducting Skyline One, 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite measures that are not in NSF’s EA. seismic surveys in the SPO for a 1–year 810, Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 681– Therefore, because the actions described period, provided the mitigation, 3279, ext. 123. in that EA are similar in context and monitoring, and reporting requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The intensity to the current seismic activity are undertaken. afternoon session on December 18, the by SIO, it is not necessary for NMFS to Dated: December 12, 2006. morning session on December 19, and issue a new EA, a supplemental EA or Donna Wieting, both morning and afternoon sessions on an environmental impact statement for December 20, 2006 will be open to the the issuance of an IHA to SIO for this Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. public in accordance with Section activity. A copy of the EA and previous 552b(b) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically FONSI for this activity is available upon [FR Doc. E6–21611 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] subparagraph (1) thereof an Title 5, request. A copy of the NSF EA for this BILLING CODE 3510–22–S U.S.C., appendix 1, subsection 10(d). activity is available upon request (see Open sessions of the meeting will be ADDRESSES). DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE limited by space accommodations. Any Conclusions interested person may attend, appear NMFS has determined that the impact Office of the Secretary before or file statements with the Board of conducting the seismic survey in the at the time and in the manner permitted SPO may result, at worst, in a temporary DoD Task Force on Mental Health by the Board. Meeting modification in behavior of small Dated: December 13, 2006. numbers of certain species of marine AGENCY: Office of the Assistant L.M. Bynum, mammals. This activity is expected to Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs); Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison result in no more than a negligible DoD. Officer, Department of Defense. impact on the affected species or stocks. ACTION: Notice of meeting change. [FR Doc. 06–9762 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] For reasons stated previously in this BILLING CODE 5001–01–M document, this determination is SUMMARY: This notice updates the supported by: (1) the likelihood that, previous notice, ‘‘Notice of Open given advance notice through relatively Meeting’’ published on December 6, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION slow ship speed and ramp-up, marine 2006 (71 FR 70743). In accordance with mammals are expected to move away section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92–463, Notice of Proposed Information from a noise source that is annoying the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Collection Requests before it becomes potentially injurious; announcement is made of the following (2) recent research that indicates that meeting. AGENCY: Department of Education. TTS is unlikely (at least in delphinids) Name of Committee: DoD Task Force ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information until levels closer to 200–205 dB re 1 on Mental Health, a Subcommittee of Collection Requests. microPa are reached rather than 180 dB the Defense Health Board. re 1 microPa; (3) the fact that 200–205 Dates: December 18, 2006 SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, dB isopleths would be well within 100 (Afternoon—Open Session), December Regulatory Information Management m (328 ft) of the vessel even in shallow 19, 2006 (Morning—Open Session), Services, Office of Management, invites water; and (4) the likelihood that marine December 20, 2006 (Morning and comments on the proposed information mammal detection in the safety zone by Afternoon—Open Session). collection requests as required by the trained observers is close to 100 percent Times: 1300–1500 hours (18 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. during daytime and remains high at December), 0800–1100 hours (19 DATES: An emergency review has been night to the short distance from the December), 0800–1700 hours (20 requested in accordance with the Act seismic vessel. As a result, no take by December). (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), since injury or death is anticipated or Location: Hyatt Regency Crystal City, public harm is reasonably likely to authorized, and the potential for 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, result if normal clearance procedures temporary or permanent hearing Arlington, VA. are followed. Approval by the Office of impairment is very low and would be Agenda: The purpose of the meeting Management and Budget (OMB) has avoided through the incorporation of is to obtain, review, and evaluate been requested by January 24, 2007. the required mitigation measures information related to the Mental Health ADDRESSES: Written comments mentioned in this document. Task Force’s congressionally-directed regarding the emergency review should While the number of potential task of assessing the efficacy of mental be addressed to the Office of incidental harassment takes will depend health services provided to members of Information and Regulatory Affairs, on the distribution and abundance of the Armed Forces by the Department of Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, marine mammals in the vicinity of the Defense. The Task Force members will Department of Education, Office of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75953

Management and Budget; 725 17th as early as the summer of 2007. The a telecommunications device for the Street, NW., Room 10222, New current OMB package requests clearance deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Executive Office Building, Washington, for the instruments to be used in Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974. gathering information. 800–877–8339. Additional Information: The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section [FR Doc. E6–21601 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Department is requesting emergency 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires clearance to begin collection of parental that the Director of OMB provide and student consent forms, baseline interested Federal agencies and the information forms, and student DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION public an early opportunity to comment selection forms. If the evaluation has to on information collection requests. The go through the normal clearance Office of Special Education and Office of Management and Budget process, ED’s notification to work with Rehabilitative Services; Overview (OMB) may amend or waive the grantees on data collection could not Information Technology and Media requirement for public consultation to begin until late March or early April Services for Individuals With the extent that public participation in 2007, where many grantees are Disabilities—Using Assistive the approval process would defeat the completing their application periods. Technology To Support Development purpose of the information collection, This schedule would likely mean that and Learning of Infants and Toddlers violate State or Federal law, or summer programs would need to be With Disabilities, Birth Through Two; substantially interfere with any agency’s delayed or perhaps cancelled for new Notice Inviting Applications for New ability to perform its statutory students, creating hostility toward the Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 obligations. The IC Clearance Official, evaluation, undermining the validity of Regulatory Information Management the evaluation and harming its ability to Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Services, Office of Management, draw conclusions about the (CFDA) Number: 84.327X publishes this notice containing effectiveness of the redesigned Upward Dates: Applications Available: proposed information collection Bound program. Emergency processing December 19, 2006. requests at the beginning of the would allow the Department to contact Deadline for Transmittal of Departmental review of the information sampled grantees to be in the evaluation Applications: February 2, 2007. collection. Each proposed information in late January or early February 2007, Deadline for Intergovernmental collection, grouped by office, contains allowing more time for the evaluator to Review: April 3, 2007. the following: (1) Type of review work with grantees selected for the Eligible Applicants: State educational requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, evaluation (contingent on their receipt agencies (SEAs); local educational existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) of funding for 2007), ensure that a agencies (LEAs); public charter schools Summary of the collection; (4) sufficient number of eligible students that are LEAs under State law; Description of the need for, and are recruited to form a control group, institutions of higher education (IHEs); proposed use of, the information; (5) and obtain the necessary consent and other public agencies; private nonprofit Respondents and frequency of baseline student data required before organizations; outlying areas; freely collection; and (6) Reporting and/or random assignment can occur. The associated States; Indian tribes or tribal Recordkeeping burden. ED invites Department is requesting OMB approval organizations; and for-profit public comment. by January 24, 2007. organizations. The Department of Education is Frequency: One time. Estimated Available Funds: The Affected Public: Administration has requested especially interested in public comment Individuals or households; not-for- addressing the following issues: (1) Is $31,063,000 for the Technology and profit institutions Media Services for Individuals With this collection necessary to the proper Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour functions of the Department; (2) will Disabilities program for FY 2007, of Burden: which we intend to use an estimated this information be processed and used Responses: 7,290. Burden Hours: $435,000 for the Using Assistive in a timely manner, (3) is the estimate 3,900. of burden accurate; (4) how might the Requests for copies of the proposed Technology To Support Development Department enhance the quality, utility, information collection request may be and Learning of Infants and Toddlers and clarity of the information to be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, With Disabilities, Birth Through Two collected, and (5) how might the by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending competition. The actual level of Department minimize the burden of this Collections’’ link and by clicking on funding, if any, depends on final collection on respondents, including link number 3242. When you access the congressional action. However, we are through the use of information information collection, click on inviting applications to allow enough technology. ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this Dated: December 13, 2006. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of program. Angela C. Arrington, Maximum Award: We will reject any Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information application that proposes a budget Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, Management Services, Office of Management. exceeding $435,000 for a single budget DC 20202–4700. Requests may also be period of 12 months. The Assistant Institute of Education Sciences electronically mailed to the Internet Secretary for Special Education and Type of Review: New. address IC [email protected] or faxed Rehabilitative Services may change the Title: Impact Evaluation of Upward to 202–245–6623. Please specify the maximum amount through a notice Bound’s Increased Focus on Higher-Risk complete title of the information published in the Federal Register. Students—Baseline Data Collection collection when making your request. Estimated Number of Awards: 1. Protocols. Comments regarding burden and/or Abstract: This evaluation will focus the collection activity requirements Note: The Department is not bound by any on the impacts of Upward Bound on should be electronically mailed to IC estimates in this notice. students applying to enter the program [email protected]. Individuals who use Project Period: Up to 60 months.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75954 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Full Text of Announcement devices, services, and contexts in which Clearinghouse (WWC) for its review of I. Funding Opportunity Description AT is appropriately used, a review of 27 causal research, found at http:// studies on the use of AT with young www.whatworks.ed.gov; Purpose of Program: The purpose of children, published within the past 25 (b) Develop and implement practices the Technology and Media Services for years, found that none of the reports to support service providers and Individuals With Disabilities program is discussed how to help children use families in using a range of low-tech to to: (1) Improve results for children with readily available or low-tech items. In high-tech AT devices, including readily disabilities by promoting the addition, the limited number of available materials, in ways that can development, demonstration, and use of publications on evidence-based AT help families enhance the development technology, (2) support educational teaching practices seems to emphasize and learning of their infants and media services activities designed to be high-tech devices (Dugan, Millborne, toddlers with disabilities and promote of educational value in the classroom Campbell, and Wilcox 2). This suggests their participation in activities in setting to children with disabilities, and there is a need to raise awareness among everyday settings. These strategies must (3) provide support for captioning and early intervention service providers and incorporate provisions for the continued video description that is appropriate for families and to assist them in implementation of the practices after use in the classroom setting. implementing and evaluating AT Federal support ends; Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR practices involving a range of low-tech (c) Identify and recruit early 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from to high-tech devices to improve the intervention programs to implement the allowable activities specified in the development and learning of infants and practices identified in accordance with statute (see sections 674 and 681(d) of toddlers with disabilities. paragraph (a) of this priority. In the Individuals With Disabilities Priority: selecting early intervention programs, Education Act (IDEA)). This priority supports one cooperative the project must consider the culture, Absolute Priority: For FY 2007 this agreement to identify and support the language or family income of the infants priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 implementation of a range of evidence- and toddlers served by the programs, as CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only based and promising AT practices in well as the location (urban and rural applications that meet this priority. early intervention programs with a settings or, the geographic region) and This priority is: diverse group of infants and toddlers size of the program; Technology and Media Services for with disabilities, and their families, (d) Provide professional development Individuals With Disabilities—Using service providers, and caregivers, and to and training based on the practices Assistive Technology To Support develop strategies to scale-up promising identified in accordance with paragraph Development and Learning of Infants AT practices. For purposes of this (a) of this priority to motivate and build and Toddlers With Disabilities, Birth priority, the term ‘‘infants and toddlers capacity of service providers and through Two with disabilities’’ means individuals families to use AT with infants and Background from birth through age two who need toddlers with disabilities; early intervention services because they (e) Assist early intervention programs A growing body of research supports (1) are experiencing developmental in evaluating the outcomes of the the use of assistive technology (AT), delays, as measured by appropriate professional development provided in including AT devices and AT services diagnostic instruments and procedures accordance with paragraph (d) of this as defined in section 602 (1) and (2) of in one or more of the areas of cognitive priority, and the effects of selected AT IDEA, for infants and toddlers with development, physical development, practices on infant and toddler disabilities. The early research in this communication development, social or development; area shows that AT has the potential to emotional development, and adaptive (f) Promote, where appropriate, increase the ability of infants and development; or (2) have a diagnosed opportunities for AT re-use through toddlers with disabilities to interact physical or mental condition that has a such avenues as exchange programs, with others and to participate in family high probability of resulting in recycling programs, and refurbishment routines and to increase their functional developmental delay. In selecting AT programs; and skills in such areas as mobility and practices and in assisting service (g) Prepare and disseminate communication. However, a recent providers and families in implementing information and products, as national survey of service providers AT practices, the project must— appropriate, for specific audiences, such revealed that only 18.1 percent of early (a) Identify existing evidence-based as families, service providers, and intervention service providers believed and promising practices that integrate caregivers. that all of the infants and toddlers with AT in early intervention programs to The project funded under this priority disabilities they serve who need AT improve the development and learning also must— actually receive it. Further, the survey of infants and toddlers with disabilities. (1) Meet with the Office of Special revealed that only approximately four These may include validated practices Education Programs (OSEP) Project percent of infants and toddlers with with high levels of research support as Officer and other appropriate staff in disabilities have AT listed in their well as promising practices that have Washington, DC, within the first two Individualized Family Service Plan some research base but may require months of the project period to clarify (IFSP) (Wilcox, Bacon, and Campbell, additional validation. In selecting project activities and develop a strategic 2004 1). These findings may suggest a standards for identifying evidence-based plan for the implementation of the lack of awareness or knowledge of AT and promising practices, the project overall project; on the part of early intervention service must use a methodology that is (2) Communicate, collaborate, and providers and families. While recent consistent with evidence standards form partnerships as appropriate, with research has shed new light on AT established by the What Works such entities as: The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center 1 Wilcox, M., Bacon, C., and Campbell, P. (2004). 2 Dugan, L., Millborne, S., Campbell, P., and (NECTAC), Parent Training and National Survey of Parents and Providers Using AT Wilcox, M. (2004). Evidence Based Practice in Information Centers (PTIs), Community in Early Intervention, Research Brief Volume 1, Assistive Technology, Research Brief, Volume 1, Number 3. Tots n Tech Research Institute. Available Number 5. Tots n Tech Research Institute. Available Parent Resource Centers (CPRCs), the from: http://tnt.asu.edu. from: http://tnt.asu.edu. National and Regional Parent Technical

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75955

Assistance Centers (PTACs), the Applicable Regulations: The implementing, and evaluating the Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), the Education Department General projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of Center on Implementing Technology in Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in IDEA). Education (CITEd), and other OSEP- 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, IV. Application and Submission supported discretionary projects related 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. Information to the use of AT with infants and Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 toddlers with disabilities; apply to all applicants except federally 1. Address to Request Application (3) Establish, maintain, and meet at recognized Indian tribes. Package: Education Publications Center least annually with an advisory (ED Pubs), P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD committee consisting of representatives Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 20794–1398. Telephone (toll free): 1– of families, service providers, apply to IHEs only. 877–433–7827. FAX: (301) 470–1244. If caregivers, professional organizations you use a telecommunications device and advocacy groups, researchers, and II. Award Information for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll other appropriate groups to review and Type of Award: Cooperative free): 1–877–576–7734. advise on the project’s plans, products, agreement. You may also contact ED Pubs at its and activities; Estimated Available Funds: The Web site: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ (4) Budget to attend a three-day Administration has requested edpubs.html or you may contact ED Project Directors’ meeting in $31,063,000 for the Technology and Pubs at its e-mail address: Washington, DC during each year of the Media Services for Individuals with [email protected] project period; a two-day meeting of Disabilities program for FY 2007, of If you request an application from ED technology researchers, manufacturers, which we intend to use an estimated Pubs, be sure to identify this developers, and publishers in $435,000 for the Using Assistive competition as follows: CFDA Number Washington, DC; and a two-day early Technology to Support Development 84.327X. childhood meeting in Washington, DC; and Learning of Infants and Toddlers Individuals with disabilities may and with Disabilities, Birth through Two obtain a copy of the application package (5) If the project maintains a Web site, competition. The actual level of in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, include relevant information and funding, if any, depends on final large print, audiotape, or computer documents in a form that meets a congressional action. However, we are diskette) by contacting the Grants and government or industry-recognized inviting applications to allow enough Contracts Services Team listed under standard for accessibility. time to complete the grant process if FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in Fourth and Fifth Years of Project: Congress appropriates funds for this section VII of this notice. In deciding whether to continue this program. 2. Content and Form of Application project for the fourth and fifth years, the Maximum Award: We will reject any Submission: Requirements concerning Secretary will consider the requirements application that proposes a budget the content of an application, together of 34 CFR 75.253(a) for continuation exceeding $435,000 for a single budget with the forms you must submit, are in awards. period of 12 months. The Assistant the application package for this The Secretary will also consider the Secretary for Special Education and competition. following: Rehabilitative Services may change the Page Limit: The application narrative (a) The recommendation of a review maximum amount through a notice (Part III of the application) is where you, team consisting of experts selected by published in the Federal Register. the applicant, address the selection the Secretary. The team will conduct its Estimated Number of Awards: 1. criteria that reviewers use to evaluate review in Washington, DC during the your application. You must limit Part III last half of the project’s second year. A Note: The Department is not bound by any to the equivalent of no more than 70 estimates in this notice. project must budget for the travel pages, using the following standards: associated with this one-day intensive Project Period: Up to 60 months. • A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side ″ review. III. Eligibility Information only, with 1 margins at the top, bottom, (b) The timeliness and effectiveness and both sides. with which all requirements of the 1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs; • Double space (no more than three negotiated cooperative agreement have public charter schools that are LEAs lines per vertical inch) all text in the been or are being met by the project. under State law; IHEs; other public application narrative, including titles, (c) The degree to which the project is agencies; private nonprofit headings, footnotes, quotations, making a positive contribution—and its organizations; outlying areas; freely references, and captions, as well as all strategies are demonstrating the associated States; Indian tribes or tribal text in charts, tables, figures, and potential for disseminating significant organizations; and for-profit graphs. knowledge to families, service organizations. • Use a font that is either 12 point or providers, and caregivers—to using AT 2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This larger or no smaller than 10 pitch to improve outcomes for infants and competition does not involve cost (characters per inch). toddlers with disabilities. sharing or matching. The page limit does not apply to Part Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 3. Other: General Requirements—(a) I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget Under the Administrative Procedure Act The projects funded under this section, including the narrative budget (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department competition must make positive efforts justification; Part IV, the assurances and generally offers interested parties the to employ and advance in employment certifications; the one-page abstract, the opportunity to comment on proposed qualified individuals with disabilities resumes, the bibliography, the priorities. However, section 681(d) of (see section 606 of IDEA). references, or the letters of support. IDEA makes the public comment (b) Applicants and grant recipients However, you must include all of the requirements of the APA inapplicable to funded under this competition must application narrative in Part III. the priority in this notice. involve individuals with disabilities or We will reject your application if— Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 parents of individuals with disabilities • You apply these standards and and 1481. ages birth through 26 in planning, exceed the page limit; or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75956 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

• You apply other standards and Technology to Support Development outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step exceed the equivalent of the page limit. and Learning of Infants and Toddlers Registration Guide (see http:// 3. Submission Dates and Times: with Disabilities, Birth through Two— www.grants.gov/section910/ Applications Available: December 19, CFDA Number 84.327X competition at: Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf). 2006. Deadline for Transmittal of http://www.grants.gov You must search You also must provide on your Applications: February 2, 2007. for the downloadable application application the same D–U–N–S Number Applications for grants under this package for this program by the CFDA used with this registration. Please note competition may be submitted number. Do not include the CFDA that the registration process may take electronically using the Grants.gov number’s alpha suffix in your search. five or more business days to complete, Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper Please note the following: and you must have completed all format by mail or hand delivery. For • Your participation in Grants.gov is registration steps to allow you to information (including dates and times) voluntary. successfully submit an application via about how to submit your application • When you enter the Grants.gov site, Grants.gov. electronically, or by mail or hand you will find information about • You will not receive additional delivery, please refer to section IV. 6. submitting an application electronically point value because you submit your Other Submission Requirements in this through the site, as well as the hours of application in electronic format, nor notice. operation. will we penalize you if you submit your We do not consider an application • Applications received by Grants.gov application in paper format. that does not comply with the deadline are time and date stamped. Your • You may submit all documents requirements. Deadline for application must be fully uploaded and electronically, including all information Intergovernmental Review: April 3, submitted, and must be date/time typically included on the following 2007. stamped by the Grants.gov system no forms: Application for Federal 4. Intergovernmental Review: This later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC Assistance (SF 424), the Department of program is subject to Executive Order time, on the application deadline date. Education Supplemental Information for 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Except as otherwise noted in this SF 424, Budget Information—Non- part 79. Information about section, we will not consider your Construction Programs (ED 524), and all Intergovernmental Review of Federal application if it is date/time stamped by necessary assurances and certifications. Programs under Executive Order 12372 the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 Please note that two of these forms—the is in the application package for this p.m., Washington, DC time, on the SF 424 and the Department of Education competition. application deadline date. When we Supplemental Information for SF 424— 5. Funding Restrictions: We reference retrieve your application from have replaced the ED 424 (Application regulations outlining funding Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are for Federal Education Assistance). If you restrictions in the Applicable rejecting your application because it choose to submit your application Regulations section of this notice. was date/time stamped by the electronically, you must attach any 6. Other Submission Requirements: Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., narrative sections of your application as Applications for grants under this Washington, DC time, on the files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich competition may be submitted application deadline date. text), or .PDF (Portable Document) • electronically or in paper format by mail The amount of time it can take to format. If you upload a file type other or hand delivery. upload an application will vary than the three file types specified above a. Electronic Submission of depending on a variety of factors or submit a password protected file, we Applications. including the size of the application and will not review that material. We have been accepting applications the speed of your Internet connection. • Your electronic application must electronically through the Department’s Therefore, we strongly recommend that comply with any page limit e-Application system since FY 2000. In you do not wait until the application requirements described in this notice. order to expand on those efforts and deadline date to begin the application • After you electronically submit comply with the President’s process through Grants.gov. your application, you will receive an Management Agenda, we are continuing • You should review and follow the automatic acknowledgment from to participate as a partner in the new Education Submission Procedures for Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov government wide Grants.gov Apply site submitting an application through tracking number. The Department will in FY 2007. Using Assistive Technology Grants.gov that are included in the retrieve your application from to Support Development and Learning application package for this competition Grants.gov and send you a second of Infants and Toddlers with to ensure that you submit your confirmation by e-mail that will include Disabilities, Birth through Two-CFDA application in a timely manner to the a PR/Award number (an ED-specified Number 84.327X is one of the Grants.gov system. You can also find the identifying number unique to your competitions included in this project. Education Submission Procedures application). We request your participation in pertaining to Grants.gov at • We may request that you provide us Grants.gov. http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/ original signatures on forms at a later If you choose to submit your GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf. date. application electronically, you must use • To submit your application via the Grants.gov Apply site at http:// Grants.gov, you must complete all of the Application Deadline Date Extension in www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you steps in the Grants.gov registration Case of System Unavailability will be able to download a copy of the process (see http://www.grants.gov/ If you are prevented from application package, complete it offline, applicants/get_registered.jsp). These electronically submitting your and then upload and submit your steps include (1) registering your application on the application deadline application. You may not e-mail an organization, (2) registering yourself as date because of technical problems with electronic copy of a grant application to an Authorized Organization the Grants.gov system, we will grant you us. Representative (AOR), and (3) getting an extension until 4:30 p.m., You may access the electronic grant authorized as an AOR by your Washington, DC time, the following application for the Using Assistive organization. Details on these steps are business day to enable you to transmit

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75957

your application electronically, or by If you mail your application through 2. Administrative and National Policy hand delivery. You also may mail your the U.S. Postal Service, we do not Requirements: We identify application by following the mailing accept either of the following as proof administrative and national policy instructions as described elsewhere in of mailing: requirements in the application package this notice. If you submit an application (1) A private metered postmark, or and reference these and other after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by requirements in the Applicable the deadline date, please contact the the U.S. Postal Service. Regulations section of this notice. person listed elsewhere in this notice If your application is postmarked after We reference the regulations outlining under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION the application deadline date, we will the terms and conditions of an award in CONTACT, and provide an explanation of not consider your application. the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other the technical problem you experienced Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not with Grants.gov, along with the uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before specific conditions in the GAN. The Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number relying on this method, you should check GAN also incorporates your approved (if available). We will accept your with your local post office. application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. application if we can confirm that a c. Submission of Paper Applications technical problem occurred with the 3. Reporting: At the end of your by Hand Delivery. project period, you must submit a final Grants.gov system and that that problem If you submit your application in affected your ability to submit your performance report, including financial paper format by hand delivery, you (or information, as directed by the application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, a courier service) must deliver the DC time, on the application deadline Secretary. If you receive a multi-year original and two copies of your award, you must submit an annual date. The Department will contact you application by hand, on or before the after a determination is made on performance report that provides the application deadline date, to the most current performance and financial whether your application will be Department at the following address: accepted. expenditure information as specified by U.S. Department of Education, the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. Note: Extensions referred to in this section Application Control Center, Attention: 4. Performance Measures: Under the apply only to the unavailability of or (CFDA Number 84.327X), 550 12th Government Performance and Results technical problems with the Grants.gov Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has system. We will not grant you an extension Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. if you failed to fully register to submit your developed measures that will yield application to Grants.gov before the deadline The Application Control Center information on various aspects of the date and time or if the technical problem you accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 quality of the Technology and Media experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC Services for Individuals with system. time, except Saturdays, Sundays and Disabilities program. These measures Federal holidays. b. Submission of Paper Applications focus on the extent to which projects are Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of by Mail. of high quality, are relevant to the needs Paper Applications: If you mail or hand If you submit your application in of children with disabilities, and deliver your application to the paper format by mail (through the U.S. contribute to improving the results for Department: Postal Service or a commercial carrier), children with disabilities. Data on these (1) You must indicate on the envelope you must mail the original and two measures will be collected from the and—if not provided by the copies of your application, on or before projects funded under this competition. Department—in Item 11 of SF 424 the the application deadline date, to the Grantees also will be required to CFDA number—and suffix letter, if Department at the applicable following report information on their projects’ any—of the competition under which address: performance in annual reports to the you are submitting your application. Department (34 CFR 75.590). By mail through the U.S. Postal Service: (2) The Application Control Center U.S. Department of Education, will mail a grant application receipt VII. Agency Contact Application Control Center, acknowledgment to you. If you do not For Further Information Contact: Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327X), receive the grant application receipt Peggy Cvach or Jane Hauser, U.S. 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., acknowledgment within 15 business Department of Education, 400 Maryland Washington, DC 20202–4260; or days from the application deadline date, Avenue, SW., rooms 4060 and 4067, By mail through a commercial carrier: you should call the U.S. Department of respectively, Potomac Center Plaza, U.S. Department of Education, Education Application Control Center at Washington, DC 20202–2550. Application Control Center—Stop (202) 245–6288. Telephone: (202) 245–7314 and (202) 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 245–7373, respectively. 84.327X), 7100 Old Landover Road, V. Application Review Information If you use a telecommunications Landover, MD 20785–1506. Selection Criteria: The selection device for the deaf (TDD), you may call Regardless of which address you use, criteria for this competition are from 34 the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– you must show proof of mailing CFR 75.210 and are listed in the 800–877–8339. consisting of one of the following: application package. Individuals with disabilities may (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service obtain this document in an alternative postmark, VI. Award Administration Information format (e.g., Braille, large print, (2) A legible mail receipt with the 1. Award Notices: If your application audiotape, or computer diskette) on date of mailing stamped by the U.S. is successful, we notify your U.S. request by contacting the following Postal Service, Representative and U.S. Senators and office: The Grants and Contracts (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or send you a Grant Award Notification Services Team, U.S. Department of receipt from a commercial carrier, or (GAN). We may also notify you Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., (4) Any other proof of mailing informally. Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. If your application is not evaluated or 20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– Department of Education. not selected for funding, we notify you. 7363.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75958 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

VIII. Other Information DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Electronic Access to This Document: Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department Commission Commission published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document [Docket No. RP07–51–001] [Docket No. RP07–23–001] Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC; East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC; fedregister Notice of Compliance Filing Notice of Compliance Filing To use PDF you must have Adobe December 12, 2006. December 12, 2006. Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about Take notice that on December 8, 2006, Take notice that, on December 7, using PDF, call the U.S. Government Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– (DOMAC) tendered for filing as part of (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third DC, area at (202) 512–1530. Volume No. 1, Substitute Twenty- Revised Volume No. 1, the following Note: The official version of this document Second Revised Sheet No. 94, to become tariff sheets, with an effective date is the document published in the Federal effective as of December 1, 2006. November 18, 2006: Register. Free Internet access to the official Any person desiring to protest this Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 300 edition of the Federal Register and the Code Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 323 of Federal Regulations is available on GPO filing must file in accordance with Rule Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 324 Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 211 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR index.html Any person desiring to protest this 385.211). Protests to this filing will be filing must file in accordance with Rule Dated: December 13, 2006. considered by the Commission in 211 of the Commission’s Rules of John H. Hager, determining the appropriate action to be Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Assistant Secretary for Special Education taken, but will not serve to make 385.211). Protests to this filing will be and, Rehabilitative Services. protestants parties to the proceeding. considered by the Commission in [FR Doc. E6–21635 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Such protests must be filed in determining the appropriate action to be BILLING CODE 4000–01–P accordance with the provisions of taken, but will not serve to make Section 154.210 of the Commission’s protestants parties to the proceeding. regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone Such protests must be filed in DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY filing a protest must serve a copy of that accordance with the provisions of document on all the parties to the Section 154.210 of the Commission’s Federal Energy Regulatory proceeding. Commission regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone The Commission encourages filing a protest must serve a copy of that [Docket No. ER06–615–004] electronic submission of protests in lieu document on all the parties to the of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at proceeding. California Independent System http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to The Commission encourages Operator Corporation; Notice of file electronically should submit an electronic submission of protests in lieu Proposal for Allocating Resource original and 14 copies of the protest to Adequacy Import Capacity of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at the Federal Energy Regulatory http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to December 12, 2006. Commission, 888 First Street, NE., file electronically should submit an On December 11, 2006, the California Washington, DC. 20426. original and 14 copies of the protest to Independent System Operator This filing is accessible on-line at the Federal Energy Regulatory Corporation (CAISO) made an http://www.ferc.gov, using the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., informational filing regarding the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Washington, DC 20426. methodology for allocating resource review in the Commission’s Public This filing is accessible on-line at adequacy import capacity in the above- Reference Room in Washington, DC. http://www.ferc.gov, using the docketed proceeding. By this notice, the There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for date for filing comments on the CAISO’s Web site that enables subscribers to review in the Commission’s Public proposal, or for raising any additional receive e-mail notification when a Reference Room in Washington, DC. issues regarding the allocation of document is added to a subscribed There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the resource adequacy import capacity, is docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Web site that enables subscribers to up to and including January 2, 2007. Online service, please e-mail receive e-mail notification when a Comments on the CAISO’s proposal and [email protected], or call any additional issues raised will be document is added to a subscribed (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call docket(s). For assistance with any FERC discussed at a future technical (202) 502–8659. conference.1 Online service, please e-mail Magalie R. Salas, [email protected], or call Magalie R. Salas, (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Secretary. Secretary. (202) 502–8659. [FR Doc. E6–21549 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. E6–21551 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Magalie R. Salas, BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Secretary.

1 See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 116 FERC [FR Doc. E6–21555 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] ¶ 61,274, at P 1226 (2006). BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75959

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Copies of the full text of the Director’s In its application, Northern asserts Order are available from the that with the installation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Public Reference Room, proposed facilities, Northern will utilize Commission 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC an additional 12,100 Dth/day of 20426. The Order may also be viewed capacity created by the Palmyra [Docket No. ER07–195–000] on the Commission’s Web site at http:// Northern Expansion facilities and that www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. this peak day entitlement has been Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC; Notice Enter the docket number excluding the subscribed to by new customers. of Issuance of Order last three digits in the docket number Northern is requesting approval for December 12, 2006. filed to access the document. rolled-in rate treatment of the expansion Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC (Locust Comments, protests, and interventions costs. The facilities constitute part of the Ridge) filed an application for market- may be filed electronically via the second discrete stand-alone project based rate authority, with an internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR under the umbrella of the Northern 1 accompanying rate schedule. The 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions Lights expansion project. The proposed market-based rate schedule on the Commission’s Web site under the estimated capital cost for the facilities provides for the sale of energy, capacity ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. The Commission proposed herein is $885,000. and ancillary services at market-based strongly encourages electronic filings. Any questions regarding this rates. Locust Ridge also requested application should be directed to Magalie R. Salas, Michael T. Loeffler, Director, waivers of various Commission Secretary. regulations. In particular, Locust Ridge Certificates and Government Affairs for [FR Doc. E6–21552 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] requested that the Commission grant Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at (402) 398– of all future issuances of securities and 7103 or Donna Martens, Senior assumptions of liability by Locust Regulatory Analyst, at (402) 398–7138. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY There are two ways to become Ridge. involved in the Commission’s review of On December 12, 2006, pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory this project. First, any person wishing to delegated authority, the Director, Commission obtain legal status by becoming a party Division of Tariffs and Market to the proceedings for this project Development—West, granted the [Docket No.CP06–433–001] should, on or before the comment date requests for blanket approval under Part Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice stated below, file with the Federal 34. The Director’s order also stated that of Application Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 the Commission would publish a First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, separate notice in the Federal Register December 12, 2006. a motion to intervene in accordance establishing a period of time for the Take notice that on December 6, 2006, with the requirements of the filing of protests. Accordingly, any Northern Natural Gas Company Commission’s Rules of Practice and person desiring to be heard or to protest (Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) the blanket approvals of issuances of Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in Docket and the Regulations under the NGA (18 securities or assumptions of liability by No. CP06–433–001, an application CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party Locust Ridge should file a motion to pursuant to sections 7 of the Natural Gas status will be placed on the service list intervene or protest with the Federal Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the maintained by the Secretary of the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Commission’s Regulations, for Commission and will receive copies of First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, authorization to amend the all documents filed by the applicant and in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 authorization requested in Docket No. by all other parties. A party must submit of the Commission’s Rules of Practice CP06–433–000, filed August 29, 2006, 14 copies of filings made with the and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 in order to construct and operate two Commission and must mail a copy to (2004). new town border station (TBS) facilities, the applicant and to every other party in Notice is hereby given that the with appurtenances, to be located in the proceeding. Only parties to the deadline for filing motions to intervene Clay and Sioux Counties in Iowa, in proceeding can ask for court review of or protest is January 11, 2007. order to use the compression and Commission orders in the proceeding. Absent a request to be heard in resulting capacity created on Northern’s However, a person does not have to opposition by the deadline above, West Leg pipeline segment of its Market intervene in order to have comments Locust Ridge is authorized to issue Area facilities, all as more fully set forth considered. The second way to securities and assume obligations or in the application which is on file with participate is by filing with the liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, the Commission and open to public Secretary of the Commission, as soon as surety, or otherwise in respect of any inspection. This filing is accessible on- possible, an original and two copies of security of another person; provided line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the comments in support of or in opposition that such issuance or assumption is for ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for to this project. The Commission will some lawful object within the corporate review in the Commission’s Public consider these comments in purposes of Locust Ridge, compatible Reference Room in Washington, DC. determining the appropriate action to be with the public interest, and is There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the taken, but the filing of a comment alone reasonably necessary or appropriate for Web site that enables subscribers to such purposes. receive e-mail notification when a 1 Northern Lights is a multi-year commitment to The Commission reserves the right to document is added to a subscribed expand Northern’s Market Area capacity in require a further showing that neither docket(s). For assistance with any FERC response to its customer’s future requirements public nor private interests will be Online service, please e-mail through 2026. On June 23, 2006, Northern filed an application with the Commission under Docket No. adversely affected by continued [email protected], or call CP06–403–000 requesting authorization to approvals of Locust Ridge’s issuance of (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call construct, modify and operate facilities for the first securities or assumptions of liability. (202) 502–8659. discrete stand-alone Northern Lights project.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75960 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

will not serve to make the filer a party 374 to become effective January 8, 2007. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY to the proceeding. The Commission’s Northwest also tendered for filing a rules require that persons filing restated Rate Schedule TF–1 Federal Energy Regulatory comments in opposition to the project nonconforming service agreement. Commission provide copies of their protests only to Northwest states that the purpose of [Docket No. PR07–4–000] the party or parties directly involved in this filing is to (1) submit a restated non- the protest. PanEnergy Louisiana Intrastate, LLC; conforming Rate Schedule TF–1 service Persons who wish to comment only Notice of Petition for Rate Approval on the environmental review of this agreement for Commission acceptance project should submit an original and for filing, and (2) list the subject December 12, 2006. two copies of their comments to the agreement on the list of non-conforming Take notice that on December 1, 2006, Secretary of the Commission. service agreements in Northwest’s tariff. PanEnergy Louisiana Intrastate, LLC Environmental commentors will be Any person desiring to intervene or to (PanEnergy) filed a petition for rate placed on the Commission’s protest this filing must file in approval pursuant to section environmental mailing list, will receive accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission’s regulations. PanEnergy requests copies of the environmental documents, the Commission’s Rules of Practice and approval of a maximum system-wide and will be notified of meetings Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and rate for both firm and interruptible associated with the Commission’s 385.214). Protests will be considered by environmental review process. transportation of natural gas of $0.2617 the Commission in determining the per MMBtu plus actual compressor fuel Environmental commentors will not be appropriate action to be taken, but will required to serve copies of filed and lost-and-unaccounted-for gas not serve to make protestants parties to provided under Section 311(a)(2) of the documents on all other parties. the proceeding. Any person wishing to However, the non-party commentors Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. become a party must file a notice of Any person desiring to participate in will not receive copies of all documents intervention or motion to intervene, as this rate proceeding must file a motion filed by other parties or issued by the appropriate. Such notices, motions, or to intervene or to protest this filing must Commission (except for the mailing of file in accordance with Rules 211 and environmental documents issued by the protests must be filed in accordance 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Commission) and will not have the right with the provisions of Section 154.210 Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 to seek court review of the of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR and 385.214). Protests will be Commission’s final order. 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention considered by the Commission in Comments, protests and interventions or protest must serve a copy of that determining the appropriate action to be may be filed electronically via the document on the Applicant. Anyone taken, but will not serve to make Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR filing an intervention or protest on or protestants parties to the proceeding. 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions before the intervention or protest date Any person wishing to become a party on the Commission’s Web site under the need not serve motions to intervene or must file a notice of intervention or ‘‘e-Filing’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. protests on persons other than the motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Commission strongly encourages Applicant. Such notices, motions, or protests must intervenors to file electronically. The Commission encourages be filed on or before the date as Persons unable to file electronically electronic submission of protests and indicated below. Anyone filing an should submit an original and 14 copies interventions in lieu of paper using the intervention or protest must serve a of the protest or intervention to the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. copy of that document on the Applicant. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Persons unable to file electronically Anyone filing an intervention or protest 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC should submit an original and 14 copies on or before the intervention or protest 20426. date need not serve motions to intervene Comment Date: January 2, 2007. of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or protests on persons other than the Magalie R. Salas, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Applicant. Secretary. 20426. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and [FR Doc. E6–21550 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] This filing is accessible on-line at BILLING CODE 6717–01–P interventions in lieu of paper using the http://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Persons unable to file electronically DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY review in the Commission’s Public should submit an original and 14 copies Reference Room in Washington, DC. of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commission Web site that enables subscribers to 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC receive e-mail notification when a [Docket No. RP07–102–000] 20426. document is added to a subscribed This filing is accessible on-line at Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice docket(s). For assistance with any FERC http://www.ferc.gov, using the of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Online service, please e-mail ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Tariff and Filing of Non-Conforming [email protected], or call review in the Commission’s Public Service Agreement (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Reference Room in Washington, DC. (202) 502–8659. There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the December 12, 2006. Web site that enables subscribers to Take notice that on December 8, 2006, Magalie R. Salas, receive e-mail notification when a Northwest Pipeline Corporation Secretary. document is added to a subscribed (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of [FR Doc. E6–21554 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] docket(s). For assistance with any FERC its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Online service, please e-mail Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. [email protected], or call

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75961

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Docket Numbers: ER07–52–001. Any person desiring to intervene or to (202) 502–8659. Applicants: MidAmerican Energy protest in any of the above proceedings Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Company. must file in accordance with Rules 211 December 22, 2006. Description: MidAmerican Energy and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of submits a revised Attachment 1 which Magalie R. Salas, Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 consist of the clean version of the and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Secretary. Amended and Restated Electric [FR Doc. E6–21553 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] time on the specified comment date. It Interconnection Agreement. is not necessary to separately intervene BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Filed Date: 12/08/2006. Accession Number: 20061211–0070. again in a subdocket related to a Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time compliance filing if you have previously DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY on Friday, December 29, 2006. intervened in the same docket. Protests Docket Numbers: ER07–307–000. will be considered by the Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Applicants: Kentucky Utilities in determining the appropriate action to Commission Company. be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Combined Notice of Filings # 1 Description: Kentucky Utilities Company submits an amendment to a Anyone filing a motion to intervene or December 12, 2006. contract with the City of Nicholasville, protest must serve a copy of that Take notice that the Commission Kentucky, Rate Schedule 307. document on the Applicant. In reference received the following electric corporate Filed Date: 12/08/2006. to filings initiating a new proceeding, filings: Accession Number: 20061211–0063. interventions or protests submitted on Docket Numbers: EC06–165–000. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time or before the comment deadline need Applicants: Pinnacle West Capital on Friday, December 29, 2006. not be served on persons other than the Corporation; Pinnacle West Marketing & Docket Numbers: ER07–308–000. Applicant. Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Trading. The Commission encourages Description: Pinnacle West Capital Company. electronic submission of protests and Corp and Pinnacle West Marketing & Description: Kentucky Utilities interventions in lieu of paper, using the Trading Co, LLC submits a response to Company submits an amendment to a FERC Online links at http:// inquiry on its proposed accounting contract with Frankfort Electric and entries pursuant to the Commission’s Water Board of Frankfort, KY aka City www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 11/6/06 letter order. of Frankfort, FERC Rate Schedule 311. service, persons with Internet access Filed Date: 12/06/2006. Filed Date: 12/08/2006. who will eFile a document and/or be Accession Number: 20061212–0075. Accession Number: 20061211–0062. listed as a contact for an intervenor Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time must create and validate an on Wednesday, December 27, 2006. on Friday, December 29, 2006. eRegistration account using the Take notice that the Commission Docket Numbers: ER07–309–000. eRegistration link. Select the eFiling received the following electric rate Applicants: The Clark Fork and link to log on and submit the filings: Blackfoot, L.L.C. intervention or protests. Description: The Clark Fork and Docket Numbers: ER04–691–079. Persons unable to file electronically Blackfoot, LLC submits a notice of Applicants: Midwest ISO. should submit an original and 14 copies cancellation of its market-based rate Description: Midwest Independent of the intervention or protest to the tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Transmission System Operator, Inc. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, submits its Errata to the Compliance Volume 1. 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC Filing made on 11/27/06. Filed Date: 12/08/2006. Filed Date: 12/08/2006. Accession Number: 20061211–0061. 20426. Accession Number: 20061212–0063. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time The filings in the above proceedings Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 29, 2006. are accessible in the Commission’s on Friday, December 29, 2006. Docket Numbers: ER07–310–000. eLibrary system by clicking on the Docket Numbers: ER06–1177–002. Applicants: Carolina Power & Light appropriate link in the above list. They Applicants: PJM Interconnection, Company. are also available for review in the L.L.C. Description: Carolina Power & Light Commission’s Public Reference Room in Description: PJM Interconnection LLC Co. submits a Notice of Cancellation of Washington, DC. There is an submits revisions to its OATT pursuant Rate Schedule 138, Netting Agreement eSubscription link on the Web site that to the Commission’s 11/9/06 order. with AYP Energy, Inc. enables subscribers to receive e-mail Filed Date: 12/08/2006. Filed Date: 12/08/2006. notification when a document is added Accession Number: 20061211–0069. Accession Number: 20061211–0060. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time to a subscribed dockets(s). For on Friday, December 29, 2006. on Friday, December 29, 2006. assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail Docket Numbers: ER06–1549–001. Docket Numbers: ER07–311–000. Applicants: Duquesne Power and Applicants: Kentucky Utilities [email protected]. or call Light Company. Company (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Description: Duquesne Light Description: Kentucky Utilities Co (202) 502–8659. Company submits responses to the submits an amendment to a contract Magalie R. Salas, Commission Staff’s questions in the 11/ with the City of Bardstown, Kentucky, Secretary. 30/06 letter. Rate Schedule 302. Filed Date: 12/08/2006. Filed Date: 12/08/2006. [FR Doc. E6–21606 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Accession Number: 20061211–0058. Accession Number: 20061211–0059. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 29, 2006. on Friday, December 29, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75962 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Approximately 95 percent of the Initiative (‘‘Coosa River’’): Sierra Club v. original project analyzed in the FEIS is EPA, No. 1:06CV1523 (N.D. GA). On Federal Energy Regulatory relatively unchanged, with the December 20, 2005 and January 3, 2006, Commission exception of the 6-inch increase in Sierra Club, Coosa River, and the pipeline diameter. The tunnel Georgia Public Interest Research Group [Docket No. CP01–409–000] amendment would increase the pipeline petitioned EPA to object to certain Clean diameter for the modified project from Air Act Title V permit amendments Calypso U.S. Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice Of 24 inches to 30 inches and internally proposed by the Georgia Environmental Availability of the Environmental coat the pipeline to allow increased Protection Division for steam generating Assessment for the Proposed flow rates. Calypso does not propose to plants at Georgia Power’s (1) Bowen and Modifications to the Calypso Pipeline increase the certificated capacity Branch Steam-Electric Generating Project (832,000 dekatherms/day). The Plants, and (2) Hammond and Scherer December 12, 2006. maximum operating pressure (MOAP) Steam-Electric Generating Plants, all of The staff of the Federal Energy would remain 2,200 pounds per square which are in the State of Georgia. Regulatory Commission (FERC or inch (psig). Calypso indicates that the Subsequently, Sierra Club and Coosa Commission) and the Mineral pipeline would most likely be operated River filed suit, alleging that the Management Service (MMS) have at approximately 1530 psig. Administrator failed to perform his prepared this Environmental The EA has been placed in the public nondiscretionary duty to respond to the Assessment (EA) to discuss the files of the FERC and is available for petitions within sixty days of the date environmental impacts of the public inspection at: Federal Energy they were filed. Under the terms of Modifications to the Calypso Pipeline Regulatory Commission, Public today’s proposed consent decree, EPA Project proposed by Calypso U.S. Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., has agreed to respond to the petitions by Pipeline L.L.C. (Calypso) in the above Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) January 8, 2007, and Sierra Club and referenced docket. The proposed project 502–8371. Coosa River have agreed that if EPA is located in Broward County, Florida; Additional information about the does so, and after parties negotiate State Waters of Florida; and Federal project is available from the attorneys’ fees, they will move to dismiss their suit with prejudice. Waters of the United States. Commission’s Office of External Affairs, This EA has been prepared to comply at 1–866–208–FERC or on the FERC DATES: Written comments on the with the requirements of the National Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) proposed consent decree must be Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the using the eLibrary link. Click on the received by January 18, 2007. Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) eLibrary link, click on ‘‘General Search’’ ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, regulations for implementing NEPA and enter the docket number excluding identified by Docket ID number EPA– (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations the last three digits in the Docket HQ–OGC–2006–0972, online at [CFR], sections 1500–1508), and the Number field. Be sure you have selected www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred Commission’s regulations (18 CFR part an appropriate date range. For method); by e-mail to 380). The staff concludes that approval assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary [email protected]; mailed to EPA of this proposal would not constitute a helpline can be reached at 1–866–208– Docket Center, Environmental major Federal action significantly 3676, TTY (202) 502–8659 or Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, affecting the quality of the human [email protected]. The 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., environment. The EA also evaluates eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by alternatives to the proposal, including site also provides access to the texts of hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket system alternatives; major route formal documents issued by the Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 alternatives; and route variations. Commission, such as orders, notices, Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, The FERC prepared this EA to address and rulemakings. DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. the potential environmental impacts of Magalie R. Salas, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– the proposed modifications. The Secretary. ROM should be formatted in Word or original project was addressed by the [FR Doc. E6–21556 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Final Environmental Impact Statement ASCII file, avoiding the use of special BILLING CODE 6717–01–P for the Tractebel Calypso Pipeline characters and any form of encryption, Project (FEIS) issued on January 23, and may be mailed to the mailing address above. 2004. The modified project would use ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the same methodologies for deepwater AGENCY construction and onshore construction. Howard J. Hoffman, Air and Radiation However, the landfall portion of the [FRL–8258–6] Law Office (2344A), Office of General pipeline would be installed in a 3.2- Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection mile-long tunnel. The tunnel proposal Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., eliminates the need for two HDD Act Citizen Suit Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) segments, and 2,132 feet of open cut AGENCY: Environmental Protection 564–5582; fax number (202) 564–5603; trench in shallow marine waters, in Agency (EPA). e-mail address: [email protected]. addition to avoiding all impacts to John ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent U. Lloyd State Park. The tunnel Decree; request for public comment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: amendment would also incorporate minor route changes to accommodate SUMMARY: In accordance with section I. Additional Information about the the methodology. These minor route 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended Proposed Consent Decree changes would result in a slight (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is This proposed consent decree would decrease in the length of the landfall hereby given of a proposed consent resolve a deadline suit to require EPA to portion and thus the overall project decree, to address a deadline suit filed respond to two administrative petitions length. by Sierra Club and Coosa River Basin that EPA object to certain Title V permit

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75963

amendments proposed by the Georgia public docket, and to access those access’’ system, which means EPA will Environmental Protection Division for documents in the public docket that are not know your identity, e-mail address, the Bowen and Branch plants as well as available electronically. Once in the or other contact information unless you the Hammond and Scherer plants in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the provide it in the body of your comment. State of Georgia. Under the proposed appropriate docket identification In contrast to EPA’s electronic public decree, the parties would seek to stay number. docket, EPA’s electronic mail (e-mail) the pending litigation, and Sierra Club It is important to note that EPA’s system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ and Coosa River would agree to dismiss policy is that public comments, whether system. If you send an e-mail comment the lawsuit if the Administrator submitted electronically or in paper, directly to the Docket without going responds to the petitions by January 8, will be made available for public through www.regulations.gov, your e- 2007. The consent decree does not viewing online at www.regulations.gov mail address is automatically captured specify the type of response that the without change, unless the comment and included as part of the comment Administrator must make to the contains copyrighted material, CBI, or that is placed in the official public petitions. If the consent decree becomes other information whose disclosure is docket, and made available in EPA’s final and the Administrator responds to restricted by statute. Information electronic public docket. claimed as CBI and other information the petitions by January 8, 2007, and Dated: December 12, 2006. whose disclosure is restricted by statute after the parties negotiate attorneys’ Richard B. Ossias, fees, Sierra Club and Coosa River will is not included in the official public Associate General Counsel. dismiss the case. docket or in the electronic public For a period of thirty (30) days docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted [FR Doc. E6–21600 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] following the date of publication of this material, including copyrighted material BILLING CODE 6560–50–P notice, the Agency will receive written contained in a public comment, will not comments relating to the proposed be placed in EPA’s electronic public ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION consent decree from persons who were docket but will be available only in AGENCY not named as parties or interveners to printed, paper form in the official public the litigation in question. EPA or the docket. Although not all docket [EPA–HQ–ORD–2006–0978; FRL–8258–5] Department of Justice may withdraw or materials may be available withhold consent to the proposed electronically, you may still access any Board of Scientific Counselors Human consent decree if the comments disclose of the publicly available docket Health Mid-Cycle Subcommittee facts or considerations that indicate that materials through the EPA Docket Meetings—January 2007 Center. such consent is inappropriate, AGENCY: Environmental Protection improper, inadequate, or inconsistent B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Agency (EPA). with the requirements of the Act. Unless Comments? ACTION: Notice of two meetings. EPA or the Department of Justice You may submit comments as determines, based on any comment SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal provided in the ADDRESSES section. which may be submitted, that consent to Please ensure that your comments are Advisory Committee Act, Public Law the consent decree should be submitted within the specified comment 92–463, the Environmental Protection withdrawn, the terms of the decree will period. Comments received after the Agency, Office of Research and be affirmed. close of the comment period will be Development (ORD), gives notice of two meetings of the Board of Scientific II. Additional Information about marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to Counselors (BOSC) Human Health Mid- Commenting on the Proposed Consent consider these late comments. Cycle Subcommittee. Decree If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your DATES: The first meeting (a A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent name, mailing address, and an e-mail teleconference call) will be held on Decree? address or other contact information in Tuesday, January 9, 2007, from 1 p.m. The official public docket for this the body of your comment and with any to 3 p.m. The second meeting (face-to- action (identified by Docket ID No. disk or CD–ROM you submit. This face meeting) will be held on EPA–HQ–OGC–2006–0972) contains a ensures that you can be identified as the Wednesday, January 24, 2007, from 10 copy of the consent decree. The official submitter of the comment and allows a.m. to 3 p.m. All times noted are public docket is available for public EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot eastern time. The meetings may adjourn viewing at the Office of Environmental read your comment due to technical early if all business is finished. Requests Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA difficulties or needs further information for the draft agendas or for making oral Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, on the substance of your comment. Any presentations at the meetings will be 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., identifying or contact information accepted up to 1 business day before Washington, DC. The EPA Docket provided in the body of a comment will each meeting. Center Public Reading Room is open be included as part of the comment that ADDRESSES: The first meeting will be by from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday is placed in the official public docket, teleconference only—meeting rooms through Friday, excluding legal and made available in EPA’s electronic will not be used. Members of the public holidays. The telephone number for the public docket. If EPA cannot read your may obtain the call-in number and Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, comment due to technical difficulties access code for the teleconference and the telephone number for the OEI and cannot contact you for clarification, meeting from Virginia Houk, whose Docket is (202) 566–1752. EPA may not be able to consider your contact information is listed under the An electronic version of the public comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT docket is available through Use of the www.regulations.gov Web section of this notice. The second www.regulations.gov. You may use the site to submit comments to EPA meeting will be held at the Crowne www.regulations.gov to submit or view electronically is EPA’s preferred method Plaza Washington National Airport public comments, access the index for receiving comments. The electronic hotel, 1480 Crystal Drive, Arlington, listing of the contents of the official public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous Virginia 22202. Submit your comments,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75964 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– comment. Electronic files should avoid review, the revised Human Health ORD–2006–0978, by one of the the use of special characters, any form Multi-Year Plan, the development of following methods: of encryption, and be free of any defects performance metrics, and accountability • www.regulations.gov: Follow the or viruses. For additional information and risk management decisions. The online instructions for submitting about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA meetings are open to the public. comments. Docket Center homepage at http:// Information on Services for • E-mail: Send comments by www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Individuals with Disabilities: For electronic mail (e-mail) to: Docket: All documents in the docket information on access or services for [email protected], Attention Docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov individuals with disabilities, please ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2006–0978. index. contact Virginia Houk at (919) 541–2815 • Fax: Fax comments to: (202) 566– Although listed in the index, some or [email protected]. To request 0224, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– information is not publicly available, accommodation of a disability, please HQ–ORD–2006–0978. e.g., CBI or other information whose contact Virginia Houk, preferably at • Mail: Send comments by mail to: disclosure is restricted by statute. least 10 days prior to the meeting, to Board of Scientific Counselors, Human Certain other material, such as give EPA as much time as possible to Health Mid-Cycle Subcommittee copyrighted material, will be publicly process your request. Meeting—January 2007 Docket, available only in hard copy. Publicly Dated: December 13, 2006. Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania available docket materials are available Jeff Morris, Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, either electronically in Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Acting Director, Office of Science Policy. ORD–2006–0978. the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room [FR Doc. E6–21597 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] • Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., BILLING CODE 6560–50–P comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/ Washington, DC. The Public Reading DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID legal holidays. The telephone number CORPORATION No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2006–0978. for the Public Reading Room is (202) Agency Information Collection Note: this is not a mailing address. Such 566–1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566–1752. Activities: Submission for OMB deliveries are only accepted during the Review; Comment Request docket’s normal hours of operation, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The special arrangements should be made for Designated Federal Officer via mail at: AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance deliveries of boxed information. Virginia Houk, Mail Code B305–02, Corporation (FDIC). Instructions: Direct your comments to National Health and Environmental ACTION: Notice of information Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2006– Effects Research Laboratory, Office of collections to be submitted to OMB for 0978. EPA’s policy is that all comments Research and Development, review and approval under the received will be included in the public Environmental Protection Agency, 109 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. docket without change and may be TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle made available online at Park, NC 27711; via phone/voice mail SUMMARY: In accordance with www.regulations.gov, including any at: (919) 541–2815; via fax at: (919) 685– requirements of the Paperwork personal information provided, unless 3250; or via e-ail at: Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 the comment includes information [email protected]. et seq.), the FDIC hereby gives notice that it plans to submit to the Office of claimed to be Confidential Business SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information (CBI) or other information Management and Budget (OMB) a whose disclosure is restricted by statute. General Information request for OMB review and approval of Do not submit information that you Any member of the public interested the information collection system consider to be CBI or otherwise in receiving a draft BOSC agenda or described below. protected through www.regulations.gov making a presentation at the meetings DATES: Comments must be submitted on or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web may contact Virginia Houk, the or before January 18, 2007. site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, Designated Federal Officer, via any of ADDRESSES: Interested parties are which means EPA will not know your the contact methods listed in the ‘‘FOR invited to submit written comments to identity or contact information unless FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’’ section Steve Hanft, Paperwork Clearance you provide it in the body of your above. In general, each individual Officer, (202) 898–3907, Legal Division, comment. If you send an e-mail making an oral presentation will be Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, comment directly to EPA without going limited to a total of three minutes. 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC through www.regulations.gov, your e- Proposed agenda items for the first 20429. All comments should refer to the mail address will be automatically meeting (teleconference) include, but OMB control number. Comments may captured and included as part of the are not limited to: the objectives of the be hand-delivered to the guard station at comment that is placed in the public review, an overview of the Human the rear of the 17th Street Building docket and made available on the Health Research Program (HHRP), a (located on F Street), on business days Internet. If you submit an electronic summary of major changes in the HHRP between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. [FAX number comment, EPA recommends that you since 2005, an update on the Human (202) 898–8788]. include your name and other contact Health Multi-Year Plan, and research to A copy of the comments may also be information in the body of your evaluate the effectiveness of risk submitted to: OMB desk officer for the comment and with any disk or CD–ROM management decisions. Proposed FDIC, Office of Information and you submit. If EPA cannot read your agenda items for the second meeting Regulatory Affairs, Office of comment due to technical difficulties (face-to-face) include, but are not Management and Budget, New and cannot contact you for clarification, limited to: the HHRP’s response to Executive Office Building, Room 10235, EPA may not be able to consider your recommendations from its 2005 BOSC Washington, DC 20503.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75965

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Steve Hanft, at the address identified Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) above. Change in Bank Control Notices; (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank 225), and all other applicable statutes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Holding Companies and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the Proposal To Renew the Following The notificants listed below have assets or the ownership of, control of, or Currently Approved Collection of applied under the Change in Bank the power to vote shares of a bank or Information Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and bank holding company and all of the § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 banks and nonbanking companies Title: Occasional Qualitative Surveys. CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank owned by the bank holding company, OMB Number: 3064–0127. holding company. The factors that are including the companies listed below. Frequency of Response: On occasion. considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 The applications listed below, as well Affected Public: Financial U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). as other related filings required by the institutions, their customers, and The notices are available for Board, are available for immediate members of the public generally. immediate inspection at the Federal inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank Estimated Number of Respondents: Reserve Bank indicated. The notices indicated. The application also will be 8,500. also will be available for inspection at available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their persons may express their views in Total Annual Burden: 8,500 hours. views in writing to the Reserve Bank writing on the standards enumerated in General Description of Collection: indicated for that notice or to the offices the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the This collection involves the occasional of the Board of Governors. Comments proposal also involves the acquisition of use of qualitative surveys to gather must be received not later than January a nonbanking company, the review also anecdotal information about regulatory 3, 2007. includes whether the acquisition of the burden, bank customer satisfaction, A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act problems or successes in the bank (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise supervisory process (both safety-and- North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201- 2272: noted, nonbanking activities will be soundness and consumer related), and conducted throughout the United States. similar concerns. In general, these 1. The J.C. Gray Trust and Johnny C. Gray, as trustee, both of Artesia, New Additional information on all bank surveys would not involve more than Mexico, and The T.L. Chandler Trust holding companies may be obtained 500 respondents, would not require and Terry L. Chandler, as trustee, both from the National Information Center more than one hour per respondent, and of Carlsbad, New Mexico, to acquire website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. would be completely voluntary. It is not additional voting shares of First Artesia Unless otherwise noted, comments contemplated that more than ten such Bancshares, Inc., Artesia, New Mexico, regarding each of these applications surveys would be completed in any and indirectly acquire additional voting must be received at the Reserve Bank given year. shares of The First National Bank, indicated or the offices of the Board of Request for Comment Artesia, New Mexico. Governors not later than January 12, B. Federal Reserve Bank of San 2007. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Francisco (Tracy Basinger, Director, A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis this collection of information is Regional and Community Bank Group) (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs necessary for the proper performance of 101 Market Street, San Francisco, Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, the FDIC’s functions, including whether California 94105-1579: Missouri 63166-2034: the information has practical utility; (b) 1. Stuart J. Shelk, Jr; Linda S. Shelk, 1. First American Financial Holdings, the accuracy of the estimate of the Clark J. Shelk Trust UA; Anne Marie Shelk Trust UA; and John B. Shelk Trust Inc., Nashville, Tennessee; to become a burden of the information collection, bank holding company by acquiring 100 including the validity of the UA, all of Powell Butte, Oregon; to acquire additional voting shares of percent of the voting shares of Planters methodology and assumptions used; (c) Bank of Tennessee, Maury City, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Prineville Bancorporation, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting Tennessee. clarity of the information to be shares of Community First Bank, both of B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Prineville, Oregon. City (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice burden of the information collection on Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas respondents, including through the use City, Missouri 64198-0001: of automated collection techniques or System, December 13, 2006. other forms of information technology. Robert deV. Frierson, 1. Blue Valley Ban Corp., Overland Park, Kansas; to acquire 100 percent of All comments will become a matter of Deputy Secretary of the Board. the voting shares of Unison Bancorp, public record. [FR Doc. E6–21545 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–S Inc., Lenexa, Kansas, and thereby Dated at Washington, DC, this 13th day of indirectly acquire Western National December, 2006. Bank, Lenexa, Kansas. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Robert E. Feldman, System, December 13, 2006. Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Executive Secretary. Robert deV. Frierson, Mergers of Bank Holding Companies [FR Doc. E6–21569 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Deputy Secretary of the Board. BILLING CODE 6714–01–P The companies listed in this notice [FR Doc. E6–21546 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] have applied to the Board for approval, BILLING CODE 6210–01–S

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75966 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Notice of Proposals to Engage in Mergers of Bank Holding Companies Permissible Nonbanking Activities or Centers for Disease Control and to Acquire Companies that are Prevention The companies listed in this notice Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking [60Day–07–0527] have applied to the Board for approval, Activities pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Proposed Data Collections Submitted Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) The companies listed in this notice for Public Comment and (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part have given notice under section 4 of the Recommendations 225), and all other applicable statutes Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. In compliance with the requirement and regulations to become a bank 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the holding company and/or to acquire the CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for assets or the ownership of, control of, or acquire or control voting securities or opportunity for public comment on the power to vote shares of a bank or assets of a company, including the proposed data collection projects, the bank holding company and all of the companies listed below, that engages Centers for Disease Control and banks and nonbanking companies either directly or through a subsidiary or Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic owned by the bank holding company, other company, in a nonbanking activity summaries of proposed projects. To including the companies listed below. that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y request more information on the The applications listed below, as well (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has proposed projects or to obtain a copy of as other related filings required by the determined by Order to be closely the data collection plans and Board, are available for immediate related to banking and permissible for instruments, call 404–639–4766 or send inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank bank holding companies. Unless comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC indicated. The application also will be otherwise noted, these activities will be Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, available for inspection at the offices of conducted throughout the United States. 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, the Board of Governors. Interested Each notice is available for inspection GA 30333 or send an e-mail to persons may express their views in at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. [email protected]. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether writing on the standards enumerated in The notice also will be available for the proposed collection of information the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the inspection at the offices of the Board of is necessary for the proper performance proposal also involves the acquisition of Governors. Interested persons may of the functions of the agency, including a nonbanking company, the review also express their views in writing on the whether the information shall have includes whether the acquisition of the question whether the proposal complies practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the nonbanking company complies with the with the standards of section 4 of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act BHC Act. Additional information on all proposed collection of information; (c) (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise bank holding companies may be ways to enhance the quality, utility, and noted, nonbanking activities will be obtained from the National Information clarity of the information to be conducted throughout the United States. Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Additional information on all bank Unless otherwise noted, comments burden of the collection of information holding companies may be obtained regarding the applications must be on respondents, including through the from the National Information Center received at the Reserve Bank indicated use of automated collection techniques website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. or the offices of the Board of Governors or other forms of information Unless otherwise noted, comments not later than January 12, 2007. technology. Written comments should regarding each of these applications be received within 60 days of this A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago notice. must be received at the Reserve Bank (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice indicated or the offices of the Board of President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Proposed Project Governors not later than January 16, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: Human Exposure to Cyanobacterial 2007. 1. Heartland Bancorp, Inc., (blue-green algal) Toxins in Drinking A. Federal Reserve Bank of Bloomington, Illinois; to acquire 100 Water: Risk of Exposure to Microcystin Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice percent of the voting shares of First from Public Water Systems (OMB No. President) 701 East Byrd Street, Federal Bancshares, Colchester, Illinois, 0920–0527)-Extension-National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Richmond, Virginia 23261–4528: and thereby indirectly acquire First Centers for Disease Control and 1. Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc., Olney, Federal Bank, Colchester, Illinois, and Prevention (CDC). Maryland; to acquire 100 percent of the engage in operating a savings and loan voting shares of Potomac Bank of association, pursuant to section Background and Brief Description Virginia, Fairfax, Virginia. 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) can Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve be found in terrestrial, fresh, brackish, or marine water environments. Some System, December 14, 2006. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve species of cyanobacteria produce toxins Robert deV. Frierson, System, December 13, 2006. that may cause acute or chronic Deputy Secretary of the Board. Robert deV. Frierson, illnesses (including neurotoxicity, [FR Doc. E6–21598 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Deputy Secretary of the Board. hepatotoxicity, and skin irritation) in BILLING CODE 6210–01–S [FR Doc. E6–21547 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] humans and animals (including other BILLING CODE 6210–01–S mammals, fish, and birds). A number of human health effects, including gastroenteritis, respiratory effects, skin

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75967

irritations, allergic responses, and liver source is groundwater that is not study). We will evaluate whether we damage, are associated with the contaminated with cyanobacteria. This can (1) Detect low levels of microcystins ingestion of or contact with water population will serve as our referent (<10 ng/ml of blood), in the blood of containing cyanobacterial blooms. population for the analysis of people who are exposed to very low Although the balance of evidence, in microcystins in blood and for the levels of this toxin in their drinking conjunction with data from laboratory clinical assays. We will administer a water and (2) Utilize clinical endpoints animal research, suggests that questionnaire and collect blood samples such as blood liver enzyme levels as cyanobacterial toxins are responsible for from all study participants. Blood biomarkers of exposure and biological a range of human health effects, there samples will be analyzed using a newly effect, and (3) Compare the analytical have been few epidemiologic studies of developed molecular assay for levels of results for the exposed population with this association. the results from the referent population. CDC plans to recruit 100 people microcystins, the hepatotoxin produced whose tap water comes from a source by Micocystis aeruginosa. We also will CDC is working with a group of utility with a current cyanobaterial bloom (i.e., analyze blood samples for levels of liver companies that are interested in the M. aeruginosa) and who report drinking enzymes (a biological marker of project and plan to discuss unfiltered tap water. We also plan to hepatotoxicity) and for a number of implementation logistics early in 2007. recruit 100 people who report drinking clinical parameters including hepatitis There are no costs to respondents except unfiltered tap water but whose tap water infection (a potential confounder in our their time to participate in the survey.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Average bur- No. of re- No. of re- den per re- Total Burden Respondents spondents sponses per sponse (in hours) respondent (in hours)

Telephone Contact ...... 300 1 10/60 50 Interview ...... 200 1 1 200 Blood Samples Collection ...... 200 1 20/60 67 Tap Water Sample Collection ...... 200 1 30/60 100 Total ...... 417

Dated: December 13, 2006. information collections. Through the OMB No.: 0970–0161. Joan F. Karr, publication of this document, CMS is Description: The Tax Refund Offset Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for retracting the portion of that notice and Administrative Offset Programs Disease Control and Prevention. requesting public comment on the collect past-due child support by Information Collection Requirement [FR Doc. E6–21584 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] intercepting certain Federal payments, titled ‘‘Medicaid Drug Program Monthly BILLING CODE 4163–18–P including Federal tax refunds, of Quarterly Drug Reporting Format’’, form number CMS–367 (OMB # 0938–0578). parents who have been ordered to pay child support and who are behind in DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Dated: December 12, 2006. HUMAN SERVICES paying the debt. The program is a Michelle Shortt, cooperative effort among the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Director, Regulations Development Group, Department of Treasury’s Financial Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Management Service (FMS), the Federal Services Affairs. Office of Child Support Enforcement [Document Identifier: CMS–367] [FR Doc. 06–9786 Filed 12–15–06; 1:45 pm] (OCSE), and State Child Support BILLING CODE 4120–01–P Agency Information Collection Enforcement (CSE) agencies. The Activities: Submission for OMB Passport Denial program reports non- Review; Comment Request; Partial DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND custodial parents who owe arrears above Retraction HUMAN SERVICES a threshold to the Department of State (DOS), which will then deny passports ACTION: Notice, partial retraction Administration for Children and to these individuals. On an ongoing Families basis, CSE agencies submit to OCSE the SUMMARY: On Friday, November 24, names, Social Security numbers (SSNs), 2006 (71 FR 67873), the Centers of Proposed Information Collection and the amount(s) of past-due child Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Activity; Comment Request published a Notice document titled support of people who are delinquent in ‘‘Agency Information Collection Proposed Projects making child support payments. Activities; Proposed Collection; Title: Federal Tax Offset, Respondents: State IV–D Agencies. Comment Request’’. That notice invited Administrative Offset, and Passport public comments on three separate Denial Program.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Number of re- Average bur- Instrument Number of re- sponses per den hours per Total burden spondents respondent response hours

Input Record ...... 54 52 .3 842

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75968 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES—Continued

Number of re- Average bur- Instrument Number of re- sponses per den hours per Total burden spondents respondent response hours

Output Record ...... 54 52 .46 1,292 Payment File ...... 54 26 .27 379 Certification Letter ...... 54 1 .4 22 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,535.

In compliance with the requirements DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND performance measures that grantees can of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the HUMAN SERVICES use to evaluate the effectiveness of their Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the services programs and monitor their Administration for Children and Health Resources and Services progress through the use of performance Families is soliciting public comment Administration reporting data. As required by the on the specific aspects of the Government Performance and Review Agency Information Collection information collection described above. Act of 1993 (GPRA), all Federal agencies Activities: Proposed Collection: must develop strategic plans describing Copies of the proposed collection of Comment Request information can be obtained and their overall goal and objectives. The comments may be forwarded by writing In compliance with the requirement Office for the Advancement of to the Administration for Children and for opportunity for public comment on Telehealth (OAT) has worked with its Families, Office of Administration, proposed data collection projects grantees to develop performance measures to be used to evaluate and Office of Information Services, 370 (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United monitor the progress of the grantees. L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Grantee goals are to: Improve access to DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance needed services; reduce rural Officer. E-mail address: Public Law 104–13), the Health Resources and Services Administration practitioner isolation; improve health [email protected]. All requests system productivity and efficiency; and should be identified by the title of the (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed improve patient outcomes. In each of information collection. for submission to the Office of these categories, specific indicators The Department specifically requests Management and Budget (OMB) under were designed to be reported through a comments on: (a) Whether the proposed the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. performance monitoring Web site. collection of information is necessary To request more information on the The Program Assessment Response for the proper performance of the proposed project or to obtain a copy of Tool (PART) is the newest instrument functions of the agency, including the data collection plans and draft created for use by Federal agencies. The whether the information shall have instruments, call the HRSA Reports Office of Management and Budget practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Clearance Officer on (301) 443–1129. (OMB) uses the PART to assess Federal agency’s estimate of the burden of the Comments are invited on: (a) Whether programs. The PART is a series of proposed collection of information; (c) the proposed collection of information diagnostic questions used to assess and the quality, utility, and clarity of the is necessary for the proper performance evaluate programs across a set of information to be collected; and (d) of the functions of the agency, including performance-related criteria, including ways to minimize the burden of the whether the information shall have program design and purpose, strategic planning, program management, and collection of information on practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the results. PART results are used to inform respondents, including through the use agency’s estimated of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the budget process and improve of automated collection techniques or program management. OAT’s Telehealth other forms of information technology. ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be Network Grant Program has been Consideration will be given to collected; and (d) ways to minimize the undergoing a PART assessment this comments and suggestions submitted burden of the collection of information year. Thus, in addition to responding to within 60 days of this publication. on respondents, including through the the GPRA initiative, OAT now has the Dated: December 12, 2006. use of automated collection techniques added responsibility of responding to Robert Sargis, or other forms of information the PART assessment of its Telehealth Network Grant Program. The proposed Reports Clearance Officer. technology. performance measures will provide [FR Doc. 06–9766 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Proposed Project: OAT Telehealth performance data that will address the BILLING CODE 4184–01–M Outcome Measures Development and PART assessment, monitor progress, Analysis: New and evaluate program effectiveness. The Office for the Advancement of The estimates of burden are as Telehealth (OAT) has created a set of follows:

Number of Responses per Total burden Form respondents respondent Total responses Hour burden hours

Performance Measurement Tool ...... 667 2 1,334 7 9,338

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75969

Send comments to Susan G. Queen, under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance DATES: Effective Date: December 11, Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 2006. Room 10–33 Parklawn Building, 5600 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Stafford Act is later warranted, Federal Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Written comments should be received funding under that program will also be Emergency Management Agency, within 60 days of this notice. limited to 75 percent of the total eligible Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Dated: December 12, 2006. costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice Caroline Lewis, allowable under the Stafford Act. of a major disaster declaration for the Acting Associate Administrator for State of Louisiana is hereby amended to Administration and Financial Management. The Federal Emergency Management include the following area among those [FR Doc. E6–21641 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that areas determined to have been adversely pursuant to the authority vested in the BILLING CODE 4165–15–P affected by the catastrophe declared a Director, under Executive Order 12148, major disaster by the President in his as amended, William M. Lokey, of declaration of November 2, 2006: FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Coordinating Officer for this declared The parish of Natchitoches for Public SECURITY disaster. Assistance, including direct Federal I do hereby determine the following assistance, if warranted as determined by Federal Emergency Management FEMA (already designated for Individual areas of the State of Alaska to have been Agency Assistance). affected adversely by this declared (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic [FEMA–1669–DR] major disaster: Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Chugach Regional Educational Attendance for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Alaska; Major Disaster and Related Area, Copper River Regional Educational Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Determinations Attendance Area, and the Kenai Peninsula Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Borough for Public Assistance. Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services AGENCY: Federal Emergency All boroughs and Regional Educational Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Management Agency, DHS. Attendance Areas in the State of Alaska are Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management ACTION: Notice. eligible to apply for assistance under the Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and SUMMARY: This is a notice of the (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Households Disaster Housing Operations; Presidential declaration of a major Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used 97.050 Individuals and Households disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA– for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public 1669–DR), dated December 8, 2006, and Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation related determinations. Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Grant Program.) Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services DATES: Effective Date: December 8, 2006. Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment R. David Paulison, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Management and Director of FEMA. Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Emergency Management Agency, [FR Doc. E6–21578 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households BILLING CODE 9110–10–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public hereby given that, in a letter dated Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation December 8, 2006, the President Grant Program.) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND declared a major disaster under the SECURITY authority of the Robert T. Stafford R. David Paulison, Disaster Relief and Emergency Under Secretary for Federal Emergency U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 Management and Director of FEMA. Services (the Stafford Act), as follows: [FR Doc. E6–21575 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Agency Information Collection BILLING CODE 9110–10–P I have determined that the damage in Activities: Revision of an Existing certain areas of the State of Alaska resulting Information Collection; Comment from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and Request mudslides during the period of October 8–13, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude SECURITY ACTION: to warrant a major disaster declaration under 30-Day Notice of Information the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Federal Emergency Management Collection Under Review: Interagency Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121– Agency Alien Witness and Informant Record; 5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare Form I–854; OMB Control No. 1615– [FEMA–1668–DR] that such a major disaster exists in the State 0046. of Alaska. In order to provide Federal assistance, you Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice The Department of Homeland are hereby authorized to allocate from funds of a Major Disaster Declaration Security, U.S. Citizenship and available for these purposes such amounts as AGENCY: Federal Emergency Immigration Services (USCIS) has you find necessary for Federal disaster Management Agency, DHS. submitted the following information assistance and administrative expenses. ACTION: Notice. collection request to the Office of You are authorized to provide Public Management and Budget (OMB) for Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard SUMMARY: Mitigation throughout the State, and any This notice amends the notice review and clearance in accordance other forms of assistance under the Stafford of a major disaster declaration for the with the Paperwork Reduction Act of Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent State of Louisiana (FEMA–1668–DR), 1995. The information collection was with the requirement that Federal assistance dated November 2, 2006, and related previously published in the Federal be supplemental, any Federal funds provided determinations. Register on October 13, 2006, at 71 FR

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75970 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

60557, allowing for a 60-day public sponsoring the collection: Form I–854. floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC comment period. USCIS did not receive U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 20529. Comments may also be any comments for this information Services. submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202– collection. (4) Affected public who will be asked 272–8352, or via e-mail at The purpose of this notice is to allow or required to respond, as well as a brief [email protected]. When submitting an additional 30 days for public abstract: Primary: Individuals and comments by email add the OMB comments. Comments are encouraged Households. This information collection Control Number 1615–0014 in the and will be accepted until January 18, is used by law enforcement agencies to subject box. 2007. This process is conducted in bring alien witnesses and informants to Written comments and suggestions accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written the United States in ‘‘S’’ nonimmigrant from the public and affected agencies comments and/or suggestions regarding classification. concerning the collection of information the item(s) contained in this notice, (5) An estimate of the total number of should address one or more of the especially regarding the estimated respondents and the amount of time following four points: public burden and associated response estimated for an average respondent to (1) Evaluate whether the proposed time, should be directed to the respond: 125 responses at 4.25 hours collection of information is necessary Department of Homeland Security per response. for the proper performance of the (DHS), and to the Office of Management (6) An estimate of the total public functions of the agency, including and Budget (OMB) USCIS Desk Officer. burden (in hours) associated with the whether the information will have Comments may be submitted to: USCIS, collection: 531 annual burden hours. practical utility; Director, Regulatory Management If additional information is required (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Division, Clearance Office, 111 contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management agencies estimate of the burden of the Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, proposed collection of information, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, including the validity of the also be submitted to DHS via facsimile Telephone Number (202) 272–8377. methodology and assumptions used; to 202–272–8352 or via e-mail at Dated: December 13, 2006. (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be [email protected], and to the OMB USCIS Richard A. Sloan, collected; and Desk Officer via facsimile at 202–395– Director, Regulatory Management Division, 6974 or via e-mail at (4) Minimize the burden of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, collection of information on those who [email protected]. Department of Homeland Security. are to respond, including through the When submitting comments by e-mail [FR Doc. E6–21540 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] please make sure to add OMB Control use of appropriate automated, BILLING CODE 4410–10–P Number 1615–0046 in the subject box. electronic, mechanical, or other Written comments and suggestions from technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, the public and affected agencies should DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND e.g., permitting electronic submission of address one or more of the following SECURITY four points: responses. (1) Evaluate whether the collection of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Overview of this information information is necessary for the proper Services collection: performance of the functions of the (1) Type of Information Collection: agency, including whether the Agency Information Collection Extension of a currently approved information will have practical utility; Activities: Extension of a Currently information collection. (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Approved Information Collection; (2) Title of the Form/Collection: agency’s estimate of the burden of the Comment Request Affidavit of Support. collection of information, including the (3) Agency form number, if any, and validity of the methodology and ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information the applicable component of the assumptions used; Collection Under Review: Affidavit of Department of Homeland Security (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Support; Form I–134, OMB Control sponsoring the collection: Form I–134. clarity of the information to be Number 1615–0014. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration collected; and Services. (4) Minimize the burden of the The Department of Homeland (4) Affected public who will be asked collection of information on those who Security, U.S. Citizenship and or required to respond, as well as brief are to respond, including through the Immigration Services has submitted the abstract: Primary: Individuals or use of appropriate automated, following information collection request households. This information collection electronic, mechanical, or other for review and clearance in accordance is used to determine if an applicant for technological collection techniques, or with the Paperwork Reduction Act of an immigration benefit will become a other forms of information technology, 1995. The information collection is public charge if admitted to the United e.g., permitting electronic submission of published to obtain comments from the States. responses. public and affected agencies. Comments (5) An estimate of the total number of Overview of this information are encouraged and will be accepted for respondents and the amount of time collection: sixty days until February 20, 2007. estimated for an average respondent to (1) Type of Information Collection: Written comments and suggestions respond: 44,000 responses at 30 minutes Revision of an existing information regarding items contained in this notice, (.50) per response. collection. and especially with regard to the (6) An estimate of the total public (2) Title of the Form/Collection: estimated public burden and associated burden (in hours) associated with the Interagency Alien Witness and response time should be directed to the collection: 22,000 annual burden hours. Informant Record. Department of Homeland Security If you have additional comments, (3) Agency form number, if any, and (DHS), USCIS, Director, Regulatory suggestions, or need a copy of the the applicable component of the Management Division, Clearance Office, information collection instrument, Department of Homeland Security 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd please contact Richard A. Sloan,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75971

Director, Regulatory Management FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Current Testing Procedures Division, U.S. Citizenship and Lynn L. Thai, Department of Homeland Immigration Services, 111 Security, U.S. Citizenship and Currently USCIS District Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite Immigration Services, Office of Adjudications Officers (DAOs) examine 3008, Washington, DC 20529; Citizenship, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, an applicant’s English language skills Telephone 202–272–8377. NW., Room 5200, Washington, DC, and knowledge of U.S. history and 20529, telephone (202) 272–1721. government during the naturalization Dated: December 13, 2006. interview. DAOs generally test an Richard A. Sloan, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: applicant’s ability to understand the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Background English language while verifying that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the information on his or her Department of Homeland Security. Applicants for naturalization must, application for naturalization (Form N– [FR Doc. E6–21582 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] among other things, demonstrate an 400) is correct. The preferred manner of BILLING CODE 4410–10–P understanding of the English language testing an applicant’s reading ability by including an ability to speak, read, and asking the applicant to read up to three write, words in ordinary usage. 8 U.S.C. sentences out loud and they test the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 1423(a)(1); 8 CFR 312.1(c)(1)–(c)(2). applicant’s ability to write in English by SECURITY Another requirement is that applicants dictating from one to three English sentences to the applicant and having U.S. Citizenship and Immigration for naturalization must demonstrate a that applicant write in English what was Services knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and the dictated. Test content for the reading [CIS No. 2397–06; DHS Docket No. USCIS– principles and form of government in and writing portion of the test is taken 2006–0060] the United States. Under USCIS from either former INS textbooks regulations, an applicant for (United States History—1600 to 1987 RIN 1615–ZA42 naturalization may satisfy these (former INS publication M–289) and requirements by passing a citizenship U.S. Government Structure (former INS Proposed Revised Content for English, test. 8 U.S.C. 1423(a)(2); 8 CFR 312.2(c). publication M–291)), and from sample U.S. History and Government Test for Certain applicants who meet specific sentences in the Guide to Naturalization Naturalization Applicants age and length of residence thresholds (M–476), which is available on USCIS’ or who have a physical or Web site, http://www.uscis.gov. AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. developmental disability or mental DAOs test an applicant’s knowledge impairment may be exempt from the of U.S. history and government by ACTION: Notice. English and civics requirements. asking up to 10 fundamental civics SUMMARY: This notice announces that In 1997, the U.S. Commission on questions. For the U.S. history and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Immigration Reform (the Commission) government test, DAOs ask questions Services (USCIS) will be conducting a recommended that the former from either former INS textbooks or pilot of a redesigned naturalization test. Immigration and Naturalization Service from a list of 96 questions published on Applicants for naturalization must, (INS) 1 standardize the naturalization the USCIS Web site. Each office’s testing among other things, demonstrate an testing process. The Commission method may vary in terms of how the understanding of the English language, recommended that the naturalization test is prepared and administered, and a knowledge and understanding of the tests be revised to better determine if how the results are collected and fundamentals of the history, and the applicants have a meaningful evaluated. Test formats also vary among principles and form of government in knowledge of U.S. history and offices, even among offices that use the the United States. Currently the government and can communicate in same test methods. English. Also in 1997, the Department of naturalization testing process and test USCIS Plans To Revise the Tests and Justice (DOJ) began to reengineer the content vary in each USCIS district Testing Procedures office. USCIS plans to revise the naturalization process. With respect to naturalization testing process to ensure naturalization testing, DOJ determined USCIS has worked with community- that the naturalization testing process is that it should develop a more uniform based organizations and other uniform. Thus, a newly redesigned approach to testing, including standard stakeholders to help ensure that the new English reading and writing test, as well and meaningful test content, test and testing procedures are as the U.S. history and government test, standardized testing instruments and developed and implemented fairly and will be pilot tested in the following, protocols, standard scoring, and consistently. USCIS’ redesign project randomly selected sites: standard levels of passing. The former revises the English and U.S. history test Albany, New York sub-office; Boston, INS began to redesign the testing items, and the test administration Massachusetts, District Office; Kansas process, with a goal of developing a new procedures. City, Missouri, District Office; process that would be uniform, fair, and During the redesign process of the Charleston, South Carolina sub-office; El meaningful. The redesigned U.S. history and government test, USCIS Paso, Texas District Office; San Antonio, naturalization test USCIS plans to pilot considered multiple perspectives, Texas District Office; Miami, Florida is the culmination of test redesign including views of U.S. history District Office; Denver, Colorado District efforts resulting from the Commission’s professors and experts, USCIS officers, Office; Tucson, Arizona Sub-Office; and recommendations and work in this area and community-based organizations. It Yakima, Washington Sub-Office. Based since that time. also reviewed State and local history on the evaluation of the pilot, the final standards, adult learning standards, test will be implemented nationally 1 On March 1, 2003, INS transferred from the citizenship preparation courses, and the beginning in 2008. Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), pursuant to the current government authorized DATES: This notice is effective January 3, Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296). textbooks and other sound civics 2007. INS’ adjudication functions transferred to USCIS. curricula.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75972 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Based on this review, USCIS is test evaluation period is estimated to DATES: Comments Due Date: January 18, planning to retain the current U.S. last up to 4 months. USCIS plans to 2007. history and government test format of collect and evaluate test administration ADDRESSES: Interested persons are asking 10 questions. Applicants need to procedures, scoring rules and invited to submit comments regarding answer six questions correctly to pass. procedures, and training procedures. this proposal. Comments should refer to However USCIS intends to replace the This information will be gathered the proposal by name and/or OMB current trivia-based content of the through information collected on each approval Number (2502–NEW) and questions with questions that will test pilot testing situation, focus groups with should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, applicants on the fundamentals of DAOs who administer the pilot test as Office of Management and Budget, New American democracy such as the rule of well as through observations of Executive Office Building, Washington, law, separation of powers, and applicants taking the revised test. DC 20503; fax: 202–395–6974. unalienable rights. Making the test more Once all the information from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: meaningful will encourage civic pilot test is collected, evaluated, and Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports learning and patriotism. considered, USCIS will finalize a Management Officer, QDAM, While redesigning the content of the redesigned test. USCIS will produce Department of Housing and Urban English test, USCIS considered multiple study guides and work with Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., perspectives, including the views of community-based organizations to Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Teachers of English to Speakers of Other prepare applicants for the redesigned [email protected] or Languages (TESOL), selected English naturalization tests. telephone (202) 708–2374. This is not a experts knowledgeable on adult learning toll-free number. Copies of available standards (principally the National Paperwork Reduction Act documents submitted to OMB may be Reporting System (NRS) for adult Examinations designated to test the obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from education), USCIS officers, and aptitude, abilities, or knowledge of the HUD’s Web site at http:// community-based organizations. After person tested, and the collection of hlannwp031.hud.gov/po/i/icbts/ considering these perspectives, USCIS information and identification or collectionsearch.cfm. intends to continue the current format classification in connection with such for English testing. Applicants are asked examinations, are not considered SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This to read a question and write a dictated information collections under 5 CFR notice informs the public that the sentence. However, USCIS intends to 1320.3(h)(7). Department of Housing and Urban change the content of the dictation. Development has submitted to OMB a Dated: November 21, 2006. Applicants will no longer be tested on request for approval of the information everyday English sentences and phrases; Emilio T. Gonzalez, collection described below. This notice under the revised procedures, the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration is soliciting comments from members of content for the reading and writing Services. the public and affecting agencies questions will be structured on civics. [FR Doc. E6–21548 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] concerning the proposed collection of BILLING CODE 4410–10–P information to: (1) Evaluate whether the Pilot Test proposed collection of information is USCIS plans to conduct a pilot test in necessary for the proper performance of 10 randomly selected USCIS district and DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND the functions of the agency, including sub-offices, beginning in early 2007. The URBAN DEVELOPMENT whether the information will have pilot test will be given to approximately [Docket No. FR–5037–N–94] practical utility; (2) Evaluate the 5,000 applicant volunteers. During the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the pilot, all applicants at the 10 selected Notice of Submission of Proposed burden of the proposed collection of pilot sites will be asked whether they Information Collection to OMB; information; (3) Enhance the quality, want to participate in the pilot test, Housing Counseling Training Program utility, and clarity of the information to which will accompany the be collected; and (4) Minimize the naturalization interview. If the applicant AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information burden of the collection of information elects to take the pilot test and passes Officer, HUD. on those who are to respond; including it, the adjudications officer will note in ACTION: Notice. through the use of appropriate the file that the applicant has passed the automated collection techniques or reading, writing and civics test sections, SUMMARY: The proposed information other forms of information technology, and the current test will not be collection requirement described below e.g., permitting electronic submission of administered. Failure to pass the pilot has been submitted to the Office of responses. This notice also lists the test will not affect an applicant’s Management and Budget (OMB) for following information: eligibility of admission to citizenship. If review, as required by the Paperwork Title of Proposal: Housing Counseling the applicant elects to take the pilot test Reduction Act. The Department is Training Program. but fails the reading, writing and/or soliciting public comments on the OMB Approval Number: 2502–NEW. civics test section(s), the DAO will, subject proposal. Form Numbers: SF–424, SF–424Supp, without prejudice, administer the Nonprofit organizations submit HUD–424CB, SF–LLL, HUD–2880, corresponding current test section(s) in information to HUD through Grants.gov HUD–96010, HUD–2994–A. the same sitting. If the applicant fails a to apply for funding to develop and Description of the Need for the given section of the current implement an ongoing training program Information and Its Proposed Use: naturalization test, the applicant will be for housing counselors. HUD will use Nonprofit organizations submit allowed another opportunity within 60– the information to evaluate applicants information to HUD through Grants.gov 90 days to take the failed section(s) of competitively and then select one or to apply for funding to develop and the current test again. USCIS expects the more organizations to receive funding to implement an ongoing training program pilot test to take approximately 5 develop and implement the ongoing for housing counselors. HUD will use minutes to administer to each willing training program for housing the information to evaluate applicants applicant. The total length of the pilot counselors. competitively and then select one or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75973

more organizations to receive funding to training program for housing Frequency of Submission: Quarterly, develop and implement the ongoing counselors. Other NOFA is a one-time response.

Number of Annual × Hours per re- respondents responses sponse = Burden hours

Reporting Burden: ...... 4 2 16.37 131

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 131. Funding for this program has not been proposed collection of information is Status: New Collection. appropriated since fiscal year 2001, but necessary for the proper performance of Authority: Section 3507 of the quarterly and semi-annually reporting is the functions of the agency, including Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 still required until all grant funds are whether the information will have U.S.C. 35, as amended. expended. practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the Dated: December 13, 2006. DATES: Comments Due Date: January 18, burden of the proposed collection of Lillian L. Deitzer, 2007. Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act information; (3) Enhance the quality, ADDRESSES: Interested persons are Officer, Office of the Chief Information utility, and clarity of the information to Officer. invited to submit comments regarding be collected; and (4) Minimize the [FR Doc. E6–21560 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] this proposal. Comments should refer to burden of the collection of information the proposal by name and/or OMB BILLING CODE 4210–67–P on those who are to respond; including approval Number (2502–0520) and through the use of appropriate should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, automated collection techniques or DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Office of Management and Budget, New other forms of information technology, URBAN DEVELOPMENT Executive Office Building, Washington, e.g., permitting electronic submission of DC 20503; fax: 202–395–6974. [Docket No. FR–5037–N–92] responses. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This notice also lists the following Notice of Submission of Proposed Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports information: Information Collection to OMB; New Management Officer, QDAM, Title of Proposal: New Approach to Approach to the Anti-Drug Program Department of Housing and Urban the Anti-Drug Program. Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., OMB Approval Number: 2502–0520. AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Form Numbers: HUD–50080–SNGP, Officer, HUD. _ _ Lillian L. [email protected] or SF–269A. ACTION: Notice. telephone (202) 708–2374. This is not a Description of the Need for the toll-free number. Copies of available SUMMARY: The proposed information Information and Its Proposed Use: The documents submitted to OMB may be collection requirement described below New Approach to the Anti-Drug obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from has been submitted to the Office of Program (formerly known as the Safe HUD’s Web site at http:// Management and Budget (OMB) for Neighborhood Action Grant Program) hlannwp031.hud.gov/po/i/icbts/ review, as required by the Paperwork was authorized through yearly collectionsearch.cfm. Reduction Act. The Department is appropriations. Owners were eligible to soliciting public comments on the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This apply for grants to fund security and subject proposal. notice informs the public that the crime elimination activity in Federally The New Approach to the Anti-Drug Department of Housing and Urban assisted low-income housing projects. Program (formerly known as the Safe Development has submitted to OMB a Funding for this program has not been Neighborhood Action Grant Program) request for approval of the information appropriated since fiscal year 2001, but was authorized through yearly collection described below. This notice quarterly and semi-annually reporting is appropriations. Owners were eligible to is soliciting comments from members of still required until all grant funds are apply for grants to fund security and the public and affecting agencies expended. crime elimination activity in Federally concerning the proposed collection of Frequency of Submission: On assisted low-income housing projects. information to: (1) Evaluate whether the occasion, Quarterly, Semi-annually.

Number of Annual × Hours respondents responses per response = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...... 40 7 0.35 100

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 100. Dated: December 12, 2006. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Status: Extension of a currently Lillian L. Deitzer, URBAN DEVELOPMENT approved collection. Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information [Docket No. FR–5037–N–93] Authority: Section 3507 of the Officer. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 Notice of Submission of Proposed [FR Doc. E6–21561 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] U.S.C. 35, as amended. Information Collection to OMB; BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Eligibility of a Nonprofit Corporation/ Housing Consultant Certification

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75974 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

ACTION: Notice. Executive Office Building, Washington, on those who are to respond; including DC 20503; fax: 202–395–6974. through the use of appropriate SUMMARY: The proposed information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: automated collection techniques or collection requirement described below other forms of information technology, has been submitted to the Office of Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, e.g., permitting electronic submission of Management and Budget (OMB) for responses. review, as required by the Paperwork Department of Housing and Urban This notice also lists the following Reduction Act. The Department is Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail information: soliciting public comments on the _ _ subject proposal. Lillian L. [email protected] or Title Of Proposal: Eligibility of a Nonprofit organizations provide telephone (202) 708–2374. This is not a Nonprofit Corporation/Housing financial and other information so that toll-free number. Copies of available Consultant Certification. HUD can determine that the sponsor documents submitted to OMB may be OMB Approval Number: 2502–0057. and/or mortgagor is truly a nonprofit obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from Form Numbers: HUD–3433, HUD– and demonstrates probably success in HUD’s website at http:// 3434, HUD–3435, HUD–92531. project development and continuing hlannwp031.hud.gov/po/i/icbts/ Description Of The Need For The operation. A Housing Consultant hired collectionsearch.cfm Information And Its Proposed Use: by the nonprofit certifies to HUD that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Nonprofit organizations provide he/she has no other financial interest in notice informs the public that the financial and other information so that the project and has no conflict of Department of Housing and Urban HUD can determine that the sponsor interest. The general contractor, Development has submitted to OMB a and/or mortgagor is truly a nonprofit subcontractors, equipment lessees, request for approval of the information and demonstrates probably success in material and other suppliers, and collection described below. This notice project development and continuing management of the project certify to any is soliciting comments from members of operation. A Housing Consulting hired direct or indirect contractual the public and affecting agencies by the nonprofit certifies to HUD that relationship they have with the sponsor concerning the proposed collection of he/she has no other financial interest in or the mortgagor. HUD uses this information to: (1) Evaluate whether the the project and has no conflict of information to assure compliance with proposed collection of information is interest. The general contractor, regulations. necessary for the proper performance of subcontractors, equipment lessees, DATES: Comments Due Date: January 18, the functions of the agency, including material and other suppliers, and 2007. whether the information will have management of the project certify to any ADDRESSES: Interested persons are practical utility; (2) Evaluate the direct or indirect contractual invited to submit comments regarding accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the relationship they have with the sponsor this proposal. Comments should refer to burden of the proposed collection of or the mortgagor. HUD uses this the proposal by name and/or OMB information; (3) Enhance the quality, information to assure compliance with approval Number (2502–0057) and utility, and clarity of the information to regulations. should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, be collected; and (4) Minimize the Frequency of Submission: On Office of Management and Budget, New burden of the collection of information occasion.

Nunber of Annual × Hours per respondents responses response = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...... 290 1.10 0.44 143

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 143. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND the awardees and the amounts of the Status: Extension of a currently URBAN DEVELOPMENT awards made available by HUD. approved collection. [Docket No. FR–5030–FA–18] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Authority: Section 3507 of the Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 Announcement of Funding Awards for Housing Assistance and Grant the Assisted Living Conversion U.S.C. 35, as amended. Administration, 451 Seventh Street, Program Fiscal Year 2006 SW., Washington, DC 20410–8000; Dated: December 12, 2006. telephone (202) 708–3000 (this is not a AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Lillian L. Deitzer, toll-free number). Hearing- and speech- Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing impaired persons may access this Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Commissioner, HUD. Officer, Office of the Chief Information number via TTY by calling the Federal Officer. ACTION: Notice of funding awards. Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877– [FR Doc. E6–21562 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: In accordance with section 8339. For general information on this BILLING CODE 4210–667–P 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of and other HUD programs, visit the HUD Housing and Urban Development Web site at http://www.hud.gov. Reform Act of 1989, this announcement SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notifies the public of funding decisions Assisted Living Conversion Program is made by the Department in a authorized by Section 202(b) of the competition for funding under the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q- Super Notice of Funding Availability 2). The competition was announced in (SuperNOFA) for the Assisted Living the SuperNOFA published in the Conversion Program. This Federal Register on March 8, 2006 (71 announcement contains the names of FR 11988). Applications were rated and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75975

selected for funding on the basis of DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND selected for funding on the basis of selection criteria contained in that URBAN DEVELOPMENT selection criteria contained in that Notice. Notice. [Docket No. FR–5030–FA–22] The Catalog of Federal Domestic The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is Assistance number for this program is Announcement of Funding Awards for the Section 202 Supportive Housing 14.157. 14.314. The section 202 program is the for the Elderly Program, Fiscal Year The Assisted Living Conversion Department’s primary program for 2006 Program is designed to provide funds to providing affordable housing for the private nonprofit Owners to convert AGENCY: Office of the Assistant elderly that allows them to live their projects (that is, projects funded Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing independently with supportive services. under Section 202, Section 8 project- Commissioner, HUD. Under this program, HUD provides based [including Rural Housing ACTION: Notice of funding awards. funds to private non-profit organizations Services’ Section 515], Section 221(d)(3) to develop supportive housing for the BMIR, and Section 236) to assisted SUMMARY: In accordance with section elderly. Funds are also provided to living facilities. Grant funds are used to 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of subsidize the expenses to operate the convert the units and related space for Housing and Urban Development housing projects. the assisted living facility. Reform Act of 1989, this announcement A total of $511,952,100 was awarded notifies the public of funding decisions to 110 projects for 4,242 units A total of $7,849,336.00 was awarded made by the Department in a nationwide. In accordance with section to 6 projects for 64 units nationwide. In competition for funding under the 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of Super Notice of Funding Availability Housing and Urban Development the Department of Housing and Urban (SuperNOFA) for the section 202 Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Supportive Housing for the Elderly U.S.C. 3545), the Department is Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Program. This announcement contains publishing the grantees and amounts of Department is publishing the grantees the names of the awardees and the the awards in Appendix A of this and amounts of the awards in Appendix amounts of the awards made available document. A of this document. by HUD. Dated: December 1, 2006. Dated: December 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Montgomery, Brian Montgomery, Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Assistance and Grant Housing Commissioner. Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Administration, 451 Seventh Street, Housing Commissioner. SW., Washington, DC 20410–8000; A—Funding Awards for the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Appendix A—Fiscal Year 2006 ALCP telephone (202) 708–3000 (this is not a Program Fiscal Year 2006 Awardees toll-free number). Hearing- and speech- impaired persons may access this Alabama Welles Country Village, Ltd. number via TTY by calling the Federal Bayou La Batre, AL 46 Welles Rd Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877– Non-Profit Sponsor: VOA Southeast, Inc. Vernon, CT 06066 8339. For general information on this Capital Advance: $1,556,000 $1,059,106.00 and other HUD programs, visit the HUD Five-year rental subsidy: $174,900 Horace Bushnell Congregate Homes, Inc. Web site at http://www.hud.gov. Number of units: 20 51 Vine Street. Gadsden, AL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hartford, CT 06112 Non-Profit Sponsor: Baptist Health Services, Section 202 Supportive Housing for the $1,059,062.00 Inc. Elderly Program is authorized by section Capital Advance: $3,947,700 The Bernadine Apartments, Inc. 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 Five-year rental subsidy: $411,000 700 E. Brighton Avenue U.S.C. 1701q), as amended by section Number of units: 47 Syracuse, NY 13205 801 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Arizona $497,206.00 Affordable Housing Act (Pub. L. 101– Tucson, AZ Mercy-Douglas Human Services Residences 625; approved November 28, 1990); the Non-Profit Sponsor: Catholic Community Corp. Housing and Community Development Services of Southern Arizona, 4511 Walnut Street Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–550; approved Co-Sponsor: Tucson Housing Foundation, Philadelphia, PA 19139 October 28, 1992); the Recessions Act Inc. $2,043,664.00 (Pub. L. 104–19; enacted on July 27, Capital Advance: $4,678,100 Trent Center Apartments, Inc. 1995); the American Homeownership Five-year rental subsidy: $519,900 511 Greenwood Ave. and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 Number of units: 56 Trenton, NJ 08609 (Pub. L. 106–569; approved December Tucson, AZ $2,043,608.00 Non-Profit Sponsor: Chicanos Por La Causa, 27, 2000); the Department of Housing Inc. Christian Care Manor II, Inc. and Urban Development Appropriations Capital Advance: $4,678,100 11802 N. 19th Avenue Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109–115, approved Five-year rental subsidy: $352,800 Phoenix, AZ 85029 November 30, 2005); and the Number of units: 38 $1,146,690.00 governmentwide rescissions pursuant to Arkansas the Department of Defense TOTAL: $7,849,336.00 Jonesboro, AR [FR Doc. E6–21559 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109– Non-Profit Sponsor: St. Bernard’s Village, 148; approved December 30, 2005). The BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Inc. competition was announced in the Capital Advance: $1,417,300 SuperNOFA published in the Federal Five-year rental subsidy: $162,600 Register on March 8, 2006 (71 FR Number of units: 20 12009). Applications were rated and Jonesboro, AR

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75976 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Non-Profit Sponsor: St. Bernard’s Village, Five-year rental subsidy: $190,800 Lemont, IL Inc. Number of Units: 20 Non-Profit Sponsor: Cath Char Hsg Devl Capital Advance: $1,417,300 Connecticut Capital Advance: $10,919,300 Five-year rental subsidy: $162,600 Five-year rental subsidy: $921,300 Number of units: 20 Hartford, CT Number of Units: 81 Non-Profit Sponsor: Volunteers of America Pine Bluff, AR National Services Taylorville, IL Non-Profit Sponsor: First Trinity Church of Capital Advance: $3,129,600 Non-Profit Sponsor: Luth Soc Ser of Illinois God in Christ Five-year rental subsidy: $282,000 Capital Advance: $2,385,000 Capital Advance: $1,133,800 Number of Units: 23 Five-year rental subsidy: $261,600 Five-year rental subsidy: $130,200 Number of Units: 23 New Britain, CT Number of Units: 16 Non-Profit Sponsor: Mercy Housing, Inc. Indiana California Co-Sponsor: Daughters of Mary of the Marion, IN Immaculate Conception Clearlake Oaks, CA Non-Profit Sponsor: Community Capital Advance: $5,661,900 Non-Profit Sponsor: ESKATON Properties, Reinvestment foundation, Inc. Five-year rental subsidy: $538,200 Inc. Capital Advance: $1,733,800 Number of Units: 42 Capital Advance: $1,122,800 Five-year rental subsidy: $192,000 Five-year rental subsidy: $130,500 Delaware Number of Units: 19 Number of Units: 10 Dover, DE Merrillville, IN Hayward, CA Non-Profit Sponsor: Martin Luther Fnd of Non-Profit Sponsor: AHEPA National Non-Profit Sponsor: Eden Housing, Inc. Dover Housing Corporation Capital Advance: $8,117,500 Capital Advance: $4,313,800 Capital Advance: $5,081,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $505,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $991,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $418,200 Number of Units: 50 Number of Units: 60 Number of Units: 32 Montclair, CA Florida Iowa Non-Profit Sponsor: Southern California Miami, FL Marion, IA Housing Development Corp Non-Profit Sponsor: Archdiocese of Miami Non-Profit Sponsor: Marion Churches Senior Capital Advance: $10,604,000 Capital Advance: $11,309,200 Living Community Foundation Five-year rental subsidy: $1,231,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $769,800 Capital Advance: $2,696,100 Number of Units: 85 Number of Units: 84 Five-year rental subsidy: $175,200 Number of Units: 20 Petaluma, CA Miami Beach, FL Non-Profit Sponsor: Petaluma Ecumenical Non-Profit Sponsor: Miami Beach CDC Kansas Properties Capital Advance: $4,853,000 Wichita, KS Capital Advance: $6,095,400 Five-year rental subsidy: $333,900 Non-Profit Sponsor: Mennonite Hsg Five-year rental subsidy: $739,200 Number of Units: 36 Rehabilitation Srvcs, Inc. Number of Units: 45 Plant City, FL Capital Advance: $4,244,300 Riverside, CA Non-Profit Sponsor: Diocese of St. Petersburg Five-year rental subsidy: $546,300 Non-Profit Sponsor: TELACU Co-Sponsor: Catholic Charities Number of Units: 54 Capital Advance: $9,359,700 Capital Advance: $8,109,100 Kentucky Five-year rental subsidy: $1,084,800 Five-year rental subsidy: $557,100 Number of Units: 75 Number of Units: 68 Barbourville, KY Non-Profit Sponsor: KY Communities Roseville, CA Georgia Economic Opportunity Council Inc Non-Profit Sponsor: ESKATON Properties, Atlanta, GA Capital Advance: $1,734,400 Inc. Non-Profit Sponsor: Salem Baptist Church of Five-year rental subsidy: $189,900 Capital Advance: $5,818,100 Atlanta, Inc. Number of Units: 20 Five-year rental subsidy: $567,300 Capital Advance: $4,780,100 Number of Units: 49 Lexington, KY Five-year rental subsidy: $492,000 Non-Profit Sponsor: Christian Benevolent San Bernardino, CA Number of Units: 56 Outreach, Inc. Non-Profit Sponsor: TELACU Atlanta, GA Capital Advance: $3,810,900 Capital Advance: $11,226,200 Non-Profit Sponsor: Providence Missionary Five-year rental subsidy: $398,700 Five-year rental subsidy: $1,304,700 Baptist Ch Number of Units: 42 Number of Units: 90 Capital Advance: $3,929,800 Russellville, KY San Francisco, CA Five-year rental subsidy: $402,600 Non-Profit Sponsor: Baptist Homes Inc Non-Profit Sponsor: BRIDGE Housing Number of Units: 46 Capital Advance: $1,814,700 Corporation Valdosta, GA Five-year rental subsidy: $189,900 Capital Advance: $9,735,200 Non-Profit Sponsor: Valdosta Deliverance Number of Units: 20 Five-year rental subsidy: $1,192,800 Evangelistic Ctr Louisiana Number of Units: 72 Capital Advance: $2,438,200 Arcadia, LA Colorado Five-year rental subsidy: $268,500 Non-Profit Sponsor: Macon Ridge Comm Dev Longmont, CO Number of Units: 30 Corp Non-Profit Sponsor: Longmont Housing Illinois Capital Advance: $1,063,000 Development Corporation East St. Louis, IL Five-year rental subsidy: $113,700 Capital Advance: $5,884,200 Non-Profit Sponsor: Ascension Devl Number of Units: 14 Five-year rental subsidy: $492,300 Co-Sponsor: St Andrews Resources for Houma, LA Number of Units: 50 Seniors Non-Profit Sponsor: Terrebonne Council on Montrose, CO Capital Advance: $5,963,600 Aging, Inc. Non-Profit Sponsor: VOA Natl Ser Five-year rental subsidy: $602,700 Capital Advance: $3,980,800 Capital Advance: $3,358,400 Number of Units: 54 Five-year rental subsidy: $415,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $261,300 Freeport, IL Number of Units: 50 Number of Units: 27 Non-Profit Sponsor: Accessible Space Inc Iowa, LA Pagosa Springs, CO Capital Advance: $2,600,000 Non-Profit Sponsor: Calcasieu Council on Non-Profit Sponsor: Hsg Sol for the SW Five-year rental subsidy: $250,200 Aging Capital Advance: $2,515,600 Number of Units: 23 Capital Advance: $1,013,700

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75977

Five-year rental subsidy: $110,100 Capital Advance: $3,415,500 Five-year rental subsidy: $1,667,400 Number of Units: 14 Five-year rental subsidy: $340,800 Number of Units: 81 Opelousas, LA Number of Units: 32 Bronx, NY Non-Profit Sponsor: Diocese of Lafayette Missouri Non-Profit Sponsor: Fordham Bedford Housing Corp. Capital Advance: $1,105,200 Independence, MO Capital Advance: $10,355,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $110,100 Non-Profit Sponsor: Community of Christ Five-year rental subsidy: $1,709,100 Number of Units: 14 Capital Advance: $5,228,500 Number of Units: 83 Maryland Five-year rental subsidy: $546,300 Bronx, NY Chillum, MD Number of Units: 54 Non-Profit Sponsor: United Odd Fellow & Non-Profit Sponsor: Victory Housing Inc O’Fallon, MO Rebekah Home Capital Advance: $5,708,900 Non-Profit Sponsor: Cardinal Ritter Sr Svcs Capital Advance: $9,110,800 Five-year rental subsidy: $671,700 Capital Advance: $4,645,600 Five-year rental subsidy: $1,500,600 Number of Units: 60 Five-year rental subsidy: $434,700 Number of Units: 73 Odenton, MD Number of Units: 40 Henrietta, NY Non-Profit Sponsor: Associated Catholic Nebraska Non-Profit Sponsor: Urban League of Charities Papillion, NE Rochester Economic Dev Corp Capital Advance: $5,557,300 Non-Profit Sponsor: Immanuel Health Sys Capital Advance: $2,022,100 Five-year rental subsidy: $692,700 Capital Advance: $1,813,700 Five-year rental subsidy: $225,600 Number of Units: 63 Five-year rental subsidy: $185,700 Number of Units: 20 Massachusetts Number of Units: 20 Lewiston, NY Ayer, MA Nevada Non-Profit Sponsor: ITC Corporation Non-Profit Sponsor: Montachusetts Home Reno, NV Capital Advance: $2,563,400 Care Corporation Non-Profit Sponsor: Volunteers of America Five-year rental subsidy: $270,600 Capital Advance: $2,801,900 Nat’l Svcs Number of Units: 24 Five-year rental subsidy: $297,000 Capital Advance: $7,493,100 Lockport, NY Number of Units: 22 Five-year rental subsidy: $639,000 Non-Profit Sponsor: People Inc Franklin, MA Number of Units: 60 Capital Advance: $5,363,500 Non-Profit Sponsor: The Community Five-year rental subsidy: $552,300 New Hampshire Builders, Inc. Number of Units: 50 Co-Sponsor: Franklin Federated Church Pembroke, NH Project Location: Van Buren, NY Capital Advance: $6,662,500 Non-Profit Sponsor: CAP Belknap-Marrimack Non-Profit Sponsor: Loretto Management Five-year rental subsidy: $707,100 Counties Company Number of Units: 50 Capital Advance: $2,963,500 Capital Advance: $3,794,900 Roxbury, MA Five-year rental subsidy: $247,500 Five-year rental subsidy: $450,000 Non-Profit Sponsor: Action for Boston Number of Units: 23 Number of Units: 40 Community Development New Jersey North Carolina Capital Advance: $5,330,000 Leonia, NJ Red Springs, NC Five-year rental subsidy: $565,800 Non-Profit Sponsor: Leonia Retirement Hsg Number of Units: 40 Non-Profit Sponsor: St. Joseph’s of the Pines Corp Capital Advance: $3,053,900 Somerville, MA Capital Advance: $3,774,600 Five-year rental subsidy: $265,800 Non-Profit Sponsor: Visiting Nurse Five-year rental subsidy: $505,200 Number of Units: 29 Foundation, Inc. Number of Units: 28 Capital Advance: $4,130,800 Roxboro, NC Midland Park, NJ Non-Profit Sponsor: Metropolitan Housing & Five-year rental subsidy: $438,600 Non-Profit Sponsor: Cath Char of Number of Units: 31 CDC, Inc. Archdiocese of Newark Capital Advance: $3,032,300 Michigan Co-Sponsor: Domus Corp Five-year rental subsidy: $275,400 Detroit, MI Capital Advance: $10,813,700 Number of Units: 29 Five-year rental subsidy: $1,425,300 Non-Profit Sponsor: Presbyterian Villages of Ohio Michigan Number of Units: 80 Capital Advance: $5,175,900 New Mexico Cleveland, OH Non-Profit Sponsor: Kappa Alpha Psi Five-year rental subsidy: $509,700 Carlsbad, NM Number of Units: 46 Fraternity House of Cleve., OH Inc Non-Profit Sponsor: Eastern Plains Housing Capital Advance: $3,447,100 Detroit, MI Dev. Corp. Five-year rental subsidy: $408,000 Non-Profit Sponsor: Lutheran Social Services Capital Advance: $1,619,400 Number of Units: 37 of Michigan Five-year rental subsidy: $213,600 Capital Advance: $5,175,900 Number of Units: 24 Columbus, OH Five-year rental subsidy: $509,700 Non-Profit Sponsor: National Church New York Number of Units: 46 Residences Amsterdam, NY Capital Advance: $3,565,600 Minnesota Non-Profit Sponsor: Maranatha Human Five-year rental subsidy: $391,800 Albert Lea, MN Services Number of Units: 40 Non-Profit Sponsor: Accessible Space Capital Advance: $2,289,600 Frankfort, OH Capital Advance: $2,334,500 Five-year rental subsidy: $265,500 Non-Profit Sponsor: Housing Service Five-year rental subsidy: $242,100 Number of Units: 24 Alliance Number of Units: 23 Astoria, NY Co-Sponsor: Community Action Comm. of Mora, MN Non-Profit Sponsor: Hanac, INC. Fayette Co. Non-Profit Sponsor: Horizon Health Inc Capital Advance: $11,501,600 Capital Advance: $1,338,000 Co-Sponsor: Living Solutions Five-year rental subsidy: $1,938,300 Five-year rental subsidy: $150,900 Capital Advance: $2,231,000 Number of Units: 94 Number of Units: 15 Five-year rental subsidy: $242,100 Briarwood, NY Kettering, OH Number of Units: 23 Non-Profit Sponsor: The Silvercrest Center Non-Profit Sponsor: Franklin Foundation Wyoming, MN for Nursing and Rehab Capital Advance: $2,135,200 Non-Profit Sponsor: Ebenezer Society Capital Advance: $10,106,300 Five-year rental subsidy: $234,000

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75978 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Number of Units: 24 Capital Advance: $2,291,700 Number of Units: 14 Lebanon, OH Five-year rental subsidy: $240,300 Texas Non-Profit Sponsor: Warren County Number of Units: 17 Georgetown, TX Community Services, Inc. McKean, PA Non-Profit Sponsor: United Meth. Ch. Capital Advance: $2,768,700 Non-Profit Sponsor: HANDS Inc Wesleyan Home Five-year rental subsidy: $305,400 Capital Advance: $2,657,700 Number of Units: 30 Five-year rental subsidy: $225,600 Capital Advance: $1,753,000 Five-year rental subsidy: $200,400 Harbor, OH Number of Units: 22 Number of Units: 23 Non-Profit Sponsor: Lutheran Homes Society Philadelphia, PA Inc Non-Profit Sponsor: Haven Peniel Un Meth Houston, TX Capital Advance: $1,118,000 Ch Non-Profit Sponsor: Pilgrim Senior Citizens Five-year rental subsidy: $136,200 Co-Sponsor: No Co Conservancy, Inc Hsg Dev. Number of Units: 12 Capital Advance: $7,443,500 Capital Advance: $4,666,400 West Union, OH Five-year rental subsidy: $763,200 Five-year rental subsidy: $565,500 Non-Profit Sponsor: Adams-Brown Counties Number of Units: 55 Number of Units: 60 Economic Opp West Grove, PA La Porte, TX Capital Advance: $450,900 Non-Profit Sponsor: Luther Fnd of So Chester Non-Profit Sponsor: Methodist Retirement Five-year rental subsidy: $51,000 Co, Inc Communities Number of Units: 5 Capital Advance: $5,931,500 Capital Advance: $4,744,100 Willoughby, OH Five-year rental subsidy: $621,900 Five-year rental subsidy: $575,100 Non-Profit Sponsor: Lithuanian Center Inc Number of Units: 44 Number of Units: 61 Capital Advance: $3,899,000 Puerto Rico Odessa, TX Five-year rental subsidy: $453,600 Non-Profit Sponsor: Christian Church Homes Number of Units: 40 San Juan, PR of N. CA. Non-Profit Sponsor: Grace English Ev Luth Oklahoma Capital Advance: $2,162,100 Congregation Inc Five-year rental subsidy: $274,500 Antlers, OK Capital Advance: $2,893,300 Number of Units: 30 Non-Profit Sponsor: Little Dixie Community Five-year rental subsidy: $253,500 Action Agency, Inc. Number of Units: 29 Tyler, TX Non-Profit Sponsor: NE Texas Disciples Capital Advance: $1,189,300 Rhode Island Five-year rental subsidy: $135,300 Homes, Inc. Number of Units: 16 Portsmouth, RI Capital Advance: $4,036,300 Broken Arrow, OK Non-Profit Sponsor: Coastal Housing Five-year rental subsidy: $474,600 Non-Profit Sponsor: Volunteers of America of Corporation Number of Units: 51 Oklahoma, Inc. Capital Advance: $2,319,200 Vermont Capital Advance: $2,972,100 Five-year rental subsidy: $237,300 Number of Units: 18 Essex, VT Five-year rental subsidy: $333,300 Non-Profit Sponsor: Cathedral Square Number of Units: 38 South Carolina Corporation Durant, OK Columbia, SC Capital Advance: $5,392,200 Non-Profit Sponsor: Choctaw Hope Non-Profit Sponsor: AHEPA National Five-year rental subsidy: $431,400 Development Corporation Housing Corporation Number of Units: 40 Capital Advance: $1,204,600 Capital Advance: $4,726,500 Newport, VT Five-year rental subsidy: $135,300 Five-year rental subsidy: $375,900 Non-Profit Sponsor: Gilman Housing Trust, Number of Units: 16 Number of Units: 43 Inc. Hugo, OK Holly Hill, SC Capital Advance: $1,617,600 Non-Profit Sponsor: Choctaw Hope Non-Profit Sponsor: Orangeburg County Five-year rental subsidy: $129,600 Development Corp. Council on Aging Number of Units: 12 Capital Advance: $1,204,600 Capital Advance: $1,260,700 Virginia Five-year rental subsidy: $135,300 Five-year rental subsidy: $105,000 Number of Units: 16 Number of Units: 12 Dublin, VA Oregon Spartanburg, SC Non-Profit Sponsor: Metropolitan Housing Non-Profit Sponsor: Upstate Homeless and CDC, Inc. Lake Oswego, OR Capital Advance: $4,886,300 Non-Profit Sponsor: Northwest Housing Coalition of SC Capital Advance: $4,474,900 Five-year rental subsidy: $570,300 Alternatives, Inc Number of Units: 58 Co-Sponsor: Lake Grove Presbyterian Church Five-year rental subsidy: $375,900 Capital Advance: $4,688,800 Number of Units: 43 Washington Five-year rental subsidy: $432,600 Tennessee Lake Stevens, WA Number of Units: 45 Cleveland, TN Non-Profit Sponsor: Senior Services of Springfield, OR Non-Profit Sponsor: Douglas Cherokee Snohomish County Non-Profit Sponsor: St. Vincent de Paul Economic Authority, Inc. Capital Advance: $5,046,000 Society of Lane County Capital Advance: $1,704,700 Five-year rental subsidy: $444,000 Capital Advance: $5,181,800 Five-year rental subsidy: $174,900 Number of Units: 40 Five-year rental subsidy: $531,000 Number of Units: 20 Seattle, WA Number of Units: 55 Memphis, TN Non-Profit Sponsor: Low Income Housing Pennsylvania Non-Profit Sponsor: United Church Homes, Institute Capital Advance: $5,761,300 Jamestown, PA Inc. Five-year rental subsidy: $536,100 Non-Profit Sponsor: Luth Ser Soc of Western Capital Advance: $3,878,300 Number of Units: 50 PA Five-year rental subsidy: $384,600 Capital Advance: $3,149,800 Number of Units: 43 Wisconsin Five-year rental subsidy: $276,900 Sparta, TN Siren, WI Number of Units: 27 Non-Profit Sponsor: Douglas Cherokee Non-Profit Sponsor: Catholic Charities Lansford, PA Economic Authority Bureau Inc Non-Profit Sponsor: Cath Senior Hsg & Capital Advance: $1,130,800 Capital Advance: $1,442,400 Health Care Servs Inc Five-year rental subsidy: $117,900 Five-year rental subsidy: $144,300

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75979

Number of units: 14 The Catalog of Federal Domestic NHDC Tres Lomas, LP 10681 Foothill Blvd [FR Doc. E6–21558 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Assistance number for this program is Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 14.191. The Service Coordinators in Tres Lomas Apartments Multifamily Housing program allows $242,835 multifamily housing owners to assist Community Church Retirement Center #2 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 40 Camino Alto URBAN DEVELOPMENT elderly individuals and nonelderly Mill Valley, CA 94941 people with disabilities living in HUD- The Redwoors II [Docket No. FR–5030–FA–26] assisted housing and in the surrounding $147,543 area to obtain needed supportive Hudson Street Apartments Limited Announcement Of Funding Awards For services from the community, to enable Partnership The Service Coordinators In them to continue living as 55 Beattie Place Multifamily Housing Fiscal Year 2006 independently as possible in their Greenville, SC 29602 homes. Hudson Gardens AGENCY: Office of the Assistant A total of $12,105,849 was awarded to $123,640 Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 75 owners, serving 79 projects with Gardena Valley Cultural Institute Commissioner, HUD. 6,088 units nationwide. In accordance 16215 South Gramercy Place with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Gardena, CA 90247 ACTION: Notice of funding awards. Department of Housing and Urban JCI Gardens Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 $234,865 SUMMARY: In accordance with section Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Arvada House Preservation Limited 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Department is publishing the grantees Partnership Housing and Urban Development P. O. BOX 1089 and amounts of the awards in Appendix Reform Act of 1989, this announcement Greenville, SC 29602 A of this document. notifies the public of funding decisions Arvada House made by the Department in a Dated: December 1, 2006. $184,112 competition for funding under the Brian Montgomery, Francis Heights, Incorporated Super Notice of Funding Availability Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal 2626 Osceola (SuperNOFA) for the Service Housing Commissioner. Denver, CO 80212 Francis Heights Coordinators in Multifamily Housing Appendix A—Funding Awards For The $205,196 program. This announcement contains Service Coordinators In Multifamily First Baptist Housing Corporation the names of the awardees and the Housing 1130 Albany Avenue amounts of the awards made available Hartford, CT 06112 Fiscal Year 2006 by HUD. First Village Shelby Senior Housing, Incorporated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. $169,206 P.O. Box 830605 First Housing Corporation Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Birmingham, AL 35283 1132 Albany Ave. Housing Assistance and Grant Shelby Woods Apartments $89,513 Hartford, CT 06112 Administration, 451 Seventh Street, Christopher Homes of El Dorado, Second Village SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone Incorporated $169,206 (202) 708–3000 (this is not a toll-free 2417 North Tyler Little Rock, AR 72217 Schoolhouse Apts Incorporated number). Hearing- and speech-impaired 156 South Avenue persons may access this number via Christopher Homes of El Dorado $141,737 New Canaan, CT 06840 TTY by calling the Federal Relay School House Apartments Service toll-free at (800) 877–8339. For Our Way Partners, LP $156,173 10681 Foothill Blvd Suite 220 general information on this and other Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 New Neighborhoods, Incorporated HUD programs, visit the HUD Web site Our Way Apartments 40 Stillwater Avenue at http://www.hud.gov. $247,307 Stamford, CT 06902 Martin Luther King Apartments Christopher Homes of West Helena, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The $172,229 Incorporated Service Coordinators in Multifamily Welles Country Village, Limited Housing program is authorized by 2417 North Tyler Little Rock, AR 72217 2664–2 State Street Section 808 of the Cranston-Gonzalez Christopher Homes of West Helena Hamden, CT 06517 National Affordable Housing Act (Pub. $131,777 Welles Country Lane L. 101–625, approved November 28, Salvation Army Chula Vistas Res., $72,891 1990), as amended by sections 671, 674, Incorporated. Farmington Ecumenical & Elderly Housing 676, and 677 of the Housing and 180 E. Ocean Blvd. Corporation Community Development Act of 1992 Long Beach, CA 90802 300 Plainville Avenue (Pub. L. 102–550, approved October 28, Silvercrest—Chula-Vista Unionville, CT 06085 1992), and section 851 of the American $227,113 Westerleigh Homeownership and Economic Las Palmas Foundation, General Partner $142,726 Opportunity Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 531 Encintas Blvd., Suite 206 West Hartford Fellowship Housing, 569, approved December 27, 2000). The Encintas, CA 92024 Incorporated 759 Farmington Ave competition was announced in the Indio Gardens $278,100 West Hartford, CT 06119 SuperNOFA published in the Federal West Hartford Fellowship I Register on March 8, 2006 (71 FR Saint James Wilshire Found. Dba Saint James Manor $254,777 12001). Applications were reviewed and 3903 Wilshire Blvd. West Hartford Fellowship Housing III, selected for funding on the basis of Los Angeles, CA 90010 Incorporated. selection criteria contained in that Saint James Manor 20 Starkel Rd Notice. $234,865 West Hartford, CT 06117

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75980 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

West Hartford Fellowship III Wichita, KS 67207 415 Congress St Ste 204 $254,777 Vermont Towers Portland, ME 4101 Fannie E. Taylor Home for the Aged, $129,391 Cedar House Incorporated Hubbarston Elderly Housing, Incorporated $41,401 6601 Chester Avenue 205 School Street MAHLEP Housing, LP Jacksonville, FL 32217 Gardner, MA 1440 415 Congress Street Fannie E. Taylor Home for the Aged Hubbardston House Apartments Portland, ME 4101 $207,862 $241,670 Pelham Terrace Presbyterian Homes of South Florida, Inc. Coursey Stations Apartments, Incorporated $42,044 1200 Broad St. W. 320 Cathedral Street RESL Limited Partnership Lehigh Acres, FL 33936 Baltimore, MD 21201 415 Congress St Ste 204 Sunshine Villas Annex Coursey Station Apartments Portland, ME 4101 $147,403 $95,099 Rochester East Ashton Lenox, LLC Sharp-Leadenhall Associates $56,806 7000 Central Pkwy NE 55 Beattie Place Ballantyne House Associates Atlanta, GA 30328 Greenville, SC 29602 505 Mt. Prospect Ave Lenox Summit Sharp-Leadenhall I Newark, NJ 07104 $421,794 $200,613 Ballantyne House Wheat Street Towers LLC Harborview Housing Associates $128,923 PO Box 10522 P.O. Box 2388 Piotr Stadinski Gardens Incorporated Atlanta, GA 30310 Augusta, ME 4338 350 Essjay Rd Wheat Street Towers Harbor View Apartments Williamsville, NY 14221 $282,502 $93,600 Piotr Stadinski Gardens Elderwood Incorporated One Madison Avenue Associates $135,126 P.O. Box 1965 55 Beattie Place, 3rd Floor Lake Area Development Corp. (LADC) Waycross, GA 31502 Greenville, SC 29601 41 Lewis Street Elderwood Homes One Madison Avenue Geneva, NY 14456 $201,673 $87,375 The Seneca Apartments American Heritage Enterprises, LLC Cadillac Harbor View, LDHA LP $73,674 2715 Fair Ln 8111 Rockside Rd St. Simeon Second Mile Corporation Denison, IA 51442 Cleveland, OH 44125 700 Second Mile Drive Oakwood Manor Apartments Harbor View Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 $86,404 $129,867 Saint Simeon Apartments Sioux Falls Environmental Access National Church residences of Harper Wds $99,506 Incorporated MI Syracuse Senior Citizens Project Corporation 2101 W 41st St Ste 20 2335 N Bank Dr 821 E Brighton Ave Sioux Falls, SD 57105 Columbus, OH 43220 Syracuse, NY 13205 Kingston Apartments Park Place of Harper Woods Brighton Towers $86,992 $202,229 $167,047 Sioux Falls Environmental Access, Winterset Limited Dividend Housing National Church Residences of Balimore Incorporated Association LP Ohio 2101 W 41st St Ste 20 707 Sable Oaks Dr 2335 North Bank Drive Sioux Falls, SD 57105 Somerset Columbus, OH 43220 Century II Apartments $223,136 Walnut Creek Village $163,881 Arlington Leased Housing Associated, A MN $86,466 NWRECC Idaho Affordable Housing LP Community Development Properties Preservation LP 2355 Polaris Lane, Suite 100 Cleveland I, Incorporated 210 W. Mallard Drive Plymouth, MN 55447 51 East 42nd Street, Suite 300 Boise, ID 83706 Highland Commoms New York, NY 10017 Burrell Street Station $111,419 Rainbow Group $125,148 Cloquet Housing Associated, Ltd Partnership $312,125 Highlander Limited Liability Corporation 2355 Polaris Lane, Suite 100 Benchmark Winton House Associates, L.P. 3540 12TH ST Plymouth, MN 55447 4053 Maple Rd Lewiston, ID 83501 Larson Tower Amherst, NY 14226 The Highlander $117,169 Winton House $112,436 United Handicap Federation Apt Associates $182,781 Diversey Square Parkway/Associates 2355 Polaris Lane, Suite 100 National Church Residences of Northern 205 W Wacker Dr Ste 23 Plymouth, MN 55447 Columbus Chicago, IL 60606 2100 Bloomington Court 2335 N Bank Drive Diversey Square I $134,787 Columbus, OH 43220 $207,820 Housing Initiatives of New England Stygler Commons Walden Oaks Apartments Preservation, NFP Corporation $91,503 325 N. Wells Street, 8th floor 415 Congress St Ste 204 Gorsuch Management Chicago, IL 60610 Portland, ME 4101 603 W Wheeling St WALDEN OAKS Bagdad Wood Lancaster, OH 43130 $203,130 $54,674 Village Park East Cental Towers Limited Partnerships LH Housing—Hiniec, LLC $106,644 55 Beattie Place 415 Congress Street Hunterwood Park Ltd Greenville, SC 29601 Portland, ME 4101 603 W Wheeling St East Cental Towers Lane House Lancaster, OH 43130 $194,093 $58,685 Hunterwood Park Ltd Lawrence Senior Residences, L.P. Cedar House Senior Living Limited $179,813 7701 E Kellogg Partnership Lima Towers, A Limited Partnership

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75981

1170 Terminal Tower DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (3) To authorize and direct the United Cleveland, OH 44113 States to take legal title and hold such Lima Towers, A Limited Partnership Office of the Secretary title to certain lands in trust for the $183,379 benefit of the Zuni Indian Tribe; and Aimco Statement of Findings: Zuni Indian (4) To authorize the actions, 4582 S. Ulster Si. Parkway Suite 1100 Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of agreements, and appropriations as Denver, CO 80237–2632 2003 provided for in the Settlement White Cliffs Apartments AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior. Agreement and the Settlement Act. $182,685 In order for terms of the Settlement ACTION: Owensville Commons, Limited Notice of Statement of Findings Act and Settlement Agreement to be P.O. Box 190 in accordance with Public Law 108–34. effective, the Secretary is required to Lancaster, OH 43130 SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior make a statement of findings that certain Owensville Commons conditions have been met. $106,512 is causing this notice to be published as required by section 9 of the Zuni Indian Charleston Court, Limited Statement of Findings Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 603 West Wheeling Street As required by section 9 of the Lancaster, OH 43130 2003 (Settlement Act), Public Law 108– 34, 117 Stat. 782–98. The publication of Settlement Act and as required by Charleston Court, Ltd. section 3.1.L of the Settlement $108,373 this notice causes the waiver and release of certain claims to become effective as Agreement, I find as follows: Villa Park Ltd. required to implement the Settlement. 1. The Settlement Act has been 603 W Wheeling St enacted in a form approved by the Lancaster, OH 43130 DATES: In accordance with section 9 of parties in paragraph 3.1 of the Villa Park, Ltd. the Settlement Act, the waiver and Settlement Agreement. $183,105 release of claims described in section 2. The funds authorized by section Fish Creek Plaza, Limited 7(b) and 7(c) of the Settlement Act are 4(b) of the Settlement Act have been 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5400 effective on December 19, 2006. appropriated by the United States and Seattle, WA 98101 Contact: Address all comments and deposited into the Zuni Indian Tribe Lawrence Saltis Plaza requests for additional information to Water Rights Development Fund (Fund), $190,908 Christopher Banet, Chair, Zuni Indian established under section 6 of the National Church Residences of Wapkoneta, Tribe Water Rights Settlement Federal Settlement Act. Ohio Implementation Team, Department of 3. The State of Arizona has 2335 N. Bank Dr. the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, appropriated and deposited into the Columbus, OH 43220 Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian Fund the amount required by paragraph Wapakoneta Village School Road, NW., Albuquerque, NM 7.6 of the Settlement Agreement. $100,903 87104. (505) 563–3540. 4. The Tribe has waived the S J Strauss Lodge of B’Nai B’Rith Housing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, condition, as provided in paragraph 3.2 61 East Northhampton Street the United States established a of the Settlement Agreement, that it Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 reservation for the Zuni Indian Tribe purchase or acquire the rights to B’Nai B’Rith Apartments (Tribe) in northern Arizona, the Zuni purchase 2,350 acre-feet per annum of $166,420 Heaven Reservation, for longstanding surface water rights. United Housing Partnership-Morristown, Ltd. religious and sustenance activities. On 5. The Tribe has waived the 55 Beattie Place June 7, 2002, the Tribe and other parties condition, as provided in paragraph 3.2 Greeneville, SC 29602 entered into the Zuni Indian Tribe of the Settlement Agreement, that it Laurelwood Apartments Water Rights Settlement Agreement acquire conditional approval for $96,890 (Settlement Agreement), a negotiated severance and transfer of surface water Gunn Garden Apartments, A Limited settlement of the water rights for the rights that the Tribe owns or has the Partnership Zuni Heaven Reservation in the General right to purchase. 35 Union Avenue, Suite 200 Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water 6. Pursuant to subparagraph 3.1.E of Memphis, TN 38103 in the Little Colorado River System and the Settlement Agreement, the Tribe and Gunn Gasrden Apartments Source. The Settlement Agreement the Lyman Water Company have $131,979 resolves all of the Tribe’s water rights executed two separate agreements Knopp Enterprises, Incorporated claims in the Arizona portion of the relating to the process of severance and 22 Terry Court Little Colorado River Basin, assists the transfer of surface water rights acquired Staunton, VA 24401 Tribe in acquiring surface water rights by the Tribe or the United States and Plaza Apartments therein, provides for the Tribe’s use of relating to the pass-through, use, and $370,833 groundwater therefrom and provides for storage of the Tribe’s surface water Wisconsin Housing Preservation Corp. wetland restoration of a portion of the rights in Lyman Lake and the operation 2 E Mifflin St Ste 401 Tribe’s Arizona lands. of Lyman Dam. The United States and Madison, WI 53703 The purposes of the Settlement Act the Arizona Game and Fish Commission Chateau/Regency Apartments are: $162,281 were also signatories to the severance (1) To approve, ratify, and confirm the and transfer agreement, and both Senior Towers Associates Settlement Agreement entered into by agreements were made in consultation 6190 Canal Road the Tribe and the neighboring non- with the City of St. Johns, Arizona and Valley View, OH 44125 Indians; Senior Towers St. Johns Irrigation Company. The $216,282 (2) To authorize and direct the Lyman Water Company did not find it Secretary to execute and perform the necessary to amend any operating [FR Doc. E6–21557 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Settlement Agreement and related procedures or by-laws in furtherance of BILLING CODE 4210–67–P waivers; these agreements.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75982 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

7. Pursuant to subparagraph 3.1.F of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR whether the information will have the Settlement Agreement, all parties to practical utility; the Settlement Agreement have agreed Bureau of Land Management 2. The accuracy of our estimates of the and stipulated to certain Arizona Game information collection burden, and Fish Commission abstracts of water [WO–320–1990–FA–24 1A, OMB Control including the validity of the uses. Number 1004–0114] methodology and assumptions we use; 8. Pursuant to subparagraph 3.1.G of Information Collection Submitted to 3. Ways to enhance the quality, utility the Settlement Agreement, all parties to the Office of Management and Budget and clarity of the information we the Settlement Agreement have agreed Under the Paperwork Reduction Act collect; and to the location of an observation well 4. Ways to minimize the information and that well has been installed. The Bureau of Land Management collection burden on those who are to 9. Pursuant to subparagraph 3.1.H of (BLM) will send a request to extend the respond, including the use of the Settlement Agreement, the Tribe, current information collection to the appropriate automated, electronic, Apache County, Arizona and the State Office of Management and Budget mechanical, or other forms of of Arizona have executed an (OMB) under the provisions of the information technology. Intergovernmental Agreement that Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Title: Recordation of Location Notices satisfies all of the conditions in 3501 et seq.). On April 21, 2005, the and Annual Filings for Mining Claims, paragraph 6.2 of the Settlement BLM published a notice in the Federal Mill Sites, and Tunnel Sites; Payment of Agreement. Register (70 FR 20768) requesting Location and Maintenance Fees and comment on this information collection. Service Charges. (43 CFR part 3730, 10. The Tribe has acquired title to the The comment period ended on June 20, 3810, 3820, 3830–3838). section of land adjacent to Zuni Heaven 2005. The BLM did not receive any OMB Control Number: 1004–0114. Reservation described as Section 34, comments. You may obtain copies of the Bureau Form Number: 3830–2 and Township 14 North, Range 26 East, Gila collection of information and related 3830–3. and Salt River Base and Meridian. forms and explanatory material by Abstract: The Bureau of Land 11. The Settlement Agreement was contacting the BLM Information Management (BLM) collects and uses modified to the extent that it was in Collection Clearance Officer at the the information to determine whether or conflict with the Settlement Act and the telephone number listed below. not mining claimants have met statutory modification has been agreed to by all The OMB must respond to this requirements. Mining claimants must the parties to the Settlement Agreement. request within 60 days but may respond record location notices or certificates of 12. A court of competent jurisdiction after 30 days. For maximum mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel has approved the Settlement Agreement consideration your comments and sites with BLM within 90 days of their by a final judgment and decree. suggestions on the requirement should location. Claimants who do not pay the As authorized by section 4(a) of the be directed within 30 days to the Office maintenance fee must make an annual Act, I find as follows: of Management and Budget, Interior filing by December 30. The mining 1. Pursuant to subparagraph 3.1.J of Department Desk Officer (1004–0114), at claim or site is forfeited by operation of the Settlement Agreement, the OMB–OIRA via facsimile to (202) 395– law if claimants fail to record the Settlement Agreement, as amended, and 6566 or e-mail to mining claim or site or to submit an all exhibits requiring signatures have [email protected]. Please annual filing when required. been executed. provide a copy of your comments to the Frequency: Once for notices and As required by paragraph 6.2.B of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau certificates of location, notice of intent Settlement Agreement, I hereby certify of Land Management, Mail Stop 401LS, to locate mining claims, and payment of to the Governor of the State of Arizona 1849 C Street, NW., Attention: Bureau location fees. Once for annual filings, that all of the conditions precedent in Information Collection Clearance Officer payment of maintenance fees, or filing paragraph 6.2 have been satisfied. (WP–630), Washington, DC 20240. of waivers, and as needed for recording Nature of Comments: We specifically of amendments to a previously recorded Dated: December 8, 2006. request your comments on the notice or certificate of location or Dirk Kempthorne, following: transfer of interest. Secretary of the Interior. 1. Whether the collection of Description of Respondents: Private [FR Doc. 06–9756 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] information is necessary for the proper sector. BILLING CODE 4310–W7–M functioning of the BLM, including Estimated Completion Time:

Hours/re- 43 CFR citation Annual # of sponse Total hours Cost to public responses (minutes)

Form 3830–2 ...... 5,675 20 1,892 $51,075 Form 3830–3 ...... 271 25 113 2,710 3830 ...... 111,274 8 14,837 148,370 3832 ...... 1,800 8 240 2,400 3833 ...... 1,800 8 240 2,400 3834 ...... 1,800 8 240 2,400 3836 ...... 100,000 8 13,333 133,330 3837 ...... 1,800 8 240 2,400

Totals ...... 224,420 ...... 31,135 ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75983

Annual Responses: 224,420. sec. 18, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; threatened species. Copies of the Filing Fee Per Response: A $25 filing Cowboy surveys are available upon request. fee for Form 3830–3. T. 8 S., R. 23 E., SLM, Utah I. The following described 0.32-acre Annual Burden Hours: 31,135. sec. 36, N1⁄2NE1⁄4. parcel of Federal land, located in the Bureau Clearance Officer: (202) 452– T. 8 S., R. 24 E., SLM, Utah Drewry’s Bluff Unit of the Park, has 5033. sec. 31, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; been determined to be suitable for Dated: December 14, 2006. sec. 32, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4. disposal by exchange. Federal Tract 03– Ted R. Hudson, Independent 110 is located near Fort Darling Road in Bureau of Land Management, Acting Division Chesterfield County. It is a 0.32-acre T. 8 S., R. 23 E., SLM, Utah portion of a 23-acre tract acquired in Chief of Regulatory Affairs. sec. 33, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 1936 by the United States, National Park [FR Doc. 06–9764 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] sec. 34, S1⁄2SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4; Service by Deed Book 1179 at Page 843 BILLING CODE 4310–84–M T. 9 S., R. 23 E., SLM, Utah sec. 1, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; recorded at the Clerk’s Office of the sec. 2, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4; Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR sec. 3, lots 1 &2; Virginia. The parcel is a 30-foot wide sec. 12, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; strip of land which is currently T. 9 S., R. 24 E., SLM, Utah occupied by underground pipes that are Bureau of Land Management 1 1 1 1 sec. 7, lot 1, S ⁄2NE ⁄4, E ⁄2NW ⁄4, a portion of a five mile long acid and [UT–923–05–1330–00] NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, water pipeline owned by E.I. DuPont de sec. 8, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4. Known Gilsonite Leasing Area Nemours & Company (DuPont). The Little Emma pipeline was installed in 1980 under a AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, T. 9 S., R. 23 E., SLM, Utah special use permit which has expired, Interior. sec. 22, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, and the National Park Service has no 1 1 ACTION: Notice of Known Leasing Area. NE ⁄4SE ⁄4; authority to renew it. This strip of land sec. 23 N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4; is approximately 100 feet from the 1 1 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that sec. 25, N ⁄2NW ⁄4; northbound lanes of Interstate 95 and is sec. 26, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4. based upon recent geologic information crossed by the entrance road to the the following lands have been classified Wagon Hound Drewry’s Bluff Unit of the Park. as the Bonanza, Cowboy, Independent, T. 9 S., R. 24 E., SLM, Utah The United States will convey fee Little Emma and Wagon Hound Known sec. 20, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; simple title to Tract 03–110, together Leasing Areas for gilsonite. Detailed sec. 28, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, with a right-of-way for access from Fort information regarding this action, a S1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4. Darling Road, by a quitclaim deed to description of the lands included in the Containing 2,870.21 acres, more or less. DuPont. The deed will include Bonanza, Cowboy, Independent, Little Dated: August 17, 2006. permanent restrictions that prohibit Emma and Wagon Hound Known Kent Hoffman, construction of any above ground Leasing Areas, and the gilsonite Master Deputy State Director, Lands and Minerals. improvements and will require DuPont Title Plats (MTPs) showing the [FR Doc. E6–21468 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] to restore the surface of the ground to boundaries of the proposed known BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P its previous condition, in the event the leasing areas, are available to the public ground is disturbed for any reason. The in the Public Room of the Utah State United States will retain a permanent Office of the BLM. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR right-of-way across the parcel for public DATES: Effective Date: December 19, access to the Drewry’s Bluff Unit. 2006. National Park Service II. In exchange for the land described ADDRESSES: Inquiries should be sent to in paragraph I above, the United States Land Exchange at Richmond National will acquire fee title to Tract 01–114, a the State Director (UT–923), Bureau of Battlefield Park Land Management, Utah State Office, 236-acre unimproved parcel of land 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. owned by The Conservation Fund (TCF) Lake City, Utah 84101. ACTION: Announcement of land located on Old Cold Harbor Road in Hanover County, in the Beaver Dam FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan exchange. Perkes (801) 539–4036. Creek Unit of the Park. Both surface and Pursuant to the authority contained in SUMMARY: This notice announces a mineral estates of the 236-acre parcel the Act of March 3, 1879, (43 U.S.C. 31), proposed exchange of a 0.32-acre parcel are to be exchanged. All right, title and as Supplemented by Reorganization of Federal land in Chesterfield County, interest in the Chesterfield County Plan No. 3 of 1950 (43 U.S.C. 1451, Virginia for a 236-acre parcel of parcel is to be conveyed by the United note) 220 Departmental Manual 2, and privately owned land in Hanover States in exchange for the conveyance of Secretarial Orders No. 3071 and 3087, County, Virginia. Both properties are all right, title and interest in the the Bonanza, Cowboy, Independent, inside the boundaries of Richmond Hanover County parcel by TCF. The Little Emma and Wagon Hound Known National Battlefield Park (the Park). land conveyed to the United States will Leasing Areas (Gilsonite), is established, Acquisition of this 236-acre property be administered by the National Park as follows: will allow the Park to protect the Service as part of the Richmond resources and more fully interpret the National Battlefield Park upon Salt Lake Meridian Battle of Beaver Dam Creek for visitors completion of the exchange. This Bonanza in perpetuity. An Environmental Survey exchange will ensure the protection of T. 9 S., R. 24 E., SLM, Utah Assessment of the proposed exchange 236 acres of the Beaver Dam Creek sec. 7, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4; and a Cultural Resource Survey have Battlefield and provide DuPont with sec. 16, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, been made of the lands involved in this ownership of a small strip of land that W1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; proposed exchange. The parcels have is occupied by a portion of its sec. 17, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; been surveyed for endangered and underground pipeline.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75984 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

The values of the properties to be submitted the following information the approximately 200 grantees of the exchanged were established by collection request to the Office of Legal Assistance for Victims Grant appraisals of fair market value. Since Management and Budget (OMB) for Program (LAV Program) whose the appraised value of the 236-acre review and approval in accordance with eligibility is determined by statute. In parcel exceeds the appraised value of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 1998, Congress appropriated funding to the 0.32-acre parcel, TCF will donate Comments are encouraged and will be provide civil legal assistance to the difference in value to the United accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until February domestic violence victims through a set- States. 20, 2007. This process is conducted in aside under the Grants to Combat For a period of 45 days from the date accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Violence Against Women, Public Law of this notice, interested parties may Written comments and/or suggestions 105–277. In the Violence Against submit written comments to the Park regarding the items contained in this Women Act of 2000 and again in 2005, Superintendent at the address listed notice, especially the estimated public Congress statutorily authorized the LAV below. Adverse comments will be burden and associated response time, Program. 42 U.S.C. 3796gg-6. The LAV evaluated and this action may be should be directed to The Office of Program is intended to increase the modified or vacated accordingly. In the Management and Budget, Office of availability of legal assistance necessary absence of any action to modify or Information and Regulatory Affairs, to provide effective aid to victims of vacate, this realty action will become Attention Department of Justice Desk domestic violence, stalking, or sexual the final determination of the Officer, Washington, DC 20503. assault who are seeking relief in legal Department of Interior. Additionally, comments may be matters arising as a consequence of that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) abuse or violence. The LAV Program Superintendent Cynthia MacLeod, 395–5806. awards grants to law school legal Richmond National Battlefield Park, Written comments and suggestions clinics, legal aid or legal services 3215 East Broad Street, Richmond, from the public and affected agencies programs, domestic violence victims’ Virginia, Phone: 804–226–1981. Before concerning the proposed collection of shelters, bar associations, sexual assault including your address, phone number, information are encouraged. Your programs, private nonprofit entities, and e-mail address, or other personal comments should address one or more Indian tribal governments. These grants identifying information in your of the following four points: are for providing direct legal services to comment, you should be aware that (1) Evaluate whether the proposed victims of domestic violence, sexual your entire comment—including your collection of information is necessary assault, and stalking in matters arising personal identifying information—may for the proper performance of the from the abuse or violence and for be made publicly available at any time. functions of the agency, including providing enhanced training for lawyers While you can ask us in your comment whether the information will have representing these victims. The goal of to withhold your personal identifying practical utility; the Program is to develop innovative, (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the information from public review, we collaborative projects that provide agency’s estimate of the burden of the cannot guarantee that we will be able to quality representation to victims of proposed collection of information, do so. domestic violence, sexual assault, and including the validity of the stalking. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act of methodology and assumptions used; November 13, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 4231–4(a) (5) An estimate of the total number of (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and respondents and the amount of time (1) authorizes the Secretary of the clarity of the information to be Interior to acquire lands, waters, and estimated for an average respondent to collected; and respond/reply: It is estimated that it will interests in lands within the boundaries (4) Minimize the burden of the take the approximately 200 respondents of Richmond National Battlefield Park collection of information on those who (LAV Program grantees) approximately from willing landowners by donation, are to respond, including through the one hour to complete a semi-annual purchase with donated or appropriated use of appropriate automated, progress report. The semi-annual funds, or exchange. electronic, mechanical, or other progress report is divided into sections technological collection techniques or Dated: December 5, 2006. that pertain to the different types of other forms of information technology, Chrysandra L. Walter, activities that grantees may engage in e.g., permitting electronic submission of Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region. and the different types of grantees that responses. [FR Doc. E6–21616 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] receive funds. An LAV Program grantee BILLING CODE 4310–70–P Overview of This Information will only be required to complete the Collection sections of the form that pertain to its (1) Type of Information Collection: own specific activities. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Extension of a currently approved (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the [OMB Number 1122–0007] collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi- collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is Office on Violence Against Women; Annual Progress Report for Grantees of 400 hours, that is 200 grantees Agency Information Collection the Legal Assistance for Victims Grant completing a form twice a year with an Activities: Extension of a Currently Program. estimated completion time for the form Approved Collection (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the being one hour. ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Department of Justice sponsoring the If additional information is required Collection Under Review: Semi-Annual collection: Form Number: 1122–0007. contact: Lynn Bryant, Clearance Officer, Progress Report for the Legal Assistance U.S. Department of Justice, Office on United States Department of Justice, for Victims Grant Program. Violence Against Women. Justice Management Division, Policy (4) Affected public who will be asked and Planning Staff, Suite 1600, Patrick The Department of Justice, Office on or required to respond, as well as a brief Henry Building, 601 D Street, NW., Violence Against Women (OVW) has abstract: The affected public includes Washington, DC 20530.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75985

Dated: December 13, 2006. compensation law by adding section II. Review Focus Lynn Bryant, 303(k) to the Social Security Act (SSA). The Department of Labor is Department Clearance Officer, United States This Act established a minimum particularly interested in comments Department of Justice. standard nationwide for curbing an which: [FR Doc. E6–21538 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] unemployment compensation tax rate • evaluate whether the proposed BILLING CODE 4410–FX–P manipulation scheme known as SUTA collection of information is necessary Dumping. In addition, the Act required for the proper performance of the the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to functions of the agency, including DEPARTMENT OF LABOR conduct a study of the states’ whether the information will have implementation of the provisions of practical utility; Employment and Training section 303(k) of the SSA, and to submit • evaluate the accuracy of the Administration to the Congress a report on the findings agency’s estimate of the burden of the of this study no later than July 15, 2007. proposed collection of information, Proposed Collection: Evaluation of Specifically, the law states: including the validity of the State Implementation of 303(k) of the (1) STUDY—The Secretary of Labor shall methodology and assumptions used; Social Security Act; Comment Request conduct a study of the implementation of • enhance the quality, utility, and the provisions of section 303(k) of the clarity of the information to be ACTION: Notice. Social Security Act (as added by collected; and subsection (a)) to assess the status and • minimize the burden of the SUMMARY: The Department of Labor appropriateness of State actions to meet the (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to requirements of such provisions. collection of information on those who reduce paperwork and respondent (2) REPORT—Not later than July 15, 2007, are to respond, including through the burden, conducts a pre-clearance the Secretary of Labor shall submit to the use of appropriate automated, consultation program to provide the Congress a report that contains the findings electronic, mechanical, or other general public and Federal agencies of the study required by paragraph (1) and technological collection techniques or with an opportunity to comment on recommendations for any Congressional other forms of information technology, proposed and/or continuing collections action that the Secretary considers e.g., permitting electronic submissions necessary to improve the effectiveness of of responses. of information in accordance with the section 303(k) of the Social Security Act. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 III. Current Actions (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This In order to comply with these program helps to ensure that requested provisions, the U.S. Department of The proposed survey will provide data can be provided in the desired Labor, Employment and Training useful, policy relevant data and format, reporting burden (time and Administration contracted with Coffey information required by the financial resources) is minimized, Communications, LLC, in collaboration Administration, DOL, ETA, and state collection instruments are clearly with its subcontractor, the Urban administrators to make appropriate understood, and the impact of collection Institute, to conduct the required study. decisions and judgments regarding the requirements on respondents can be In addition, an element was added to states’ implementation of section 303(k) properly assessed. Currently, the the study requiring that it look into the of the SSA. The information, gathered Employment and Training impact the Act had, if any, on state through this survey from all 50 states, Administration is soliciting comments practice in regard to the Professional the District of Columbia, the Virgin concerning the proposed State Employer Organization (PEO) industry Islands, and Puerto Rico will provide Unemployment Tax Avoidance (SUTA) and what impact, if any, the Act had on the Secretary of Labor with the Study Implementation Survey. A copy PEOs. necessary information needed to file the required July 15, 2007, report to of the proposed information collection The goals of the study are to: request (ICR) can be obtained by Congress. In addition, the knowledge • Identify state legislation, policy and contacting the office listed below in the gained regarding states’ policy on the procedures intended to mitigate the addressee section of this notice or by transfer of experience between client practice of SUTA dumping; accessing: http://www.doleta.gov/ companies and PEO companies as they Performance/guidance/ • Measure the use and effectiveness enter or leave a contractual relationship OMBControlNumber.cfm. of state penalties intended to curb should prove beneficial in any future SUTA dumping; state and/or ETA discussions and DATES: Written comments must be • legislative proposals regarding the PEO submitted to the office listed in the Analyze state law transfer of experience provisions regarding the industry. ETA will also be able to use ADDRESSES section below on or before this information to determine what February 30, 2007. entry of a client into a PEO relationship and the financial impact of such future SUTA dumping training, if any, ADDRESSES: Kevin M. Culp, Room treatment both on the state UI trust must be provided to personnel within N5641, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., funds and on the PEO industry; the State Workforce Agencies. Washington, DC 20210; telephone Type of Review: New collection of • Compile resultant data and number: 202–693–3679 (this is not a information. information necessary to allow the toll-free number); internet address: Agency: Employment and Training Secretary of Labor to report to Congress [email protected]; facsimile number: Administration. 202–693–2844. no later than July 15, 2007, on the Title: Evaluation of State effectiveness of section 303(k) of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Implementation of section 303(k) of the SSA. Social Security Act, SUTA Study I. Background The proposed survey represents the Implementation Survey. On August 9, 2004, President George main instrument for collecting state data OMB Number: 1205–0NEW. W. Bush signed into law the SUTA and experience on the states’ Recordkeeping: No additional record Dumping Prevention Act of 2004 (Act), implementation of section 303(k) of the keeping. One time survey. which amended Federal unemployment SSA. Affected Public: State Government.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75986 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Reference: Section 303(k) of the SSA. certain geographic areas a requiring Office of Polar Programs, National Total Respondents: 53. special protection. The regulations Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Estimated Total Burden Hours: 106. establish such a permit system to Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 0. designate Antarctic Specially Protected FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Total Burden Cost (operating/ Areas. Polly A. Penhale, Environmental Officer maintaining): 0. The applications received are as at the above address or (703) 292–8030. Comments submitted in response to follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this comment request will be NSF’s 1. Applicant; Permit Application No. Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR part summarized and/or included in the 2007–023; Catherine Herrick, CBS request for Office of Management and 671, requires all U.S. citizens and News, 9th Floor, 555 West 57th Street, entities to obtain a permit for the use or Budget approval of the information New York, NY 10019. collection request; they will also release of a designated pollutant in become a matter of public record. Activity for Which Permit Is Requested Antarctica, and for the release of waste in Antarctica. NSF has received a permit Dated: December 13, 2006. Enter an Antarctic Specially Protected application under this Regulation for Maria K. Flynn Area (ASPA). The applicant proposes to the operation of up to nine expeditions Administrator, Office of Policy Development enter the Admiralty Bay, King George per year to Antarctica. Passengers will and Research. Island Antarctic Specially Protected be taken ashore at selected sites by [FR Doc. E6–21544 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Area (ASPA #128) to film and conduct Zodiac (rubber raft) or helicopter for interviews with scientists studying BILLING CODE 4510–30–P approximately for several hours at a penguins. The applicant plans to time. On each of the two helicopters, produce a story for the CBS New emergency gear would be taken ashore magazine 60 Minutes about the various NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION in case weather deteriorates and factors in Antarctica that are passengers are required to camp on Notice of Permit Applications Received contributing to global warming and the shore. Anything taken ashore will be Under the Antarctic Conservation Act effects on the wildlife. Access to the site removed from Antarctica and disposed of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541) will be via zodiacs. of in a port of disembarkation. No Location: Admiralty Bay, King George hazardous domestic products or wastes AGENCY: National Science Foundation. Island (ASPA #128). (aerosol cans, paints, solvents, etc.) will ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Dates: February 7, 2007 to February be brought ashore. Cooking stoves/fuel Received under the Antarctic 14, 2007. will be used only in an emergency were Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law Nadene G. Kennedy, passengers are forced to spend night on 95–541. Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. shore. Conditions of the permit would SUMMARY: The National Science [FR Doc. E6–21476 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] include requirements to report on the Foundation (NSF) is required to publish BILLING CODE 7555–01–P removal of materials and any accidental notice of permit applications received to releases, and management of all waste, conduct activities regulated under the including human waste, in accordance Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION with Antarctic waste regulations. NSF has published regulations under Application for the permit is made by: the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title Notice of Permit Application Received Othmar Hehli, Senior Director of Yacht 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Under the Antarctic Conservation Act Operatons, Valcan Incorporated, 505 Regulations. This is the required notice of 1978 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 900, Seattle, WA of permit applications received. 98104. AGENCY: National Science Foundation Location: Antarctica (south of 60 DATES: Interested parties are invited to (NSF). degrees south latitude) . submit written data, comments, or ACTION: Notice of permit applications Dates: February 1, 2007 to February views with respect to this permit received under the Antarctic 29, 2007. application by January 17, 2007. This Conservation Act. application may be inspected by Nadene G. Kennedy, interested parties at the Permit Office, SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Permit Officer. address below. the National Science Foundation (NSF) [FR Doc. E6–21508 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] ADDRESSES: Comments should be has received a waste management BILLING CODE 7555–01–P addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, permit application for operation of a Office of Polar Programs, National remote field support and emergency Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson provisions helicopter flight seeing for NUCLEAR REGULATORY Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. the Motor Vessel, Octopus for the 2006– COMMISSION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2007 austral summer season. The Nadene G. Kennedy at the above application is submitted to NSF Advisory Committee on Reactor address or (703) 292–7405. pursuant to regulations issued under the Safeguards; Renewal Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory National Science Foundation, as DATES: Interested parties are invited to Commission. submit written data, comments, or directed by the Antarctic Conservation ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Charter views with respect to this permit Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as of the Advisory Committee on Reactor application within January 17, 2007. amended by the Antarctic Science, Safeguards (ACRS). Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, Permit applications may be inspected by has developed regulations for the interested parties at the Permit Office, SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on establishment of a permit system for address below. Reactor Safeguards was established by various activities in Antarctica and ADDRESSES: Comments should be Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act designation of certain animals and addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, (AEA) in 1954. Its purpose is to provide

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75987

advice to the Commission with regard to Revise 10 CFR 73.1, Design Basis Threat at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/ the hazards of proposed or existing (DBT) Requirements (Tentative). policy-making/schedule.html. reactor facilities, to review each Week of December 25, 2006—Tentative * * * * * application for a construction permit or The NRC provides reasonable operating license for certain facilities There are no meetings scheduled for accommodation to individuals with specified in the AEA, and such other the Week of December 25, 2006. disabilities where appropriate. If you duties as the Commission may request. Week of January 1, 2007—Tentative need a reasonable accommodation to The AEA as amended by Public Law participate in these public meetings, or 100–456 also specifies that the Defense Thursday, January 4, 2007 need this meeting notice or the Nuclear Safety Board may obtain the 12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session transcript or other information from the advice and recommendations of the (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. Entergy public meetings in another format (e.g. ACRS. Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim braille, large print), please notify the Membership on the Committee Nuclear Power Station), Intervenor NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, includes individuals experienced in Pilgrim Watch’s Appeal of LBP–06–23 Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD: reactor operations, management; (Ruling on Standing and Contentions) 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at probabilistic risk assessment; analysis of (Tentative). [email protected]. Determinations on reactor accident phenomena; design of Week of January 8, 2007—Tentative requests for reasonable accommodation nuclear power plant structures, systems will be made on a case-by-case basis. Wednesday, January 10, 2007 and components; materials science; and * * * * * mechanical, civil, and electrical 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Browns Ferry This notice is distributed by mail to engineering. Unit 1 Restart (Public Meeting) (Contact: several hundred subscribers; if you no The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Catherine Haney, 301–415–1453). longer wish to receive it, or would like has determined that renewal of the This meeting will be webcast live at to be added to the distribution, please charter for the ACRS until December 12, the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. contact the Office of the Secretary, 2008 is in the public interest in Thursday, January 11, 2007 Washington, D.C. 20555 (301–415– connection with the statutory 1969). In addition, distribution of this responsibilities assigned to the ACRS. 1:30 p.m. Periodic Briefing on New meeting notice over the Internet system This action is being taken in accordance Reactor Issues (Public Meeting) is available. If you are interested in with the Federal Advisory Committee (Contact: Donna Williams, 301–415– receiving this Commission meeting Act. 1322). schedule electronically, please send an This meeting will be webcast live at electronic message to [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. Andrew L. Bates, Office of the Secretary, Dated: December 13, 2006. NRC, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: Week of January 15, 2007—Tentative R. Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1963. There are no meetings scheduled for Office of the Secretary. Dated: December 13, 2006. the Week of January 15, 2007. [FR Doc. 06–9787 Filed 12–15–06; 1:56 pm] Andrew L. Bates, Week of January 22, 2007—Tentative BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Advisory Committee Management Officer. Tuesday, January 23, 2007 [FR Doc. E6–21583 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] NUCLEAR REGULATORY BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 1:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Grid COMMISSION Reliability (Public Meeting) (Contact: Biweekly Notice; Applications and NUCLEAR REGULATORY Mike Mayfield, 301–415–5621). Amendments to Facility Operating This meeting will be webcast live at COMMISSION Licenses Involving No Significant the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. Hazards Considerations Sunshine Federal Register Notice * * * * * *The schedule for Commission I. Background AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear meetings is subject to change on short Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Regulatory Commission. notice. To verify the status of meetings Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended DATE: Weeks of December 18, 25, 2006, call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January 1, 8, 15, 22, 2007. Contact person for more information: Commission (the Commission or NRC PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. staff) is publishing this regular biweekly Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, * * * * * notice. The Act requires the Maryland. Additional Information Commission publish notice of any STATUS: Public and closed. amendments issued, or proposed to be Affirmation of Entergy Nuclear issued and grants the Commission the MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Vermont Yankee, LLC, & Entergy authority to issue and make Week of December 18, 2006 Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont immediately effective any amendment Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP– to an operating license upon a Thursday, December 21, 2006 06–20 (Sept. 22, 2006), reconsid’n determination by the Commission that 12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session denied (Oct. 30, 2006) (Tentative) such amendment involves no significant (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. Entergy tentatively scheduled on Thursday, hazards consideration, notwithstanding Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, & December 14, 2006 at 9:25 a.m. has been the pendency before the Commission of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. rescheduled tentatively on Thursday, a request for a hearing from any person. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power December 21, 2006 at 12:55 p.m. This biweekly notice includes all Station), LBP–06–20 (Sept. 22, 2006), * * * * * notices of amendments issued, or reconsid’n denied (Oct. 30, 2006) The NRC Commission Meeting proposed to be issued from November (Tentative). b. Final Rulemaking to Schedule can be found on the Internet 22, 2006 to December 7, 2006. The last

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75988 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

biweekly notice was published on the need to take this action will occur should specifically explain the reasons December 5, 2006 (71 FR 70553). very infrequently. why intervention should be permitted Written comments may be submitted with particular reference to the Notice of Consideration of Issuance of by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, following general requirements: (1) The Amendments to Facility Operating Directives and Editing Branch, Division name, address, and telephone number of Licenses, Proposed No Significant of Administrative Services, Office of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the Hazards Consideration Determination, Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s and Opportunity for a Hearing Commission, Washington, DC 20555– right under the Act to be made a party The Commission has made a 0001, and should cite the publication to the proceeding; (3) the nature and proposed determination that the date and page number of this Federal extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s following amendment requests involve Register notice. Written comments may property, financial, or other interest in no significant hazards consideration. also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two the proceeding; and (4) the possible Under the Commission’s regulations in White Flint North, 11545 Rockville effect of any decision or order which 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 may be entered in the proceeding on the of the facility in accordance with the a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The proposed amendment would not (1) Copies of written comments received petition must also set forth the specific involve a significant increase in the may be examined at the Commission’s contentions which the petitioner/ probability or consequences of an Public Document Room (PDR), located requestor seeks to have litigated at the accident previously evaluated; or (2) at One White Flint North, Public File proceeding. create the possibility of a new or Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first Each contention must consist of a different kind of accident from any floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of specific statement of the issue of law or accident previously evaluated; or (3) requests for a hearing and petitions for fact to be raised or controverted. In involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene is discussed below. addition, the petitioner/requestor shall margin of safety. The basis for this Within 60 days after the date of provide a brief explanation of the bases proposed determination for each publication of this notice, the licensee for the contention and a concise amendment request is shown below. may file a request for a hearing with statement of the alleged facts or expert The Commission is seeking public respect to issuance of the amendment to opinion which support the contention comments on this proposed the subject facility operating license and and on which the petitioner/requestor determination. Any comments received any person whose interest may be intends to rely in proving the contention within 30 days after the date of affected by this proceeding and who at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor publication of this notice will be wishes to participate as a party in the must also provide references to those considered in making any final proceeding must file a written request specific sources and documents of determination. Within 60 days after the for a hearing and a petition for leave to which the petitioner is aware and on date of publication of this notice, the intervene. Requests for a hearing and a which the petitioner/requestor intends licensee may file a request for a hearing petition for leave to intervene shall be to rely to establish those facts or expert with respect to issuance of the filed in accordance with the opinion. The petition must include amendment to the subject facility Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for sufficient information to show that a operating license and any person whose Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 genuine dispute exists with the interest may be affected by this CFR part 2. Interested persons should applicant on a material issue of law or proceeding and who wishes to consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, fact. Contentions shall be limited to participate as a party in the proceeding which is available at the Commission’s matters within the scope of the must file a written request for a hearing PDR, located at One White Flint North, amendment under consideration. The and a petition for leave to intervene. Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville contention must be one which, if Normally, the Commission will not Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. proven, would entitle the petitioner/ issue the amendment until the Publicly available records will be requestor to relief. A petitioner/ expiration of 60 days after the date of accessible from the Agencywide requestor who fails to satisfy these publication of this notice. The Documents Access and Management requirements with respect to at least one Commission may issue the license System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic contention will not be permitted to amendment before expiration of the 60- Reading Room on the Internet at the participate as a party. day period provided that its final NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ Those permitted to intervene become determination is that the amendment reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a parties to the proceeding, subject to any involves no significant hazards request for a hearing or petition for limitations in the order granting leave to consideration. In addition, the leave to intervene is filed within 60 intervene, and have the opportunity to Commission may issue the amendment days, the Commission or a presiding participate fully in the conduct of the prior to the expiration of the 30-day officer designated by the Commission or hearing. comment period should circumstances by the Chief Administrative Judge of the If a hearing is requested, and the change during the 30-day comment Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission has not made a final period such that failure to act in a Panel, will rule on the request and/or determination on the issue of no timely way would result, for example in petition; and the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration, the derating or shutdown of the facility. Administrative Judge of the Atomic Commission will make a final Should the Commission take action Safety and Licensing Board will issue a determination on the issue of no prior to the expiration of either the notice of a hearing or an appropriate significant hazards consideration. The comment period or the notice period, it order. final determination will serve to decide will publish in the Federal Register a As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a when the hearing is held. If the final notice of issuance. Should the petition for leave to intervene shall set determination is that the amendment Commission make a final No Significant forth with particularity the interest of request involves no significant hazards Hazards Consideration Determination, the petitioner in the proceeding, and consideration, the Commission may any hearing will take place after how that interest may be affected by the issue the amendment and make it issuance. The Commission expects that results of the proceeding. The petition immediately effective, notwithstanding

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75989

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to perform its design function following an held would take place after issuance of [email protected]. accident. The risk assessment of the the amendment. If the final proposed change has concluded that there is AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket determination is that the amendment an insignificant increase in postulated total No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear population dose rate and an insignificant request involves a significant hazards Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), Dauphin increase in the postulated conditional consideration, any hearing held would County, Pennsylvania containment failure probability. take place before the issuance of any Additionally, containment inspections have amendment. Date of amendment request: also been performed which demonstrate the A request for a hearing or a petition September 15, 2006. continued structural integrity of the primary for leave to intervene must be filed by: Description of amendment request: containment. (1) First class mail addressed to the The proposed amendment would revise Therefore, the proposed change does not Office of the Secretary of the Technical Specification (TS) Section involve a significant increase in the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 6.8.5, ‘‘Reactor Building Leakage Rate probability or consequences of an accident Commission, Washington, DC 20555– previously evaluated. Testing Program,’’ to allow a one-time Does the proposed amendment create the 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and deferral of the next Type A, possibility of a new or different kind of Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express containment integrated leak rate test accident from any accident previously mail, and expedited delivery services: (ILRT) from ‘‘no later than September evaluated? Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, 2008’’ to ‘‘prior to startup from T1R18 Response: No. One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville refueling outage.’’ The NRC has The proposed change for a one-time Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, previously approved a one-time 5-year extension of the Type A ILRT for TMI, Unit Attention: Rulemaking and extension to the Type A ILRT schedule 1 will not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail for TMI–1 by issuance of Amendment addressed to the Office of the Secretary, plant equipment to transient and accident No. 244, dated August 14, 2003. conditions. The proposed change does not U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Amendment No. 244 changed the TSs to introduce any new equipment, modes of [email protected]; or (4) facsimile state that the Type A ILRT shall be system operation or failure mechanisms. transmission addressed to the Office of performed no later than September Therefore, the proposed change does not the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2008. The proposed amendment would create the possibility of a new or different Commission, Washington, DC, add approximately 15 months to the kind of accident from any previously Attention: Rulemakings and currently-approved 15-year interval. evaluated. Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, Does the proposed amendment involve a This deferral would allow the Type A significant reduction in a margin of safety? verification number is (301) 415–1966. ILRT to be performed during a steam A copy of the request for hearing and Response: No. generator replacement in the fall of The integrity of the containment petition for leave to intervene should 2009. penetrations and isolation valves is verified also be sent to the Office of the General Basis for proposed no significant through Type B and Type C local leak rate Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory hazards consideration determination: tests (LLRTs) and the overall leak tight Commission, Washington, DC 20555– As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the integrity of the containment is verified by a 0001, and it is requested that copies be licensee has provided its analysis of the Type A ILRT, as required by 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor transmitted either by means of facsimile issue of no significant hazards transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by Containment Leakage Testing for Water- consideration, which is presented Cooled Power Reactors.’’ These tests are e-mail to [email protected]. A below: copy of the request for hearing and performed to verify the essentially leak tight Does the proposed amendment involve a characteristics of the containment at the petition for leave to intervene should design basis accident pressure. The proposed also be sent to the attorney for the significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously change for a one-time extension of the Type licensee. evaluated? A ILRT does not affect the method for Type Nontimely requests and/or petitions Response: No. A, B or C testing or the test acceptance and contentions will not be entertained The proposed change will revise TS 6.8.5 criteria. absent a determination by the to reflect a one-time extension to the Three AmerGen has conducted a risk assessment Commission or the presiding officer of Mile Island, Unit 1 Type A Integrated Leak to determine the impact of a change to the the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Rate Test (ILRT) as currently specified in the TMI, Unit 1 Type A ILRT schedule from a that the petition, request and/or the Technical Specifications. This change will baseline ILRT frequency of three times in 10 contentions should be granted based on extend the requirement to perform the Type years to once in 15 years plus 15 months for a balancing of the factors specified in 10 A ILRT from the current requirement of ‘‘no the risk measures of Large Early Release Frequency (i.e., LERF), Population Dose, and CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). later than September 2008’’ to ‘‘prior to startup from the T1R18 refueling outage,’’ Conditional Containment Failure Probability For further details with respect to this (i.e., CCFP). This assessment indicated that action, see the application for which is currently scheduled for Fall 2009. The current Type A ILRT interval of 15 years, the proposed TMI, Unit 1 ILRT interval amendment which is available for based on past performance, would be extension has a small change in risk to the public inspection at the Commission’s extended on a one-time basis by public and is an acceptable plant change PDR, located at One White Flint North, approximately 15 months. from a risk perspective. Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville The function of the containment is to Therefore, the proposed change does not Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. isolate and contain fission products released involve a significant reduction in a margin of Publicly available records will be from the reactor coolant system following a safety. accessible from the ADAMS Public design basis Loss of Coolant Accident The NRC staff has reviewed the Electronic Reading Room on the Internet (LOCA) and to confine the postulated release licensee’s analysis and, based on this at the NRC Web site, http:// of radioactive material to within limits. The review, it appears that the three test interval associated with Type A ILRTs is www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If not a precursor of any accident previously standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are you do not have access to ADAMS or if evaluated. Type A ILRTs provide assurance satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff there are problems in accessing the that the TMI, Unit 1 containment will not proposes to determine that the documents located in ADAMS, contact exceed allowable leakage rate values amendment request involves no the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397– specified in the TS and will continue to significant hazards consideration.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75990 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Attorney for licensee: Mr. Brad limits in the licensing basis plus the Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, LEAKAGE rate associated with a double- Create the Possibility of a New or Different Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 ended rupture of a single tube is assumed. Kind of Accident From Any Previously Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. For other design basis accidents such as Evaluated NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Main Steam Line Break (MSLB), rod ejection, The proposed performance based Chernoff. and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the requirements are an improvement over the tubes are assumed to retain their structural requirements imposed by the current Carolina Power & Light Company, integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to technical specifications. Implementation of Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson rupture). These analyses typically assume the proposed SG Program will not introduce Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all any adverse changes to the plant design basis Darlington County, South Carolina SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 or postulated accidents resulting from gallon per minute as a result of accident potential tube degradation. The result of the Date of amendment request: May 30, induced stresses. The accident induced implementation of the SG Program will be an 2006, as supplemented by letter dated leakage criterion introduced by the proposed enhancement of SG tube performance. November 20, 2006. changes accounts for tubes that may leak Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced during all plant conditions will Description of amendment request: during design basis accidents. The accident be monitored to ensure it remains within The proposed amendment would induced leakage criterion limits this leakage current accident analysis assumptions. modify the Technical Specification (TS) to no more than the value assumed in the The proposed change does not affect the requirements related to steam generator accident analysis. design of the SGs, their method of operation, tube integrity. The amendment would The SG performance criteria proposed or primary or secondary coolant chemistry adopt Nuclear Regulatory Commission change to the TSs identifies the standards controls. In addition, the proposed change (NRC)-approved Revision 4 to Technical against which tube integrity is to be does not impact any other plant system or Specification Task Force (TSTF) measured. Meeting the performance criteria component. The change enhances SG Standard Technical Specification provides reasonable assurance that the SG inspection requirements. Change Traveler, TSTF–449, ‘‘Steam tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its Therefore, the proposed change does not Generator Tube Integrity.’’ specific safety function of maintaining create the possibility of a new or different reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity type of accident from any accident The NRC staff published a notice of throughout each operating cycle and in the previously evaluated. opportunity for comment in the Federal unlikely event of a design basis accident. The Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR performance criteria are only a part of the SG Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 10298), on possible amendments Program required by the proposed change to of Safety adopting TSTF–449, including a model the TSs. The program, defined by NEI 97–06, The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors safety evaluation and model no Steam Generator Program Guidelines, are an integral part of the reactor coolant significant hazards consideration includes a framework that incorporates a pressure boundary and, as such, are relied (NSHC) determination, using the balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, upon to maintain the primary system’s consolidated line item improvement repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor process. The NRC staff subsequently changes do not, therefore, significantly coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are issued a notice of availability of the increase the probability of an accident unique in that they are also relied upon as models for referencing in license previously evaluated. a heat transfer surface between the primary amendment applications in the Federal The consequences of design-basis and secondary systems such that residual Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126). accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the The licensee affirmed the applicability EQUIVALENT I–131 in the primary coolant and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE radioactive fission products in the primary of the following NSHC determination in rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, coolant from the secondary system. In its application dated May 30, 2006. limits are included in the plant technical summary, the safety function of an SG is Basis for proposed no significant specifications for operational leakage and for maintained by ensuring the integrity of its hazards consideration determination: DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 in primary tubes. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an coolant to ensure the plant is operated within Steam generator tube integrity is a function analysis of the issue of no significant its analyzed condition. The typical analysis of the design, environment, and the physical hazards consideration is presented of the limiting design basis accident assumes condition of the tube. The proposed change below: that primary to secondary leak rate after the does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not expected to result in an improvement in the than 500 gallons per day in any one SG, and Involve a Significant Increase in the tube integrity by implementing the SG that the reactor coolant activity levels of Probability or Consequences of an Accident Program to manage SG tube inspection, Previously Evaluated DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 are at the TS assessment, repair, and plugging. The values before the accident. The proposed change requires a SG [Steam requirements established by the SG Program The proposed change does not affect the Generator] Program that includes are consistent with those in the applicable design of the SGs, their method of operation, performance criteria that will provide design codes and standards and are an or primary coolant chemistry controls. The reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will improvement over the requirements in the retain integrity over the full range of proposed approach updates the current TSs current TSs. operating conditions (including startup, and enhances the requirements for SG For the above reasons, the margin of safety operation in the power range, hot standby, inspections. The proposed change does not is not changed and overall plant safety will cooldown and all anticipated transients adversely impact any other previously be enhanced by the proposed change to the included in the design specification). The SG evaluated design basis accident and is an TSs. performance criteria are based on tube improvement over the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed change does not The NRC staff proposes to determine structural integrity, accident induced that the amendment request involves no leakage, and operational LEAKAGE. affect the consequences of a SGTR accident A Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) and the probability of such an accident is significant hazards consideration. event is one of the design basis accidents that reduced. In addition, the proposed change Attorney for licensee: David T. are analyzed as part of a plant’s licensing does not affect the consequences of an MSLB, Conley, Associate General Counsel II— basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump Legal Department, Progress Energy bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE locked rotor event, or other previously Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate evaluated accident. 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75991

NRC Branch Chief (Acting): Douglas and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the the proposed SG Program will not introduce V. Pickett. tubes are assumed to retain their structural any adverse changes to the plant design basis integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to or postulated accidents resulting from Carolina Power & Light Company, rupture). These analyses typically assume potential tube degradation. The result of the that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris implementation of the SG Program will be an SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and enhancement of SG tube performance. Chatham Counties, North Carolina gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The accident induced Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be Date of amendment request: May 23, leakage criterion introduced by the proposed experienced during all plant conditions will 2006, as supplemented by letter dated changes accounts for tubes that may leak be monitored to ensure it remains within October 3, 2006. during design basis accidents. The accident current accident analysis assumptions. Description of amendment request: induced leakage criterion limits this leakage The proposed change does not affect the The proposed amendment would to no more than the value assumed in the design of the SGs, their method of operation, modify the Technical Specification (TS) accident analysis. or primary or secondary coolant chemistry requirements related to steam generator The SG performance criteria proposed controls. In addition, the proposed change change to the TSs identifies the standards does not impact any other plant system or tube integrity. The amendment would against which tube integrity is to be adopt Nuclear Regulatory Commission measured. Meeting the performance criteria component. The change enhances SG (NRC)-approved Revision 4 to Technical provides reasonable assurance that the SG inspection requirements. Specification Task Force (TSTF) tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its Therefore, the proposed change does not Standard Technical Specification specific safety function of maintaining create the possibility of a new or different Change Traveler, TSTF–449, ‘‘Steam reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity type of accident from any accident Generator Tube Integrity.’’ throughout each operating cycle and in the previously evaluated. unlikely event of a design basis accident. The The NRC staff published a notice of Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not performance criteria are only a part of the SG opportunity for comment in the Federal Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin Program required by the proposed change to Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR the TSs. The program, defined by NEI 97–06, of Safety 10298), on possible amendments Steam Generator Program Guidelines, The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors adopting TSTF–449, including a model includes a framework that incorporates a are an integral part of the reactor coolant safety evaluation and model no balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, pressure boundary and, as such, are relied significant hazards consideration repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed upon to maintain the primary system’s (NSHC) determination, using the changes do not, therefore, significantly pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor consolidated line item improvement increase the probability of an accident coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are previously evaluated. process. The NRC staff subsequently unique in that they are also relied upon as The consequences of design-basis issued a notice of availability of the accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE a heat transfer surface between the primary models for referencing in license EQUIVALENT I–131 in the primary coolant and secondary systems such that residual amendment applications in the Federal and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE heat can be removed from the primary Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126). rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the The licensee affirmed the applicability limits are included in the plant technical radioactive fission products in the primary of the following NSHC determination in specifications for operational leakage and for coolant from the secondary system. In its application dated May 23, 2006. DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 in primary summary, the safety function of an SG is Basis for proposed no significant coolant to ensure the plant is operated within maintained by ensuring the integrity of its hazards consideration determination: its analyzed condition. The typical analysis tubes. of the limiting design basis accident assumes Steam generator tube integrity is a function As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an that primary to secondary leak rate after the of the design, environment, and the physical analysis of the issue of no significant accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more hazards consideration is presented than 500 gallons per day in any one SG, and condition of the tube. The proposed change below: that the reactor coolant activity levels of does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 are at the TS expected to result in an improvement in the Involve a Significant Increase in the values before the accident. Probability or Consequences of an Accident The proposed change does not affect the tube integrity by implementing the SG Previously Evaluated design of the SGs, their method of operation, Program to manage SG tube inspection, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The assessment, repair, and plugging. The The proposed change requires a SG [Steam proposed approach updates the current TSs requirements established by the SG Program Generator] Program that includes and enhances the requirements for SG performance criteria that will provide are consistent with those in the applicable inspections. The proposed change does not design codes and standards and are an reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will adversely impact any other previously improvement over the requirements in the retain integrity over the full range of evaluated design basis accident and is an operating conditions (including startup, improvement over the current TSs. current TSs. operation in the power range, hot standby, Therefore, the proposed change does not For the above reasons, the margin of safety cooldown and all anticipated transients affect the consequences of a SGTR accident is not changed and overall plant safety will included in the design specification). The SG and the probability of such an accident is be enhanced by the proposed change to the performance criteria are based on tube reduced. In addition, the proposed change TSs. structural integrity, accident induced does not affect the consequences of an MSLB, leakage, and operational LEAKAGE. rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump The NRC staff proposes to determine A Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) locked rotor event, or other previously that the amendment request involves no event is one of the design basis accidents that evaluated accident. significant hazards consideration. are analyzed as part of a plant’s licensing basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not Attorney for licensee: David T. bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE Create the Possibility of a New or Different Conley, Associate General Counsel II— rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate Kind of Accident From Any Previously Legal Department, Progress Energy Evaluated limits in the licensing basis plus the Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box LEAKAGE rate associated with a double- The proposed performance based 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. ended rupture of a single tube is assumed. requirements are an improvement over the For other design basis accidents such as requirements imposed by the current NRC Branch Chief (Acting): Douglas Main Steam Line Break (MSLB), rod ejection, technical specifications. Implementation of V. Pickett.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75992 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Carolina Power & Light Company, containment sump inlet design. This change DNC proposed minor variations and/or Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson does not alter the nature of events postulated deviations from the TS changes Steam Electric Plant, (HBRSEP) Unit No. in the HBRSEP, Unit No. 2, Updated Final described in the CLIIP beyond the scope 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Safety Analysis Report, nor does it introduce of the no significant hazards any unique precursor mechanisms. Date of amendment request: June 1, Therefore, this change does not create the consideration determination published 2006, as supplemented by letter dated possibility of a new or different kind of on March 2, 2005. DNC has evaluated November 20, 2006. accident from any accident previously the proposed beyond-scope TS changes Description of amendment request: evaluated. and determined it does not represent a The proposed amendment would revise 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant hazards consideration. As the surveillance requirements (SR) for significant reduction in the margin of safety? required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), DNC has the emergency core cooling system No. The proposed change does not involve provided its analysis of the issue of no a significant reduction in the margin of suction inlet in the containment as significant hazards consideration. The safety. The proposed change to the ECCS NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s specified in Technical Specification SR containment sump inlet surveillance 3.5.2.6. requirement provides appropriate and analysis against the standards of 10 CFR Basis for proposed no significant applicable surveillance for this system. The 50.92(c). The NRC staff’s review is hazards consideration determination: proposed change to this surveillance presented below. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the requirement for the ECCS system will 1. Involve a significant increase in the licensee has provided its analysis of the continue to ensure system operability. The probability or consequences of an issue of no significant hazards proposed change does not adversely affect accident previously evaluated. any plant safety limits, setpoints, or design consideration, which is presented The proposed changes do not affect below: parameters. The change also does not adversely affect the fuel, fuel cladding, initiators of previously analyzed events 1. Do the proposed changes involve a Reactor Coolant System (RCS), or or assumed mitigation of accident or significant increase in the probability or containment integrity. Therefore, this change transient events. consequences of an accident previously does not affect any margin of safety for Therefore, these changes do not evaluated? HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. No. The proposed change does not involve involve a significant increase in the a significant increase in the probability or The NRC staff has reviewed the probability or consequences of an consequences of an accident previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident previously evaluated. evaluated. The proposed surveillance change review, it appears that the three 2. Create the possibility of a new or will continue to ensure that the emergency standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are different kind of accident from any core cooling system (ECCS) containment satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident previously evaluated. sump inlet is inspected in a manner that will proposes to determine that the verify operability. Performance of the amendment request involves no The proposed changes involve adding required system surveillances, in conjunction significant hazards consideration. a new definition and rewording the with the applicable operational and design Attorney for licensee: David T. existing TS to be consistent with requirements for the ECCS, provide NUREG–1432, Revision 3. In addition, assurance that the system will be capable of Conley, Associate General Counsel II— Legal Department, Progress Energy the requested change for MPS2 performing the required design functions for incorporates a more conservative accident mitigation and that the system will Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box perform in accordance with the functional 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. leakage limit of 75 gallons per day per requirements for the system as described in NRC Branch Chief (Acting): Douglas steam generator as opposed to the CLIIP the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for Pickett. specified limit of 150 gallons per day HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. The proposed per steam generator. The changes will rewording of the surveillance requirement Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., not impose any requirements or will continue to ensure that the ECCS Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power eliminate any existing requirements that containment sump suction inlet is not Station, Unit No. 2, New London will create the possibility of a new or restricted by debris and suction inlet County, Connecticut different kind of accident from any strainers show no evidence of structural accident previously evaluated. distress or abnormal corrosion for HBRSEP, Date of amendment request: May 31, Unit No. 2. This ensures that the rate of 2006. 3. Involve a significant reduction in a occurrence and consequences of analyzed Description of amendment request: margin of safety. Since the proposed accidents will not change. Therefore, the The proposed amendment would revise changes do not have an impact on any proposed change does not involve a the Technical Specification (TS) safety analysis assumptions and significant increase in the probability or requirements related to steam generator accidents previously evaluated, there consequences of an accident previously (SG) tube integrity. In particular, are no margin of safety issues involved. evaluated. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Therefore, the changes do not involve 2. Do the proposed changes create the (DNC) is proposing to replace the possibility of a new or different kind of a significant reduction in a margin of accident from any previously evaluated? existing SG tube surveillance program safety. with the NRC-approved Technical No. The proposed change does not create Based on this review, it appears that the possibility of a new or different kind of Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 449, Revision 4. The proposed changes are the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) accident from any previously evaluated. are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff HBRSEP, Unit No. 2, is replacing the existing consistent with the Consolidated Line ECCS containment sump inlet trash racks Item Improvement Process (CLIIP) proposes to determine that the and screens with new strainers in accordance provided in the May 6, 2005, Federal amendment request involves no with the response to Generic Letter 2004–02. Register notice (70 FR 24126). In significant hazards consideration. The strainer is a passive component in the addition, the Millstone Power Station, Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. ECCS, which is a standby safety system used Unit No. 2 (MPS2) TSs are revised Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, for accident mitigation. As such, the strainer Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., cannot be an accident initiator. A change to beyond the scope of the CLIIP to Technical Specifications Surveillance provide consistent terminology and Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. Requirement 3.5.2.6 is needed to format. Basis for proposed no significant NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. accommodate the change to the ECCS hazards consideration determination: Chernoff.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75993

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., any existing requirements that will models for referencing in license Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power create the possibility of a new or amendment applications in the Federal Station, Unit No. 3, New London different kind of accident from any Register on October 27, 2006 (71 FR County, Connecticut accident previously evaluated. 63050). The licensee affirmed the 3. Involve a significant reduction in a Date of amendment request: May 31, applicability of the model NSHC margin of safety. 2006. determination in its application dated Since the proposed changes do not Description of amendment request: November 13, 2006. have an impact on any safety analysis The proposed amendment would revise Basis for proposed no significant assumptions and accidents previously the Technical Specification (TS) hazards consideration determination: evaluated, there are no margin of safety requirements related to steam generator As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an issues involved. analysis of the issue of no significant (SG) tube integrity. In particular, Therefore, the changes do not involve Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. hazards consideration is presented a significant reduction in a margin of below: (DNC) is proposing to replace the safety. existing SG tube surveillance program Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Based on this review, it appears that Involve a Significant Increase in the with the NRC-approved Technical the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 449, Probability or Consequences of an Accident are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Previously Evaluated Revision 4. The proposed changes are proposes to determine that the Technical Specifications currently allow consistent with the Consolidated Line amendment request involves no ° Item Improvement Process (CLIIP) for operation at greater than [200] F while significant hazards consideration. imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition provided in the May 6, 2005, Federal Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. to the secondary containment requirements Register notice (70 FR 24126). In Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, required to be met. Extending the activities addition, the Millstone Power Station, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., that can apply this allowance will not Unit No. 3 (MPS3) TSs are revised Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. adversely impact the probability or beyond the scope of the CLIIP to NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. consequences of an accident previously provide consistent terminology and Chernoff. evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change format. does not involve a significant increase in the Basis for proposed no significant Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination: Resources, Inc., South Mississippi DNC proposed minor variations and/or Electric Power Association, and Entergy Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not deviations from the TS changes Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, Create the Possibility of a New or Different Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Kind of Accident From Any Accident described in the CLIIP beyond the scope Previously Evaluated of the no significant hazards Claiborne County, Mississippi consideration determination published Technical Specifications currently allow Date of amendment request: for operation at greater than [200] °F while on March 2, 2005. DNC has evaluated November 13, 2006. imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition the proposed beyond-scope TS changes Description of amendment request: to the secondary containment requirements and determined it does not represent a The proposed amendment would revise required to be met. No new operational significant hazards consideration. As Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, conditions beyond those currently allowed required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), DNC has Technical Specification (TS) Limiting by LCO 3.10.1 are introduced. The changes provided its analysis of the issue of no Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.10.1, do not involve a physical alteration of the significant hazards consideration to and the associated TS Bases, to expand plant (i.e., no new or different type of support this conclusion. The NRC staff its scope to include provisions for equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant has reviewed the licensee’s analysis temperature excursions greater than 200 ° operation. In addition, the changes do not against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). F as a consequence of inservice leak impose any new or different requirements or The NRC staff’s review is presented and hydrostatic testing, and as a eliminate any existing requirements. The below. consequence of scram time testing changes do not alter assumptions made in the 1. Involve a significant increase in the initiated in conjunction with an safety analysis. The proposed changes are probability or consequences of an inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while consistent with the safety analysis accident previously evaluated. considering operational conditions to be assumptions and current plant operating The proposed changes involve in MODE 4. practice. Therefore, the proposed change The NRC staff issued a notice of does not create the possibility of a new or rewording the existing technical different kind of accident from any accident specifications to be consistent with opportunity for comment in the Federal previously evaluated. NUREG–1431, Revision 3. These Register on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48561), on possible amendments to Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not proposed changes do not affect initiators Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of previously analyzed events or revise the plant-specific TS, to expand of Safety assumed mitigation of accident or the scope of TS LCO 3.10.1, to include Technical Specifications currently allow transient events. provisions for temperature excursions ° ° for operation at greater than [200] F while Therefore, these changes do not greater than 200 F as a consequence of imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition involve a significant increase in the inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, to the secondary containment requirements probability or consequences of an and as a consequence of scram time required to be met. Extending the activities accident previously evaluated. testing initiated in conjunction with an that can apply this allowance will not 2. Create the possibility of a new or inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while adversely impact any margin of safety. different kind of accident from any considering operational conditions to be Allowing completion of inspections and accident previously evaluated. in MODE 4, including a model safety testing and supporting completion of scram These proposed changes do not evaluation and model No Significant time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test prior to involve physical alteration of the plant Hazards Determination (NSHC), using power operation results in enhanced safe (no new or different type of equipment the consolidated line item improvement operations by eliminating unnecessary will be installed). The changes will not process. The NRC staff subsequently maneuvers to control reactor temperature and impose any requirements or eliminate issued a notice of availability of the pressure. Therefore, the proposed change

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75994 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

does not involve a significant reduction in a Those end states where entry into the cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is margin of safety. shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) assessed and managed. The BWROG’s entry is initiated by inoperability of a single The NRC staff proposes to determine [Boiling Water Reactor Owner’s Group’s] risk train of equipment or a restriction on a plant assessment approach is comprehensive and that the amendment request involves no operational parameter, unless otherwise follows staff guidance as documented in RGs significant hazards consideration. stated in the applicable technical [Regulatory Guides] 1.174 and 1.177. In Attorney for licensee: Terence A. specification, and (3) the primary purpose is addition, the analyses show that the criteria Burke, Associate General Council— to correct the initiating condition and return of the three-tiered approach for allowing TS Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 to power operation as soon as is practical. changes are met. The risk impact of the Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi Risk insights from both the qualitative and proposed TS changes was assessed following 39213. quantitative risk assessments were used in the three-tiered approach recommended in NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. specific TS assessments. Such assessments RG 1.177. A risk assessment was performed are documented in Section 6 of GE [General to justify the proposed TS changes. The net Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and Electric] NEDC–32988, Revision 2, change to the margin of safety is PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 ‘‘Technical Justification to Support Risk insignificant. and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for BWR [boiling-water Therefore, this change does not Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and reactor] Plants.’’ They provide an integrated involve a significant reduction in a Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania discussion of deterministic and probabilistic margin of safety. Date of application for amendments: issues, focusing on specific technical The NRC staff has reviewed the July 14, 2006. specifications, which are used to support the analysis and, based on this review, it Description of amendment request: proposed TS end state and associated appears that the three standards of 10 restrictions. The staff finds that the risk The proposed changes would modify insights support the conclusions of the CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the Technical Specification (TS) specific TS assessments. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requirements related to required end probability of an accident previously amendment request involves no states for TS action statements. The evaluated is not significantly increased, if at significant hazards consideration. changes are generally consistent with all. The consequences of an accident after Attorney for Licensee: Mr. Brad the NRC-approved Revision 0 to adopting proposed TSTF–423, are no Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Technical Specification Task Force different than the consequences of an Exelon Generation Company LLC, 200 (TSTF) Change Traveler, TSTF–423, accident prior to adopting TSTF–423. Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. Therefore, the consequences of an accident ‘‘Risk Informed Modification to Selected previously evaluated are not significantly NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Required Action End States for BWR affected by this change. The addition of a Chernoff. Plants.’’ requirement to assess and manage the risk Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and The NRC staff issued a notice of introduced by this change will further opportunity for comment in the Federal minimize possible concerns. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 Register on December 14, 2005 (70 FR Therefore, this change does not involve a and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 74037), on possible amendments significant increase in the probability or Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and adopting TSTF–423, including a model consequences of an accident previously Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania evaluated. safety evaluation and model no Date of application for amendments: significant hazards consideration Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not September 15, 2006. Create the Possibility of a New or Different (NSHC) determination, using the Description of amendment request: consolidated line item improvement Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated The proposed amendment would revise process. The NRC staff subsequently the required frequency for control rod issued a notice of availability of the The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or scram time testing, as described in models for referencing in license different type of equipment will be installed). Technical Specification (TS) amendment applications in the Federal If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2, from Register on March 23, 2006 (71 FR change to certain required end states when ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in 14726). the TS Completion Times for remaining in MODE 1’’ to ‘‘200 days cumulative The licensee affirmed the power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry into operation in MODE 1.’’ The proposed applicability of the following TSTF–423 hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to TS change is based on the NRC- model NSHC determination in its repair equipment, will not introduce new approved Revision 0 to Technical failure modes or effects and will not, in the application dated July 14, 2006. Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Basis for proposed no significant absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the Traveler, TSTF–460, ‘‘Control Rod hazards consideration determination: consequences of accidents previously Scram Time Testing Frequency.’’ As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an evaluated. The addition of a requirement to The NRC staff issued a notice of analysis of the issue of no significant assess and manage the risk introduced by this opportunity for comment in the Federal hazards consideration is presented change and the commitment by the licensee Register on May 27, 2004 (69 FR 30339), below: to adhere to the guidance in TSTF–IG–05–02, on possible amendments adopting Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not Implementation Guidance for TSTF–423, TSTF–460, including a model safety Involve a Significant Increase in the Revision 0, ‘‘Technical Specifications End evaluation and model no significant States, NEDC–32988-A,’’ will further Probability or Consequences of an Accident hazards consideration (NSHC) Previously Evaluated minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the determination, using the consolidated The proposed change allows a change to possibility of a new or different kind of line item improvement process. The certain required end states when the TS accident from an accident previously NRC staff subsequently issued a notice Completion Times for remaining in power evaluated. of availability of the models for operation will be exceeded. Most of the referencing in license amendment requested technical specification (TS) Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not changes are to permit an end state of hot Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin applications in the Federal Register on shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state of Safety August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51864). of cold shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the The proposed change allows, for some The licensee affirmed the current TS. The request was limited to: (1) systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than applicability of the following TSTF–460

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75995

model NSHC determination in its Nuclear Management Company, LLC, any SSC is operated. The proposed application dated September 15, 2006. Docket No. 50–263, Monticello Nuclear amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration Basis for proposed no significant Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota different from those previously recognized or hazards consideration determination: evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Date of amendment request: be introduced by the one-time surveillance analysis of the issue of no significant November 14, 2006. requirement deferrals being requested. hazards consideration is presented Description of amendment request: Thus, the proposed amendment does not below: The proposed amendment would revise create the possibility of a new or different Specification 3.3.5.1–1 of the Technical kind of accident from any accident 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Specifications (TSs) to permit a one- previously evaluated. a significant increase in the probability or time extension of the quarterly 3. Does the proposed amendment involve consequences of an accident previously a significant reduction in a margin of safety? surveillance interval (i.e., from 92 days evaluated? Response: No. to 140 days) for three low pressure Response: No. The proposed amendment is a one-time The proposed change extends the coolant injection (LPCI) loop select logic extension of the performance interval of a frequency for testing control rod scram time functions. limited number of TS surveillance Basis for proposed no significant requirements. Extending these surveillance testing from every 120 days of cumulative hazards consideration determination: requirements does not involve a modification Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative of any TS Limiting Condition for Operation. Mode 1 operation. The frequency of As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part Extending these surveillance requirements surveillance testing is not an initiator of any does not involve a change to any limit on accident previously evaluated. The frequency 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant accident consequences specified in the of surveillance testing does not affect the license or regulations. Extending these ability to mitigate any accident previously hazards consideration (NSHC), which is surveillance requirements does not involve a evaluated, as the tested component is still presented below: change to how accidents are mitigated or a required to be operable. Therefore, the 1. Does the proposed amendment involve significant increase in the consequences of an proposed change does not involve a a significant increase in the probability or accident. Extending these surveillance significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously requirements does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences consequences of an accident previously evaluated? of an accident. Extending these surveillance evaluated. Response: No. This amendment requests a one-time requirements does not involve a change in 2. Does the change create the possibility of extension to the performance interval for a any operating procedure or process. a new or different kind of accident from any limited number of TS surveillance The instrumentation and components accident previously evaluated? requirements. The performance of these involved in this request have exhibited Response: No. surveillances, or the failure to perform, is not reliable operation based on the results of The proposed change extends the a precursor and does not affect the their performance during past periodic ECCS frequency for testing control rod scram time probability of an accident. Therefore, the [emergency core cooling system] functional testing from every 120 days of cumulative delay in performance proposed in this testing. Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative amendment request for these surveillance Based on the limited additional period of Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does requirements does not increase the time that the systems and components will not result in any new or different modes of probability of an accident previously be in service before the surveillances are next evaluated. performed, as well as the operating plant operation. Therefore, the proposed A delay in performing these surveillances experience that these surveillances are change does not create the possibility of a does not result in a system being unable to typically successful when performed, it is new or different kind of accident from any perform its required function. In the case of reasonable to conclude that the margins of previously evaluated. this one-time extension, the relatively short safety associated with these surveillance 3. Does the proposed change involve a period of additional time period for the requirements will not be affected by the significant reduction in a margin of safety? systems and components to be in service requested extension. Response: No. prior to the next performance of the Therefore, the proposed amendment does The proposed change extends the surveillance will not affect the ability of not involve a significant reduction in a frequency for testing control rod scram time those systems to operate as designed. margin of safety. testing from every 120 days of cumulative Therefore, the systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative their required function. No new failure Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed Mode 1 operation. The proposed change modes have been introduced because of this the licensee’s analysis and, based on continues to test the control rod scram time action and the consequences remain this review, it appears that the three to ensure the assumptions in the safety consistent with previously evaluated standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are analysis are protected. Therefore, the accidents. Therefore, the proposed delay in satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposed change does not involve a performance of the surveillance requirements proposes to determine that the significant reduction in a margin of safety. in this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of amendment request involves no The NRC staff has reviewed the an accident. significant hazards consideration. analysis and, based on this review, it Therefore, operation of the facility in Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, appears that the three standards of 10 accordance with the proposed license Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the amendment would not involve a significant Secretary, Nuclear Management NRC staff proposes to determine that the increase in the probability or consequences Company, LLC, 700 First Street, of an accident previously evaluated. amendment request involves NSHC. Hudson, WI 54016. 2. Does the proposed amendment create NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. Attorney for Licensee: Mr. Brad the possibility of a new or different kind or Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, accident from any accident previously Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 200 evaluated? Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Plant, Van Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. Response: No. Buren County, Michigan The proposed amendment does not involve NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. a physical alteration of any system, structure, Date of amendment request: Chernoff. or component (SSC) or a change in the way November 6, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75996 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Description of amendment request: occurrences. All required safety limits would plant (no new or different type of equipment The proposed amendment would add continue to be analyzed using methodologies will be installed) or make changes in the the realistic large break loss-of-coolant approved by the Nuclear Regulatory methods governing normal plant operation. accident (RLBLOCA) methodology to Commission. The change will not impose different Therefore, the proposed amendment would requirements, and adequate control of the analytical methods referenced in not involve a significant reduction in a information will be maintained. This change Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b. margin of safety. will not alter assumptions made in the safety Basis for proposed no significant analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, the hazards consideration determination: The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this change does not create the possibility of a As required by Title 10 of the Code of new or different kind of accident from any Federal Regulations (CFR) Section review, it appears that the three previously evaluated. 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 3. Does th[e] [proposed] change involve a analysis of the issue of no significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant reduction in a margin of safety? hazards consideration, which is proposes to determine that the Response: No. presented below: amendment request involves no The proposed change relocates significant hazards consideration. requirements for toxic gas monitors that do 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, not meet the criteria for inclusion in [the] TS a significant increase in the probability or Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The change consequences of an accident previously Secretary, Nuclear Management will not reduce a margin of safety since the evaluated? location of a requirement has no impact on Response: No. Company, LLC, 700 First Street, any safety analysis assumptions. In addition, The proposed license amendment adds Hudson, WI 54016. the relocated requirements for toxic gas approved analytical methods used to NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. monitors remain the same as the existing TS. determine the core operating limits per Omaha Public Power District, Docket Since any future changes to these Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. Accidents No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit requirements or the surveillance procedures previously evaluated will be unaffected will be evaluated per the requirements of 10 because they will continue to be analyzed No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska CFR 50.59, there will be no reduction in a using applicable methodologies approved by Date of amendment request: margin of safety. [Therefore, the TS change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to November 13, 2006. does not involve a significant reduction in ensure all required safety limits are met. The Description of amendment request: the margin of safety.] proposed amendment does not affect the The proposed amendment would acceptance criteria for any Final Safety The NRC staff has reviewed the Analysis Report (FSAR) safety analysis relocate the requirements of Technical licensee’s analysis and, based on this analyzed accidents and anticipated Specification (TS) 2.22, ‘‘Toxic Gas review, it appears that the three operational occurrences. As such, the Monitors,’’ and TS Table 3–3, Item 29 to standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are proposed amendment does not increase the the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff probability or consequences of an accident. Updated Safety Analysis Report proposes to determine that the The proposed amendment does not involve (USAR). amendment request involves no operation of the required structures, systems Basis for proposed no significant significant hazards consideration. or components (SSCs) in a manner or hazards consideration determination: configuration different from those previously Attorney for licensee: James R. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K recognized or evaluated. licensee has provided its analysis of the Therefore, operation of the facility in Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006– accordance with the proposed amendment issue of no significant hazards 3817. would not involve a significant increase in consideration, which is presented NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. the probability or consequences of an below: PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– accident previously evaluated. 1. Does the [proposed] change involve a 2. Does the proposed amendment create significant increase in the probability or 387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam the possibility of a new or different kind of consequences of an accident previously Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 accident from any accident previously evaluated? and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania evaluated? Response: No. Response: No. Date of amendment request: May 31, The proposed change relocates 2006. The proposed amendment does not involve requirements for toxic gas monitors that do a physical alteration of any SSC or a change not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TS Description of amendment request: in the way any SSC is operated. The set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The The proposed amendments would proposed amendment does not involve requirements for toxic gas monitors are being correct administrative errors in the operation of any required SSCs in a manner relocated from [the] TS to the USAR, which SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specifications or configuration different from those will be maintained pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, (TSs) by adding a logical connector in previously recognized or evaluated. No new thereby reducing the level of regulatory Condition B of Limiting Condition for failure mechanisms will be introduced by the control. The level of regulatory control has Operation (LCO) 3.8.1 (SSES 1 TS only) changes being requested. no impact on the probability or consequences and correct the routing of Interstate 80 Therefore, the proposed amendment does of an accident previously evaluated. not create the possibility of a new or different Therefore, the change does not involve a (I–80) on Figure 4.1–2 in the SSES 1 and kind of accident from any accident significant increase in the probability or 2 TSs Section 4.0. previously evaluated. consequences of any accident previously Basis for proposed no significant 3. Does the proposed amendment involve evaluated. hazards consideration determination: a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 2. Does the [proposed] change create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Response: No. possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed amendment does not, by accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards itself, introduce a failure mechanism. The evaluated? consideration, which is presented proposed amendment does not involve any Response: No. physical changes to the plant or manner in The proposed change relocates below: which the plant is operated. The proposed requirements for toxic gas monitors that do 1. Does the proposed change involve a changes do not affect the acceptance criteria not meet the criteria for inclusion in [the] TS significant increase in the probability [* * *] for any FSAR safety analysis analyzed set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The change or consequences of an accident previously accidents or anticipated operational does not involve a physical alteration of the evaluated?

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75997

Response: No. this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or significant reduction in a margin of safety. consequences of an accident previously Change to Technical Specification 3.8.1 evaluated. The proposed change is administrative in Change to Technical Specification Figure nature and does not impact any accident 4.1–2 Change to Technical Specification 5.5.12 initiators or analyzed events or assumed The proposed change is administrative in The proposed change revises the TS mitigation of accident or transient events. nature and does not affect any plant systems. administrative controls programs for They do not involve the addition or removal Therefore, this proposed change does not consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR of any equipment, or any design changes to involve a significant reduction in a margin of [Part] 50, paragraph 55a (g)(4) for the facility. Therefore, this proposed change safety. components classified as Code Class CC. does not represent a significant increase in The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed change affects the frequency of visual examinations that will be performed the probability or consequences of an licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident previously evaluated. for the concrete surfaces of the containment review, it appears that the three for the purpose of the Primary Containment Change to Technical Specification Figure standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Leakage Rate Testing Program. In addition, 4.1–2 satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the proposed change allows those The proposed change is administrative in proposes to determine that the examinations to be performed during power nature and does not impact any accident amendment request involves no operation as opposed to during a refueling initiators or analyzed events or assumed significant hazards consideration. outage. The frequency of visual examinations mitigation of accident or transient events. It Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, of the concrete surfaces of the containment does not involve the addition or removal of Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL and the mode of operation during which those examinations are performed has no any equipment or any design changes to the Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., facility. relationship to or adverse impact on the Therefore, the proposed change does not GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179. probability of any of the initiating events involve a significant increase in the NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer. assumed in the accident analyses. The probability or consequences of an accident PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50– proposed change would allow visual previously evaluated. 387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam examinations that are performed pursuant to NRC approved ASME Section XI Code 2. Does the proposed change create the Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 possibility of a new or different kind of requirement (except where relief has been accident from any accident previously and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania granted by the NRC) to meet the intent of evaluated? Date of amendment request: visual examinations required by Regulatory Response: No. September 7, 2006. Guide 1.163, without requiring additional visual examinations pursuant to the Change to Technical Specification 3.8.1 Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would Regulatory Guide. The intent of early detection of deterioration will continue to be The proposed change is an administrative revise the SSES 1 and 2 Technical change and does not involve a modification met by the more rigorous requirements of the to the physical configuration of the plant Specification (TSs) Section 5.5.6, Code required visual examinations. As such, (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or ‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ and TS the safety function of the containment as a change in the methods governing normal 5.5.12, ‘‘Primary Containment Leakage fission product barrier is maintained. plant operation. The proposed change will Rate Testing Program,’’ to be consistent The proposed change does not impact any not impose any new or different with the requirements of Title 10 of the accident initiators or analyzed events or requirements or introduce a new accident Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) assumed mitigation of accident or transient initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction Section 50.55a(f)(4) and 10 CFR events. It does not involve the addition or mechanism. Additionally, there is no change 50.55a(g)(4), respectively. The proposed removal of any equipment, or any design changes to the facility. in the types or increases in the amounts of amendments would implement TS Task any effluent that may be released off-site, and Therefore, the proposed change does not there is no increase in individual or Force (TSTF) 343, Revision 1 and TSTF involve a significant increase in the cumulative occupational exposure. 479, Revision 0. probability or consequences of an accident Therefore, this proposed change does not Basis for proposed no significant previously evaluated. create the possibility of an accident of a hazards consideration determination: 2. Does the proposed change create the different kind than previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the accident from any accident previously Change to Technical Specification Figure evaluated? 4.1–2 issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented Response: No. The proposed change is an administrative Change to Technical Specification 5.5.6 change and will not impose any new or below: different requirements or introduce a new 1. Does the proposed change involve a The proposed change revises the Inservice accident initiator, accident precursor, or significant increase in the probability [* * *] Testing Program for consistency with the malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there or consequences of an accident previously requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for is no change in the types or increases in the evaluated? pumps and valves which are classified as amounts of any effluent that may be released Response: No. American Society of Mechanical Engineers off-site, and there is no increase in individual (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. Change to Technical Specification 5.5.6 or cumulative occupational exposure. The proposed change does not involve a Therefore, this proposed change does not The proposed change revises the Inservice modification to the physical configuration of create the possibility of a new or different Testing Program for consistency with the the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be kind of accident from any accident requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for installed) or change in the methods previously evaluated. pumps and valves which are classified as governing normal plant operation. The 3. Does the proposed change involve a American Society of Mechanical Engineers proposed change will not impose any new or significant reduction in a margin of safety? (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. different requirements or introduce a new Response: No. The proposed change does not impact any accident initiator, accident precursor, or accident initiators or analyzed events or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there Change to Technical Specification 3.8.1 assumed mitigation of accident or transient is no change in the types or increases in the The proposed change revises Condition B events. It does not involve the addition or amounts of any effluent that may be released in LCO 3.8.1 to be consistent with Technical removal of any equipment, or any design off-site and there is no increase in individual Specification 1.2, ‘‘Logical Connectors.’’ This changes to the facility. Therefore, this or cumulative occupational exposure. change is administrative in nature. Therefore, proposed change does not represent a Therefore, this proposed change does not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 75998 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

create the possibility of an accident of a Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Therefore, the proposed amendment does different kind than previously evaluated. Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL not involve a significant increase in the Change to Technical Specification 5.5.12 Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., probability [* * *] or consequences of an GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179. accident previously evaluated. The proposed change revises the TS 2. Does the proposed amendment create administrative controls programs for NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer. the possibility of a new or different kind of consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50– accident from any accident previously [Part] 50, paragraph 55a (g)(4) for 388, Susquehanna Steam Electric components classified as Code Class CC. evaluated? The change affects the frequency of visual Station, Unit 2 (SSES 2), Luzerne Response: No. examinations that will be performed for the County, Pennsylvania The changes to the two-loop and single- concrete surfaces containments. In addition, Date of amendment request: loop MCPR Safety Limits do not directly or the proposed change allows those November 16, 2006. indirectly affect any plant system, examinations to be performed during power Description of amendment request: equipment, or component and therefore does operation as opposed to during a refueling not affect the failure modes of any of these outage. The proposed change does not The proposed amendment would revise the SSES 2 Technical Specification (TS) items. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical create the possibility of a previously Section 2.1.1.2 to reflect the Unit 2 configuration of the plant (i.e., no new unevaluated operator error or a new single equipment will be installed) or change in the Cycle 14 (U2C14) Minimum Critical failure. methods governing normal plant operation. Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety Limits for The changes to the references in Section The proposed change will not impose any two-loop and single-loop operation. 5.6.5.b were made to properly reflect the new or different requirements or introduce a Additionally, TS Section 5.6.5.b would new accident initiator, accident precursor, or NRC-approved methodology used to generate malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there be revised to reflect the NRC-approved the U2C14 core operating limits. The use of is no change in the types or increases in the methodology used in the MCPR Safety this approved methodology does not create amounts of any effluent that may be released Limit Analysis. the possibility of a new or different kind of off-site and there is no increase in individual Basis for proposed no significant accident. or cumulative occupational exposure. hazards consideration determination: Therefore, this proposed amendment does Therefore, this proposed change does not As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the not create the possibility of a new or different create the possibility of a new or different licensee has provided its analysis of the kind of accident from any previously kind of accident from any accident issue of no significant hazards evaluated. previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve 3. Does the proposed change involve a consideration, which is presented a significant reduction in a margin of safety? significant reduction in a margin of safety? below: Response: No. Response: No. 2. Does the proposed change involve a Since the proposed changes do not alter significant increase in the probability [* * *] Change to Technical Specification 5.5.6 or consequences of an accident previously any plant system, equipment, component, or The proposed change revises the Inservice evaluated? the processes used to operate the plant, the Testing Program for consistency with the Response: No. proposed change will not jeopardize or requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for The proposed change to the two-loop and degrade the function or operation of any pumps and valves which are classified as single-loop MCPR Safety Limits do not plant system or component governed by American Society of Mechanical Engineers directly or indirectly affect any plant system, Technical Specifications. The proposed two- (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. equipment, component, or change the loop and single-loop MCPR Safety Limits do The safety function of the affected pumps processes used to operate the plant. Further, not involve a significant reduction in the and valves will be maintained. Therefore, the proposed U2C14 MCPR Safety Limits margin of safety as currently defined in the this proposed change does not involve a were generated using NRC-approved Bases of the applicable Technical significant reduction in a margin of safety. methodology and meet the applicable Specification sections because the MCPR Change to Technical Specification 5.5.12 acceptance criteria. Thus, this proposed Safety Limits calculated for U2C14 preserve amendment does not involve a significant The proposed change revises the Improved the required margin of safety. increase in the probability of occurrence or The changes to the references in Section Standard Technical Specification consequences of an accident previously Administrative Controls program 5.6.5.b were made to properly reflect the evaluated. NRC-approved methodology used to generate requirements for consistency with the Prior to the startup of U2C14, licensing the U2C14 core operating limits. This requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, paragraph analyses are performed (using NRC-approved approved methodology is used to 55a (g)(4) for components classified as Code methodology referenced in Technical Class CC. Specification Section 5.6.5.b) to determine demonstrate that all applicable criteria are The change affects the frequency of visual changes in the critical power ratio as a result met, thus, demonstrating that there is no examinations that will be performed for the of anticipated operational occurrences. These reduction in the margin of safety. concrete surfaces of containments. In results are added to the MCPR Safety Limit Therefore, the proposed changes do not addition, the proposed change allows those values to generate the MCPR operating limits involve a significant reduction in a margin of examinations to be performed during power in the U2C14 COLR [Core Operating Limits safety. operation as opposed to during a refueling Report]. These limits could be different from outage. The safety function of the those specified for the previous Unit 2 COLR. The NRC staff has reviewed the containment as a fission product barrier will The COLR operating limits thus assure that licensee’s analysis and, based on this be maintained. the MCPR Safety Limit will not be exceeded review, it appears that the three [Therefore, this proposed change does not during normal operation or anticipated standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are involve a significant reduction in a margin of operational occurrences. Postulated accidents safety.] satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff are also analyzed prior to the startup of proposes to determine that the The NRC staff has reviewed the U2C14 and the results shown to be within the NRC-approved criteria. amendment request involves no licensee’s analysis and, based on this significant hazards consideration. review, it appears that the three The changes to the references in Section standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 5.6.5.b were made to properly reflect the Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, NRC-approved methodology used to generate Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the U2C14 core operating limits. The use of proposes to determine that the Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., this approved methodology does not increase GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179. amendment request involves no the probability [* * *] or consequences of an significant hazards consideration. accident previously evaluated. NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 75999

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 Response: No. The NRC staff has reviewed the and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating The proposed license amendment would licensee’s analysis and, based on this Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem allow core offload to occur in less time after review, it appears that the three County, New Jersey subcriticality (but more accurately standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are calculated), which affects the radionuclide satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Date of amendment request: August 4, make-up of the fuel to be offloaded as well 2006. as the amount of decay heat that is present proposes to determine that the Description of amendment request: from the fuel at the time of offload. The amendment request involves no The amendments would revise the radionuclide makeup of the fuel assemblies significant hazards consideration. Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow and the amount of decay heat produced by Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, the movement of irradiated fuel inside the fuel assemblies do not currently initiate Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, containment to commence at 24 hours any accident. A change in the radionuclide P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ after shutdown or at the decay time makeup of the fuel at the time of core offload 08038. or an increase in the decay heat produced by calculated using the licensee’s spent NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. the fuel being offloaded will not cause the Chernoff. fuel pool integrated decay heat initiation of any accident. The accident management program, whichever is previously evaluated that is associated with Southern California Edison Company, et later. fuel movement is the fuel handling accident. al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, Basis for proposed no significant There is no change to the manner in which San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, hazards consideration determination: fuel is being handled or in the equipment Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the used to offload or store the fuel. The effects California licensee has provided its analysis of the of the additional decay heat load have been issue of no significant hazards analyzed. The analysis demonstrated that the Date of amendment requests: consideration, which is presented existing Spent Fuel Pool cooling system and November 7, 2006. below: associated systems under worst-case Description of amendment requests: circumstances would maintain the integrity The amendments request to revise Main 1. Does the change involve a significant of the Spent Fuel Pool. The proposed method Steam Safety Valve Requirements and increase in the probability of occurrence or of offload does not create a new or different Actions (Technical Specification 3.7.1). consequences of an accident previously kind of accident from any accident evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination: Response: No. Therefore, the proposed license The proposed license amendment would amendment does not create the possibility of As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the allow fuel assemblies to be removed from the a new or different kind of accident from any licensee has provided its analysis of the reactor core and be stored in the Spent Fuel accident previously evaluated. issue of no significant hazards Pool in less time after subcriticality (but more 3. Does the change involve a significant consideration, which is presented accurately calculated), than currently reduction in a margin of safety? below: allowed by the TSs. Decreasing the decay Response: No. time of the fuel affects the radionuclide 1. Does the proposed change involve a The margin of safety pertinent to the significant increase in the probability or make-up of the fuel to be offloaded as well proposed changes is the dose consequences as the amount of decay heat that is present consequences of an accident previously resulting from a fuel handling accident. The evaluated? from the fuel at the time of offload. The shorter decay time prior to fuel movement proposed changes do not involve a Response: No. has been evaluated against 10 CFR part 50.67 significant increase in the probability of Based on a detailed plant transient and all limits continue to be met. All dose occurrence of an accident previously analysis, the Limiting Conditions for limits are met with the reduced core offload evaluated. The accident previously evaluated Operation (LCOs) and Action statements will times; and significant margin is maintained, that is associated with the proposed license continue to restrict operation to within the amendment is the fuel handling accident. as the minimum decay time prior to regions that provide acceptable results. The Allowing the fuel to be offloaded based on movement of fuel for the FHA analysis is 24 safety analysis was performed in accordance the IDHM [integrated decay heat management hours. Decay heatup calculations performed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission program] calculated time after subcriticality prior to each refueling outage as part of the (NRC) approved San Onofre Units 2 and 3 does not impact the manner in which the fuel IDHM program ensure that planned spent reload analysis methodology, and considered is offloaded. The accident initiator is the fuel transfer to the SFP [spent fuel pool] will the concerns identified in NRC Information dropping of the fuel assembly. Since earlier not result in maximum SFP temperature Notice 94–60. ° offload does not affect fuel handling, there is exceeding the design basis limit of 149 F The increase in Completion Time for no increase in the probability of occurrence (with both heat exchangers available) or 180 Required Action 3.7.1.A.2 from 12 hours to ° of a fuel handling accident. The time frame F (with one heat exchanger alternating 36 hours is consistent with NUREG–1432 in which the fuel assemblies are moved has between the two pools). As stated above, the Revision 3, ‘‘Standard Technical been evaluated against the 10 CFR 50.67 dose changes in radionuclide makeup and Specifications for Combustion Engineering limits for members of the public, licensee additional heat load do not impact any safety Plants.’’ personnel and control room. Additionally, settings and do not cause any safety limit to Therefore, the proposed change does not the guidance provided in Reg. Guide 1.183 not be met. In addition, the integrity of the involve a significant increase in the was used for the selective application of Spent Fuel Pool is maintained. probability or consequences of an accident Alternative Source Term. All dose limits are The time frame in which the fuel previously evaluated. met with the reduced core offload times; and assemblies are moved has been evaluated 2. Does the proposed change create the significant margin is maintained, as the against the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits for possibility of a new or different kind of minimum decay time prior to movement of members of the public, licensee personnel accident from any accident previously fuel for the FHA [fuel handling accident] and control room. Additionally, the guidance evaluated? analysis is 24 hours. provided in Reg. Guide 1.183 was used. Response: No. Therefore, the proposed license Calculations performed conclude that The proposed change does not add any amendment does not increase the probability expected dose limits following a Fuel new equipment, modify any interfaces with of occurrence or the consequences of handling Accident are met with the proposed any existing equipment, alter the accidents previously evaluated are not decay time prior to commencing fuel equipment’s function, or change the method increased. movement. of operating the equipment. The proposed 2. Create the possibility of a new or Therefore, the proposed changes do not change does not alter plant conditions in a different kind of accident from any accident involve a significant reduction in a margin of manner that could affect other plant previously evaluated. safety. components. The proposed change does not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76000 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

cause any existing equipment to become an consequences of an accident previously satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident initiator. evaluated. proposes to determine that the The increase in Completion Time for No. The proposed change revises the amendment request involves no Required Action 3.7.1.A.2 from 12 hours to license condition to reflect a combined Units significant hazards consideration. 36 hours is consistent with NUREG–1432 1, 2 and 3 Fire Protection Report. Compliance Attorney for licensee: General Revision 3, ‘‘Standard Technical with the applicable Appendix R Specifications for Combustion Engineering requirements is ensured through Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, Plants.’’ implementation of the Fire Protection 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Therefore, the proposed change does not Program and the Appendix R Safe Shutdown Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. create the possibility of a new or different Program including Regulatory Issue NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan. kind of accident from any accident Summary 2006–10, ‘‘Regulatory Expectations Notice of Issuance of Amendments to previously evaluated. with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Post-Fire Facility Operating Licenses 3. Does the proposed change involve a Manual Actions.’’ The change does not affect significant reduction in a margin of safety? any design bases accident or the ability of During the period since publication of Response: No. any safe shutdown equipment to perform its the last biweekly notice, the The Limiting Conditions for Operation function. Also, although modifications were Commission has issued the following (LCOs) and Action statements will continue required to bring BFN in compliance with 10 amendments. The Commission has to restrict operation such that the American CFR 50 Appendix R, there are no physical determined for each of these Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) modifications required to implement this amendments that the application code requirements continue to be met. The license amendment. analyses were performed using the NRC Therefore, this proposed change does not complies with the standards and approved San Onofre Units 2 and 3 reload involve a significant increase in the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act analysis methodology. Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the proposed change will have no impact on the previously evaluated. Commission’s rules and regulations. margins as defined in the Technical 3. Does the proposed change create the The Commission has made appropriate Specification bases. possibility of a new or different kind of findings as required by the Act and the The increase in Completion Time for accident from any accident previously Commission’s rules and regulations in Required Action 3.7.1.A.2 from 12 hours to evaluated? 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in 36 hours is consistent with NUREG–1432 No. The proposed change revises the the license amendment. Revision 3, ‘‘Standard Technical license condition to reflect a combined Units Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 1, 2 and 3 Fire Protection Report. Compliance Specifications for Combustion Engineering Amendment to Facility Operating Plants.’’ with the applicable Appendix R Therefore, this change does not involve a requirements is ensured through License, Proposed No Significant significant reduction in a margin of safety. implementation of the Fire Protection Hazards Consideration Determination, Program and Appendix R Safe Shutdown and Opportunity for A Hearing in The NRC staff has reviewed the Program including Regulatory Issue connection with these actions was licensee’s analysis and, based on this Summary 2006–10, ‘‘Regulatory Expectations published in the Federal Register as review, it appears that the three with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Post-Fire indicated. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Manual Actions.’’ This change does not affect Unless otherwise indicated, the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff any design basis accident or the ability of any Commission has determined that these proposes to determine that the safe shutdown equipment to perform its amendments satisfy the criteria for amendment requests involve no function. Also, there are no physical modifications required to implement this categorical exclusion in accordance significant hazards consideration. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. license amendment. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Porter, Esquire, Southern California new or different kind of accident from an impact statement or environmental Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove accident previously evaluated. assessment need be prepared for these Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. 4. Does the proposed change involve a amendments. If the Commission has NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. significant reduction in a margin of safety? prepared an environmental assessment No. The proposed change revises the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket under the special circumstances license condition to reflect a combined Units provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has Nos. 50–259, 50–260 and 50–296, 1, 2 and 3 Fire Protection Report. Compliance Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), with the applicable Appendix R made a determination based on that Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, requirements is ensured through the assessment, it is so indicated. Alabama implementation of the Fire Protection For further details with respect to the Program and Appendix R Safe Shutdown action see (1) the applications for Date of amendment request: Program (Units 1, 2, and 3 Fire Protection amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) November 15, 2006 (TS–459). Report) including Regulatory Issue Summary the Commission’s related letter, Safety Description of amendment request: 2006–10, ‘‘Regulatory Expectations with Evaluation and/or Environmental The proposed amendment requests Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Post-Fire Assessment as indicated. All of these revision to the Fire Protection License Manual Actions.’’ The proposed change does items are available for public inspection Condition for Units 1, 2, and 3, not affect any design basis accident and does at the Commission’s Public Document not reduce or adversely affect the capability condition number (13), (14), and (7), Room (PDR), located at One White Flint respectively, to accommodate operation to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire. Furthermore, no reductions to North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 of Units 1, 2, and 3. the requirements for equipment operability, Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Basis for proposed no significant surveillance requirements or setpoints are Maryland. Publicly available records hazards consideration determination: being made which could result in reduction will be accessible from the Agencywide As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the in the margin of safety. Therefore, this Documents Access and Management licensee has provided its analysis of the proposed change will not result in a Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic issue of no significant hazards reduction in the margin of safety. Reading Room on the internet at the consideration, which is presented The NRC staff has reviewed the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ below: licensee’s analysis and, based on this reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not 1. Does the proposed change involve a review, it appears that the three have access to ADAMS or if there are significant increase in the probability or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are problems in accessing the documents

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76001

located in ADAMS, contact the PDR and design bases to reflect the list of analytical methods provided in Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, application of the alternative source TS 5.6.6. The amendment also revises (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to term methodology with an exception. the title of the NRC letter dated August [email protected]. That exception is the Technical 8, 2001 to clarify the regulation being Information Document (TID)–14844, referenced. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., ‘‘Calculation of Distance Factors for Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, Date of issuance: November 27, 2006. Power and Test Reactor Sites,’’ which and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear Effective date: As of the date of will continue to be used as the radiation Generating Station, Units Nos. 1, 2, and issuance and shall be implemented dose basis for equipment qualification, 3, Maricopa County, Arizona within 30 days. and radiation zone maps/shielding Amendment Nos.: 148, 148, 142, 142. Date of application for amendments: calculations. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– December 23, 2005, as supplemented by Date of issuance: November 27, 2006. 37, NPF–66, NPF–72 and NPF–77: The letters dated May 4 and August 3, 2006. Effective date: As of its date of Brief description of amendments: amendments revised the Technical issuance and shall be implemented Specifications and License. These amendments revise Technical within 120 days from the date of Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources— Date of initial notice in Federal issuance. Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13175). Operating,’’ to extend the allowed out of Amendment No.: 199. The Commission’s related evaluation service time for one inoperable Facility Operating License No. NPF– of the amendments is contained in a emergency diesel generator from 72 21: The amendment revised the Safety Evaluation dated November 27, hours to 10 days. TS 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel Technical Specifications and Final 2006. Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,’’ is Safety Analysis Report. revised by the addition of a clarifying Date of initial notice in Federal No significant hazards consideration note to Condition F of this specification. Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR comments received: No. Additionally, TS 3.4.9, ‘‘Pressurizer,’’ is 62472). The March16, September 29, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, revised to delete the words contained in 2005, and March 21, August 7, August Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, the limiting condition for operation 24, and September 11, 2006, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 which require that the two groups of supplemental letters provided and 3, Grundy County, Illinois pressurizer heaters are capable of being additional information that clarified the powered from an emergency power application, did not expand the scope of Date of application for amendment: supply. the application as originally noticed, June 2, 2006, as supplemented by letters Date of issuance: December 5, 2006. and did not change the staff’s original dated August 18 and October 5, 2006. Effective date: As of the date of no significant hazards consideration Brief description of amendment: The issuance to be implemented within 90 determination. amendments revised Technical days from the date of issuance. The Commission’s related evaluation Specification Surveillance Requirement Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—164, Unit of the amendment is contained in a 3.1.7.10, ‘‘Standby Liquid Control 2—164, Unit 3—164 Safety Evaluation dated November 27, System Sodium Pentaborate Isotopic Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 2006. Enrichment’’ such that the required ≥ 41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The No significant hazards consideration enrichment increases from 30.0 atom ≥ amendments revised the Operating comments received: No. percent boron-10 to 45.0 atom percent Licenses for all three units. boron-10. Date of initial notice in Federal Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Date of issuance: November 16, 2006. Register: January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5080). Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– Effective date: As of the date of The May 4 and August 3, 2006, 455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, issuance and shall be implemented supplemental letters provided Ogle County, Illinois within 60 days. additional information that clarified the Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– Amendment Nos.: 222/214. application as originally noticed, and 457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and Renewed Facility Operating License did not change the staff’s original no 2, Will County, Illinois Nos. DPR–19 and DPR–25: The significant hazards consideration amendments revised the Technical determination. Date of application for amendment: Specification Surveillance Requirement The Commission’s related evaluation October 3, 2005. and Licenses. of the amendment is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The Safety Evaluation dated December 5, amendment revised the Technical Date of initial notice in Federal 2006. Specification (TS) Section 1.1, Register: (71 FR 46931; August 15, No significant hazards consideration ‘‘Definitions,’’ description of the 2006). comments received: No. Pressure and Temperature Limits Report The August 18 and October 5, 2006, (PTLR), by deleting reference to supplements provided additional Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, specifications containing limits in the information that clarified the Columbia Generating Station, Benton PTLR; (2) revised administrative application, did not expand the scope of County, Washington controls TS 5.6.6, ‘‘Reactor Coolant the application as originally noticed, Date of application for amendment: System (RCS) Pressure and Temperature and did not change the NRC staff’s September 30, 2004, as supplemented Limits Report (PTLR),’’ by requiring the original proposed no significant hazards by letters dated March 16, September NRC approval documents to be consideration determination as 29, 2005, and March 21, August 7, identified by date and topical reports to published in the Federal Register on August 24, and September 11, 2006. be identified by number and title; and August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46931). The Brief description of amendment: The (3) added Westinghouse Electric Commission’s related evaluation of the license amendment request revised the Company, LLC report, WCAP–16143, amendments is contained in a Safety technical specifications and the final ‘‘Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel Evaluation dated November 16, 2006. safety analysis report to amend the Flange Requirements Evaluation for No significant hazards consideration Columbia Generating Station’s licensing Byron/Braidwood Units 1 and 2,’’ to the comments received: No.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76002 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket The Commission’s related evaluation Reanalysis Requirements for Best No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy of the amendment is contained in a Estimate LOCA [Loss-of-Coolant Center, Linn County, Iowa Safety Evaluation dated November 27, Accident] Evaluation Models,’’ dated Date of application for amendment: 2006. December 2004, to the list of approved November 14, 2005, as supplemented by No significant hazards consideration analytical methods in TS 5.6.5.b. letter dated September 1, 2006. comments received: No. Date of issuance: November 21, 2006. Effective date: As of its date of Brief description of amendment: The Nuclear Management Company, LLC, issuance, and shall be implemented amendment revises Technical Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie within 90 days of issuance. Specification (TS) Table 3.3.6.1–1, Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units Amendment No.: 191. ‘‘Primary Containment Isolation 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Facility Operating License No. DPR– Instrumentation,’’ to eliminate the Main Date of application for amendments: 80: The amendment revised the Steamline Radiation Monitor trip November 9, 2005, supplemented by Technical Specifications and Facility function. letter dated May 15, 2006. Operating License. Date of issuance: November 15, 2006. Brief description of amendments: The Date of initial notice in Federal Effective date: As of the date of amendments modify the Technical Register: February 14, 2006 (71 FR issuance and shall be implemented Specifications (TS) for Prairie Island 7810). within 120 days. Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2, The September 27, 2006, Amendment No.: 261. to clarify which TS Surveillance supplemental letter provided additional Facility Operating License No. DPR– Requirements shall be met for the TS information that clarified the 49: The amendment revises the TSs. systems which include more application, and did not expand the Date of initial notice in Federal components (installed spare scope of the application as originally Register: (71 FR 43533) August 1, 2006. components) than are required to satisfy noticed. The supplement provided additional the TS Limiting Conditions for The Commission’s related evaluation information that clarified the Operation. These amendments revise TS of the amendment is contained in a application, did not expand the scope of 3.7.8, ‘‘Cooling Water (CL) System,’’ TS Safety Evaluation dated November 21, the application as originally noticed, 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources-Operating,’’ and TS 2006. and did not change the NRC staff’s 3.9.3, ‘‘Nuclear Instrumentation.’’ The No significant hazards consideration original proposed no significant hazards amendments also make minor comments received: No. consideration determination, as corrections for some of these TSs. Southern California Edison Company, et published in the Federal Register on Date of issuance: November 14, 2006. August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43533). al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, Effective date: As of the date of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, The Commission’s related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented of the amendment is contained in a Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, within 90 days. California Safety Evaluation dated November 15, Amendment Nos.: 175 and 165. 2006. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Date of application for amendments: No significant hazards consideration 42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised December 6, 2005, as supplemented by comments received: No. the Technical Specifications. letters dated March 14 and November FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket Date of initial notice in Federal 30, 2006. No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy Register: February 14, 2006 (71 FR Brief description of amendments: The Center, Linn County, Iowa 7809). amendment deleted Technical The Commission’s related evaluation Specification (TS) Limiting Condition Date of application for amendment: of the amendments is contained in a for Operation (LCO) 3.3.10, ‘‘Fuel December 22, 2005. Safety Evaluation dated November 14, Handling Isolation Signal (FHIS),’’ and Brief description of amendment: The 2006. The supplemental information TS LCO 3.7.14, ‘‘Fuel Handling Building amendment revises the Duane Arnold provided in letter May 15, 2006, did not Post-Accident Cleanup Filter System,’’ Energy Center licensing basis, as impact the conclusions of the and their associated surveillance described in the Updated Final Safety Determination of No Significant Hazards requirements. The amendment also Analysis Report (UFSAR), to replace the Consideration and Environmental deleted the Fuel Handling Building current plant-specific reactor pressure Assessment presented in the November Post-Accident Cleanup Filter Systems vessel material surveillance program 9, 2005 submittal. from the Ventilation Filter Testing with the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel No significant hazards consideration Program in administrative TS 5.5.2.12. and Internals Project Integrated comments received: No. Date of issuance: December 4, 2006. Surveillance Program as the basis for Effective date: As of its date of demonstrating compliance with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, issuance and shall be implemented requirements of Appendix H to Part 50 Docket No. 50–275, Diablo Canyon within 60 days of issuance. of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, San Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—208; Unit Regulations, ‘‘Reactor Vessel Material Luis Obispo County, California 3—200. Surveillance Program Requirements.’’ Date of application for amendment: Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Date of issuance: November 27, 2006. December 16, 2005, as supplemented by 10 and NPF–15: The amendments Effective date: As of the date of a letter dated September 27, 2006. revised the Operating Licenses and issuance and shall be implemented Brief description of amendment: The Technical Specifications. within 90 days. amendment revised Technical Date of initial notice in Federal Amendment No.: 262. Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Core Register: January 3, 2006 (71 FR 155). Facility Operating License No. DPR– Operating Limits Report (COLR).’’ The March 14 and November 30, 2006, 49: The amendment authorizes changes Specifically, the change added supplemental letters provided to the UFSAR. Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP– additional information that clarified the Date of initial notice in Federal 12945–P–A, Addendum 1–A, Revision application, did not expand the scope of Register: (71 FR 43533) August 1, 2006. 0, ‘‘Method for Satisfying 10 CFR 50.46 the application as originally noticed,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76003

and did not change the staff’s original Date of issuance: November 7, 2006. No significant hazards consideration no significant hazards consideration Effective date: Implementation of the comments received: No. determination. amendment is the incorporation into the Previously Published Notices of The Commission’s related evaluation next UFSAR update made in accordance Consideration of Issuance of of the amendments is contained in a with 10 CFR 50.71(e), of the changes to Amendments to Facility Operating Safety Evaluation dated December 4, the description of the facility as Licenses, Proposed No Significant 2006. described in TVA’s application dated Hazards Consideration Determination, No significant hazards consideration May 25, 2006, as supplemented by letter and Opportunity for a Hearing comments received: No. dated September 1, 2006, and evaluated Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket in the staff’s Safety Evaluation attached The following notices were previously Nos. 50–259 Browns Ferry Nuclear to this amendment. published as separate individual Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Amendment Nos. 313 and 302. notices. The notice content was the Alabama Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– same as above. They were published as 77 and DPR–79: Amendments revised individual notices either because time Date of application for amendment: the Updated Final Safety Analysis did not allow the Commission to wait October 12, 2004, as supplemented by Report. for this biweekly notice or because the letters dated September 7 and November Date of initial notice in Federal action involved exigent circumstances. 1, 2006. Register: June 20, 2006 (71 FR 35460). They are repeated here because the Brief description of amendment: To The supplemental letter dated biweekly notice lists all amendments remove License Condition 2.C(4). September 1, 2006, provided clarifying issued or proposed to be issued Date of issuance: November 28, 2006. information that was within the scope of Effective date: As of date of issuance, involving no significant hazards the initial notice and did not change the to be implemented within 30 days. consideration. Amendment No.: 265 initial proposed no significant hazards For details, see the individual notice Renewed Facility Operating License consideration determination. in the Federal Register on the day and Nos. DPR–33: Amendment revised the The Commission’s related evaluation page cited. This notice does not extend Renewed Operating License. of the amendments is contained in a the notice period of the original notice. Safety Evaluation dated November 7, Date of initial notice in Federal Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46937). 2006. No significant hazards consideration 50–259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, The supplements dated September 7 Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama and November 1, 2006, provided comments received: No. additional information that clarified the Union Electric Company, Docket No. Date of application for amendments: application, did not expand the scope of 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, November 9, 2006 (TS–458). the application as originally noticed, Callaway County, Missouri Description of amendments request: and did not change the staff’s original The proposed amendment would delete proposed no significant hazards Date of application for amendment: the Technical Specification Surveillance consideration determination as September 20, 2006, as supplemented Requirement to verify the position of a published in the Federal Register. by letter dated November 20, 2006. low pressure coolant injection crosstie The Commission’s related evaluation Brief description of amendment: The valve. of the amendment is contained in a amendment revised (1) the definition of Date of publication of individual Safety Evaluation dated November 28, the Pressure and Temperature Limits notice in the Federal Register: November 2006. Report (PTLR) in Technical 20, 2006 (71 FR 67166). No significant hazards consideration Specification (TS) 1.1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ Expiration date of individual notice: comments received: No. and (2) TS 5.6.6, ‘‘Reactor Coolant December 20, 2006 (Public comments) System (RCS) PRESSURE AND and January 19, 2007 (Hearing requests). Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket TEMPERATURE LIMITS REPORT Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah (PTLR).’’ Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton Date of issuance: December 5, 2006. of December 2006. County, Tennessee Effective date: As of its date of For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date of application for amendments: issuance, and shall be implemented Catherine Haney, May 25, 2006, as supplemented by letter within 90 days of the date of issuance. Director, Division of Operating Reactor dated September 1, 2006. Amendment No.: 177. Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Brief description of amendments: The Facility Operating License No. NPF– Regulation. requested changes provide a revision to 30: The amendment revised the [FR Doc. E6–21346 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] the design and licensing basis for the Operating License and Technical BILLING CODE 7590–01–P containment sump debris transport Specifications. analysis as described in the Sequoyah Date of initial notice in Federal Nuclear Plant (SQN) Updated Final Register: October 6, 2006 (71 FR 59136). SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The The supplemental letter dated COMMISSION current transport analysis for SQN is a November 20, 2006, provided additional two-dimensional physical transport clarifying information, did not expand Submission for OMB Review; model, and Tennessee Valley Authority the scope of the application as originally Comment Request (TVA) is requesting to update the noticed, and did not change the staff’s analysis to a three-dimensional original proposed no significant hazards Upon written request, copies available computational fluid dynamics transport consideration determination published from: Securities and Exchange model. The results of the reanalysis will in the Federal Register. Commission Office of Filings and be used to size the flow area of the The Commission’s related evaluation Information Services, Washington, DC advanced design containment sump of the amendment is contained in a 20549. strainers which will replace the original Safety Evaluation dated December 5, Extension: Rule 206(3)–2; SEC File No. 270– sump intake structure. 2006. 216; OMB Control No. 3235–0243.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76004 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant Paperwork Reduction Act and are not Notice is hereby given that, under the to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 derived from a comprehensive or Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities representative survey or study of the U.S.C. 350l–3520), the Securities and and Exchange Commission cost of Commission rules and forms. Exchange Commission (the (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the This collection of information is ‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)–2) and is Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of the necessary in order for the investment (‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule previously approved collection of information discussed below. 206(3)–2. The collection of information information discussed below. Rule 206(3)–2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)–2) requirements under the rule is Section 30(e) of the Investment which is entitled ‘‘Agency Cross mandatory. Information subject to the Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a– Transactions for Advisory Clients,’’ 29(e)) (the ‘‘Investment Company Act’’ disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)– 1 permits investment advisers to comply 2 does not require submission to the or ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 30e–2 thereunder with section 206(3) of the Investment Commission; and, accordingly, the (17 CFR 270.30e–2) require registered Advisers Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’) (15 disclosure pursuant to the rule is not unit investment trusts (‘‘UITs’’) that U.S.C. 80b–6(3)) by obtaining a client’s kept confidential. invest substantially all of their assets in blanket consent to enter into agency securities of a management investment cross transactions (i.e., a transaction in Commission-registered investment company 2 (‘‘fund’’) to send to which an adviser acts as a broker to both advisers are required to maintain and shareholders at least semi-annually a the advisory client and the opposite preserve certain information required report containing certain financial party to the transaction). Rule 206(3)–2 under Rule 206(3)–2 for five (5) years. statements and other information. applies to all registered investment The long-term retention of these records Specifically, Rule 30e–2 requires that advisers. In relying on the rule, is necessary for the Commission’s the report contain the financial investment advisers must provide inspection program to ascertain statements and other information that certain disclosures to their clients. compliance with the Advisers Act. Rule 30e–1 under the Act (17 CFR Advisory clients can use the disclosures An agency may not conduct or 270.30e–1) requires to be included in to monitor agency cross transactions sponsor, and a person is not required to the report of the underlying fund for the that affect their advisory account. The respond to a collection of information same fiscal period. Rule 30e–1 requires Commission also uses the information unless it displays a currently valid that the underlying fund’s report required by Rule 206(3)–2 in connection control number. contain, among other things, the with its investment adviser inspection General comments regarding the financial statements and other program to ensure that advisers are in above information should be directed to information that is required to be compliance with the rule. Without the the following persons: (1) Desk Officer included in such report by the fund’s information collected under the rule, for the Securities and Exchange registration form. advisory clients would not have Commission, Office of Information and The purpose of this requirement is to information necessary for monitoring Regulatory Affairs, Office of apprise current shareholders of the their adviser’s handling of their Management and Budget, Room 10202, operational and financial condition of accounts and the Commission would be New Executive Office Building, the UIT. Absent the requirement to less efficient and effective in its Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: disclose all material information in inspection program. [email protected]; and (ii) R. reports, investors would be unable to The information requirements of the Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information obtain accurate information upon which rule consist of the following: (1) Prior to Officer, Securities and Exchange to base investment decisions and obtaining the client’s consent, Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, consumer confidence in the securities appropriate disclosure must be made to 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, industry might be adversely affected. the client as to the practice of, and the VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: Requiring the submission of these conflicts of interest involved in, agency [email protected]. Comments must reports to the Commission permits us to cross transactions; (2) at or before the be submitted to OMB within 30 days of verify compliance with securities law completion of any such transaction, the this notice. requirements. In addition, Rule 30e–2 client must be furnished with a written permits, under certain conditions, confirmation containing specified Dated: December 11, 2006. delivery of a single shareholder report to information and offering to furnish Nancy M. Morris, investors who share an address upon request certain additional Secretary. (‘‘householding’’). Specifically, Rule information; and (3) at least annually, [FR Doc. E6–21587 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] 30e–2 permits householding of annual the client must be furnished with a BILLING CODE 8011–01–P and semi-annual reports by UITs to written statement or summary as to the satisfy the delivery requirements of Rule total number of transactions during the 30e–2 if, in addition to the other period covered by the consent and the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE conditions set forth in the rule, the UIT total amount of commissions received COMMISSION by the adviser or its affiliated broker- 1 Rule 30e–2 was originally adopted as Rule 30d– dealer attributable to such transactions. Submission for OMB Review; 2, but was redesignated as Rule 30e–2 effective The Commission estimates that Comment Request February 15, 2001. See Role of Independent approximately 693 respondents use the Directors of Investment Companies, Investment Upon written request, copies available Company Act Release No. 24816 (Jan. 2, 2001) (66 rule annually, necessitating about 32 FR 3734 (Jan. 16, 2001)). responses per respondent each year, for from: Securities and Exchange 2 Management investment companies are defined a total of 22,176 responses. Each Commission Office of Filings and in Section 4(3) of the Investment Company Act as response requires an estimated 0.5 Information Services, Washington, DC any investment company other than a face-amount 20549. certificate company or a unit investment trust, as hours, for a total of 11,088 hours. The those terms are defined in Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of estimated average burden hours are Extension: Rule 30e–2; SEC File No. 270– the Investment Company Act. See 15 U.S.C. 80a– made solely for the purposes of the 437; OMB Control No. 3235–0494. 4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76005

has obtained from each applicable or e-mail to: outstanding that is the subject of the investor written or implied consent to [email protected]; and (ii) R. tender offer is held by U.S. holders. The the householding of shareholder reports Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information information collected must be filed with at such address. The rule requires UITs Officer, Securities and Exchange the Commission and is publicly that wish to household shareholder Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, available. We estimate that it takes 2 reports with implied consent to send a 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, hours per response to prepare Schedule notice to each applicable investor VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: 13E–4F and that the information is filed stating that the investors in the [email protected]. Comments must by 3 respondents annually for a total household will receive one report in the be submitted to OMB within 30 days of annual reporting burden of 6 hours (2 future unless the investors provide this notice. hours per response × 3 responses). contrary instructions. In addition, at Dated: December 11, 2006. Form F–X (17 CFR 239. 42) is used to least once a year, UITs relying on the Nancy M. Morris, appoint an agent for service of process rule for householding must explain to Secretary. by Canadian issuers registering investors who have provided written or securities on Form F–7, F–8, F–9 or F– [FR Doc. E6–21588 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] implied consent how they can revoke 10 or filing periodic reports on Form their consent. Preparing and sending the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 40–F under the Exchange Act of 1934 initial notice and the annual (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The information explanation of the right to revoke SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE collected must be filed with the consent are collections of information COMMISSION Commission and is publicly available. under the Paperwork Reduction Act. We estimate that it takes 2 hours per The purpose of the notice and annual Submissions for OMB Review; response to prepare Form F–X and that explanation requirements associated Comment Request the information is filed by 129 with the householding provisions of the respondents for a total annual reporting rule is to ensure that investors who wish Upon written request; copies available burden of 258 hours (2 hours per to receive individual copies of from: Securities and Exchange response × 129 responses). shareholder reports are able to do so. Commission Office of Filings and An agency may not conduct or The Commission estimates that as of Information Services, Washington, DC sponsor, and a person is not required to 20549. April 2006, approximately 737 UITs respond to, a collection of information were subject to the provisions of Rule Extensions: unless it displays a currently valid 30e–2. The Commission further Rule 12d1–3; OMB Control No. 3235–0109; control number. estimates that the annual burden SEC File No. 270–116. Written comments regarding the associated with Rule 30e–2 is 121 hours Schedule 13E–4F; OMB Control No. 3235– 0375; SEC File No. 270–340. above information should be directed to for each UIT, including an estimated 20 the following persons: (i) Desk Officer hours associated with the notice Form F–X; OMB Control No. 3235–0379; for the Securities and Exchange requirement for householding and an SEC File No. 270–336. Commission, Office of Information and estimated 1 hour associated with the Notice is hereby given that pursuant Regulatory Affairs, Office of explanation of the right to revoke to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Management and Budget, Room 10102, consent to householding, for a total of (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities New Executive Office Building, 89,177 burden hours. and Exchange Commission Washington, DC 20503 or send an e- In addition to the burden hours, the (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the _ Commission estimates that the cost of Office of Management and Budget these mail to David [email protected]; contracting for outside services requests for extension of the previously and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief associated with complying with Rule approved collections of information Information Officer, Securities and 30e–2 is $24,640 per respondent (80 discussed below. Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley hours times $308 per hour for Rule 12d1–3 (17 CFR 240.12d1–3) Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, requires a certification that a security Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e- independent auditor services), for a total _ of $18,159,680 ($24,640 per respondent has been approved by an exchange for mail to: PRA [email protected]. times 737 respondents). listing and registration pursuant to Comments must be submitted to OMB These estimates are made solely for Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange within 30 days of this notice. the purposes of the Paperwork Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l(d)) to be filed Dated: December 11, 2006. Reduction Act, and are not derived from with the Commission. The information Nancy M. Morris, a comprehensive or even a required under Rule 12d1–3 must be Secretary. representative survey or study of the filed with the Commission and is [FR Doc. E6–21589 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] publicly available. We estimate that it costs of Commission rules and forms. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P The collection of information under takes approximately one-half hour to Rule 30e–2 is mandatory. The provide the information required under information provided under Rule 30e–2 Rule 12d1–3 and that the information is SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE is not kept confidential. An agency may filed by 688 respondents annually for a COMMISSION not conduct or sponsor, and a person is total annual reporting burden of 344 not required to respond to a collection burden hours (.5 hours per response × Submission for OMB Review; of information unless it displays a 688 responses). Comment Request currently valid control number. Schedule 13E–4F (17 CFR 240.13e– Please direct general comments 102) may be used by any foreign private Upon written request, copies available regarding the above information to the issuer if: (1) The issuer is incorporated from: Securities and Exchange following persons: (i) Desk Officer for or organized under the laws of Canada; Commission Office of Filings and the Securities and Exchange (2) the issuer is making a cash tender or Information Services, Washington, DC Commission, Office of Management and exchange offer for the issuer’s own 20549 Budget, Room 10102, New Executive securities; and (3) less than 40 percent Extension: Form N–6; SEC File No. 270–446; Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 of the class of such issuer’s securities OMB Control No. 3235–0503.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76006 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Notice is hereby given that pursuant 24,648 hours (32 initial registration the Investment Company Act of 1940 to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 statements annually times 770.25 hours (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) registration (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities per registration statement). The statement of separate accounts and Exchange Commission frequency of response is annual. The organized as unit investment trusts.’’ (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the total annual hour burden for Form N– Form N–4 is the form used by insurance Office of Management and Budget 6, therefore, is estimated to be 65,755.5 company separate accounts organized as (‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of the hours (41,107.5 hours for post-effective unit investment trusts that offer variable previously approved collection of amendments plus 24,648 hours for annuity contracts to register as information discussed below. initial registration statements). investment companies under the The title for the collection of The information collection Investment Company Act of 1940 and/ information is ‘‘Form N–6 (17 CFR requirements imposed by Form N–6 are or to register their securities under the 239.17c and 274.11d) under the mandatory. Responses to the collection Securities Act of 1933 (‘‘Securities Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et of information will not be kept Act’’). The primary purpose of the seq.) and under the Investment confidential. An agency may not registration process is to provide Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1 conduct or sponsor, and a person is not disclosure of financial and other et seq.) registration statement of separate required to respond to a collection of information to investors and potential accounts organized as unit investment information unless it displays a investors for the purpose of evaluating trusts that offer variable life insurance currently valid control number. an investment in a security. Form N–4 policies.’’ Form N–6 is the form used by Please direct general comments also permits separate accounts insurance company separate accounts regarding the above information to the organized as unit investment trusts that organized as unit investment trusts that following persons: (i) Desk Officer for offer variable annuity contracts to offer variable life insurance contracts to the Securities and Exchange provide investors with a prospectus register as investment companies under Commission, Office of Management and containing the information required in a the Investment Company Act of 1940 Budget, Room 10102, New Executive registration statement prior to the sale or and/or to register their securities under Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 at the time of confirmation or delivery the Securities Act of 1933. The primary or e-mail to: of the securities. The estimated annual purpose of the registration process is to [email protected]; and (ii) R. number of respondents filing on Form provide disclosure of financial and Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information N–4 is 48 for those filing initial other information to investors and Officer, Securities and Exchange registration statements and 1,894 for potential investors for the purpose of Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, those filing post-effective amendments. evaluating an investment in a security. 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, The proposed frequency of response is Form N–6 also permits separate VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: annual. The estimate of the total annual accounts organized as unit investment [email protected]. Comments must reporting burden of the collection of trusts that offer variable life insurance be submitted to OMB within 30 days of information is approximately 278.5 contracts to provide investors with a this notice. hours per initial filing and 197.25 hours prospectus containing information for a post-effective amendment, for a Dated: December 11, 2006. required in a registration statement prior total of 386,959.5 hours ((48 initial to the sale or at the time of confirmation Nancy M. Morris, registration statements × 278.5 hours) + of delivery of securities. The form also Secretary. (1,894 post-effective amendments × may be used by the Commission in its [FR Doc. E6–21594 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] 197.25 hour)). Providing the information regulatory review, inspection, and BILLING CODE 8011–01–P required by Form N–4 is mandatory. policy-making roles. Responses will not be kept confidential. The Commission estimates that there Estimates of the burden hours are made are approximately 241 separate accounts SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE solely for the purposes of the Paperwork registered as unit investment trusts and COMMISSION Reduction Act, and are not derived from offering variable life insurance policies a comprehensive or even a that file registration statements on Form Submission for OMB Review; representative survey or study of the N–6. The Commission estimates that Comment Request costs of Commission rules and forms. there are 32 initial registration Upon written request, copies available An agency may not conduct or statements on Form N–6 filed annually. from: Securities and Exchange sponsor, and a person is not required to The Commission estimates that Commission, Office of Filings and respond to a collection of information approximately 641 registration Information Services, Washington, DC unless it displays a currently valid statements (609 post-effective 20549. control number. amendments plus 32 initial registration General comments regarding the statements) are filed on Form N–6 Extension: Form N–4; SEC File No. 270–282; above information should be directed to annually. The Commission estimates OMB Control No. 3235–0318. the following persons: (i) Desk Officer that the hour burden for preparing and Notice is hereby given that pursuant for the Securities and Exchange filing a post-effective amendment on to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Commission, Office of Information and Form N–6 is 67.5 hours. The total (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities Regulatory Affairs, Office of annual hour burden for preparing and and Exchange Commission Management and Budget, Room 10102, filing post-effective amendments is (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the New Executive Office Building, 41,107.5 hours (609 post-effective Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: amendments annually times 67.5 hours (‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of the [email protected]; and (ii) R. per amendment). The estimated hour previously approved collection of Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information burden for preparing and filing an information discussed below. Officer, Securities and Exchange initial registration statement on Form The collection of information is Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, N–6 is 770.25 hours. The estimated entitled: ‘‘Form N–4 (17 CFR 239.17b 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, annual hour burden for preparing and and 274.11c) under the Securities Act of VA 22312, or send an e-mail to: filing initial registration statements is 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and under [email protected]. Comments must

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76007

be submitted to OMB within 30 days of E and the offering circular to determine previously approved collection of this notice. whether an offering qualifies for the information discussed below. Dated: December 11, 2006. exemption under Regulation E. It is Rules 8b–1 to 8b–33 (17 CFR 270.8b– Nancy M. Morris, estimated that approximately ten issuers 1 to 8b–33) under the Investment file notifications, together with attached Secretary. Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1 offering circulars, on Form 1–E with the et seq.) (the ‘‘Act’’) are the procedural [FR Doc. E6–21595 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Commission annually. The Commission BILLING CODE 8011–01–P rules an investment company must estimates that the total burden hours for follow when preparing and filing a preparing these notifications would be registration statement. These rules were 1,000 hours in the aggregate. Estimates SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE adopted to standardize the mechanics of of the burden hours are made solely for COMMISSION registration under the Act and to the purposes of the PRA, and are not provide more specific guidance for Proposed Collection; Comment derived from a comprehensive or even persons registering under the Act than Request a representative survey or study of the the information contained in the statute. costs of SEC rules and forms. For the most part, these procedural rules Upon written request, copies available Written comments are invited on: (a) do not require the disclosure of from: Securities and Exchange Whether the proposed collection of information. Two of the rules, however, Commission, Office of Filings and information is necessary for the proper require limited disclosure of Information Services, Washington, DC performance of the functions of the information.1 The information required 20549–0004. agency, including whether the by the rules is necessary to ensure that information will have practical utility; Extension: Form 1–E, Regulation E; SEC File investors have clear and complete (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate No. 270–221; OMB Control No. 3235– information upon which to base an of the burden of the collection of 0232. investment decision. The Commission information; (c) ways to enhance the Notice is hereby given that, pursuant uses the information that investment quality, utility, and clarity of the to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 companies provide on registration information collected; and (d) ways to (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities statements in its regulatory, disclosure minimize the burden of the collection of and Exchange Commission review, inspection and policy-making information on respondents, including (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments roles. The respondents to the collection through the use of automated collection on the collections of information of information are investment techniques or other forms of information summarized below. The Commission companies filing registration statements technology. Consideration will be given plans to submit the existing collection under the Act. to comments and suggestions submitted of information of the Office of The Commission does not estimate Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for in writing within 60 days of this publication. separately the total annual reporting and extension and approval. recordkeeping burden associated with Form 1–E (17 CFR 239.200) under the Please direct your written comments rules 8b–1 to 8b–33 because the burden Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief associated with these rules are included seq.) (‘‘Securities Act’’) is the form that Information Officer, Securities and in the burden estimates the Commission a small business investment company Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley submits for the investment company (‘‘SBIC’’) or business development Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, registration statement forms (e.g., Form company (‘‘BDC’’) uses to notify the Alexandria, Virginia, 22312; or send an _ N–1A, Form N–2, Form N–3, and Form Commission that it is claiming an e-mail to: PRA [email protected]. N–4). For example, a mutual fund that exemption under Regulation E from Dated: December 11, 2006. prepares a registration statement on registering its securities under the Nancy M. Morris, Form N–1A must comply with the rules Securities Act. Rule 605 of Regulation E Secretary. under section 8(b), including rules on (17 CFR 230.605) under the Securities [FR Doc. E6–21596 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] riders, amendments, the form of the Act requires an SBIC or BDC claiming BILLING CODE 8011–01–P registration statement, and the number such an exemption to file an offering of copies to be submitted. Because the circular with the Commission that must fund only incurs a burden from the also be provided to persons to whom an SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE section 8(b) rules when preparing a offer is made. Form 1–E requires an COMMISSION registration statement, it would be issuer to provide the names and impractical to measure the compliance addresses of the issuer, its affiliates, Submission for OMB Review; burden of these rules separately. The directors, officers, and counsel; a Comment Request Commission believes that including the description of events which would Upon written request, copies available burden of the section 8(b) rules with the make the exemption unavailable; the from: Securities and Exchange burden estimates for the investment jurisdiction in which the issuer intends Commission Office of Filings and company registration statement forms to offer its securities; information about Information Services, Washington, DC provides a more accurate and complete unregistered securities issued or sold by 20549. estimate of the total burdens associated the issuer within one year before filing with the registration process. the notification on Form 1–E; Extension: Rules 8b–1 to 8b–33; SEC File No. information as to whether the issuer is 270–135; OMB Control No. 3235–0176 1 Rule 8b–3 (17 CFR 270.8b–3) provides that presently offering or contemplating Notice is hereby given that pursuant whenever a registration form requires the title of offering any other securities; and to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 securities to be stated, the registrant must indicate exhibits, including copies of the rule (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities the type and general character of the securities to 605 offering circular and any and Exchange Commission be issued. Rule 8b–22 (17 CFR 270.8b–22) provides that if the existence of control is open to reasonable underwriting contracts. (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the doubt, the registrant may disclaim the existence of The Commission uses the information Office of Management and Budget control, but it must state the material facts pertinent provided in the notification on Form 1– (‘‘OMB’’) a request for extension of the to the possible existence of control.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76008 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Investment companies seeking to submitted Amendment No. 1 to the Company Units (‘‘ICUs’’) and trading register under the Act are required to proposed rule change on December 6, standards pursuant to which the provide the information specified in 2006.5 The Commission is publishing Exchange may either list and trade ICUs rules 8b–1 to 8b–33 if applicable. this notice to solicit comments on the or trade such ICUs on the Exchange on Responses will not be kept confidential. proposed rule change, as amended, from an unlisted trading privileges (‘‘UTP’’) An agency may not conduct or interested persons and is approving the basis.6 sponsor, and a person is not required to proposal on an accelerated basis. The Exchange now proposes to list respond to a collection of information and trade the following series of the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s unless it displays a currently valid OMB iShares Trust (the ‘‘Trust’’) 7 under Statement of the Terms of Substance of control number. Section 703.16 of the NYSE Listed the Proposed Rule Change General comments regarding the Company Manual (the ‘‘Manual’’) and above information should be directed to The Exchange proposes to list and the Exchange’s Rules 1100 et seq.: (1) the following persons: (i) Desk Officer trade shares (‘‘Shares’’ or ‘‘iShares’’) of iShares 8 Lehman Short Treasury Bond for the Securities and Exchange the following eight series of the iShares Fund; (2) iShares Lehman 3–7 Year Commission, Office of Information and Trust (collectively, the ‘‘Funds’’): (1) Treasury Bond Fund; (3) iShares Regulatory Affairs, Office of iShares Lehman Short Treasury Bond Lehman 10–20 Year Treasury Bond Management and Budget, Room 10102, Fund; (2) iShares Lehman 3–7 Year Fund; (4) iShares Lehman 1–3 Year New Executive Office Building, Treasury Bond Fund; (3) iShares Credit Bond Fund; (5) iShares Lehman Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: Lehman 10–20 Year Treasury Bond _ Intermediate Credit Bond Fund; (6) David [email protected]; and (ii) R. Fund; (4) iShares Lehman 1–3 Year iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund; (7) Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Credit Bond Fund; (5) iShares Lehman iShares Lehman Intermediate Officer, Securities and Exchange Intermediate Credit Bond Fund; (6) Government/Credit Bond Fund; and (8) Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund; (7) iShares Lehman Government/Credit 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, iShares Lehman Intermediate Bond Fund. VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: Government/Credit Bond Fund; and (8) _ The Funds will be based on the PRA [email protected]. Comments must iShares Lehman Government/Credit following indexes, respectively: (1) be submitted to OMB within 30 days of Bond Fund. Lehman Brothers Short U.S. Treasury this notice. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Index; (2) Lehman Brothers 3–7 Year Dated: December 11, 2006. Statement of the Purpose of, and U.S. Treasury Index; (3) Lehman Nancy M. Morris, Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Brothers 10–20 Year U.S. Treasury Secretary. Change Index; (4) Lehman Brothers 1–3 Year [FR Doc. E6–21643 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] U.S. Credit Index; (5) Lehman Brothers In its filing with the Commission, the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Intermediate U.S. Credit Index; (6) Exchange included statements Lehman Brothers U.S. Credit Index; (7) concerning the purpose of and basis for SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the proposed rule change, as amended. 6 In 1996, the Commission approved Section COMMISSION The text of those statements may be 703.16 of the NYSE Manual, which sets forth examined at the places specified in Item general the rules related to the listing of ICUs. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36923 (March [Release No. 34–54916; File No. SR–NYSE– III below. The Exchange has prepared 2006–70] 5, 1996), 61 FR 10410 (March 13, 1996) (SR–NYSE– summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, 95–23). In 2000, the Commission also approved the Self-Regulatory Organizations; New and C below, of the most significant Exchange’s generic listing standards pursuant to aspects of such statements. Rule 19b–4(e) of the Act for listing and trading, or York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of the trading pursuant to UTP, of ICUs under Section Filing and Order Granting Accelerated A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 703.16 of the Manual and NYSE Rule 1100. See Approval of Proposed Rule Change Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43679 Statement of the Purpose of, and (December 5, 2000), 65 FR 77949 (December 13, and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 2000) (SR–NYSE–00–46). Such standards, however,  Relating to iShares Lehman Bond Change did not contemplate ICUs that are based on indexes Funds containing fixed income securities, and thus the 1. Purpose Exchange has filed this proposal to accommodate the products that are the subject of this proposal. December 11, 2006. The Exchange has adopted listing Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 7 The Trust is registered under the Investment standards applicable to Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Investment Company Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act’’). 15 U.S.C. 80a. On July 19, 2006, the Trust 2 3 ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, other things, represented that less than 1% of the filed with the Commission a Registration Statement notice is hereby given that on August market value of the underlying indices consisted of for the Funds on Form N–1A under the Securities 24, 2006 the New York Stock Exchange Rule 144A securities; addressed the firewall Act, 15 U.S.C. 77a, and under the Investment LLC (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with procedures used by Lehman Brothers Inc.; Company Act relating to the Funds (File Nos. 333– explained why an independent calculation agent is 92935 and 811–09729) (the ‘‘Registration the Securities and Exchange not required for the covered products; provided the Statement’’). Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the top-ten component weightings for each index; and The Commission has issued orders granting relief proposed rule change as described in clarified the applicability of trade halts. requested by the Trust in its Applications for Items I and II below, which Items have 5 In Amendment No. 2, which supplemented the Orders under Sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the proposed rule change as filed, the Exchange added Investment Company Act for the purpose of been prepared by the Exchange. The disclosure to the purpose section of the filing and exempting the Funds from various provisions of the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 Exhibit 1 thereto (a) to note that the Funds (defined Investment Company Act. See In the Matter of to the proposed rule change on below) must comply with the federal securities Barclays Global Fund Advisors, et al., Investment November 6, 2006.4 The Exchange laws, including that the securities accepted for Company Act Release No. 25622 (June 22, 2002); In deposit and those used to satisfy redemption the Matter of Barclays Global Fund Advisors, et al., requests are sold in transactions that would be Investment Company Act Release No. 26175 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). exempt from the Securities Act of 1933 (‘‘Securities (September 8, 2003); and In the Matter of Barclays 2 15 U.S.C. 78a. Act’’) and in compliance with the conditions of Global Fund Advisors, et al., Investment Company 3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Rule 144A thereunder; and (b) to clarify how Act Release No. 27417 (June 13, 2006). 4 In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the market capitalization is calculated for the 8 iShares is a registered trademark of Barclays proposed rule change as filed, the Exchange, among Underlying Index (defined below) of each Fund. Global Investors, N.A.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76009

Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. assets in U.S. government bonds not of 100% would indicate perfect Government/Credit Index; and (8) included in its Underlying Index, but correlation. Any correlation percentage Lehman Brothers U.S. Government/ which BGFA believes will help the of less than 100% is called ‘‘tracking Credit Index. The indexes are referred to Fund track its Underlying Index. For error.’’ The Exchange states that a Fund herein collectively as ‘‘Indexes’’ or example, a Treasury Fund may invest in using a Representative Sampling ‘‘Underlying Indexes.’’ bonds not included in its Underlying indexing strategy can be expected to Operation of the Funds.9 Index in order to reflect changes in its have a greater tracking error than a Fund Each Fund is an ‘‘index fund’’ that Underlying Index (such as using a Replication indexing strategy.10 seeks investment results that correspond reconstitutions, additions, and A Fund will not concentrate its generally to the price and yield deletions). Each Treasury Fund also investments (i.e., hold 25% or more of performance, before fees and expenses, may invest up to 5% of its assets in its total assets), in a particular industry of a particular index (its ‘‘Underlying repurchase agreements collateralized by or group of industries, except that a Index’’) developed by Lehman. U.S. government obligations and in cash Fund will concentrate its investments to Barclays Global Fund Advisors and cash equivalents, including shares approximately the same extent that its (‘‘BGFA’’), the investment adviser to of money market funds affiliated with Underlying Index is so concentrated. each Fund (‘‘Adviser’’), is a subsidiary BGFA. For purposes of this limitation, of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. Each of the iShares Lehman 1–3 Year securities of the U.S. government (‘‘BGI’’). BGFA and its affiliates are not Credit Bond Fund, iShares Lehman (including its agencies and affiliated with the Index Provider. Intermediate Credit Bond Fund, and instrumentalities), repurchase Investors Bank & Trust Company iShares Lehman Credit Bond Fund (the agreements collateralized by U.S. (‘‘Investors Bank’’ or ‘‘IBT’’) is the ‘‘Credit Bond Funds’’), and iShares government securities, and securities of administrator, custodian and transfer Lehman Intermediate Government/ state or municipal governments and agent for each Fund. SEI Investments Credit Bond Fund and iShares Lehman their political subdivisions are not Distribution Co. (‘‘SEI’’) serves as the Government/Credit Bond Fund (the considered to be issued by members of Distributor of Creation Units (as ‘‘Government/Credit Bond Funds’’) will any industry. described below) for each Fund on an invest at least 90% of its assets in the From time to time, adjustments may agency basis. The Exchange states that securities of its Underlying Index. Each be made in the portfolio of the Funds in SEI does not maintain a secondary Credit Bond Fund and Government/ accordance with changes in the market in shares of the Funds. The Credit Bond Fund may invest the composition of the Underlying Indexes Exchange also notes that SEI has no role remainder of its assets in securities not or to maintain compliance with in determining the policies of any Fund included in its Underlying Index, but requirements applicable to a regulated or the securities that are purchased or which BGFA believes will help the investment company (‘‘RIC’’) under the sold by any Fund. Lehman Brothers, Fund track its Underlying Index. For Internal Revenue Code (‘‘Code’’).11 For Inc. (‘‘Lehman Brothers’’) is the Index example, a Credit Bond Fund or Provider. Lehman Brothers is not Government/Credit Bond Fund may 10 Replication is an indexing strategy in which a affiliated with the Trust, BGI, BGFA, invest in bonds not included in its Fund invests in substantially all of the securities in Investors Bank, the Distributor, or the Underlying Index in order to reflect its Underlying Index in approximately the same NYSE. changes in its Underlying Index (such as proportions as in the Underlying Index. reconstitutions, additions and 11 In order for the Funds to qualify for tax The Exchange states that BGFA uses treatment as a RIC, they must meet several a ‘‘passive’’ or indexing approach to try deletions). Each Credit Bond Fund or requirements under the Code. Among these is a to achieve each Fund’s investment Government/Credit Bond Fund also may requirement that, at the close of each quarter of the objective. Unlike many investment invest its other assets in futures, options Funds’ taxable year, (1) at least 50% of the market and swap contracts, cash and cash value of the Funds’ total assets must be represented companies, the Funds do not try to by cash items, U.S. government securities, ‘‘beat’’ the indexes they track and do not equivalents, including money market securities of other RICs and other securities, with seek temporary defensive positions funds advised by BGFA. such other securities limited for the purpose of this when markets decline or appear BGFA uses a Representative Sampling calculation with respect to any one issuer to an amount not greater than 5% of the value of the overvalued. indexing strategy. ‘‘Representative Sampling’’ involves investing in a Funds’ assets and not greater than 10% of the Each of the iShares Lehman Short outstanding voting securities of such issuer; and (2) Treasury Bond Fund, iShares Lehman representative sample of bonds in the not more than 25% of the value of their total assets 3–7 Year Treasury Bond Fund, and relevant Underlying Index, which has a may be invested in securities of any one issuer, or iShares Lehman 10–20 Year Treasury similar investment profile as the two or more issuers that are controlled by the Funds relevant Underlying Index. Bonds (within the meaning of Section 851(b)(4)(B) of the Bond Fund (the ‘‘Treasury Funds’’) Code) and that are engaged in the same or similar generally will invest at least 90% of its selected have aggregate investment trades or business (other than U.S. government assets in the bonds of its Underlying characteristics (based on market securities of other RICs). Index and at least 95% of its assets in capitalization and industry weightings), Other securities’’ of an issuer are considered qualifying assets only if they meet the following U.S. government bonds. Each Treasury fundamental characteristics (such as return variability, earnings valuation, conditions: Fund also may invest up to 10% of its The entire amount of the securities of the issuer duration, maturity, or credit ratings and owned by the company is not greater in value than 9 The Exchange notes that the information yield) and liquidity measures similar to 5% of the value of the total assets of the company; provided herein is based on information included those of the relevant Underlying Index. and the entire amount of the securities of such in the Registration Statement. While the Adviser Funds that use Representative Sampling issuer owned by the company does not represent (defined above) would manage the Funds, the generally do not hold all of the bonds more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities Funds’ Board of Directors would have overall of such issuer. responsibility for the Funds’ operations. Further, that are included in the relevant Under the second diversification requirement, the the composition of the Board is, and would be, in Underlying Index. ‘‘25% diversification limitation,’’ a company may compliance with the requirements of Section 10 of BGFA expects that, over time, the not invest more than 25% of the value of its assets the Investment Company Act. The Funds are correlation between each Fund’s in any one issuer or two issuers or more that the subject to and must comply with Section 303A.06 taxpayer controls. of the Manual, which requires that the Funds have performance and that of its Underlying Compliance with the above referenced RIC asset an audit committee that complies with Rule 10A– Index, before fees and expenses, will be diversification requirements are monitored by the 3 under the Act. 95% or better. A correlation percentage Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76010 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

example, if at the end of a calendar May 31, 2006, there were 43 issues yield performance, before fees and quarter a Fund would not comply with included in the Index. The Index, as for expenses, of the investment-grade credit the RIC diversification tests, the Adviser each of the Underlying Indexes, is sector of the U.S. bond market as would make adjustments to the portfolio market capitalization weighted,13 and defined by the Lehman Brothers 1–3 to ensure continued RIC status. the securities in the Index are updated Year U.S. Credit Index. This Index The Exchange states that an index is (as described below) on the last calendar measures the performance of a theoretical financial calculation, while day of each month. investment-grade corporate debt and each Fund is an actual investment The iShares Lehman 3–7 Year sovereign, supranational, local portfolio. The performance of the Funds Treasury Bond Fund seeks investment authority, and non-U.S. agency bonds 14 and the Underlying Indexes will vary results that correspond generally to the that are U.S. dollar denominated and somewhat due to transaction costs, price and yield performance, before fees have a remaining maturity of greater market impact, corporate actions (such and expenses, of the intermediate-term than or equal to 1 year and less than 3 as mergers and spin-offs), and timing sector of the U.S. Treasury market as years, are rated investment grade, and variances. The Funds’ investment defined by the Lehman Brothers 3–7 have more than $250 million or more of objectives, policies, and investment Year U.S. Treasury Index. This Index outstanding face value. In addition, the strategies will be fully disclosed in their measures the performance of public securities must be denominated in U.S. prospectus and statement of additional obligations of the U.S. Treasury that dollars and must be fixed rate and non- information (‘‘SAI’’). have a remaining maturity of greater convertible. Excluded from the Index Description of the Funds and the than or equal to 3 years and less than are structured notes with embedded Underlying Indexes.12 7 years, are rated investment grade, and swaps or other special features, private have $250 million or more of The iShares Lehman Short Treasury placements, floating rate securities, and outstanding face value. In addition, the Bond Fund seeks investment results that Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there securities must be denominated in U.S. correspond generally to the price and were 601 issues included in the Index.15 yield performance, before fees and dollars and must be fixed rate and non- The iShares Lehman Intermediate expenses, of the short-term sector of the convertible. Excluded from the Index U.S. Treasury market as defined by the are certain special issues, such as flower Credit Bond Fund seeks investment Lehman Brothers Short U.S. Treasury bonds, TINs, and SLGs, and coupon results that correspond generally to the Index. This Index measures the issues that have been stripped from price and yield performance, before fees performance of public obligations of the assets that are already included in the and expenses, of the investment-grade U.S. Treasury that have a remaining Index. As of May 31, 2006, there were credit sector of the U.S. bond market as maturity of between 1 and 12 months, 36 issues included in the Index. defined by the Lehman Brothers are rated investment grade, and have The iShares Lehman 10–20 Year Intermediate U.S. Credit Index. This Treasury Bond Fund seeks investment more than $250 million or more of Index measures the performance of results that correspond generally to the outstanding face value. In addition, the investment-grade corporate debt and price and yield performance, before fees securities must be denominated in U.S. sovereign, supranational, local and expenses, of the long-term sector of dollars and must be fixed rate and non- authority, and non-U.S. agency bonds the U.S. Treasury market as defined by convertible. Excluded from the Index that are U.S. dollar denominated and the Lehman Brothers 10–20 Year U.S. are certain special issues, such as flower have a remaining maturity of greater Treasury Index. This Index measures bonds, targeted investor notes (‘‘TINs’’), than or equal to 1 year and less than 10 the performance of public obligations of and state and local government series years, are rated investment grade, and the U.S. Treasury that have a remaining bonds (‘‘SLGs’’), and coupon issues that have more than $250 million or more of maturity of greater than or equal to 10 have been stripped from assets that are outstanding face value. In addition, the years and less than 20 years, are rated already included in the Index. As of securities must be denominated in U.S. investment grade, and have $250 dollars and must be fixed rate and non- Adviser and any necessary adjustments to portfolio million or more of outstanding face convertible. Excluded from the Index issuer weights will be made on a quarterly basis or value. In addition, the securities must are structured notes with embedded as necessary to ensure compliance with RIC be denominated in U.S. dollars and swaps or other special features, private requirements. When a Fund’s Underlying Index must be fixed rate and non-convertible. itself is not RIC compliant, the Adviser generally placements, floating rate securities, and employs a representative sampling indexing Excluded from the Index are certain Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there strategy (as described in the Funds’ prospectus) in special issues, such as flower bonds, were 2,193 issues included in the order to achieve the Fund’s investment objective. TINs, and SLGs, and coupon issues that Index.16 The Funds’ prospectus also gives the Funds have been stripped from assets that are additional flexibility to comply with the requirements of the Code and other regulatory already included in the Index. As of 14 ‘‘Local authority’’ bonds are U.S. municipal requirements and to manage future corporate May 31, 2006, there were 22 issues securities. ‘‘Non-U.S. agency bonds’’ are issued by actions and index changes in smaller markets by included in the Index. foreign government sponsored entities from investing a percentage of fund assets in securities The iShares Lehman 1–3 Year Credit developed nations but are not backed by the full that are not included in the Fund’s Underlying Bond Fund seeks investment results that faith and credit of the foreign government. See Index. Telephone conference between Florence Harmon, 12 For each of the Funds, a Fund’s investment correspond generally to the price and Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market objective and its Underlying Index may be changed Regulation, Commission, and Michael Cavalier, without shareholder approval. In such case, the 13 The Exchange states that the market Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on November 20, Exchange would be obligated to file for approval of capitalization of each Underlying Index’s bond 2006 (‘‘November 20 Telephone Conference’’). listing and trading such derivative product component is calculated by multiplying the price of 15 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. the bond (accounting for accrued interest) by the Brothers 1–3 Year U.S. Credit Index, the top ten 78s(b)(1)) as a proposed rule change, which must par amount outstanding. For investment grade holdings constitute 8.3% of the Index, with the be approved by the Commission, to permit corporate debt, Lehman utilizes trader marked largest holding constituting 1%. See Amendment continued listing and trading of the derivative prices and a multi-dealer pricing matrix. For U.S. No. 1, supra note 4. product. See Telephone conference between Treasuries and certain government related bonds, 16 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman Florence Harmon, Senior Special Counsel, Division Lehman marks the bonds on a daily basis. For both Brothers Intermediate U.S. Credit Index, the top ten of Market Regulation, Commission, and Michael categories of bonds, multiple pricing sources are holdings constitute 2.6% of the Index, with the Cavalier, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on also used to verify pricing determinations. See largest holding constituting 0.3%. See Amendment November 17, 2006. Amendment No. 2, supra note 5. No. 1, supra note 4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76011

The iShares Lehman Intermediate The iShares Lehman Government/ Index Provider Government/Credit Bond Fund seeks Credit Bond Fund seeks investment The Index Provider for each Fund, investment results that correspond results that correspond generally to the Lehman Brothers, is a broker-dealer. generally to the price and yield price and yield performance, before fees Therefore, appropriate firewalls must performance, before fees and expenses, and expenses, of the investment-grade exist around the personnel who have of the investment-grade credit sector of U.S. government and U.S corporate access to information concerning the U.S. bond market and the total U.S. securities of the U.S. bond market as changes and adjustments to an index Treasury market as defined by the defined by the Lehman Brothers U.S. and the trading personnel of the broker- Lehman Brothers Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Index. This Index dealer. Lehman Brothers has Government/Credit Index. This Index measures the performance of U.S. dollar represented to the Exchange that it will measures the performance of U.S. dollar denominated U.S. Treasuries, (1) implement and maintain procedures denominated U.S. Treasuries, designed to prevent the misuse and investment-grade government-related investment-grade government-related (i.e., U.S. and foreign agencies, (i.e., U.S. and foreign agencies, dissemination, in violation of applicable sovereign, supranational, and local sovereign, supranational and local laws, rules and regulations, of material authority) debt, and investment-grade authority) debt, and investment-grade non-public information relating to the U.S. corporate securities that have a U.S. corporate securities that have a Indexes licensed by BGI; and (2) remaining maturity of greater than or remaining maturity of greater than or periodically check the application of equal to 1 year and less than 10 years, equal to 1 year, are rated investment such procedures, including the are rated investment grade, and have grade, and have more than $250 million application of such procedures as they more than $250 million or more of or more of outstanding face value. In relate to those persons directly outstanding face value. In addition, the addition, the securities must be responsible for changes in the securities must be denominated in U.S. denominated in U.S. dollars and must composition or calculation of the relevant Index.21 dollars and must be fixed rate and non- be fixed rate and non-convertible. The Exchange notes that, while there convertible. Excluded from the Index Excluded from the index are certain is not an independent calculation agent are certain special issues, such as flower special issues, such as flower bonds, for the Indexes, the securities included bonds, TINs, and SLGs, and coupon TINs, and SLGs, and coupon issues that in the Indexes are U.S. government, U.S. issues that have been stripped from have been stripped from assets that are assets that are already included in the credit and investment-grade corporate already included in the index. Also debt issues that are traded in highly Index. Also excluded from the Index are excluded from the index are structured structured notes with embedded swaps liquid, transparent markets and subject notes with embedded swaps or other or other special features, private to multiple pricing sources, as described special features, private placements, 22 placements, floating rate securities, and below. Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there floating rate securities, and Eurobonds. For each of the Indexes, the were 3,021 issues included in the As of May 31, 2006 there were 3,935 applicable Index constituents are reset 19 Index.17 issues included in the Index. on the last business day of each month The iShares Lehman Credit Bond The Exchange represents that, as of and remain static throughout the month. Fund seeks investment results that September 29, 2006, less than one The universe of Index constituents correspond generally to the price and percent of the market value of the adjust for securities that become yield performance, before fees and Underlying Indexes for each of the ineligible for inclusion in an Index expenses, of the investment-grade credit Funds consisted of Rule 144A during the month (e.g., because of sector of the U.S. bond market as securities, and no Rule 144A securities downgrades or called bonds) or for defined by the Lehman Brothers U.S. were included in the Lehman Short issues that are newly eligible (e.g., up- Credit Index. This Index measures the Treasury Index; Lehman 3–7 Year grades or newly issued bonds) on the performance of investment-grade Treasury Index; and Lehman 10–20 Year last business day of each month. The corporate debt and sovereign, Treasury Index.20 Indexes are valued using end of day bid supranational, local authority, and non- side prices, as marked by Lehman U.S. agency bonds that are U.S. dollar Brothers. Intra-month cash flows constitute 2.3% of the Index, with the largest denominated and have a remaining holding constituting 0.4%. See Amendment No. 1, contribute to monthly returns, but they maturity of greater than or equal to 1 supra note 4. are not reinvested during the month and year, are rated investment grade, and 19 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman do not earn a reinvestment return. Total have more than $250 million or more of Brothers U.S. Government/Credit Index, the top ten returns are calculated based on the sum outstanding face value. In addition, the holdings constitute 5.7% of the Index, with the of price changes, gain/loss on largest holding constituting 0.8%. See Amendment securities must be denominated in U.S. No. 1, supra note 4. repayments of principal, and coupon dollars and must be fixed rate and non- 20 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. Rule received or accrued, expressed as a convertible. Excluded from the Index 144A(b) under the Securities Act provides that percentage of beginning market value. are structured notes with embedded ‘‘[a]ny dealer who offers or sells securities in The Indexes are calculated once a day compliance with the conditions set forth in swaps or other special features, private paragraph (d) of this section shall be deemed not and are available from major data placements, floating rate securities, and to be a participant in a distribution of such vendors. Eurobonds. As of May 31, 2006, there securities within the meaning of section 4(3)(C) of The Exchange states that Lehman were 2,996 issues included in the the Act and not to be an underwriter of such Brothers has represented to BGI that, in 18 securities within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Index. Act, and such securities shall be deemed not to calculating the Indexes, it utilizes have been offered to the public within the meaning multiple contributor sources to verify 17 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman of section 4(3)(A) of the Act.’’ 17 CFR 230.144A. bond prices.23 The primary price for Brothers Intermediate U.S. Government/Credit Among the conditions to be met in paragraph (d) Index, the top ten holdings constitute 6.9% of the is that the ‘‘securities are offered or sold only to a Index, with the largest holding constituting 1.1%. qualified institutional buyer or to an offeree or 21 See November 20 Telephone Conference, supra See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. purchaser that the seller and any person acting on note 14. 18 Regarding the top ten holdings in the Lehman behalf of the seller reasonably believe is a qualified 22 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. Brothers U.S. Credit Index, the top ten holdings institutional buyer.’’ Id. 23 See id.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76012 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

each security is analyzed and compared primary trading exchange; (iv) a security (including the cut-off times for receipt to other third-party pricing sources that is thinly traded; (v) a security in of creation and redemption orders) is through both statistical routines and default or bankruptcy proceedings for included in the SAI. Each Fund will scrutiny by the Lehman Brothers which there is no current market impose a purchase transaction fee and a research staff. Significant discrepancies quotation; (vi) a security affected by redemption transaction fee to offset are researched and corrected, as currency controls or restrictions; and transfer and other transaction costs necessary. (vii) a security affected by a significant associated with the issuance and Net Asset Value event (i.e., an event that occurs after the redemption of Creation Units of shares. close of the markets on which the All orders to purchase and redeem The Exchange states that, as with security is traded but before the time as iShares in Creation Unit Aggregations other open-end investment companies, of which the Fund’s NAV is computed must be placed through an Authorized iShares will be issued at the net asset and that may materially affect the value Participant. An Authorized Participant value (‘‘NAV’’) per share next of the Fund’s investments). Examples of must be either a ‘‘Participating Party,’’ determined after an order in proper events that may be ‘‘significant events’’ i.e., a broker-dealer or other participant form is received. Investors Bank are government actions, natural in the clearing process through the calculates the NAV for each Fund once disasters, armed conflict, acts of National Securities Clearing Corporation daily Monday through Friday generally terrorism, and significant market (‘‘NSCC’’) Continuous Net Settlement as of the regularly scheduled close of fluctuations. System (the ‘‘Clearing Process’’), a business of the NYSE (normally 4 p.m., clearing agency that is registered with Continuous Distribution Eastern Time) on each day that the the Commission, or a DTC participant, NYSE is open for trading, based on Shares of the Funds will be issued on and in each case, must enter into a prices at the time of closing, provided a continuous offering basis in groups of Participant Agreement.25 that (a) any assets or liabilities 50,000 to 100,000 iShares (as specified denominated in currencies other than for each Fund), or multiples thereof. Issuance of Creation Unit Aggregations the U.S. dollar shall be translated into These ‘‘groups’’ of shares are called The Trust issues and sells Shares of U.S. dollars at the prevailing market ‘‘Creation Unit Aggregations’’ (also, each Fund only in Creation Unit rates on the date of valuation, as quoted ‘‘Creation Units’’). The anticipated price Aggregations on a continuous basis by one or more major banks or dealers at which the iShares will initially trade through the Distributor, without a sales that makes a two-way market in such is approximately $100. The Funds will load, at the NAV next determined after currencies (or a data service provider issue and redeem iShares only in receipt, on any business day (any day based on quotations received from such Creation Unit Aggregations.24 the NYSE is open for trading), of an banks or dealers); and (b) U.S. fixed- The Shares that trade in the secondary order in proper form. income assets may be valued as of the market are ‘‘created’’ at NAV by market The consideration for purchase of announced closing time for trading in makers, large investors, and institutions Creation Unit Aggregations of a Fund fixed-income instruments on any day (known as ‘‘Authorized Participants’’) generally consists of the in-kind deposit that the Bond Market Association only in Creation Unit Aggregations. of a designated portfolio of securities announces an early closing time. The Each ‘‘creator’’ enters into an authorized (the ‘‘Deposit Securities’’), which NAV of each Fund is calculated by participant agreement (‘‘Participant constitutes a substantial replication, or dividing the value of the net assets of Agreement’’) with SEI, the Funds’’ a portfolio sampling representation, of such Fund (i.e., the value of its total distributor, which is subject to the securities involved in the relevant assets less total liabilities) by the total acceptance by the transfer agent, and Fund’s Underlying Index (‘‘Fund number of outstanding shares of the then deposits into the applicable Fund Securities’’) and an amount of cash (the Fund, generally rounded to the nearest a portfolio of bonds closely ‘‘Cash Component’’) computed as cent. In calculating a Fund’s NAV, a approximating the holdings of the Fund described below. Together, the Deposit Fund’s investments are generally valued and a specified amount of cash in Securities and the Cash Component using market valuations. In the event exchange for a specified number of constitute the ‘‘Fund Deposit,’’ which that current market valuations are not Creation Units. represents the minimum initial and readily available or such valuations do Similarly, Shares can only be subsequent investment amount for a not reflect current market values, the redeemed in a specified number of affected investments will be valued Creation Unit Aggregation of any Fund. Creation Units, principally in-kind for a The Cash Component is sometimes using fair value pricing pursuant to the portfolio of bonds held by a Fund and pricing policy and procedures approved also referred to as the ‘‘Balancing a specified amount of cash. Except Amount.’’ The function of the cash by the Trust’s Board of Trustees. The when aggregated in Creation Units, frequency with which a Fund’s component is to compensate for any shares are not redeemable. The prices at differences between the NAV per investments are valued using fair value which creations and redemptions occur pricing is primarily a function of the Creation Unit Aggregation and the are based on the next calculation of Deposit Amount (as defined below). The types of securities and other assets in NAV after an order is received in a form which the Fund invests pursuant to its Cash Component is an amount equal to described in the Participant Agreement. the difference between the NAV of the investment objective, strategies and Creations and redemptions must be limitations. shares (per Creation Unit Aggregation) made through a firm that is a Depository and the ‘‘Deposit Amount’’ is an amount Investments that may be valued using Trust Company (‘‘DTC’’) participant and fair value pricing include, but are not equal to the market value of the Deposit has the ability to clear through the Securities. If the Cash Component is a limited to: (i) An unlisted security Federal Reserve System. Information related to corporate actions; (ii) a positive number (i.e., the NAV per about the procedures regarding creation Creation Unit Aggregation exceeds the restricted security (i.e., one that may not and redemption of Creation Units be publicly sold without registration 25 Such participant, if not registered as a broker- under the Securities Act); (iii) a security 24 A Creation Unit Aggregation of 50,000 iShares dealer, must be exempt from being (or otherwise not whose trading has been suspended or would have an estimated initial value of required to be) registered as a broker-dealer. See which has been delisted from its approximately $5,000,000. November 20 Telephone Conference, supra note 14.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76013

Deposit Amount), the creator will BGFA on the date of announcement to in proper form, and the value of the deliver the Cash Component. If the Cash be in effect by the time of delivery of the Fund Securities (the ‘‘Cash Redemption Component is a negative number (i.e., Fund Deposit, in the composition of the Amount’’), less a redemption the NAV per Creation Unit Aggregation Underlying Index being tracked by the transaction fee. A redemption is less than the Deposit Amount), the relevant Fund or resulting from certain transaction fee is imposed to offset creator will receive the Cash corporate actions. transfer and other transaction costs that Component. Computation of the Cash Fund Deposits must be delivered may be incurred by the Funds. The fee Component excludes any stamp duty or through the Federal Reserve System (for is a single charge and will be as set forth other similar fees and expenses payable cash and government securities) and in the Funds’ prospectus and SAI, and upon transfer of beneficial ownership of through DTC (for corporate securities) is the same regardless of the number of the Deposit Securities, which are the by an Authorized Participant. The Fund Creation Units redeemed by an investor sole responsibility of the Authorized Deposit transfer must be ordered by the on the same day. Investors will also bear Participant. DTC Participant in a timely fashion so the costs of transferring the Fund BGFA, through the NSCC, makes as to ensure the delivery of the requisite Securities from the Trust to their available on each business day, prior to number of Deposit Securities through account or on their order. Investors who the opening of business on the Exchange DTC to the account of the Fund by no use the services of a broker or other (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time), the later than 3 p.m., Eastern Time, on the such intermediary may be charged a fee list of the names and the required Settlement Date. The ‘‘Settlement Date’’ for such services. The standard creation number of shares (subject to possible for all Funds is generally the third and redemption fee for each Fund is amendments or corrections) of each business day after the Transmittal Date. $500; however, as stated in the Fund’s Deposit Security to be included in the A purchase transaction fee is imposed Registration Statement, if a Creation current Fund Deposit (based on for the transfer and other transaction Unit is purchased or redeemed outside information at the end of the previous costs of the Funds associated with the the usual process through NSCC or for business day) for each Fund. issuance of Creation Units of shares. Such Deposit Securities are The fee is a single charge and will be the cash, a variable fee may be charged up applicable, subject to any adjustments same regardless of the number of to four times the standard creation or as described below, in order to effect Creation Units purchased by an investor redemption fee. creations of Creation Unit Aggregations on the same day in the amount specified Compliance With Securities Laws— of a given Fund until such time as the in the Funds’ prospectus or SAI. Creations and Redemptions; Rule 144A next-announced composition of the 26 Redemptions of Creation Unit Securities Deposit Securities is made available. Aggregations The identity and number of shares of The Exchange represents that the the Deposit Securities required for a Shares may be redeemed only in statutory prospectus for the Funds will Fund Deposit for each Fund changes as Creation Unit Aggregations at their NAV state that the Funds must comply with rebalancing adjustments, corporate next determined after receipt of a the federal securities laws in accepting action events, and interest payments on redemption request in proper form by a securities for deposits and satisfying underlying bonds are reflected from Fund only on a business day. A Fund redemptions with redemption time to time by BGFA with a view to the will not redeem shares in amounts less securities, including that the securities investment objective of the relevant than Creation Unit Aggregations. accepted for deposits and the securities Fund. The composition of the Deposit Beneficial owners must accumulate used to satisfy redemption requests are Securities may also change in response enough shares in the secondary market sold in transactions that would be to adjustments to the weighting or to constitute a Creation Unit exempt from registration under the composition of the component Aggregation in order to have such shares Securities Act. securities of the relevant Underlying redeemed by the Trust. Index. With respect to each Fund, BGFA, The Exchange further represents that In addition, the Trust reserves the through the NSCC, makes available the Funds must comply with the federal right to permit or require the immediately prior to the opening of securities laws in accepting Deposit substitution of an amount of cash (a business on the NYSE (currently 9:30 Securities and satisfying redemptions ‘‘cash in lieu’’ amount) to be added to a.m., Eastern Time) on each business with Fund Securities, including that the the Cash Component to replace any day, the identity of the fund securities Deposit Securities and Fund Securities Deposit Security that may not be that will be applicable (subject to are sold in transactions that would be available in sufficient quantity for possible amendment or correction) to exempt from registration under the delivery or that may not be eligible for redemption requests received in proper Securities Act. In accepting Deposit transfer through the systems of DTC for form on that day. Fund Securities Securities and satisfying redemptions corporate bonds or the Federal Reserve received on redemption may not be with Fund Securities that are restricted System for U.S. Treasury securities. The identical to Deposit Securities that are securities eligible for resale pursuant to Trust also reserves the right to permit or applicable to creations of Creation Unit Rule 144A under the Securities Act, the require a ‘‘cash in lieu’’ amount where Aggregations. Funds will comply with the conditions the delivery of the Deposit Security by Unless cash redemptions are available of Rule 144A, including in satisfying the Authorized Participant would be or specified for a Fund, the redemption redemptions with such Rule 144A restricted under the securities laws or proceeds for a Creation Unit eligible restricted Fund Securities. The where the delivery of the Deposit Aggregation generally consist of Fund prospectus for the Funds will also state Security to the Authorized Participant Securities—as announced on the that ‘‘An Authorized Participant that is would result in the disposition of the business day of the request for not a Qualified Institutional Buyer Deposit Security by the Authorized redemption received in proper form— (‘‘QIB’’) will not be able to receive Fund Participant becoming restricted under plus cash in an amount equal to the Securities that are restricted securities the securities laws, or in certain other difference between the NAV of the eligible for resale under Rule 144A.’’ situations. The adjustments described shares being redeemed, as next above will reflect changes known to determined after a receipt of a request 26 See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76014 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Availability of Information Regarding readily available to the marketplace.28 data vendors, a value for the Underlying iShares and Each Underlying Index The Exchange represents that the Indexes once each trading day, based on Adviser has represented that: (1) IOPV closing prices in the relevant market. As stated above, on each business will be calculated by an independent The NAV for each Fund will be day, the list of names and amount of third party; (2) IOPV will be calculated calculated and disseminated daily. The each security constituting the current using prices obtained from multiple Funds’ NAV will be calculated by IBT. Deposit Securities of the Fund Deposit independent third-party pricing sources IBT will disseminate the information to and the Balancing Amount effective as (such as broker-dealers) throughout the BGI, SEI, and others. The Funds’ NAV of the previous business day will be day; and (3) IOPV will be calculated in will be published in a number of places, made available. An amount per iShare accordance with pre-determined criteria including www.iShares.com and on the representing the sum of the estimated and set parameters so that an individual Consolidated Tape. Balancing Amount effective through and bond ‘‘price’’ based on an analysis of In addition, the Web site for the Trust, including the previous business day, multiple pricing sources is obtained for which will be publicly accessible at no plus the current value of the Deposit each security in the Portfolio Deposit.29 charge, will contain the following Securities in U.S. dollars, on a per The Exchange states that closing prices information, on a per iShare basis, for iShare basis (the ‘‘Intraday Optimized of the Funds’ Deposit Securities are each Fund: (a) The prior business day’s Portfolio Value’’ or ‘‘IOPV’’) will be readily available from published or NAV and the mid-point of the bid-ask calculated by an independent third other public sources, such as the price and a calculation of the premium party that is a major market data vendor NYSE’s Automated Bond System or discount of such price against such (the ‘‘Value Calculator’’), such as (ABS), the Trace Reporting and NAV; and (b) data in chart format Bloomberg L.P., at least every 15 Compliance Engine (‘‘TRACE’’), or on- displaying the frequency distribution of 27 seconds during the Exchange’s regular line client-based information services discounts and premiums of the bid/ask trading hours and disseminated at least provided by Credit Suisse, Goldman price against the NAV, within every 15 seconds on the Consolidated Sachs, Lehman Brothers, IDC, Merrill appropriate ranges, for each of the four Tape. Lynch, Reuters, Bloomberg, TradeWeb, previous calendar quarters. The Because the Funds will utilize a and other pricing services commonly Exchange states that the Adviser for the representative sampling strategy, the used by bond mutual funds.30 Funds has represented to the Exchange Exchange states that the IOPV may not The Exchange also intends to that the Funds will make the NAV for reflect the value of all securities disseminate a variety of data with the Fund Shares available to all market included in the Underlying Indexes. In respect to each Fund on a daily basis by participants at the same time.31 addition, the IOPV does not necessarily means of CTA and CQ High Speed Dividends and Distributions reflect the precise composition of the Lines; information with respect to Dividends will be paid out to current portfolio of securities held by recent NAV, shares outstanding, investors at least monthly by the Funds the Funds at a particular point in time. estimated cash amount, and total cash and may be paid out on a more frequent Therefore, the Exchange states that the amount per Creation Unit Aggregation basis. Distributions of net capital gains, IOPV on a per Fund share basis will be made available prior to the if any, will be distributed to investors disseminated during the Exchange’s opening of the Exchange. annually. Dividends and other trading hours should not be viewed as In addition, there will be distributions on iShares of the Funds a real time update of the NAV of the disseminated, through major market will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Funds, which is calculated only once a 28 beneficial owners of such iShares. day. While the IOPV disseminated by The Exchange states that Authorized Dividend payments will be made the Exchange at 9:30 a.m. is expected to Participants and other market participants have a variety of ways to access the intra-day security through the Depository and to the DTC be generally very close to the most prices that form the basis of the Funds’ IOPV Participants to beneficial owners then of recently calculated Fund NAV on a per calculation. For example, intra-day prices for record with amounts received from the Fund share basis, it is possible that the treasury securities and agency securities are  Fund. value of the portfolio of securities held available from Bloomberg, TradeWeb, ABS and TRACE. Intra-day prices of callable agency The Exchange represents that the by each Fund may diverge from the securities are available from TradeWeb. Intra-day Trust currently does not intend to make Deposit Securities values during any prices of corporate bonds are available from ABS the DTC book-entry Dividend trading day. In such case, the IOPV will and TRACE. In addition, intra-day prices for each Reinvestment Service (the ‘‘Service’’) not precisely reflect the value of each of these securities are available by subscription or otherwise to Authorized Participants and clients of available for use by beneficial owners Fund’s portfolio. However, during the major U.S. broker-dealers (such as Credit Suisse, for reinvestment of their cash proceeds, trading day, the IOPV can be expected Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers). but certain individual brokers may make to closely approximate the value per 29 For example, the Exchange states that the Service available to their clients. Fund share of the portfolio of securities Bloomberg Generic Prices could be used. Bloomberg Generic Prices are current prices on individual The SAI will inform investors of this for each Fund except under unusual bonds as determined by Bloomberg using a fact and direct interested investors to circumstances (e.g., in the case of proprietary automated pricing program that contact such investor’s broker to extensive rebalancing of multiple analyzes multiple bond prices contributed to ascertain the availability and a securities in a Fund at the same time by Bloomberg by third-party price contributors (such as broker-dealers). description of the Service through such the Adviser). 30 The Exchange understands that Credit Suisse, broker. The SAI will also caution The IOPV will be updated throughout Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, interested beneficial owners that they the day to reflect changing bond prices, IDC, Reuters, Bloomberg, and TradeWeb provide prices for each type of Deposit Security. ABS and should note that each broker may using multiple prices from independent TRACE provide prices for corporate bonds. See also require investors to adhere to specific third party pricing sources. Information Telephone conference between Florence Harmon, procedures and timetables in order to about the intra-day prices for the Senior Special Counsel, Division of Market participate in the Service, and such Deposit Securities of each Fund is Regulation, Commission, and Michael Cavalier, Assistant General Counsel, NYSE, on November 21, investors should ascertain from their 2006 (authorizing removal from this proposed rule 27 See November 20 Telephone Conference, supra change of language in which the Funds disclaim 31 See November 20 Telephone Conference, supra note 14. responsibility for IOPV calculation). note 14.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76015

broker such necessary details. The specialists in Fund shares to enter into Product Description delivery Shares acquired pursuant to the Service Creation Unit transactions through the requirements applicable to the Funds, will be held by the beneficial owners in Distributor to facilitate the maintenance applicable NYSE rules, dissemination the same manner and subject to the of a fair and orderly market. A specialist information, trading information and same terms and conditions, as for Creation Unit transaction may only be the applicability of suitability rules original ownership of the Funds. effected on the same terms and (including NYSE Rule 405). The Beneficial owners of the Funds will conditions as any other investor, and Information Memo will also discuss receive all of the statements, notices, only at the net asset value of the Fund exemptive, no-action and interpretive and reports required under the shares. A specialist may acquire a relief granted by the Commission from Investment Company Act and other position in excess of 10% of the Section 11(d)(1) and certain rules under applicable laws. They will receive, for outstanding issue of a Fund’s Shares, the Act, including Rule 10a–1, example, annual and semi-annual provided, however, that a specialist Regulation SHO, Rule 10b–10, Rule reports, written statements registered in a security issued by an 14e–5, Rule 10b–17, Rule 11d1–2, Rules accompanying dividend payments, investment company may purchase and 15c1–5 and 15c1–6, and Rules 101 and proxy statements, annual notifications redeem the ICU or securities that can be 102 of Regulation M under the Act. detailing the tax status of distributions, subdivided or converted into such unit, (g) Trading Halts. In order to halt the and IRS Form 1099–DIVs. Because the from the investment company as trading of the Shares of the Funds, the Trust’s records reflect ownership of appropriate to facilitate the maintenance Exchange may consider, among other iShares by DTC only, the Trust will of a fair and orderly market in the things, factors such as the extent to make available applicable statements, subject security. which trading is not occurring in 32 notices, and reports to the DTC (e) Prospectus Delivery. The underlying security(s) and whether Participants who, in turn, will be Commission has granted the Trust an other unusual conditions or responsible for distributing them to the exemption from certain prospectus circumstances detrimental to the beneficial owners. delivery requirements under Section maintenance of a fair and orderly 33 Other Issues 24(d) of the Investment Company Act. market are present. In addition, trading The Exchange states that any product in the Funds’ shares is subject to trading (a) Criteria for Initial and Continued description used in reliance on a Listing. The Shares are subject to the halts caused by extraordinary market Section 24(d) exemptive order will volatility pursuant to NYSE Rule 80B. If criteria for initial and continued listing comply with all representations made of ICUs in Section 703.16 of the Manual. the end-of-day Index value or the therein and all conditions thereto. The 34 A minimum of 100,000 iShares for each intraday IOPV applicable to a Fund is Exchange, in an Information Memo to not being disseminated as required, the Fund will be required to be outstanding Exchange members and member at the start of trading. This minimum Exchange may halt trading during the organizations, will inform members and day in which the interruption to the number of shares of each Fund required member organizations, prior to to be outstanding at the start of trading dissemination of the Index value or commencement of trading of the Shares, IOPV occurs. If the interruption to the will be comparable to requirements that of the prospectus or product description have been applied to previously traded dissemination of the Index value or delivery requirements applicable to the intraday IOPV persists past the trading series of ICUs. The Exchange believes Shares of the Funds and will refer that the proposed minimum number of day in which it occurred, the Exchange members and member organizations to will halt trading no later than the shares of each Fund outstanding at the NYSE Rule 1100(b), which requires that start of trading is sufficient to provide beginning of the trading day following members and member organizations 35 market liquidity and to further the the interruption. provide to purchasers a written (h) Due Diligence. The Exchange Funds’ investment objective to seek to description of the terms and provide investment results that represents that the Information Memo to characteristics of the securities not later members will note, for example, correspond generally to the price and than the time of a confirmation of the yield performance of the Underlying Exchange responsibilities including that first transaction is delivered to the before an Exchange member, member Index. purchaser. There is not currently a (b) Original and Annual Listing Fees. organization, or employee thereof product description available for the The original listing fees applicable to recommends a transaction in the Funds, Funds. Therefore, the Information the Shares of the Funds for listing on a determination must be made that the Memo will also advise members and the Exchange is $5,000 for each Fund, recommendation is in compliance with member organizations that delivery of a and the continuing fees would be $2,000 all applicable Exchange and federal prospectus to customers in lieu of a for each Fund. rules and regulations, including due product description would satisfy the (c) Stop and Stop Limit Orders. diligence obligations under NYSE Rule requirements of NYSE Rule 1100(b). Commentary .30 to NYSE Rule 13 405. (f) Information Memo. The Exchange provides that stop and stop limit orders will distribute an Information Memo to (i) Purchases and Redemptions in in an ICU shall be elected by a its members in connection with the Creation Unit Size. In the Memo quotation, but specifies that if the trading of the iShares. The Memo will referenced above, members and member electing bid on an offer is more than discuss the special characteristics and organizations will be informed that 0.10 points away from the last sale and risks of trading this type of security. procedures for purchases and is for the specialist’s dealer account, Specifically, the Information Memo, redemptions of shares of the Funds in prior Floor Official approval is required among other things, will discuss what Creation Unit Size are described in the for the election to be effective. This rule the Funds are, how the Funds’ shares Funds’ prospectus and SAI, and that applies to ICUs generally. are created and redeemed, prospectus or shares of the Funds are not individually (d) NYSE Rule 460.10. NYSE Rule redeemable but are redeemable only in 460.10 generally precludes certain 32 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. business relationships between an 33 See In the Matter of iShares, Inc., et al., 34 See November 20 Telephone Conference, supra issuer and the specialist in the issuer’s Investment Company Act Release No. 25623 (June note 14. securities. Exceptions in the Rule permit 25, 2002). 35 See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76016 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Creation Unit Size aggregations or Securities and Exchange Commission, general, to protect investors and the multiples thereof. 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC public interest. (j) Surveillance. Exchange 20549–1090. A. Surveillance surveillance procedures applicable to trading in the proposed iShares are All submissions should refer to File The NYSE has represented that it has comparable to those applicable to other Number SR-NYSE–2006–70. This file appropriate surveillance procedures in ICUs currently trading on the Exchange. number should be included on the place that are designed to monitor the The Exchange represents that its subject line if e-mail is used. To help the trading of the proposed Shares. The surveillance procedures are adequate to Commission process and review your Exchange represents that these properly monitor the trading of the comments more efficiently, please use surveillance procedures applicable to Shares of the Funds. only one method. The Commission will trading in the proposed Shares are (k) Hours of Trading/Minimum Price post all comments on the Commission’s comparable to those applicable to other Variation. The Funds will trade on the Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ ICUs currently trading on the Exchange, Exchange until 4:15 p.m. (Eastern rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the and provide the Exchange with the Time). The minimum price variation for submission, all subsequent means to detect and deter manipulation quoting will be $.01. amendments, all written statements of the Shares.39 The Commission also with respect to the proposed rule notes that certain concerns are raised 2. Statutory Basis change that are filed with the when a broker-dealer, such as Lehman NYSE believes that the proposed rule Commission, and all written Brothers, is involved in the change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) communications relating to the development, maintenance, and of the Act 36 requiring that an exchange proposed rule change between the calculation of an index upon which an have rules that are designed, among Commission and any person, other than exchange traded fund is based. The other things, to prevent fraudulent and those that may be withheld from the Exchange has represented that Lehman manipulative acts and practices, to public in accordance with the Brothers has represented that it has in promote just and equitable principles of provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be place procedures to prevent the misuse trade, to remove impediments to, and available for inspection and copying in of material, non-public information perfect the mechanism of a free and the Commission’s Public Reference relating to the Indexes. The Commission open market and, in general, to protect Room. Copies of such filing will also be believes that these procedures should investors and the public interest. available for inspection and copying at help to minimize concerns raised by the principal office of the NYSE. All Lehman Brothers’ involvement in the B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s comments received will be posted management of the Indexes. Statement on Burden on Competition without change; the Commission does The Exchange does not believe that not edit personal identifying B. Dissemination of Information the proposed rule change, as amended, information from submissions. You The Commission believes that will impose any burden on competition should submit only information that sufficient venues exist for obtaining that is not necessary or appropriate in you wish to make available publicly. All reliable information so that investors in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. submissions should refer to File the Funds can monitor the value of the Number SR–NYSE–2006–70 and should Underlying Indexes and securities held C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s be submitted on or before January 9, by each Fund. Statement on Comments on the 2007. A value for the Underlying Indexes Proposed Rule Change Received From will be disseminated once each trading IV. Commission’s Findings and Order Members, Participants or Others day, based on closing prices in the Granting Accelerated Approval of the The Exchange has neither solicited relevant market.40 In addition, the NAV Proposed Rule Change nor received written comments on the for each Fund will be calculated and proposed rule change, as amended. After careful consideration, the disseminated daily, and will be published in a number of places, III. Solicitation of Comments Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent including www.iShares.com and on the Interested persons are invited to with the requirements of the Act and the Consolidated Tape. The Commission submit written data, views and rules and regulations thereunder notes that the Exchange will receive a arguments concerning the foregoing, applicable to a national securities representation from the Advisor to the including whether the proposed rule exchange.37 In particular, the Funds that the NAV will be calculated change, as amended, is consistent with Commission finds that the proposed and made available to all market the Act. Comments may be submitted by rule change, as amended, is consistent participants at the same time. any of the following methods: with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) Further, an IOPV, calculated by an Electronic Comments of the Act,38 which requires, among independent third party, will be updated and disseminated throughout • other things, that the rules of an Use the Commission’s Internet exchange be designed to prevent the day on the Consolidated Tape to comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ fraudulent and manipulative acts and reflect changing bond prices. rules/sro.shtml); or Additionally, information about the • practices, to promote just and equitable Send e-mail to rule- principles of trade, to remove intra-day prices for the Deposit [email protected]. Please include File impediments to and perfect the Securities of each Fund is available. For Number SR-NYSE–2006–70 on the mechanism of a free and open market subject line. and a national market system, and, in 39 The Commission notes that NYSE specialists are required to provide daily trading information to Paper Comments the Exchange on Form 81. See NYSE Rule 104A.50. • Send paper comments in triplicate 37 In approving this proposed rule change, the 40 Closing prices of the Funds’ Deposit Securities Commission has considered the proposed rule’s are available from sources such as ABS, TRACE, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, impact on efficiency, competition, and capital and online client-based information services formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). provided by broker-dealers and other information 36 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 38 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). providers.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76017

example, intra-day prices for treasury products.41 Based on the above, the The following areas have been securities and agency securities are Commission finds good cause to determined to be adversely affected by available from Bloomberg, TradeWeb, accelerate approval of the proposed rule the disaster: ABS and TRACE. Intra-day prices of change, as amended. Primary County: Luzerne. callable agency securities are available It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Contiguous Counties: Pennsylvania; from TradeWeb. Intra-day prices of Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 42 that the Carbon; Columbia; Lackawanna; corporate bonds are available from proposed rule change, as amended, (SR– Monroe; Schuylkill; Sullivan; ABS, and TRACE. In addition, intra- NYSE–2006–70) is hereby approved on Wyoming. day prices for these securities are an accelerated basis. The Interest Rates are: available by subscription or otherwise to For the Commission, by the Division of Percent Authorized Participants and clients of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.43 major U.S. broker-dealers. If the Homeowners with Credit Available Underlying Index values or IOPV is not Nancy M. Morris, Elsewhere ...... 6.000 disseminated as described, the Secretary. Homeowners without Credit Avail- Exchange may halt trading during the [FR Doc. E6–21585 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] able Elsewhere ...... 3.000 day in which the interruption occurs. If BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Businesses with Credit Available the interruption persists past the trading Elsewhere ...... 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural day in which it occurred, the Exchange Cooperatives without Credit will halt trading no later than the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Available Elsewhere ...... 4.000 beginning of the trading day following Other (Including Non-Profit Organi- the interruption. The Commission Disaster Declaration #10748 and zations) with Credit Available believes that the trading halt rules, #10749 Pennsylvania Disaster #PA– Elsewhere ...... 5.250 together with the NAV dissemination 00006 Businesses and Non-Profit Organi- requirements, will facilitate zations without Credit Available AGENCY: Small Business Administration. Elsewhere ...... 4.000 transparency, reduce the potential for an ACTION: Notice. unfair informational advantage with The number assigned to this disaster respect to the Shares, and diminish the SUMMARY: This is a notice of an for physical damage is 10748 6 and for potential for manipulation. Administrative declaration of a disaster economic injury is 10749 0. for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania C. Listing and Trading The Commonwealth which received dated 12/11/2006. an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania. The Commission finds that the Incident: Severe storm and flooding Incident Period: 11/16/2006 through (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Exchange’s rules and procedures for the 11/17/2006 Numbers 59002 and 59008) listing and trading of the Shares are Effective Date: 12/11/2006 Dated: December 11, 2006. consistent with the Act. The Shares will Physical Loan Application Deadline Steven C. Preston, be subject to NYSE rules governing the Date: 02/09/2007. trading of equity securities, including, Administrator. Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan [FR Doc. E6–21576 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] among others, rules governing trading Application Deadline Date: 09/11/2007. BILLING CODE 8025–01–P halts, customer suitability requirements, ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan and the election of stop and stop limit applications to: U.S. Small Business orders. In addition, the Shares are Administration, Processing and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION subject to the criteria for initial and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport continued listing of ICUs in Section Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. Office of the Secretary 703.16 of the NYSE Manual. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Commission believes that the listing and Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, Requirements Regarding Flights to delisting criteria for the Shares of the U.S. Small Business Administration, College Bowl Games and Other Special Funds should help to maintain a 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Events minimum level of liquidity and, Washington, DC 20416. therefore, minimize the potential for AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is manipulation of the Shares. Finally, the Department of Transportation. hereby given that as a result of the ACTION: Notice. Commission notes that the Information Administrator’s disaster declaration, Memo will inform members about the applications for disaster loans may be SUMMARY: The Department is publishing terms, characteristics, and risks in filed at the address listed above or other the following notice providing guidance trading the Shares, including their locally announced locations. to colleges and other organizations prospectus delivery obligations. wishing to arrange charter flights to Accelerated Approval 41 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. football bowl games, NCAA basketball 48881 (December 4, 2003), 68 FR 69739 (December playoff games, or other special events. 15, 2003) (SR–NYSE–2003–39) (relating to the NYSE has requested that the iShares Lehman U.S. Aggregate Bond Fund and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commission find good cause for iShares Lehman TIPS Bond Fund); and 46299 Dayton Lehman, Jr., Deputy Assistant approving the proposed rule change, as (August 1, 2002), 67 FR 51907 (August 9, 2002) General Counsel, or Lisa Swafford- amended, prior to the thirtieth day after (SR–NYSE–2002–26) (relating to the iShares 1–3 Year Treasury Index Fund, iShares 7–10 Year Brooks, Senior Attorney, Office of the date of publication of notice thereof Treasury Index Fund, iShares 20+ Year Treasury Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings in the Federal Register. The Index Fund, iShares Treasury Index Fund, iShares (C–70), 400 7th Street, SW., Commission notes that the proposal is Government/Credit Index Fund, iShares Lehman Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–9342. consistent with the NYSE’s listing and Corporate Bond Fund, and iShares Goldman Sachs Corporate Bond Fund). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of trading standards, and the Commission 42 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Department of Transportation has previously approved similar 43 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Requirements Regarding Flights to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76018 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

College Bowl Games and other Special escrow requirements to protect direct air carrier covering the Events. charterers (see, 14 CFR part 212). transportation to be sold and (2) all This notice is to provide guidance to Likewise, the FAA requires that any payments by charter participants to colleges and other organizations U.S. aircraft operator providing charter operators be covered in full by wishing to arrange charter flights, scheduled or charter service with large a security agreement or in part by a including flights to football bowl games, aircraft must comply with the safety- security agreement with the payments NCAA basketball playoff games, or other related certification and operating rules themselves being placed directly into an special events. The notice is also of part 121 of the Federal Aviation escrow account. There are other specific intended to provide information Regulations (14 CFR part 121). Those rules governing Public Charter regarding the economic licensing and regulations are the most detailed and solicitation and the content of the operational certification of air carriers stringent of any of the FAA’s aircraft charter contract between the Public by the U.S. Department of operating rules and the FAA provides Charter operator and the charter Transportation (DOT). It is important heightened safety surveillance of participants, including provisions on that colleges and other entities are fully carriers subject to part 121. the cancellation of trips and a aware of this information since they There are, however, operators of large, participant’s right to a refund. often charter aircraft to travel to events jet-powered passenger aircraft that are and we wish to avoid instances of not required to have DOT economic Exemptions From the Public Charter organizations (1) contracting with authority or to comply with 14 CFR part Requirements entities that hold no DOT economic 121. These operators are regulated We recognize that organizations may authority; (2) unknowingly chartering under the safety standards of part 125 of have only a short time after learning of aircraft from entities that are not subject the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 an event in which to organize to the most stringent safety standards CFR Part 125). While these aircraft participation in a charter flight, such as and oversight of the Federal Aviation operators may conduct ‘‘private’’ air might occur with a bowl game or NCAA Administration (FAA), a DOT operating services for a few entities for basketball playoff appearance. The administration; or (3) reselling seats on compensation or hire, they do not have Department has always been willing to a charter flight without their first having authority to transport the general public work with organizations that can show obtained proper authority to do so. by engaging in common carriage (e.g., that an exemption from certain of its There are generally two primary holding out to the general public, or a rules is in the public interest. While avenues whereby a college or other segment of the general public such as such matters are reviewed on a case-by- entity may seek to sponsor air colleges, through advertisements or case basis, in seeking such relief, an transportation to a college bowl game or telephone listings or through agents or organization should be prepared to other special event. The organization brokers, or otherwise acquiring a show, at a minimum, that it has a may choose to (1) contract directly with reputation for common carriage). Since contract with a carrier holding a carrier to provide the air carriers operating under part 125 are not appropriate authority for the flight and transportation to the bowl game or other authorized to hold out to the general that appropriate financial arrangements special event or (2) contract with a public, part 125 does not contain safety are in place to protect consumer Public Charter Operator or an air charter standards as stringent as part 121. payments. broker, who would, in turn, locate a Likewise, carriers lawfully operating Using a Public Charter Operator or an direct air carrier to provide the air under part 125 hold no economic Air Charter Broker transportation. license from DOT and are not required to comply with DOT’s insurance or Organizations may contract with a Contracting Directly With an Air monetary escrow requirements. You Public Charter operator to organize a Carrier should therefore inquire about the charter flight. Any organization that If the college or other entity chooses specific authority under which the does so should assure itself that the to contract with the air carrier directly, carrier you will be using will operate. Public Charter operator has complied they should be aware of the economic In addition to determining whether with the requirements of part 380, as requirements that govern the carrier’s the air carrier has appropriate authority, described above (and part 381, where operations. Before any U.S. aircraft any organization that contracts with an applicable, as described below). operator can hold itself out to the public air carrier directly and wishes to resell Organizations may also contract directly as providing interstate scheduled or seats on the charter flight to the public with an air carrier through an ‘‘air charter service, it must have DOT (for example, to its students or alumni, charter broker.’’ An air charter broker economic authority. In general, such to the press, or to its club members), cannot misrepresent itself as an air authority is granted to large aircraft whether or not as a profit-making carrier and, because it does not hold operators in the form of an air carrier venture, should understand its own role authority from the Department, it cannot certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41101. as an ‘‘indirect air carrier,’’ whose in its own right contract to sell air Prior to granting such authority, this reselling of the air transportation must transportation. Therefore, it must Department must find a carrier to be be licensed under the Department’s generally have authority to act either (1) ‘‘fit’’, which entails a determination that Public Charter regulations. as the agent of a chartering organization the carrier has adequate financial Public Charter operators must comply in contracting with an air carrier or (2) resources, a competent management with the requirements of 14 CFR Part as the agent of the air carrier in team and a proper compliance 380. Among the most important contracting with a chartering disposition. This fitness requirement is requirements of 14 CFR Part 380 are the organization. Air charter brokers also a continuing one and we monitor rules designed to prevent economic may act merely as a ‘‘go-between’’ certificated carriers to ensure their harm to charter passengers, including without being involved in the actual compliance with the requirement. In the requirements that (1) before any contract between the carrier and the addition, certificated carriers must meet sales of seats takes place there is in charter customer, e.g., by locating a certain DOT economic rules such as place an approved Public Charter customer for an air carrier and being minimum liability insurance prospectus based upon a contract paid a finder’s fee by the carrier, but this requirements (see, 14 CFR part 205) and between the charter operator and a is a rare occurrence.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76019

Organizations using air charter Dated: December 13, 2006. Electronic Access and Filing brokers should be aware that, since the Samuel Podberesky, Internet users may access all Department does not license air charter Assistant General Counsel for Aviation comments received by the U.S. DOT brokers, there is no DOT-required Enforcement and Proceedings. Dockets, Room PL–401, by using the financial security in place to protect an [FR Doc. 06–9772 Filed 12–14–06; 4:01 pm] universal resource locator (URL) for the organization’s payments to a broker that BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P Document Management System (DMS) is the lawful agent of the organization or at http://dms.dot.gov. The DMS is who acts in a ‘‘go-between’’ function. available 24 hours each day, 365 days With respect to air charter brokers that state that they are acting as the agent of DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION each year. one or more air carriers, prior to signing An electronic copy of this document a contract for air services organizations Federal Highway Administration may be downloaded by using the should take steps to assure themselves Internet to reach the Office of the of the agency relationship and that the [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2006–24902] Federal Register’s home page at http:// carrier represented is properly licensed www.archives.gov and the Government by DOT and FAA to provide the air Final List of Nationally and Printing Office’s Web site at http:// transportation.1 Exceptionally Significant Features of www.access.gpo.gov/nara. the Federal Interstate Highway System Tickets to a Game or Other Special I. Background Event Sold in Conjunction With a Flight AGENCY: Federal Highway As the Dwight D. Eisenhower Administration (FHWA), DOT. It is also important to note that National System of Interstate and specific rules apply to situations where ACTION: Notice. Defense Highways (Interstate System) tickets to a game or other special event approached its 50th Anniversary, the SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this are being offered in conjunction with a potential for vast sections of highway to notice to announce the final list of flight, whether it is a charter flight or a reach the mark at which resources are nationally and exceptionally significant regularly scheduled flight. Under 14 often evaluated for historic significance features of the Federal Interstate CFR Part 381, an entity that offers raised the issue of an overwhelming Highway System. The list is available at special event or game tickets in administrative burden for the myriad http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ connection with a flight must be in routine undertakings affecting the histpres/highways.asp. In developing physical possession of a sufficient Interstate System. Accordingly, on the final list, the FHWA considered number of tickets or have a written February 18, 2005, the Section 106 public comments received on the contract for the tickets, which must be Exemption Regarding Effects to the preliminary list of exceptional elements, directly traceable to the actual sponsor Interstate Highway System was adopted which was published in the Federal of the game or other special event. by the Advisory Council on Historic Register on June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34988). Failure to meet Part 381’s requirements Preservation (ACHP) to minimize the This notice summarizes those can entitle a participant to a full refund, administrative burden on agencies comments. Exemptions of the Interstate including the price of the air fare. responsible for highway maintenance We seek the chartering public’s Highway System from consideration as and improvements.2 This exemption cooperation and assistance to ensure historic property under the provisions effectively excluded the majority of the that they arrange an enjoyable and of section 106 of the National Historic 46,700-mile Interstate System from secure traveling experience. If you have Preservation Act (NHPA) and section consideration as a historic property 4(f) of the Department of Transportation any questions or desire additional 1 under section 106 of the National information, please contact Dayton Act of 1966 will not apply to the Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In Lehman, Deputy Assistant General elements on this list. addition, the recently enacted Safe, Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and DATES: The final list of nationally and Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Proceedings, or Lisa Swafford-Brooks, exceptionally significant features of the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Senior Attorney in that office, at (202) Federal Interstate Highway System is Users (SAFETEA–LU) reauthorization 366–9342. If you wish to ascertain effective December 19, 2006. legislation (Pub. L. 109–59, August 10, whether a particular aircraft operator FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 2005) included a provision (Section has DOT air carrier economic authority, MaryAnn Naber, HEPE, (202) 366–2060; 6007) that exempts the bulk of the you may contact Bill Bertram, Chief of Federal Highway Administration; 400 Interstate System from consideration as the Air Carrier Fitness Division at (202) 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; an historic property under section 4(f) of 366–1062. Harold Aikens, Office of the Chief the Department of Transportation Act. An unofficial electronic version of Counsel, HCC–30, (202) 366–0791; With these two exemptions in place, all this document is available on the World Federal Highway Administration, 400 Federal agencies are no longer required Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov/reports 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590– to consider the vast majority of the and at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/ 0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to Interstate System as historic property rules/guidance.htm 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, under Section 106 and Section 4(f) except Federal holidays. requirements. Interstate improvement 1 On October 8, 2004, this office issued a notice SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: projects are still subject to these regarding the lawful role of air charter brokers in respective processes with regard to the provision of air transportation and our enforcement policy covering such operations. The 1 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation those resources listed on or eligible for notice, which was published in the Federal Act of 1966 was technically repealed in 1983 when inclusion on the National Register of Register, provides information on a variety of topics it was codified without substantive change and 49 Historic Places that are not integral parts involving air charter brokers, including contracting U.S.C. 303. A provision with the same meaning is of the Interstate System. procedures and marketing. 69 FR 61429, Oct. 18, found at 23 U.S.C. 138 and applies only to FHWA 2004; erratum published 69 FR 62321, Oct. 25, actions. We continue to refer to section 4(f) as such 2004. The notice may be found on the office’s because it would create needless confusion to do 2 The ACHP’s approved exemption was published website at: http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/ otherwise; the policies section 4(f) engendered are in the Federal Register on March 10, 2005, at 70 BrokerNoticeFinal.pdf. widely referred to as ‘‘Section 4(f)’’ matters. FR 11928.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 76020 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

Under Section II of the ACHP’s Interstate Highway System, and meet not. Comments requiring action Section 106 exemption, certain elements the National Register criteria for included suggested changes to the list of the Interstate System, such as bridges, evaluation as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 at itself (i.e., addition or removal of tunnels, and rest stops, shall be the state or local level of significance. properties) and questions or statements excluded from the exemption’s The FHWA published a notice on requiring additional research (e.g., provisions if they have national and/or June 16, 2006, (71 FR 34988) describing suggested corrections to the justification exceptional historic significance. the collaborative process used to statements). The FHWA addressed Section III of the ACHP’s Section 106 identify properties that should be comments that suggested changes to the exemption set forth the process by excluded from the Section 106 and list via a collaborative process, as which the FHWA was to identify these Section 4(f) exemptions. The notice also detailed below. For comments requiring elements in consultation with published and requested comments on a additional research, the FHWA worked stakeholders in each State. Section 6007 preliminary list of properties with qualified cultural resource of SAFETEA–LU (codified at 23 U.S.C. recommended for exclusion by teams of management specialists to locate the 103(c)(5)) adopted by reference the same Federal, State, and local stakeholders information in question and revise process for identifying exclusions to the within each State. justification statements, as appropriate. Section 4(f) exemption. Under this After reviewing the comments General comments about approach and process, elements of the Interstate submitted on the preliminary list, the methodology are addressed below. System to be excluded from the FHWA has revised and finalized the list As described in the June 16, 2006, exemptions were required to meet at of exceptional Interstate System notice, the FHWA engaged least one of the following criteria for elements, as described below. Properties representatives from FHWA Division significance: included on this list will continue to be Offices, State DOTs, SHPOs, and other 1. National Significance. The element subject to the requirements of Sections stakeholders (where appropriate) within is at least 50 years old and meets the 106 and 4(f). each of the 50 States and the District of National Register of Historic Places Columbia to identify elements that II. Discussion of Comments and (National Register) criteria 3 for national should remain subject to Section 106 Responses significance as defined in 36 CFR 65.4. and 4(f) requirements. At the conclusion In particular, the quality of national A. Summary of Comments of the public comment period, the significance is ascribed to resources that FHWA noted that a number of In response to the June 16, 2006, comments were significant enough to possess exceptional value or quality in notice, the FHWA received 55 sets of illustrating or interpreting the heritage require additional discussion with the comments on the preliminary list. ‘‘teams’’ of representatives that helped of the United States in history, Comments were submitted by a variety architecture, archeology, engineering, to develop the initial list. Such of individuals and organizations, comments included requests for the and culture and that possess a high including: State Department of degree of integrity. removal of certain elements from the list Transportation (DOT) representatives or the addition of new elements to the 2. Exceptional Significance. The (18); private citizens (17); element is less than 50 years old and list. In August and September of 2006, transportation-related associations or the FHWA convened and participated in meets the National Register criteria professional groups (9); State Historic consideration for exceptional a series of conference calls to discuss Preservation Office (SHPO) significant comments on elements in 10 importance. The first step in evaluating representatives (4); turnpike or toll road properties of recent significance is to States; invited to participate in each call authorities (4); city officials (2); and a were the original team of State identify the appropriate area(s) of State legislature (1). Most of the significance: engineering, representatives and all those who comments addressed the inclusion of submitted comments on the elements in transportation, social history, or elements on the preliminary list, with commerce. Then, deliberate and distinct the State. Each call was facilitated by 26 suggesting that one or more elements the cultural resource management justification for the ‘‘exceptional be removed, 19 requesting that elements importance’’ of the resource must be specialist who worked with the State in be retained, and three suggesting that developing its initial list and included made. The phrase ‘‘exceptional elements be added. Such comments representation from FHWA importance’’ may be applied to the addressed 51 unique elements of the Headquarters. The goals of engaging element’s extraordinary impact on an Interstate System. The remaining seven State teams and commenters in this event or for the quality of its design or comments addressed other issues: a few manner were to provide a forum for because it may be one of very few raised questions about the process of open communication between survivors of a resource type. Standard identifying excluded elements with stakeholders and FHWA and to attempt design elements, by their very nature, several suggesting the process was too to reach consensus on a final list of are not exceptional. limited and might overlook significant elements in each State. 3. Listed or Determined Eligible by resources while another found the While the effort to identify excepted the Keeper. The element is listed in the process and resulting list to be over- elements to the broad exemptions for National Register or has previously been inclusive. Other comments voiced the Interstate System references some of determined eligible by the Keeper of the appreciation for the opportunity to the basic principles for determining National Register. provide input on the list and a few eligibility to the National Register, the 4. State or Local Significance. At the pointed out inaccuracies in the survey of this 47,000-mile resource discretion of the FHWA, elements may justification statements of particular could not be conducted at a level of be included in the list of excluded elements. great detail, nor was it expected to elements if they are at least 50 years old, provide definitive justification for were later incorporated into the B. Response to Comments National Register eligibility. The intent After the public comment period of the process was to determine which 3 Information on the National Register standards for evaluating the significance of properties and its ended, the FHWA categorized the resources appeared to rise to the criteria for listing may be found at the following comments into two main groups: those national and/or exceptional level in URL: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/listing.htm. that required action and those that did order that they be afforded the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76021

consideration of review under Section supplemental to the language of the ACTION: Notice. 106 and Section 4(f), while immediately actual Section 106 exemption, which exempting the vast majority of the was adopted by SAFETEA-LU Section SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Interstate System. This initial look was 6007, and was not intended to Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee not intended to apply the same rigor supersede it. As the criteria were of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be with which a formal determination of applied in the course of this process, conducted (via teleconference). The eligibility is conducted, but to retain the those resources less than 50 years old Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is ability to apply the full 106 and 4(f) apparently meeting the standards of soliciting public comments, ideas, and processes to those elements which ‘‘exceptional,’’ were also deemed to suggestions on improving customer appeared to rise to that level. carry national significance within the service at the Internal Revenue Service. Application of the Section 106 process context of the Interstate Highway would provide additional detailed System. DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, information regarding eligibility upon January 12, 2007. which the balance of the review(s) III. Changes to List of Exceptionally and would proceed. It is therefore Nationally Significant Features FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: conceivable that in the course of After considering the comments Dave Coffman at 1–888–912–1227, or consideration under the respective submitted during the public comment 206–220–6096. reviews, some of the resources included period and the views expressed during SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is in the final list of exceptional elements the subsequent conference calls with hereby given pursuant to Section of the Interstate may be determined not teams in several States, the FHWA has 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory eligible for inclusion in the National made several modifications to the list of Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Register. In that case, no further exceptional Interstate System features. that an open meeting of the Taxpayer consideration of the specific Interstate The final list includes 132 unique Assistance Center Committee of the element as a historic property is features—20 fewer features than the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held required under either of the statutory preliminary list contained (152). Friday, January 12, 2007, from 9 a.m. provisions. Should a resource be Specifically, the FHWA has removed 26 Pacific Time to 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time validated as National Register eligible, elements from and added 6 elements to most improvements would likely be the list. The final list may be viewed at via a telephone conference call. If you able to be made in a way that does not http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ would like to have the TAP consider a adversely affect its significant histpres/highways.asp. written statement, please call 1–888– characteristics. In such cases, Section 912–1227 or 206–220–6096, or write to Authority: 23 U.S.C. 103(c)(5)(B); Sec. 6007 Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd 106 could be completed very simply of Pub. L. 109–59. and Section 4(f) would not apply. In any Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174 case, inclusion on the list in no way Issued on: December 12, 2006. or you can contact us at http:// implies that these resources cannot be J. Richard Capka, www.improveirs.org. Due to limited maintained and improved to continue to Federal Highway Administrator. conference lines, notification of intent safely serve the traveling public. [FR Doc. E6–21581 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] to participate in the telephone Two commenters suggested that there BILLING CODE 4910–22–P conference call meeting must be made was some inconsistency between the with Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman can be criteria cited in the original Section 106 reached at 1–888–912–1227 or 206– exemption and the guidance for DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 220–6096. applying the criteria subsequently 4 The agenda will include the distributed in January 2006 by FHWA. Internal Revenue Service However, the guidance was clearly following: Various IRS issues. Open meeting of the Taxpayer Dated: December 4, 2006. 4 ‘‘Guidance to apply the Criteria for the Assistance Center Committee of the Identification of Nationally Significant and John Fay, Exceptionally Significant Elements of the Interstate Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Highway System’’ is available at: http:// [FR Doc. E6–21570 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/ AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) highways.asp. Treasury. BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM 19DEN1 hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Part II

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) as Threatened With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 76024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The genus Penstemon consists of Service 2005, pp. 1–13; Decker et al. dicotyledonous plants traditionally 2006, pp. 3–10). Approximately 60 Fish and Wildlife Service placed in the Figwort family percent of the species’ population is on (Scrophulariaceae). Penstemon Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 50 CFR Part 17 grahamii was first collected from a site managed land with the remainder on RIN 1018–AU49 west of the Green River and south of non-Federal lands with State and Sand Wash, in southern Uintah County, private ownership. The five population Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Utah, on May 27, 1933, and from a site habitat units are described in the and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed north of Sand Wash on the following following paragraphs. Rule to List Penstemon grahamii day (Graham 1937, p. 332). P. grahamii The westernmost Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) as Threatened is an herbaceous perennial plant within population habitat unit, named the Sand With Critical Habitat the sub-genus Cristati (N. Holmgren in Wash Unit (Unit A), occurs in the Cronquist et al. 1984, p. 380). The vicinity of Sand Wash in southwestern AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, species is described in detail in the Uintah and adjacent Carbon and Interior. proposed rule (71 FR 3158). Duchesne Counties, Utah. This ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. We delineated all known locations population habitat unit consists of 10 with extant populations of Penstemon separate occurrences with a population SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and grahamii into 109 occurrences. An estimated at 135 individuals (Shultz and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the ‘‘occurrence’’ is defined in this Mutz 1979b, pp. 37–38; Franklin 1993, proposed rule, published in the Federal document as: an area with continuous Appendix D; Utah NHP 2005, pp. 1–4, Register on January 19, 2006 (71 FR suitable habitat with an extant or 21–24, 45–52, 65–80; Service 2005, pp. 3158), to list Penstemon grahamii historical population of P. grahamii 1–13). This unit has relatively small (Graham’s beardtongue) as a threatened delineated on aerial photography numbers (approximately 2 percent of species with critical habitat under the (Service 2005, pp. 1–3, 13). We grouped the species’ total) compared to those Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, these occurrences into five population population habitat units in the center of as amended. We have determined that habitat units separated by unoccupied the species’ range. The unit is the most listing is not warranted because threats gaps in the species’ range. A isolated of the species’ population to the species as identified in the ‘‘population habitat unit’’ is defined as habitat units. This portion of the January 19, 2006, proposed rule are not continuous groups of occurrences species’ population has minor significant, and available data do not within 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles (mi)) morphological differences from the indicate that the threats to the species of each other (Service 2005, pp. 4, 7). remainder of its population and may, and its habitat, as analyzed under the Available population data information due to geographic isolation, be five listing factors described in section is summarized for the five population genetically divergent from the 4(a)(1) of the Act, are likely to threaten habitat units rather than each of the 109 remainder of the species’ population or endanger the species in the occurrences (Shultz and Mutz 1979b, pp (Shultz and Mutz 1979a, p. 41). foreseeable future throughout all or a 25–39; Neese and Smith 1982b, pp. A second population habitat unit, significant portion of its range. Our 116–140; Borland 1987 p. 1; Franklin named the Seep Ridge Unit (Unit B), decision to withdraw the proposed rule 1993, Appendix D; Franklin 1995, occurs approximately 27 km (17 mi) east to list Penstemon grahamii also removes Appendix B; Colorado Natural Heritage of the Sand Wash Unit in the Willow the species from candidate status under Program (Colorado NHP) 2005, pp. 1– and Bitter Creek drainages in the the Act. 20; Utah Natural Heritage Program (Utah vicinity of Sunday School Canyon near DATES: The proposed rule published at NHP) 2005, pp. 1–124; Service 2005, pp. the Seep Ridge road in south central 71 FR 3158, January 19, 2006 1–13). Uintah County, Utah. This unit consists concerning Graham’s beardtongue is The 109 occurrences within 5 of 53 separate occurrences with an withdrawn effective December 19, 2006. population habitat units of Penstemon estimated population of 3,200 grahamii collectively form the species’ individuals (Shultz and Mutz 1979b, pp. ADDRESSES: Supporting documentation known range, which is distributed in a 25–39; Utah NHP 2005, pp. 5–20, 25–28, for this rulemaking is available for curved band about 10 km (6 mi) wide 53–56, 61–64, 85–100; Service 2005, pp. public inspection, by appointment, and about 128 km (80 mi) long. These 1–13). This population habitat unit is during normal business hours at the units extend from the Sand Wash and the species’ largest with approximately U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah adjacent Nine Mile Creek drainages near 52 percent of the species’ total Field Office, 2369 W. Orton Circle, West the point where Carbon, Duchesne, and population. Valley City, Utah 84119. Uintah Counties, Utah, meet; then A third population habitat unit, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: easterly across southern Uintah County named the Evacuation Creek Unit (Unit Larry England, Botanist, at the above to near the Colorado border; then C), occurs approximately 16 km (10 mi) address (telephone 801–975–3330, northerly to a point near the White east of the Seep Ridge Unit in the extension 138; fax 801–975–3331; or e- River where the population band moves Asphalt Wash and Evacuation Creek mail [email protected]). into Colorado to Raven Ridge, the drainages near the abandoned Gilsonite SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: eastern terminus of the species’ range. mining towns of Dragon and Rainbow. The total documented population of P. This unit is in southeastern Uintah Background grahamii is estimated at approximately County, Utah, and adjacent Rio Blanco In this document, it is our intent to 6,200 individuals (Shultz and Mutz County, Colorado, and consists of 31 discuss only those topics directly 1979a, pp. 38–42; Shultz and Mutz separate occurrences with an estimated relevant to the listing and designation of 1979b, pp. 25–38; Neese and Smith population of 2,550 individuals (Neese critical habitat for Penstemon grahamii. 1982a, pp. 63–66; Neese and Smith and Smith 1982b, pp. 115–133, 137– For additional information on the 1982b, pp. 115–140; Borland 1987, p. 1; 140; Franklin 1995, Appendix B, Map 3; species, refer to the proposed rule Franklin 1993, Appendix D; Franklin Utah NHP 2005, pp. 29–32, 37–44, 57– published in the Federal Register on 1995, Appendix B; Colorado NHP 2005, 60, 81–84, 113–120; Service 2005, pp. January 19, 2006 (71 FR 3158). pp. 1–20; Utah NHP 2005, pp. 1–124; 1–13). This population habitat unit is

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76025

the species’ second largest with 31, Fig. 8; Shultz and Mutz 1979a, pp. Colorado Native Plant Society, and approximately 41 percent of the species’ 39–40; Neese and Smith 1982a, p. 64; American Lands Alliance. This total population. Decker et al. 2006, pp. 3–10). ‘‘second’’ petition reiterated biological A fourth population habitat unit, Penstemon grahamii is associated information and information on named the White River Unit (Unit D), with a suite of species similarly adapted increased levels of threat that, for the occurs approximately 8 km (5 mi) north to xeric growing conditions on highly most part, was already in our files. of the Evacuation Creek Unit in Hells basic calcareous shale soils. The A court settlement required us to Hole and Weaver Canyons immediately vascular plant species most commonly submit a proposed rule to list south of the White River. This unit is in associated with P. grahamii are listed in Penstemon grahamii to the Federal eastern Uintah County, Utah, and the proposed rule (71 FR 3158). The Register by January 9, 2006. Our consists of 9 separate occurrences with plant community associated with P. proposed rule to list P. grahamii as an estimated population of 115 grahamii forms a distinctive assemblage threatened with a proposed designation individuals (Neese and Smith 1982b, of plant species dominated by dwarf of critical habitat was published in the pp. 134–136; Franklin 1995, Appendix shrubs and mound-forming perennial Federal Register on January 19, 2006 B, Maps 5–8; Utah NHP 2005, pp. 33– herbaceous plants with relatively low (71 FR 3158). The proposed rule 36, 101–112, 121–124; Service 2005, pp. plant cover. This plant community announced a 60-day public comment 1–13). This population habitat unit is forms small patches within the broader period ending on March 20, 2006. the species’ smallest, with plant communities that characterize the During the public comment period we approximately 2 percent of the species’ southeastern Uinta Basin (Shultz and received a request for a public hearing total. The unit is important as a link Mutz 1979a, p. 40; Neese and Smith and an extension of the public comment between the largest population habitat 1982a, p. 63; BLM 2005, pp. 3–105 to 3– period. We announced the reopening of units to the south and southwest and 109; Graham 1937, pp. 43–47, 59–71). the public comment period and notice the Colorado population to the Pollinators of Penstemon grahamii are of a public hearing in the Federal northeast. listed in the proposed rule (71 FR 3158). Register on April 13, 2006 (71 FR A fifth population habitat unit, named The Colorado NHP has assigned 19158). The public comment period was the Raven Ridge Unit (Unit E), occurs Penstemon grahamii a global extended to May 19, 2006, and a public approximately 11 km (7 mi) northeast of imperilment ranking of G2 and State hearing was held at the Uintah County the White River Unit along the west imperilment ranking of S1. The Utah Building, in Vernal, Utah, on April 26, flank of Raven Ridge and north of the NHP has assigned Penstemon grahamii 2006. White River between Raven Ridge and a global imperilment ranking of G2 and the Utah border in extreme western Rio State imperilment rankings of S2. The Summary of Comments and Blanco County, Colorado. This unit G2 and S2 rankings mean the species is Recommendations consists of 6 separate occurrences with imperiled at Global and State levels During the open public comment an estimated population of 200 respectively. An S1 ranking means the periods between January 19 and March individuals (Borland 1987, p. 1; species is critically imperiled at a State 20, 2006, and April 13 and May 19, Colorado NHP 2005, pp. 1–20; Service level. These rankings, developed by The 2006, we requested all interested parties 2005, pp. 1–13). The population habitat Nature Conservancy, and applied by to submit information pertaining to both unit harbors approximately 3 percent of various NHPs associated with State the proposed listing and critical habitat. the species’ total population and governments, are utilized by the Service We also sought specific information on includes virtually the species’ entire in selecting candidate species and by any available preliminary results from population in Colorado (a portion of a the BLM in selecting ‘‘Special Status the recent lease nominations for small population occurs in at the Species’’ for enhanced conservation research, development, and eastern margin of the Evacuation Creek actions and resource planning. The demonstration of oil-shale recovery Unit at the Colorado-Utah border). As in International Union for the technologies on BLM lands; success of the case of the Sand Wash Unit, the Conservation of Nature has given the ongoing oil-shale or tar-sands Raven Ridge Unit is at the extreme end species a ranking of ‘‘Vulnerable.’’ development projects, particularly in of the species’ range. As such this the Green River formation; available population is important for its Previous Federal Actions economic and technological analyses; representation of a portion of the full The history of Penstemon grahamii as and specific information detailing spectrum of the species’ genetic a candidate species under the Act is definitive effects of these operations on diversity. recounted in detail in the proposed rule environmental resources, as primarily Penstemon grahamii habitat is a (71 FR 3158). It has been a candidate for related to losses of individual plants, discontinuous series of exposed raw listing since 1980 (December 15, 1980; loss or fragmentation of the habitat, and shale knolls and slopes derived from the 45 FR 82480). loss or declines in plant pollinators. Parachute Creek and Evacuation Creek Penstemon grahamii was petitioned Similarly, the Energy Policy Act sets the members of the geologic Green River three times for listing as endangered or stage for increased oil and gas drilling Formation. Most populations are threatened under the provisions of the activities within Penstemon grahamii associated with the surface exposure of Act. The first petition was the initial habitat, so we requested information the petroleum bearing oil-shale Smithsonian list of 1975 (see above). specific to ongoing or proposed actions Mahogany ledge (Cashion 1967, p. 31, The second petition was the Fund for in these areas. Fig. 8; Shultz and Mutz 1979a, pp. 39– Animals’ petition of 1990. This petition The BLM provided us with 40; Neese and Smith 1982a, p. 64; included 401 species the Service had substantial information concerning: Franklin 1993, Appendix D; Franklin assigned category 1 status in its current and projected energy 1995, Appendix B). The trace of the previous notices of review. On October development; grazing use and Mahogany bed correlates very closely 8, 2002, we received a petition management; off-road vehicle (ORV) use with the trace of Penstemon grahamii specifically for P. grahamii from five and management; exotic species (weeds) sites from the vicinity of Sand Wash separate parties—Center for Native control activities; wildland fire control near the Green River to Raven Ridge Ecosystems, Southern Utah Wilderness actions; and the potential for near the White River (Cashion 1967, p. Alliance, Utah Native Plant Society, horticultural collection. In addition,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 76026 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

BLM provided planning and regulatory correct, clarify, or support statements number of identical or similar direction it will use to ensure the contained in the proposed rule. We have comments, and we consolidated those conservation of the species as a incorporated their comments into the into several categories. consequence of any future development final determination, as appropriate. The Comments Related to Energy of oil-shale or tar-sands that may affect three responding peer reviewers stated Development Impacts to the Species the species. As a consequence we have that all six of the questions asked were and Its Habitat relied heavily on BLM’s comments in adequately addressed in the proposed this final notice withdrawing the rule. One reviewer noted that our Comment 1—No overlap exists proposed rule to list P. grahamii as proposed critical habitat included only between current, proposed, and threatened, incorporating the existing populations, and therefore potential future oil-shale/tar-sands information it provided within our provided a conservative estimate of development and species’ habitat. analysis of threats. potential habitat. This same reviewer Our Response—We evaluated the also agreed that current oil and gas potential for oil-shale and tar-sands Peer Review activity appears to provide little adverse development to impact Penstemon In accordance with our July 1, 1994, affect to the species, but future increase grahamii based largely on the plant’s Interagency Cooperative Policy on Peer in the density of conventional oil and dependence on oil-shale geologic strata. Review (59 FR 34270), we requested the gas wells and the inevitable There are no ongoing commercial oil- expert opinions of six independent development of oil-shale extraction shale or tar-sands activities on Federal specialists regarding pertinent scientific projects would be problematic. lands in the Uinta Basin, Green River or commercial data and assumptions Another peer reviewer stated that formation. We acknowledge that the relating to supportive biological and Penstemon grahamii is clearly a exact location and extent of future oil- ecological information in the proposed narrowly restricted, globally rare shale or tar-sands commercial rule. The purpose of such a review is to species, but most of the information on development in the Uinta Basin is ensure that the listing decision is based the species in Colorado is not current. unknown, and we have considered on scientifically sound data, A lack of recent surveys has resulted in information from BLM regarding—1) the assumptions, and analyses, including uncertainty about its distribution and higher likelihood that oil-shale would input of appropriate experts and population size. He concluded that even progress, at least initially, in the specialists. if future surveys revealed robust Piceance Basin, Colorado, The six experts we requested to populations, the types of threats faced approximately 30 miles east of known P. review the proposed rule were selected by the species would result in a need for grahamii occurrences and 2) geologic on the basis of their expertise on habitat protection. information depicting mineral Penstemon grahamii natural history and The third peer reviewer stated that, in development potential compared to ecology. We requested that they review her opinion, ‘‘* * * the effect of known P. grahamii habitats. Approved the proposed rule and provide any livestock grazing is an additional source nominations under the BLM oil-shale relevant scientific data relating to of stress for a species already grappling Research, Development, and taxonomy, distribution, population with a stressful environment.’’ Demonstration (RD&D) program also do status, or the supporting biological and Therefore, studies of the effects of not overlap known P. grahamii habitat. ecological data used in our analyses of livestock and wildlife exclosures on Comment 2—A high level of the listing factors. We specifically plant vigor and reproduction should be technological and economic uncertainty requested information responding to the a high priority if the species is listed. exists for future oil-shale and tar-sands following six questions. (1) Is our She also felt that the degree of development. description and analysis of the biology, protection provided to Penstemon Our Response—We acknowledge population, and distribution of P. grahamii by BLM’s Area of Critical there is a high level of technological and grahamii accurate? (2) Does the Environmental Concern designations is economic uncertainty, and that proposed rule provide accurate and variable and inconsistent. commercial oil-shale or tar-sands adequate review and analysis of the Although the peer reviewers felt that development is only a potential future factors relating to the threats to the P. our proposed listing rule justified prospect, likely many years away. We grahamii (A. The present or threatened listing, based on the new scientific and have included this information in our destruction, modification, or commercial information concerning the analysis. curtailment of its habitat, B. species’ status received during the Comment 3—Even if industry’s Overutilization for commercial, comment period, we have determined interest in oil-shale mining eventually sporting, scientific, or educational that Penstemon grahamii does not moved near Penstemon grahamii purposes, C. Disease and predation, D. currently warrant protection under the occurrences, experience shows that Adequate regulatory mechanisms, and, Act. industry would likely propose E. Any other natural or man made underground mining techniques, or one factors affecting is continued existence)? Summary of Public Comments and or more of various in-situ recovery (3) Are our assumptions and definition Recommendations processes. There is considerable of suitable habitat logical and adequate? During the public comment periods, flexibility in siting access shafts and (4) Is our delineation and proposal of we received written comments from 37 supporting surface facilities for an critical habitat for this species entities. Twenty-two entities advocated underground mine or in-situ appropriate? (5) Are the conclusions we listing of the species, 12 entities development and they can easily be reach logical and supported by the advocated not listing the species, and 3 placed to avoid critical surface resource evidence we provide? (6) Did we entities did not advocate either listing areas. include all the necessary and pertinent position. The public comments received Our Response—We acknowledge that literature to support our assumptions/ and our responses are summarized there is a high level of technological arguments/conclusions? below. Comments that contained new, uncertainty regarding commercial oil- Three of the six provided comments updated, or additional information were shale development. Until more specific during the initial peer review process. thoroughly considered in this final technological decisions are made, it is All three provided information to determination. We received a large not feasible for us to make conclusions

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76027

regarding the actual effects oil-shale Colorado. Ninety-eight percent of P. in Australia that show complete surface mining may have on Penstemon grahamii individuals are located in the disturbance. grahamii and its habitat. The different Parachute Creek member of the Green Our Response—We acknowledge the mining technologies are discussed in River formation. The Parachute Creek potential impacts of oil-shale mining to our analysis. However, we strongly member is the most important area in Penstemon grahamii habitat, if this recommend that BLM continue to regard to oil-shale. The entire range of mining occurs in habitat occupied by evaluate technological processes and P. grahamii also is sitting on deposits of the species. However, we do not have devise appropriate conservation natural gas. information to conclude that oil-shale measures if commercial development Our Response—We have analyzed the mining will occur in P. grahamii progresses in the future. distribution of Penstemon grahamii habitat. Comment 4—The GIS analysis relative to the potential for energy Comment 11—The Department of the supports the concept that engineering development. Significant economic Interior may attempt to argue that until and economics generally keep oil and questions remain concerning the oil-shale development is shown to be gas wells out of Penstemon grahamii development of the Green River technically and economically viable on habitat. In addition, BLM and industry formation oil-shale and tar-sands. There a commercial scale, it should not be have implemented species inventories are currently no development projects considered a real threat. However, this and avoid special status plant species for this resource proposed anywhere ignores the fact that members of and their habitats. within the known range of P. grahamii, Congress are actively interested in Our Response—Our evaluation or anywhere else in the United States. forcing the BLM to lease large portions concluded that oil and gas wells, to We have included a detailed analysis of of the oil-shale resource now before date, have not been located directly on potential impacts of oil-shale and tar- RD&D projects begin, and that any known Penstemon grahamii locations. sands development, and the current and analysis of economic feasibility must We encourage BLM and the energy future impacts of conventional natural factor in the possibility that the industry to implement appropriate gas drilling and production in the government may be willing to heavily technologies and conservation measures Summary of Factors Affecting the subsidize this experiment. The Service to avoid development that may threaten Species section. must recognize that interest in oil-shale the species and its habitat in the future. Comment 8—Oil-shale processing has will not go away as long as oil is Comment 5—Several conventional oil been attempted many times all over the valuable. The Service must list now and gas exploratory and field world with the same result—failure. The because oil-shale poses an extremely development projects are proposed or processing of oil-shale is far too high magnitude threat to Penstemon underway in or near occupied expensive to be economical. Although grahamii and Congress has made that Penstemon grahamii habitat, the technology for the oil-shale threat more imminent today than it has including—the Resource Development processing may not be quite ready, the been in the past decades. Group, GASCO, Dominion Kings potential for it is very real. Our Response—We acknowledge the Canyon project, Enduring Resource Big Our Response—We acknowledge the potential impacts of oil-shale mining to Pack project, MakJ Little Canon/Bick technological and economic uncertainty Penstemon grahamii if this mining Pack Mountain field development associated with oil-shale development. occurs in habitat occupied by the project, Pioneer Park Ridge 3D Seismic Until and unless technology advances species. However, we do not have project, and Columbine 3D seismic and commercial oil-shale development information to conclude that oil-shale project. plans are proposed, it is inappropriate mining will occur in P. grahamii Our Response—We have included an for us to speculate on the potential scale habitat. evaluation of these projects in our and distribution of commercial oil-shale Comment 12—Several comments analysis and concluded that they do not development. described the direct, indirect, and significantly affect Penstemon grahamii Comment 9—Commenters provided cumulative environmental impacts or its occupied habitat. See our information regarding the current and associated with oil-shale mining. discussion of the impacts of oil and gas projected future increases in oil and gas Our Response—We acknowledge the exploration and development in the development in the Vernal BLM Field potential effects of oil-shale Summary of Factors Affecting the Office area respective to the proposed development on Penstemon grahamii. Species section. critical habitat units. We have evaluated the threat of oil- Comment 6—Industry has historically Our Response—We have evaluated shale mining in our finding. demonstrated no interest in surface ongoing and proposed energy Comment 13—Shell Frontier Oil and mining the Mahogany outcrops. There is development and potential impacts to Gas Corporation’s proprietary In-situ no evidence that potential, foreseeable Penstemon grahamii in our finding. We Conversion Process (ICP) uses oil-shale development would occur in acknowledge the current and projected subsurface heating to convert kerogen the vicinity of the Mahogany ledge increases in oil and gas exploration and contained in oil-shale into ultra-clean outcrops. development in the Uinta Basin. We transportation fuels and gas. Shell’s ICP Our Response—We have evaluated have addressed energy exploration and is more environmentally friendly and the information presented and agree that development in our final rule. Our more efficient than previous oil-shale there is no current active interest, to analysis of the best available scientific efforts. It recovers the resources without date, for oil-shale development along and commercial data reveals that P. conventional mining, uses less water, the Mahogany zone in Penstemon grahamii is not warranted for listing and does not generate large tailing piles. grahamii habitat. Technological and under the Act. Our Response—Our finding discusses economic uncertainties exist to the Comment 10—Shell’s Mahogany various technologies for commercial oil- extent that we cannot conclude that Project in the Piceance Basin provides a shale mining. Certainly any processes there is a certainty of future threats in glimpse of what surface impacts using that also provide environmental this area. in-situ methods would look like—100 protections are preferred. We also Comment 7—Most Penstemon percent surface disturbance. Images acknowledge that technologies are still grahamii are located on a bed of posted on the SkyTruth.org Web site being developed for oil-shale mining petroleum bearing oil-shale in Utah and show impacts at an oil-shale operation and the location and extent of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 76028 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

commercial oil-shale mining is still measures for this species in oil-shale or grazing allotments in Penstemon uncertain. tar-sands commercial leasing programs. grahamii habitat. Comment 14—The proposed rule, if Regulatory mechanisms and policies Our Response—We concluded that finalized, will impede, if not completely also are available for other land-use grazing does not appear to be a species proscribe, oil-shale development in activities. level threat to Penstemon grahamii, and areas occupied by Penstemon grahamii. Comment 19—Combined hydrocarbon our rationale is presented in the Our Response—Our determination leases (e.g., conventional oil and gas Summary of Factors Affecting the that this species does not warrant listing along with tar-sands) have been issued Species section. We encourage under the Act is based on our to some extent prior to the Energy continued monitoring and conservation assessment of the threats to the species, Policy Act of 2005. There was no real efforts to ensure grazing effects remain as they are known at the time of the restriction to leasing in these areas as minimal in the future. decision, not the potential land portrayed in the Service’s proposed rule Comment 23—Information was management implications of listing. We (71 FR 3158). provided regarding off-road vehicle have evaluated the potential impacts of Our Response—We acknowledge (ORV) use and available conservation oil-shale mining in this finding. there was some opportunity for oil and measures to avoid and minimize Comment 15—There are no present gas leasing prior to the Energy Policy impacts to Penstemon grahamii. threats to the viability of the species, Act of 2005. Energy Policy Act Our Response—We have no either listed in the proposed rule or provisions alleviate some of the prior information to indicate that ORV use is otherwise known. The threats listed in restrictions of oil and gas leasing in the a threat to Penstemon grahamii or its the proposed rule are all perceived tar-sands areas. habitat. To date, little ORV use has been future threats, not current activities. Comment 20—Without listing, the observed in the species’ range. We Our Response—We concur that BLM can only require that proposed encourage continued monitoring and potential threats to Penstemon grahamii facilities be moved 200 meters (m) (656 conservation efforts to ensure ORV from oil-shale and tar-sands feet (ft)) or less, unless special effects remain negligible in the future. development described in the proposed stipulations have been attached to the Comment 24—Overexploitation for rule were speculative, although based lease. Even if one were able to preclude horticultural purposes is a threat to on the best information available to the direct habitat loss under the 200-m (656- Penstemon grahamii. Service. Our analysis in this final rule, ft) limitation, substantial cumulative Our Response—We acknowledge that based on information received after indirect effects and habitat the rarity and beauty of this species publication of the proposed rule, fragmentation are likely to occur if one makes collection a potential concern. recognizes that current impacts to the is simply shuffling disturbance around However, we have no information to species from oil and gas development well by well, rather than actively conclude that collection is impacting do not rise to level to warrant listing conserving critical habitat. wild populations in the species’ native now or for the reasonably foreseeable Our Response—We have considered habitat. We encourage continued future. existing regulatory mechanisms and monitoring and conservation efforts to Comment 16—Destruction of management activities in this finding, ensure horticultural collection remains Penstemon grahamii habitat is and determined that conventional oil a negligible impact in the future. irrevocable. We should not take and gas development lease stipulations Comment 25—Penstemon grahamii irrevocable action for the sake of short- provide sufficient conservation may be at greater risk because of a term economic benefit. measures to prevent extinction of reduced ability to form a large seed bank Our Response—We have evaluated Penstemon grahamii. to act as a buffer in the face of threats to Penstemon grahamii and its Comment 21—The State of Utah population decline, whether this habitat in our finding. Our supports the implementation of a decline is weather-related or caused by determination as to whether or not this Conservation Agreement for the anthropogenic disturbance. species warrants listing under the Act Graham’s beardtongue. Implementation Our Response—Information must be based on our assessment of the of a Conservation Agreement will allow pertaining to the status, life history, and threats to the species as they are known for better species’ inventory, the distribution of Penstemon grahamii has at the time of the decision. opportunity to protect important been reviewed and incorporated into Comment 17—Boom and bust energy habitats, and the opportunity to reduce our analysis. We have noted the cycles have occurred in Uintah County potential threats to the species. presence of small population sizes at for the past 75 years. Penstemon Our Response—Our analysis of the specific locations, but we do not believe grahamii has continued to flourish. best available scientific and commercial that the threats to the species rise to a Our Response—Our finding has taken data indicates that listing Penstemon level that listing is warranted. into consideration the known species’ grahamii under the Act is not warranted Comment 26—Other concerns of population status and trends, as well as at this time. Therefore, it was not increased energy development activities the potential threat of energy necessary to further evaluate in Penstemon grahamii habitat are the development. conservation efforts associated with a incidental spread of noxious and exotic Conservation Agreement. We encourage weeds and soil erosion, leading to Comments Related to Inadequacy of continued development and decreased plant and insect (pollinator) Existing Regulatory Mechanisms implementation of conservation biodiversity. Comment 18—Existing regulatory measures and a Conservation Agreement Our Response—We acknowledge the mechanisms, including the Energy to protect and enhance P. grahamii and presence of exotic weeds within Regulatory Act of 2005, are available to its habitat. occupied Penstemon grahamii habitat, protect Penstemon grahamii from including Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) mineral development as well as other Comments Related to Other Threat and Halogeton glomeratus (halogeton). land use activities. Factors Habitat disturbances associated with Our Response—We acknowledge that Comment 22—Information was future energy development activities regulatory mechanisms and policies provided regarding evaluations and could exacerbate the situation. We exist to incorporate conservation conservation measures applied to encourage the development and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76029

implementation of conservation efforts difficult, if not impossible, if energy Comment 35—This species may be to minimize the invasion of exotic weed developments were to impact any of the valuable for a cure to cancer or some species. known populations. other disease. Comment 27—The notice fails to Our Response—Our finding has Our Response—Many plant species provide any scientific evidence that evaluated the potential threats of energy have provided important advances in disease and predation are threats to the development to Penstemon grahamii. medicine. However, our determination species. Comment 32—Listing under the Act regarding whether or not this species Our Response—We have identified results in important protections for warrants listing under the Act must be that grazing may affect certain listed species threatened with based on our assessment of the threats populations of Penstemon grahamii (see development. Unlisted species may to the species, as they are known at the discussion in Factor A in the Factors receive some consideration, but no real time of the decision. Affecting the Species section), but we Comment 36—Current and historic protection in the face of pressure to determined that grazing is not a threat population trend data do not show any develop energy resources. to the species as a whole. Therefore, we decline in the population of Penstemon determined that disease and predation Our Response—Our decision grahamii. do not constitute threats to the regarding Penstemon grahamii is based Our Response—We evaluated continued existence of P. grahamii. on the best available scientific and available population status and trend Comment 28—The species responds commercial data, as required by the Act. information for the species in this to cultivation and proliferates in Our determination regarding whether or finding. habitats other than its natural habitat not this species warrants listing under Comment 37—Penstemon grahamii and, therefore, is capable of being the Act must be based on our habitat is not dependent on oil-shale as cultivated for use in reclamation and assessment of the threats to the species represented. The association with oil- revegetation. at the time of the decision. We shale may be coincidental, and there is Our Response—It is true that the evaluated the threat of energy a substantial likelihood that the species’ species has been cultivated as a garden development, and the effectiveness of distribution is more widespread than plant, and is available for sale in regulatory mechanisms in this finding. presented in the proposed rule. catalogs and on the Internet. Comment 33—A few comments Our Response—We cite several Propagation in the wild may be expressed concern about Penstemon sources that indicate Penstemon explored at a future date, but on an grahamii’s low population numbers and grahamii is associated with oil-shale experimental basis. We do not have low and declining seed set numbers, as outcrops. We are not aware of any data information at this time to conclude that a result of substantial herbivory and indicating that the species is more populations propagated in the wild will livestock trampling. The Nature widely distributed than as we described be viable in the long-term. Until this Conservancy’s eco-regional assessments in the proposed rule and this document. information is available, we would not confirm that P. grahamii, with very low Comment 38—Oil and gas operations rely on restoration or revegetation of natural population numbers and are typically able to avoid individual this species from a cultivated source. restricted distribution, is at risk. plants. Our Response—Information Our Response—Our finding has Comments Related to the Biology of the evaluated the threat of energy Species pertaining to the status, life history, and distribution of Penstemon grahamii has development to Penstemon grahamii. Comment 29—Green River outcrops been reviewed and incorporated in our We encourage development and support a number of rare species of analysis. We have noted the presence of implementation of conservation efforts special concern. The edaphic features of small population sizes at specific to avoid impacts to P. grahamii and its Green River outcrops are natural locations, and the potential for threats to habitat. Comment 39—There is no clear laboratories of evolution and endemism, have negative impacts if they occur. The evidence that the species’ environment and should be preserved. referenced study sites are small, and do is as fragmented as is implied by the Our Response—We concur that the not provide sufficient information on delineation of the units. Green River outcrops have significant threats to conclude that Penstemon Our Response—Our decision ecological and evolutionary values. grahamii warrants listing. Although regarding Penstemon grahamii is based However, our evaluation of threats additional studies may be desirable, we on the best available scientific and under the Act’s criteria is restricted to have made our decision based on the commercial data, as required by the Act. Penstemon grahamii. This final rule best available scientific and commercial We have described the species’ known does not evaluate other species data, as required by the Act. associated with the Green River distribution and provided citations for formation. Comment 34—The extinction of this information in our finding. Comment 30—The limited Penstemon grahamii would Comment 40—There are areas in distribution and highly specific habitat undoubtedly affect the only specialist Uintah County that have shown no requirements of this species make it a wasp, Pseudomasaris vespoides, which previous signs of this plant. However valuable component of the Utah flora feeds its offspring exclusively on when the ground has been disturbed, and highly vulnerable to disturbance. Penstemon pollen. This wasp should be followed by a rainfall, the plant has Our Response—We concur that this the subject of further study. flourished. Listing this plant to prevent species is a valuable component of the Our Response—Our evaluation is disturbance in the area, seems to defeat Utah flora. We considered the habitat restricted to Penstemon grahamii, which the natural course of growth, which requirements and threats to this species we have determined does not warrant includes ground disturbance and water. in our finding, and determined that the listing under the Act. The wasp is a Our Response—To our knowledge the level of threats to Penstemon grahamii specialist on most species of Penstemon. potential for land disturbance to were insufficient to warrant listing. Other Penstemon species occur within facilitate Penstemon grahamii Comment 31—Penstemon grahamii the range of P. grahamii and are conservation has not been studied. habitat requirements make restoration/ apparently supporting Pseudomasaris However, we have no documentation of reclamation of the species extremely vespoides populations. this species responding favorably to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 76030 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

disturbance as described above. Our Response—Our analysis of the as a BLM special status species. In Observations of biologists studying this best available scientific and commercial addition, we are partnering with Federal species have not shown any such data determined that listing Penstemon and State agencies to develop and response to surface disturbance, and we grahamii is not warranted at this time. implement a Conservation Agreement provide a detailed description of the Our analyses and conclusions are for P. grahamii. This Conservation species’ habitat requirements in the described in detail in the Summary of Agreement is not the basis for this Background section of this document. Factors Affecting the Species section. withdrawal. Comment 41—Penstemon grahamii Comment 46—The U.S. House of Comment 49—If the plant is listed as must be considered extremely rare Representatives has passed House Bill threatened, the Service should adopt a whether considered at the global, 3824, which will amend the Act and special rule under section 4(d) of the national, State, or county level. repeal critical habitat requirements. The Act that would provide that any energy Our Response—Rarity in and of itself Service should delay any listing development projects undertaken in does not automatically lead to listing. decisions until a final determination is accordance with BLM-mandated terms Our determination of whether or not made on this legislation. and conditions would not constitute a listing this species under the Act is Our Response—The Act requires that violation of any of the Act’s plant- warranted must be based on our we finalize proposed listings within 12 related prohibitions. assessment of the threats to the species, months of publication. In this case, we Our Response—Our analysis of the as they are known at the time of the also are responding to a court-approved best available scientific and commercial decision. settlement agreement to complete a data determines that Penstemon listing determination by December 8, grahamii is not warranted for listing Comments Related to General Listing 2006. Therefore, we are unable to under the Act. Issues Under the Act postpone completion of this listing Comment 50—The proposed rule pays Comment 42—The various Federal decision. little attention to the best commercial Register notices are deficient in that Comment 47—Listing Penstemon data which, if considered, would they do not identify, other than by grahamii now could protect against the provide both an estimate of the author, name, and year, the references most damaging projects in its habitat, magnitude of the potential threats, and on which they rely. The Administrative and allow for recovery. the adverse economic impact of listing Procedures Act and other authorities Our Response—Our decision Penstemon grahamii. require a reasonable opportunity to regarding Penstemon grahamii is a Our Response—This final rule comment on proposed rules. The listing, not a recovery decision. Our includes our analysis of the magnitude publications and page numbers at which determination of whether or not this of potential threats to this species, and the references appear could easily have species warrants listing under the Act we have determined that these threats been included in one of the notices. must be based on our assessment of the are not sufficient to warrant listing the Our Response—We have included threats to the species, as they are known species under the Act at this time. The page numbers with citations in this at the time of the decision, not the Act does not include economic notice, and the list of references and the potential for recovery under the Act. considerations as a factor in listing references themselves are available for Comment 48—If listing is denied, the decisions. inspection at our Utah Field Office (see little extra attention that Penstemon Comment 51—Listing under the Act ADDRESSES section). grahamii has received based on its ensures benign neglect of a species; it Comment 43—Several commenters candidate status will disappear. does nothing to proactively ensure supported the proposal to list Our Response—Candidate species are proliferation of a species. Penstemon grahamii and designate plants and animals for which the Our Response—Our determination of critical habitat, based on the species’ Service has sufficient information on whether or not this species warrants status and the threats analysis presented their biological status and threats to listing under the Act must be based on in the proposed rule. propose them as endangered or our assessment of the threats to the Our Response—We have reevaluated threatened under the Act, but for which species, as they are known at the time the best available scientific and a proposed listing regulation is of the decision, not whether listing commercial data, based on information precluded by other higher priority would ensure the species’ recovery. received during the public comment listing activities. Candidate species Comment 52—Costs to the Nation’s period, and have determined that the receive no statutory protection under economy and energy security can be threats to Penstemon grahamii the Act. The BLM has designated avoided by withdrawal of the proposed described in the proposed rule are not Penstemon grahamii as a ‘‘special status rule, as warranted by the scientific and sufficient to warrant listing under the species’’ and as such will provide strong commercial evidence. Act at this time. Our analysis is consideration for the species in its land Our Response—Our determination as presented in the Summary of Factors use planning and will implement to whether or not this species warrants Affecting the Species section. measures to conserve the species and listing under the Act must be based on Comment 44—A commenter felt that protect its habitat. The BLM has made our assessment of the threats to the listing of this species is not warranted. an explicit commitment to conserve this species, as they are known at the time Our Response—We have considered species into the future, regardless of any of the decision. The Act provides for all factors potentially affecting energy or other development action evaluating economic considerations Penstemon grahamii in our decision and within the species range (BLM 2001, when designating critical habitat, but determined that the listing is not 2006a p. 1–2). We encourage the not when making listing determinations. warranted. We have made our decision formation of partnerships to conserve Comment 53—A commenter based on the best available scientific these species because they are, by disagreed with the statement on page and commercial data, as required by the definition, species that warrant future 3173 that the action is not a significant Act. protection under the Act. Our decision energy action. Comment 45—Penstemon grahamii not to list Penstemon grahamii removes Our Response—Our analysis of the meets all five requirements to be listed the species from candidate status. best available scientific and commercial as a threatened species. However, P. grahamii retains its status data indicates that listing Penstemon

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76031

grahamii is not warranted at this time. Special Status Species, including P. because of tar-sands development Therefore, it was not necessary to grahamii. potential could be offered in any further evaluate significant energy Comment 59—The Act provides no upcoming sale. effects, or prepare an economic analysis authority to protect this plant on State Our Response—Our analysis assumes for the designation of critical habitat. or private lands. Therefore, it is that that leasing will occur in suitable tar- Comment 54—It appears that no much more important to protect them sands areas and other areas in the Uinta attempt is being made to designate or on Federal lands. Basin. Leasing does not necessarily restore all original habitats once Our Response—Existing regulatory mean that an area will be developed for occupied by this species. mechanisms were evaluated for our oil and gas. We have addressed the Our Response—The Act does not finding. We encourage Federal land potential impacts of energy require restoration of all historic habitat management agencies to continue development to Penstemon grahamii in for a listed species, nor does it require conservation efforts for Penstemon our finding, and determined that those designation of all historic range as grahamii and its habitat. In addition we impacts now and in the foreseeable critical habitat. By determining that this will work with both the State of Utah future do not rise to the level that would species does not warrant listing we and private landowners to encourage warrant listing of the species. indicate that it is not in danger of voluntary measures to conserve viable Comment 63—In the Castle Peak becoming extinct throughout all or a populations of the species and its Environmental Impact Statement, the significant portion of its range, or likely habitat on their properties. BLM was quite frank about not being Comment 60—BLM has recently to become so in the foreseeable future. able to impinge on valid, existing lease initiated survey and life history studies Comment 55—A recovery plan is not rights, and openly refused to require No for Penstemon grahamii. Life history a part of the current proposal. Surface Occupancy within the Pariette and survey data are out of date and may Our Response—Recovery Plans are Wetlands Area of Critical not accurately portray the species’ only completed for listed species under Environmental Concern (ACEC), even distribution and abundance. Lack of the Act. This current finding has though (1) that was one of the determined that listing Penstemon information may affect the Service’s decisions regarding critical habitat expectations set forth in the biological grahamii under the Act is not opinion, and (2) Uinta Basin hookless warranted. designation. Our Response—We agree that cactus’ (Sclerocactus glaucus) listed Comments Related to Agency additional population status, status should have allowed the agency Management of the Species distribution, and life history to place additional constraints on those leases. The BLM White River Field Comment 56—The Energy Policy Act information would be useful to Office also has permitted pipelines strengthens the BLM and Service determine the status of the species and through ACECs designated for the capability to protect this species. identification of critical habitat. Our Response—The 2005 Energy However, as required by the Act, we Dudley Bluffs plants, in what appears to Policy Act resulted in increased staffing have used the best scientific and be direct contravention of the White and funding levels for pilot project commercial information available when River RMP. offices, including the Vernal BLM Field making the determination on whether to Our Response—This finding pertains Office. We strongly encourage BLM to list Penstemon grahamii. to Penstemon grahamii, not other plant utilize these available resources to Comment 61—All action alternatives species in the area. Our analysis of the ensure long-term, successful in the draft BLM Vernal RMP would best available scientific and commercial conservation efforts for Penstemon lead to Penstemon grahamii being more data indicates that P. grahamii is not grahamii and other listed and sensitive imperiled. warranted for listing under the Act. We species during energy project planning Our Response—The BLM has have considered existing regulatory and implementation. provided its commitment to continue mechanisms and management activities Comment 57—The BLM has done a implementation of effective in this finding. The Service encourages poor job of protecting plant conservation measures through the RMP the successful development and communities from rapid to ensure long-term conservation of P. implementation of conservation industrialization and lawless ORV use. grahamii. Our analysis of the best measures for P. grahamii to maintain the Our Response—We considered available scientific and commercial data species’ status in the long-term. potential threats, such as increased reveals that P. grahamii is not warranted Comment 64—The BLM has provided energy development and ORV use, in for listing under the Act. We have very little in the way of conservation our finding, but we were unable to evaluated existing regulatory measures for Penstemon grahamii, document threats from these activities mechanisms in our finding. All action despite its candidate status. that would warrant listing Penstemon alternatives within the BLM’s draft RMP Our Response—We have considered grahamii. commit the BLM to protect the existing regulatory mechanisms and Comment 58—There is no assurance populations and habitat of Special management activities in this finding, at this point that the BLM, through the Status Species, including P. grahamii. and determined that the impacts to Vernal Resource Management Plan We have identified specific protective Penstemon grahamii populations and (RMP), will provide adequate protection measures for the protection of P. habitat are not sufficient to warrant for Penstemon grahamii. grahamii which BLM will include in the listing under the Act. This species has Our Response—Our determination of final RMP and as stipulations in all been a listing candidate for decades, and whether or not this species warrants subsequent mineral leases. (See we have no evidence to indicate that listing under the Act must be based on discussion under listing Factors A and current BLM management is resulting in our assessment of the threats to the D below.) serious impacts to populations of this species, as they are known at the time Comment 62—The BLM Vernal Field species. of the decision. We understand that all Office has continued to offer oil and gas Comments Related to Critical Habitat action alternatives within the BLM’s lease parcels even though it is in the draft Vernal RMP commit the BLM to midst of a Plan revision, and the Service Comment 65—There were numerous protect the populations and habitat of must consider that the areas unleased comments regarding the importance,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 76032 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

extent, and boundary lines regarding the 7; Bunger et al. 2004 p. 1; Dyni 2003, population at Raven Ridge. The one proposed critical habitat designation. pp. 241–245; Lonnie 2005, pp. 1–3). P. Utah RD&D application still under Our Response—We considered all grahamii only grows directly on review is located about 8 km (5 mi) west factors potentially affecting Penstemon weathered surface exposures of the oil- and 13 km (8 mi) north of the nearest grahamii in our decision and we have shale bearing strata in the Parachute P. grahamii occurrences in habitat not determined that the listing is not member and closely associated strata, suitable for the species (BLM 2006a, pp. warranted. Therefore, we are making the species vulnerable to 12–13, 15, 18–19, 34). withdrawing our proposed critical impacts if that oil-shale strata is Any future oil-shale development habitat designation. exploited in the future (Bartis 2005, pp. within the Uinta Basin nearest the range 35–37; Cashion 1967, p. 31, Fig. 8; of Penstemon grahamii is expected to be Summary of Factors Affecting the Johnson et al. 2004b. pp. 3–5; Service associated with the thickest deposits of Species 2005, p. 21; Shultz and Mutz 1979a, p. oil-shale, which occur about 8 km (5 mi) Section 4 of the Act and regulations 42; Neese and Smith 1982a, pp. 64–66). from the nearest occurrence of P. (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to One hundred five of 109 (96 percent) grahamii (BLM 2006a, pp. 12–13). These implement the listing provisions of the Penstemon grahamii occurrences are in deposits occur in the vicinity of the Act set forth the procedures for adding the Parachute Creek member of the aforementioned Utah RD&D proposal. species to Federal lists. We analyzed the Green River formation; the remaining 4 We do not have information to indicate threats applicable to the species in the sites are in oil-shale strata of the that oil-shale development, if it occurs present and foreseeable future to Evacuation Creek member of the Green at commercial levels, will overlap determine whether the species as a River formation (Service 2005, p. 21; known P. grahamii occurrences. whole meets the definition of Shultz and Mutz 1979a, p. 39; Neese Oil-shale and tar-sands development endangered or threatened due to one or and Smith 1982a, p. 64). Oil-shale beds has failed to materialize due largely to more of the five factors described in are most numerous and important in the technological problems and unfavorable section 4(a)(1). The five factors Parachute Member of the Green River economics. The first interest in oil-shale considered and their application to P. formation (Cashion 1967, p. 13), but the extraction occurred in the latter years of grahamii are as follows: underlying Evacuation Creek member and immediately following World War I. also contains a few beds of oil-shale However, limited accessibility and low A. The Present or Threatened (Cashion 1967, p. 17). The 105 economic viability resulted in declining Destruction, Modification, or occurrences in the Parachute Creek interest. More recently in the 1970– Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range member harbor an estimated 6,100 1980s, BLM made oil-shale resources on Energy Resources individuals or 98 percent of the species’ public lands available through the Oil estimated population of 6,200 (Shultz Shale Prototype Program, which was Our proposed rule concluded that and Mutz 1979a, pp. 38–42; Neese and designed to allow companies to develop recent Federal policy direction, Smith 1982a, pp. 63–66). and refine the technology for extracting technological advances, world oil There are no oil-shale or tar-sand oil from oil-shale. Since then, during the demand, and economics have renewed development projects currently in mid-1980s and 1990s, interest in oil- the desirability to invest in renewed operation or proposed within the known shale development lagged because of energy development in Utah and occupied habitat of Penstemon declining petroleum prices (Bartis et al. Colorado. However, based on comments grahamii, or anywhere else in the 2005, p. 1; Lonnie 2005, pp. 1–3). received on the proposed rule, it United States (BLM 2006a, p. 13). The Significant economic questions appears that the development of oil- BLM projects that the oil-shale industry remain concerning the development of shale and tar-sands resources in will focus its earliest commercial the Green River formation oil-shale and Penstemon grahamii habitat is not likely production efforts in the Piceance Basin, tar-sands (Bartis et al. 2005, pp. 15, 53; to occur, if it occurs at all, until at least Colorado, about 48.3 km (30 mi) from BLM 2006a, pp. 7, 15–19, 31, 34–36). 20 years into the future. the nearest known P. grahamii The cost associated with an enormous Penstemon grahamii has been listed occurrence (BLM, 2006, pp. 14, 36). The and essentially new industry using new as a candidate species since 1980, in Piceance Basin contains larger oil-shale and innovative technologies is likely to part due to the potential threat of deposits than the Uinta Basin in Utah. be great. Economic success of oil-shale increased energy development (Service Deposits are more than 305 m (1,000 ft) and tar-sands derived petroleum will 2004). The habitat of P. grahamii is a thick in parts of the Piceance Basin and depend on continuing and stable series of knolls and slopes of raw oil- continuous across 311 km2 (120 mi2) petroleum prices at a level of $70 to $95 shale derived from the Green River (BLM, 2006, p. 14). per barrel. Due to past fluctuation of geologic formation (Shultz and Mutz Initial industry interest appears to petroleum prices, private industry has 1979a, pp. 38–42; Shultz and Mutz support BLM projections. In 2005, the exhibited a reluctance to proceed with 1979b, pp. 25–38; Neese and Smith BLM received 20 proposals and research, development, and subsequent 1982a, pp. 63–66; Neese and Smith applications for oil-shale Research, commercial production of oil-shale. 1982b, pp. 115–140; Borland 1987, p. 1; Development, and Demonstration This situation will likely continue Franklin 1993, Appendix D; Franklin (RD&D) leases on Federal lands in unless the petroleum industry is 1995, Appendix B; Colorado NHP 2005, Colorado and Utah. None of these RD&D convinced that petroleum prices will pp. 1–20; Utah NHP 2005, pp. 1–124; lease applications are within the remain high well into the future (Bartis Service 2005, pp. 1–13; Decker et al. occupied habitat of Penstemon grahamii et al. 2005, pp. 59–61; Bunger et al. 2006, pp. 3–10). Oil-shale resources (BLM 2006a, pp. 6, 12–13). The nearest 2004, pp. 7–9). associated with the Green River is about 3.2 km (2 mi) southeast of Various technologies for oil-shale formation underlie approximately known occurrences (on Green River extraction and processing into synthetic 41,440 km2 (16,000 mi2) and represent shale barrens). Of the 20 RD&D lease petroleum have been explored. The the largest known concentration of oil- application proposals, the BLM selected traditional approach is mining the oil- shale in the world with potential 6 for further consideration—5 are in shale either by surface mining (i.e., recoverable reserves in excess of 1 Colorado in the Piceance Basin about 50 removing the surface non oil-shale trillion barrels (Bartis et al. 2005, pp. 5– km (30 mi) east of the P. grahamii’s bearing material from the underlying

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76033

oil-shale ore body then removing the grahamii from energy development have economically and technologically oil-shale itself for further processing) or been largely avoided to date because feasible. underground mining (i.e., digging a surface disturbance within the species’ Approximately 60 percent of the vertical shaft through the surface non habitat has been minimal. For example, species’ population and 75 percent of oil-shale bearing material to the under the existing development the species’ occupied habitat is on underlying oil-shale ore body, or where situation, only 5 of the known Bureau of Land Management (BLM) possible digging a horizontal shaft into occurrences (4.6 percent) have oil and managed land with the remainder on the oil-shale ore body, then removing gas wells located within them (Service non-Federal lands under State or private the oil-shale by various underground 2005 , p. 17). Thirty-nine active wells ownership (USFWS 2005). These State mining techniques for further are within 1.6 km (1 mi) of P. grahamii and private lands are intermingled processing) (Bartis et al. 2005, pp. 11– occupied habitat, and future oil and gas within a broad mosaic of land 13; BLM 2006a, pp. 14, 32–33). Raw oil- development within P. grahamii habitat ownerships dominated by Federal shale is then retorted by heating to is likely. Of the 109 occurrences of P. (BLM) lands. With this ‘‘checkerboard’’ vaporize the carbon containing kerogen grahamii, 69 (63 percent) are currently spatial pattern of ownerships, large- (shale oil) and then hydrolyzed, by the leased for oil and gas drilling, or are scale development on non-Federal lands adding of hydrogen, to form synthetic within established oil and gas fields that would, at a minimum, require petroleum which then can be refined by have active resource extraction coordination with the BLM. In most traditional methods into hydrocarbon programs. Ninety-six of the species’ 109 cases, development of these lands fuels and other products (Bartis et al. known occurrences (88 percent) are would only be possible via 2006, pp. 13–14). Mining techniques are within active seismic exploration areas consolidation of Federal and non- centuries old and are an effective direct (BLM 2003). Federal lands into economically viable approach to accessing ore bodies The BLM reports that conservation development units (Bunger 2006), including oil-shale. Recent new stipulations for Penstemon grahamii which would require extensive review technologies involve in-situ removal of near well locations have prevented under the National Environmental kerogen directly from oil-shale by adverse impacts to the species’ habitat Policy Act (NEPA) among other Federal drilling wells into the oil-shale ore body and possible loss of P. grahamii laws. Biological studies specific to and heating the underground oil-shale individuals (BLM 2005, pp. 2–29, 2–30, Penstemon grahamii and sympatric ore body and then extracting the 3–94, 4–233; Specht 2005). species are in their beginning phase liquefied kerogen for further processing Conservation measures include moving (Bartis et al. 2005, p. 17; BLM 2005, pp. (Lewinsohn et al. 2005). well pad and pipeline locations to avoid At this time, we have no information 32–33). There have been several direct impacts to the species. The BLM variations of in-situ oil-shale recovery demonstrating population declines, considers these measures to be effective range contraction, or significant habitat proposed and investigated (Bartis et al. protection mechanisms (Specht 2005). 2005, pp. 17–20; BLM 2006a, pp. 32– impacts for P. grahamii because of The BLM, as part of its sensitive species energy development (which includes 33). program outlined in its Administrative Surface mining is potentially the most current traditional oil and gas Manual 6840, will continue to provide damaging process to the environment. exploration, drilling and production, protection to the species and its habitat In-situ oil-shale recovery may be much and potential oil-shale and tar-sand through land use planning and less destructive to the environment. development). Therefore, we conclude There is still great uncertainty as to the implementation of conservations that energy development within the procedures that may be used in future measures for oil and gas development range of P. grahamii is not currently a oil-shale development, including within (BLM 2005, pp. 2–29, 2–30, 3–94, 4– threat to the species, nor is it likely to the range of Penstemon grahamii where 233; BLM 2006a, p. 43). become a significant threat in the there are no current proposals for oil- The BLM has stressed its commitment foreseeable future, such that listing shale development. to develop appropriate regulations for under the Act is warranted. Even if economic and technological the leasing program, and to develop Other Activities conditions favor oil-shale and tar-sand conservation measures for Penstemon development, it would be at least 20 grahamii and other plant species within Grazing may have localized effects on years before any production would future Federal oil-shale and tar-sand Penstemon grahamii, and one begin in or near Penstemon grahamii lease areas in Utah and Colorado (BLM occurrence of the species is believed to occupied habitat, if it occurs in those 2006b). These conservation measures have been eradicated by livestock locations at all. Indications are that are intended to eliminate significant trampling. The Dragon Sheep bed site initial oil-shale development will take potential threats to P. grahamii from oil- first recorded in a 1982 survey (Neese place at existing RD&D sites in the shale and tar-sand development, and and Smith 1982b, p. 137) has not been Piceance Basin of Colorado and will be applied to lease stipulations for relocated in recent years. This is an area immediately south of the White River in oil-shale and tar-sands when and if they of heavy sheep grazing and trampling, the Uinta Basin of Utah (BLM 2006a, pp. are issued (BLM 2000, p. 8). Additional which is thought to have caused the 6, 38–40). None of the sites are within mitigation measures to conserve P. possible extirpation of this occurrence the range of P. grahamii, nor does grahamii also will be developed at the (England 2003). Lewinsohn (2005 pp. 1, suitable habitat exist for the species at operational stage (BLM 2006a, pp. 24– 12–14) reported a general decline in the those sites. At present there are no tar- 27). Because these conservation species at one study area due to sand development projects proposed for measures have not yet been developed, overgrazing. However, no research has the PR springs tar-sand area which we are not basing this withdrawal on been conducted to document effects of underlies portions of P. grahamii’s range their potential implementation. grazing on P. grahamii populations or (BLM 2006a, p. 33). However, we expect development and habitat, and we have no information The entire range of Penstemon implementation of sufficient indicating that grazing impacts threaten grahamii also is underlain with deposits conservation measures to help ensure the continued existence of the species of traditional petroleum resources, long-term protection of the plant if oil- throughout all or a significant portion of primarily natural gas. Impacts to P. shale development becomes its range.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 76034 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

To date little ORV use has been seeds set, resulting in no reproduction future in habitat for Penstemon observed in the species’ range. Federal (Lewinsohn et al. 2005, p. 17). grahamii. In addition, the BLM has and energy industry personnel are Lewinsohn also reported that all sites significant authority to regulate and increasingly utilizing ORVs in oil and visited in southern Uintah County were manage grazing on lands under its gas field survey and site location either too small or too heavily grazed to jurisdiction (BLM 2005; BLM 2006a, pp. development prior to the establishment conduct suitable pollination studies. 54–56, 60); ORV use (BLM 2005; BLM of oil field road networks (Specht 2005). However, there are no specific studies 2006a, pp. 58, 60); and collection of However, we do not have any on the effects of grazing on this species. plant materials for horticultural and information indicating that ORV use is Based on our analysis of the best other uses (BLM 2006a, pp. 56–58). a threat to Penstemon grahamii or its available scientific and commercial We conclude that BLM has the habitat. information, we conclude that disease necessary regulatory mechanisms in Based on our analysis of the best or predation are not currently threats to place to provide for the conservation of available scientific and commercial Penstemon grahamii, nor are they likely Penstemon grahamii and the protection information, we conclude that the to become significant threats in the of its habitat. present or threatened destruction, foreseeable future, such that listing Based on our analysis of the best modification, or curtailment of under the Act is warranted. available scientific and commercial Penstemon grahamii habitat or range is information, we conclude that the D. The Inadequacy of Existing not currently a threat to the species, nor inadequacy of existing regulatory Regulatory Mechanisms is it likely to become a significant threat mechanisms is not currently a threat to in the foreseeable future, such that No Federal or State laws or Penstemon grahamii, nor is it likely to listing under the Act is warranted. regulations specifically protect become a significant threat in the Penstemon grahamii. The species is not foreseeable future, such that listing B. Overutilization for Commercial, protected by the Convention on under the Act is warranted. Recreational, Scientific, or Educational International Trade in Endangered Purposes Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Some E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Penstemon grahamii is a species of populations occur on private lands, Affecting Its Continued Existence horticultural interest. The species is which were given mineral entry patents We note the presence of exotic weeds advertised on the internet and plants during the 1920s specifically because of within occupied Penstemon grahamii and seed are available. In 2004, a oil-shale values. There is no regulatory sites, including Bromus tectorum Penstemon collector approached Red protection for Penstemon grahamii on (cheatgrass) and Halogeton glomeratus Butte Garden (the Utah State botanical non-Federal lands. (halogeton) (England 2003). These garden located at the University of Utah) The majority of Penstemon grahamii invasive exotic species are most inquiring how to obtain seeds of P. populations occur on lands abundant along roads and well site grahamii (Lewinsohn 2004). Several administered by the BLM. The BLM locations (Specht 2004). These species internet sites identify P. grahamii as a administratively recognizes rare and may compete with P. grahamii, thus desirable plant for gardens or potentially imperiled plant species for further degrading habitat quality. horticultural exhibitions. However, we special management consideration However, we have no information to do not have any information indicating through its 6840 Manual for special indicate that exotic weeds threaten the that collection from the wild is status species, which includes P. existence of P. grahamii. occurring or if it is occurring, the level grahamii. Because P. grahamii will be Little is known concerning the of collection or the impact of collection classified as a special status species, species’ pollination biology. The BLM is on wild populations. BLM will continue to provide currently funding pollination biology Based on our analysis of the best conservation protection to the plant studies (Bolander 2005; Lewinsohn et available scientific and commercial (BLM 2006b, pp. 1–2). The BLM, al. 2005, pp. 12–14, 17). Collections and information, we conclude that through existing land management observations of pollinators to the overutilization of Penstemon grahamii regulations, land use planning, and flowers of Penstemon grahamii have for commercial, recreational, scientific, specific lease and use stipulations (BLM been limited over the past two flowering or educational purposes habitat or range 2006a, pp. 43–70), has considerable seasons because of the paucity of is not currently a threat to the species, regulatory authority to manage lands flowering plants. The most consistent nor is it likely to become a significant and resources under its jurisdiction. pollinator of this species is likely to be threat in the foreseeable future, such These include oil and gas leasing the wasp Pseudomasaris vespoides that listing under the Act is warranted. regulatory mechanisms such as: land (Lewinsohn et al. 2005, p. 17). Because use planning guidance; lease sale flowers of P. grahamii appear to be very C. Disease or Predation stipulations; exploration and field scarce, this plant species may be unable Penstemon grahamii is grazed by development analysis and planning to support a viable population of P. wildlife, including rodents, rabbits, guidance for oil and gas fields and vespoides. Successful reproduction by antelope, deer, elk, and insects (Shultz geophysical exploration; an individual P. grahamii may depend on the and Mutz 1979a, pp. 37–42; Neese and oil and gas well review and approval occurrence of other concurrently Smith 1982a, pp. 63–66; England 1979; (Applications for Permit to Drill (APD)) blooming Penstemon species which Specht 2005; Lewinsohn et al. 2005, pp. process; and on-the-ground inspection support and keep abundant populations 2, 12–14, 17). The species also is grazed processes for compliance with lease and of P. vespoides in the area. by livestock, primarily sheep. There are APD stipulations (BLM 2005; BLM Low population numbers and habitat some anecdotal reports of the possible 2006a, pp. 45–53, 60, 67–69). fragmentation pose a threat to rare plant impacts of grazing on P. grahamii. For Oil-shale and tar-sand regulatory species’ genetic potential to adapt to example, recent attempts to establish mechanisms are under development, changing environmental conditions pollination studies and population but will follow a similar environmental (Lienert 2002, pp. 62, 63, 66; Matthies monitoring plots for the species were protection direction (BLM 2006a, p 45). et al. 2004, pp. 481, 486). Three of complicated by overgrazing, which These measures will only be necessary Penstemon grahamii’s 5 population resulted in the loss of flowers before if oil-shale development occurs in the habitat units have 200 or fewer

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76035

individuals. In addition, 8 smaller as threatened or endangered under the Act. Our decision to withdraw the occurrences with populations of 20 or Act. No documented decreases in proposed rule to list Penstemon fewer individuals are isolated, and 10 population numbers or range of grahamii also removes the species from km (6 mi) or more from the core area of distribution have been documented for candidate status under the Act. the 5 P. grahamii population units. P. grahamii. Potential threats to the In making this finding, we recognize These smaller occurrences of P. species’ habitat from energy there are potential future threats to the grahamii may not be at levels that development, including traditional oil species from energy development, would ensure the species’ long-term and gas exploration, field development, particularly if oil-shale and tar-sands demographic stability and genetic and production, have been adequately development is commercialized in the viability. The effects of habitat addressed and mitigated by BLM Uinta Basin. We further conclude that degradation and fragmentation caused policies, land use planning, and on-the- additional population inventory, habitat by human activities in concert with the ground protective measures. Oil-shale and population monitoring, and life effects of deleterious natural development has the potential to cause history studies are needed for P. phenomena, such as drought, may lead increased habitat loss and fragmentation grahamii. If realization of any potential to the extirpations of small, localized in areas of occupied P. grahamii habitat. threats occurs, we will reexamine the populations. At present there are no However, there is great uncertainty over status of P. grahamii. studies or information on these threats the technological and economic References Cited relative to P. grahamii, and we have no viability of commercial production, and, information to indicate that low therefore, over timing and eventual A complete list of all references cited population levels and habitat location of oil-shale extraction. Based is available at the Utah Field Office, fragmentation have range-wide effects on the best available information, we U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see on the species. conclude that there may never be a ADDRESSES above). Based on our analysis of the best significant impact to the species from Author available scientific and commercial oil-shale or tar-sand energy information, we conclude that there are development, and if there is it will not The primary author of this document no other natural or manmade factors occur for at least the next 20 years. No is John L. England of the Utah Fish and affecting the continued existence of significant habitat threats from livestock Wildlife Service Field Office (see Penstemon grahamii such that listing grazing or ORV use are presently ADDRESSES above). under the Act is warranted. affecting the species. Overutilization for Authority horticultural use is not known to be Listing Determination negatively impacting populations. The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species We have carefully assessed the best Because we have determined there are Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 scientific and commercial information no significant threats that warrant et seq.). available regarding threats to Penstemon listing this species under the Act, we grahamii. After a review of additional withdraw our proposed listing rule and Dated: December 6, 2006. information provided during the public proposed critical habitat designation for Marshall Jones, comment period, we have determined Penstemon grahamii, as published in Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife that existing and potential threats to P. the Federal Register of January 19, 2006 Service. grahamii and its habitat are not (71 FR 3158). We are taking this action [FR Doc. E6–21260 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] sufficient to warrant listing the species under section 4(b)(6)(A)(i)(IV) of the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP2.SGM 19DEP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS2 Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Part III

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Publication of Interim Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program; Notice

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76038 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comment (or signing the comment, if also provides relative cost-effectiveness submitted on behalf of an association, data on various eligible project types to Federal Highway Administration business, labor union, etc.). You may help inform the CMAQ project selection [FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2006–26383] review DOT’s complete Privacy Act process. Statement in a Federal Register We invite the public to submit Publication of Interim Guidance on the published on April 11, 2000 (70 FR comments on this interim guidance. We Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 19477), or you may visit http:// plan to issue a final guidance after we Improvement (CMAQ) Program dms.dot.gov. have evaluated all the comments An electronic version of the interim received on this interim guidance. AGENCY: Federal Highway CMAQ guidance may be downloaded (Authority: Sections 1101, 1103 and 1808 of Administration (FHWA), DOT. from the FHWA Web page at: http:// Pub. L. 109–59) ACTION: Notice of publication of interim www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ Issued on: December 7, 2006. guidance; request for comments. cmaq06gm.htm. It is also attached for reference below. J. Richard Capka, SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is Federal Highway Administrator. to: (1) Announce the publication of Background interim CMAQ guidance; and (2) solicit The CMAQ program was created by The Congestion Mitigation and Air public comment on the contents of the the Intermodal Surface Transportation Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program interim guidance. Sections 1101, 1103 Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 1808 of the Safe, Accountable, 102–240, Dec. 18, 1991) and continued Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity under the Transportation Equity Act for Legacy for Users; Interim Program Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) the 21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105– Guidance 178; Oct. 1998). Through 2005, the (Pub. L. 109–59, Aug. 10, 2005) October 31, 2006. amended the Congestion Mitigation and program supported nearly 16,000 transportation projects across the The guidance contained in this document Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) is intended to be nonbinding, except insofar Program, and authorizes $8.6 billion to country. In the most recent as it references existing statutory support the CMAQ program in 2005– authorization of the Federal-aid requirements, and should not be construed as 2009. The interim guidance went into highway program, Congress amended rules of general applicability and legal effect effect October 31, 2006; however, we the CMAQ program, and authorized or notices of proposed rulemaking. funding to support the CMAQ program will review all comments submitted to I. Introduction the docket and will modify the guidance in 2005–2009 (sections 1101, 1103 and as necessary or appropriate. 1808 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, The CMAQ program was created Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A under the Intermodal Surface DATES: Comments must be received on Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) or before February 20, 2007. L. 109–59, Aug. 10, 2005). More than of 1991, continued under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: $8.6 billion are authorized over the five- Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Mike Koontz, Office of Natural and year program (2005–2009), with annual Century (TEA–21), and reauthorized by Human Environment, (202) 366–2076, authorization amounts increasing each the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, [email protected]; or Diane Liff year during this period. This interim Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A (202) 366–6203 or Harold Aikens (202) guidance updates and replaces previous Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU).1 Over 366–1373, Office of the Chief Counsel, program guidance issued in 1999. It $8.6 billion is authorized over the five- Federal Highway Administration, 400 focuses primarily on project eligibility year program (2005–2009), with annual Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC provisions, and identifies the types of authorization amounts increasing each 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. projects that are eligible for CMAQ year during this period. Through 2005, to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, support. It also provides information on the program has supported nearly except Federal holidays. how CMAQ apportionments are 16,000 transportation projects across the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: calculated and the geographic areas country. where CMAQ funds can be used, Electronic Access This guidance replaces the April 1999 discusses the project selection process version and provides information on the You may submit or retrieve comments and requirements for analyzing CMAQ program, including: online through the U.S. Department of emissions benefits from potential • Authorization levels and Transportation’s Document projects as part of the selection process, apportionment factors specific to the Management System (DMS) at: http:// and examines Federal, State and SAFETEA–LU dms.dot.gov/submit. The DMS is Metropolitan Planning Organization • Flexibility and transferability available 24 hours each day, 365 days (MPO) program administration provisions available to States each year. Electronic submission and responsibilities. The interim guidance • Geographic area eligibility for retrieval help and guidelines are went into effect October 31, 2006; CMAQ funds available under the help section of the however, we will review all comments • Project eligibility information Web site. submitted to the docket and will modify • Project selection processes An electronic copy of this notice may the guidance as necessary or • Program administration be downloaded from the Office of the appropriate. Appendices 1–3 provide updated Federal Register’s home page at http:// This interim guidance includes statutory language relating to the CMAQ www.archives.gov and the Government comprehensive discussions and program. Appendix 4 illustrates the Printing Office’s Web site at http:// direction on a host of new or comparative cost-effectiveness of www.access.gpo.gov. highlighted areas under SAFETEA–LU, potential CMAQ projects. Appendix 5 Anyone is able to search the and in particular emphasizes diesel provides supplemental information on electronic form of all comments engine retrofits and cost-effective diesel retrofit projects. received into any of our dockets by the congestion mitigation activities as name of the individual submitting the priorities for CMAQ expenditures. It 1 Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76039

Information on the current annual Since congestion relief projects also authorized at $1,350,000,000.3 For apportionment to each State and an reduce idling, the negative emissions example, if the annual national electronic version of this guidance are impacts of ‘‘stop and go’’ driving, and apportionment is $1.75 billion and a available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ the number of vehicles on the road, they State receives $10 million more than it environment/cmaqpgs/index.htm. have a corollary benefit of improving air would have received if the national quality. Based on their emissions apportionment had been $1.35 billion, II. Program Purpose reductions, these types of projects, the State can transfer up to $5 million The purpose of the CMAQ program is including investments in improved to other programs. Any transfer of such to fund transportation projects or system pricing and operations, are funds must still be obligated in programs that will contribute to eligible for CMAQ funding. The nonattainment and maintenance areas. attainment or maintenance of the Department believes State and local The amount of transferable funds will national ambient air quality standards governments can simultaneously reduce differ each year and by State, depending (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide the costly impacts of congestion while on overall authorization levels. Each (CO), and particulate matter (PM). also improving air quality. year, the FHWA will inform States how The CMAQ program supports two much, if any, CMAQ funding is III. Authorization Levels Under the transferable and will track this important goals of the Department of SAFETEA–LU Transportation: Improving air quality movement of CMAQ funds.4 and relieving congestion. While these A. Authorization Levels States also may transfer CMAQ funds goals are not new elements of the to other Federal agencies. The Table 1 shows the SAFETEA–LU program, they are strengthened in a new SAFETEA–LU provides additional CMAQ authorization levels by fiscal provision added to the CMAQ statute by flexibility to complete such transfers year. The CMAQ funds will be SAFETEA–LU, establishing priority when the receiving Federal agency has apportioned to States each year based consideration for cost-effective emission entered into an agreement with the State upon the apportionment factors reduction and congestion mitigation to undertake an eligible Federal-aid discussed in Section V. 5 activities when using CMAQ funding. project. These opportunities apply to projects that have met all CMAQ Reducing pollution and other adverse TABLE 1.—SAFETEA–LU CMAQ environmental effects of transportation eligibility requirements prior to the AUTHORIZATION LEVELS projects and transportation system transfer. inefficiency have been long-standing Amount D. CMAQ and Innovative Finance: State objectives of the Department of Fiscal year authorization authorized Infrastructure Bank (SIB) and Section Transportation. The strategic plans for (dollars) 129 Loans the Department of Transportation and Projects with dedicated repayment for the Federal Highway Administration FY 2005 ...... 1,667,255,304 streams, i.e., a consistent source of both include performance measures FY 2006 ...... 1,694,101,866 FY 2007 ...... 1,721,380,718 revenue, may be financed with loans specifically focused on reducing air FY 2008 ...... 1,749,098,821 through DOT’s innovative finance pollution from transportation facilities. FY 2009 ...... 1,777,263,247 program as an alternative or supplement The CMAQ program provides funding to CMAQ funding. for a broad array of tools to accomplish B. Equity Bonus State Infrastructure Banks are State- these goals. By choosing to fund a directed programs that allow Federal- Similar to the minimum guarantee CMAQ project, a State or local aid funds to be lent to sponsors of under the TEA–21, the Equity Bonus in government can improve air quality and eligible Federal-aid projects (any project SAFETEA–LU provides additional make progress towards achieving under Title 23 or 49 is eligible). SIBs funding beyond the authorized levels so attainment status and ensuring may be capitalized with several Federal- that each State receives a minimum compliance with the transportation aid highway apportionments including percentage of its gas tax receipts back in conformity provisions of the Clean Air the National Highway System Program, the form of Federal-aid funds.2 Act. the Surface Transportation Program, the Reducing congestion is also a key C. Transferability of CMAQ Funds Highway Bridge Program, and the objective of the Department of Equity Bonus program. (Note: CMAQ Since transportation and Transportation, and one that has gained may not be used to capitalize a SIB, but environmental program priorities increasing attention in the past several SIB funds may be used to finance fluctuate, States may choose to transfer years. The cost of congestion, which CMAQ projects). State funds also may a limited portion of their CMAQ negatively affects the U.S. economy, be used to capitalize the SIB. The State apportionment to the following Federal- quality of life, and air quality, has risen then receives repayments over time that aid highway programs: Surface dramatically in the last 25 years despite can be directed toward other Transportation Program (STP), National record levels of transportation transportation projects. For example, Highway System (NHS), Highway investment. Some economists estimate New York State was successful in Bridge Program (HBP), Interstate that the overall cost of congestion to the utilizing its SIB to implement two truck Maintenance (IM), Recreational Trails U.S. economy approaches $200 billion a stop electrification projects along the Program (RTP), and the Highway Safety year. As a result, the Secretary of New York State Thruway. Transportation recently issued a Improvement Program (HSIP). States Section 129 loans (23 U.S.C. 129(a)(7)) National Strategy to Reduce Congestion may transfer CMAQ funds according to allow states to use Federal-aid highway on America’s Transportation Network the following provision: An amount not apportionments to make loans for that aims to meaningfully reduce the to exceed 50 percent of the quantity of projects with dedicated revenue streams economic and social costs of congestion the State’s annual apportionment less (this is only applicable to highway, on our nation’s highways and in other the amount the State would have transportation facilities. This strategy received if the CMAQ program had been 3 23 U.S.C. § 126. can be found at: http://isddc.dot.gov/ 4 23 U.S.C. § 110(c). OLPFiles/OST/012988.pdf. 2 23 U.S.C. 105 (SAFETEA–LU section 1104). 5 23 U.S.C. § 132(a) (SAFETEA–LU section 1119).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

bridge, tunnel, ferry boat, and ferry an Interstate right-of-way. A private not required by the SAFETEA–LU.9 terminal projects). A Section 129 loan party intends to build a stationary idle- However, project selection should may be used to construct a truck stop reduction facility, and seeks grant reflect the positive cost-effectiveness electrification facility if the facility is funding for it from the State DOT. The relationships highlighted in Appendix located on the Interstate right-of-way.6 idle reduction facility will eventually 4. State and local transportation The SAFETEA–LU establishes a new earn a profit by charging user fees, but programs that implement a broad array SIB program under which all States are since the capital costs are high, the of these cost-effective measures may authorized to enter into cooperative private party needs assistance with record a more rapid rate of progress agreements with the U.S. DOT to financing the initial construction. toward their clean air goals, since many establish infrastructure revolving-funds Instead of providing an outright grant, of these endeavors generate immediate eligible to be capitalized with Federal the State could offer a loan of Federal- benefits. Local procedures that elevate transportation funds.7 The key aid funds with flexible repayment the importance of these efforts in project difference between a Section 129 loan terms. If the facility required $1 million selection—and rate them accordingly— and a SIB is that a Section 129 loan for initial construction, the State could may accelerate the drive to air quality usually provides financing to an make a loan at five percent over fifteen attainment. individual project and funding a SIB years. The State could accelerate the In addition to the SAFETEA–LU capitalizes a financial entity that can payments if the facility were more priority on cost-effectiveness, Section assist multiple projects. The two loan successful than expected, and delay 176(c) of the Clean Air Act 10 (CAA) programs have similar maximum repayment if the facility failed to meet requires that the FHWA and FTA ensure allowable terms established by Federal revenue targets. The State could also timely implementation of transportation law: build in credits for additional emissions control measures (TCMs) in applicable • Both public and private entities are reductions, providing incentives for State Implementation Plans (SIPs). eligible to be project sponsors These and other CMAQ-eligible projects • Repayments must begin within 5 additional loans or grants to idle identified in approved SIPs must years of project completion reduction projects. More information on receive funding priority. • Maximum loan term is 30 years the DOT’s innovative finance program is after project authorization (Section 129) available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ The FHWA recommends that States or 30 years after first repayment (SIB) innovativefinance/. and MPOs develop their transportation/ • Interest rate may be set by State, at air quality programs using IV. Priority for Use of CMAQ Funds or below market rates complementary measures that provide • alternatives to single-occupant vehicle Loans can only be made up to 80 The SAFETEA–LU directs States and (SOV) travel while improving traffic percent of eligible project costs (Section MPOs to give priority to two categories flow through operational strategies and 129). For SIBs, loans can be made up to of funding. First, to diesel retrofits, balancing supply and demand through 100 percent of eligible project costs particularly where necessary to facilitate (although when the State first creates a pricing, parking management, contract compliance, and other cost- regulatory, or other means. SIB, it is required to contribute a non- effective emission reduction activities, Federal match of 20 percent) taking into consideration air quality and V. Annual Apportionments of CMAQ These innovative loan programs can health effects. Second, priority is to be Funds to States increase the efficiency of States’ given to cost-effective congestion transportation investments and A. CMAQ Apportionments mitigation activities that provide air significantly leverage Federal resources quality benefits.8 Appendix 4 illustrates Federal CMAQ funds are apportioned by attracting non-Federal public and the comparative cost-effectiveness of annually to each State according to the private investment, and provide greater several potential CMAQ projects. Other severity of its ozone and CO problem flexibility to the States by allowing projects also may be cost-effective. The (see Appendix 2). The population of other types of project assistance in priority provisions in the statute apply each county (based upon Census Bureau addition to grant assistance. This type of to the portion of CMAQ funds derived data) that is in a nonattainment or financing is important for new from the application of Sections maintenance area for ozone and/or CO technologies or start-up businesses that 104(b)(2)(B) and 104(b)(2)(C), i.e., the is weighted by multiplying by the may have difficulty finding financing in appropriate factor listed in Table 2. PM the private capital markets. In addition CMAQ apportionment formula. They do not apply to areas where CMAQ funding nonattainment and maintenance areas to SIBs and section 129 loans, the and former 1-hour areas, except those FHWA also administers the has been derived from the minimum apportionment provisions. few 1-hour maintenance areas Transportation Infrastructure Finance participating in Early Action Compacts, and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, Though the SAFETEA–LU establishes are not included in the apportionments. which provides Federal credit these CMAQ investment priorities, it assistance to large-scale projects greater also retains State and local agencies’ Note: CMAQ apportionments and CMAQ authority in project selection. The law eligibility are two different things. Some than $50 million. areas in which CMAQ funds may be spent The following example illustrates maintains the existing roles and are not included in the apportionments (see how a Section 129 loan could work to authorities of public agencies, and Section VI.). construct an idle-reduction facility on substantial shifts in local procedures are 9 23 U.S.C. 149(f)(3)(B) (SAFETEA–LU section 6 23 U.S.C. 111(d) (SAFETEA–LU section 1412). 8 23 U.S.C. 149(f)(3) (SAFETEA–LU section 1808(d)). 7 23 U.S.C. 190 (SAFETEA–LU section 1602). 1808(d)). 10 42 U.S.C. 7506 Section 176(c)(2)(B).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76041

TABLE 2.—SAFETEA–LU CMAQ APPORTIONMENT FACTORS 11

Pollutant Classification at the time of annual apportionment Weighting factor

Ozone (O3) or (CO) ...... Maintenance (these areas had to be previously eligible as 1.0. nonattainment areas—See Section VI.). Ozone ...... Subpart 1 (‘‘Basic’’) ...... 1.0. Ozone ...... Marginal ...... 1.0. Ozone ...... Moderate ...... 1.1. Ozone ...... Serious ...... 1.2. Ozone ...... Severe ...... 1.3. Ozone ...... Extreme ...... 1.4. CO ...... Nonattainment ...... 1.0. Ozone and CO ...... Ozone nonattainment or maintenance and CO nonattain- 1.2 × O3 factor. ment or maintenance. All States—minimum apportionment ...... 1⁄2 of 1 percent total annual apportionment of CMAQ funds N/A.

CMAQ apportionments are calculated apportionment, one-half percent, is all VI. Geographic Areas That Are Eligible based on the nonattainment and flexible funding. The FHWA reports the To Use CMAQ Funds maintenance areas that exist at the time breakdown of mandatory and flexible A. Eligible Areas of apportionment. Generally, funds by State in its fiscal year apportionments are calculated prior to apportionment tables. CMAQ funds may be invested in all the beginning of each fiscal year. 8-hour ozone, CO, and PM C. Apportionments and State Allocation nonattainment and maintenance areas. B. Area Designations: Attainment vs. Funds also may be spent in the few Nonattainment Notwithstanding the statutory formula remaining1-hour ozone maintenance Each State is guaranteed a minimum for determining the apportionment areas (these counties also have Early apportionment of one-half percent of the amount, the State may use its CMAQ Action Compacts in place), since the 1- year’s total program funding, regardless funds in any ozone, CO, or PM hour standard remains in effect for these of whether the State has any nonattainment or maintenance area. A areas. nonattainment or maintenance areas. State is under no statutory obligation to Funds also may be used for projects These flexible funds or minimum allocate CMAQ funds in the same way in proximity to nonattainment and apportionment funds can be used they are apportioned. States are maintenance areas if the benefits will be anywhere in the state for projects encouraged to consult affected MPOs to realized primarily within the eligible for either CMAQ or the Surface determine regional and local CMAQ nonattainment or maintenance area. The Transportation Program (STP).12 priorities and work with them to delineation of an area considered ‘‘in The FHWA Budget Division identifies allocate funds accordingly. proximity’’ should be discussed with annual apportionments of CMAQ funds the FHWA and FTA field offices and as either mandatory or flexible. All D. Federal Share and State/Local Match elevated to headquarters if necessary. funding is considered mandatory for Requirements states with weighted populations B. Maintenance Areas The Federal share for most eligible yielding one-half percent or more of the CMAQ funds may be invested in projects is generally 80 percent (90 authorized funds (based on the table maintenance areas that have approved above). Annual CMAQ funding percent for projects on the Interstate maintenance plans under CAA section apportioned through the application of System). Activities identified in 23 175A. In States with ozone or CO Sections 104(b)(2)(B) and 104(b)(2)(C) U.S.C. 120(c) (See Appendix 3), maintenance areas but no must be used for projects in including traffic control signalization, nonattainment areas, mandatory CMAQ nonattainment/maintenance areas. commuter carpooling and vanpooling, funds must be used in the maintenance States with weighted populations and signalization projects to provide areas. yielding at least some apportioned value priority for transit vehicles, may be but less than one-half percent of the funded at up to 100 percent Federal C. Maintenance Plan Requirement, authorized funds receive both share if they meet the conditions of that SAFETEA–LU mandatory and flexible funds to reach section. CMAQ funds may be invested in the minimum apportionment. For Although not required for public- former 1-hour ozone areas that were not example, if a State’s weighted private partnerships (PPP) under the designated under the 8-hour standard population yields two tenths of one CMAQ program, State and local officials but where the 1-hour standard has been revoked. Since these areas are required percent of the authorized funds, it have the discretion to request a higher would receive two tenths of one percent to file maintenance plans, they are local match from the private sector of the national funds as mandatory considered eligible for CMAQ funding partner. For example, project sponsors funds, and three tenths of one percent under provisions of the SAFETEA– as flexible funds. Thus, 40 percent of may find that a CMAQ PPP requiring a LU.13 the State’s funds would be mandatory 50 percent local match contribution is D. Flexible Funds in PM Areas and 60 percent would be flexible. more appropriate than the standard 20 For States with no areas applicable to percent required under Federal law. In While States may use flexible CMAQ the apportionment table, their minimum addition, higher local matches for these funding anywhere and for any CMAQ- efforts can leverage CMAQ funding and or STP-eligible project (see V.B. on 11 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) (SAFETEA–LU section extend the program to a greater pool of 1103(d)). projects. 13 23 U.S.C. 149(b) (SAFETEA–LU section 12 23 U.S.C. 149(c). 1808(a)).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76042 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

minimum apportionment), the FHWA have become part of the baseline activities are eligible for Federal encourages States and MPOs to evaluate transportation network. planning funds. the cost-effectiveness and benefits to c. Operating assistance includes all B. Projects Ineligible for CMAQ Funding public health of targeting flexible costs of providing new transportation CMAQ funding to projects that reduce services, including, but not limited to, The following projects are ineligible PM. Examples of such projects include labor, fuel, administrative costs, and for CMAQ funding: implementing a diesel retrofit or idle maintenance. 1. Light-duty vehicle scrappage reduction program, constructing freight/ d. When CMAQ funds are used for programs.16 intermodal transfer facilities, traffic operating assistance, non-Federal share 2. Projects that add new capacity for signalization, or ITS projects that reduce requirements still apply. SOVs are ineligible for CMAQ funding congestion; paving dirt roads, and e. With the focus on start-up costs unless construction is limited to high- purchasing street sweeping equipment. only, operating assistance under the occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. See Appendix 4 for further cost- CMAQ program is limited to three years. 3. Routine maintenance and effectiveness comparisons. The provisions in 23 U.S.C. § 116 place rehabilitation projects (e.g., responsibilities for maintenance on replacement-in-kind of track or other VII. Project Eligibility Provisions States.15 Since facility maintenance is equipment, reconstruction of bridges, A. Project Eligibility: General Conditions akin to operations, three years of CMAQ stations, and other facilities, and assistance provides adequate incentive repaving or repairing roads) are To be eligible for CMAQ funds, a and flexibility while not creating a project must be included in the MPO’s ineligible for CMAQ funding as they pattern of excessive or even perpetual current transportation plan and TIP (or only maintain existing levels of highway support. Exceptions are listed below the current STIP in areas without an and transit service, and therefore do not under VII.D.7 Travel Demand MPO). In nonattainment and reduce emissions. Other funding Management, VII.D.8 Public Education, maintenance areas, the project also must sources, such as STP and FTA’s Section meet the conformity provisions and VII.D.10 Carpooling and 5307 program, are available for such contained in Section 176(c) of the Clean Vanpooling. activities. 4. Administrative costs of the CMAQ Air Act and the transportation 3. Emission Reduction 14 program may not be defrayed with conformity rule. In addition, all Air quality improvement is defined by CMAQ-funded projects need to program funds, e.g., support for a State’s several distinct terms in 23 U.S.C. § 149. ‘‘CMAQ Project Management Office’’ is complete National Environmental These terms include contribution to Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and not eligible. attainment, reduction in pollution, air 5. Projects that do not meet the meet basic eligibility requirements for quality benefits, and others. For funding under titles 23 and 49 of the specific eligibility requirements of titles purposes of this guidance, the FHWA 23 and 49 U.S.C. are ineligible for United States Code. uses emission reduction to represent The following should guide CMAQ CMAQ funds. this group of terms. CMAQ-invested eligibility decisions: 6. Stand-alone projects to purchase projects or programs must reduce CO, fuel. One exception is listed below in 1. Capital Investment ozone precursor (NOX and VOCs), PM, Section VII.D.3. or PM precursor (e.g., NOX) emissions CMAQ funds may be used to establish C. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) new or expanded transportation projects from transportation. These reductions or programs that reduce emissions, must contribute to the area’s overall In a PPP, a private or non-profit including capital investments in clean air strategy and can be entity’s resources replace or supplement transportation infrastructure, congestion demonstrated by the assessment that is State or local funds and possibly a relief efforts, diesel engine retrofits, or required under this guidance. States and portion of the Federal-aid in a selected other capital projects. MPOs also may consider the ancillary project. The PPP elements of the benefits of eligible projects, including program have been refined over the last 2. Operating Assistance greenhouse gas reductions, congestion two transportation reauthorizations, and There are several general conditions relief, safety, or other elements, when these partnerships have become a that must be met for operating programming CMAQ funds, though critical part of CMAQ.17 assistance to be eligible under the such benefits do not alone establish Partnerships must have a legal, CMAQ program. eligibility. written agreement in place between the a. Operating assistance is limited to public agency and the private or non- 4. Planning and Project Development new transit services, intermodal profit entity before a CMAQ-funded facilities, and travel demand Activities in support of eligible project may be implemented. These management strategies (including traffic projects also may be appropriate for agreements should be developed under operation centers); and the incremental CMAQ investments. Studies that are relevant State contract law and should cost of expanding existing transit part of the project development pipeline specify the intended use for CMAQ services. (e.g., preliminary engineering) under the funding; the roles and responsibilities of b. In using CMAQ funds for operating National Environmental Policy Act the participating entities; and how the assistance, the intent is to help start up (NEPA) are eligible for CMAQ support, disposition of land, facilities, and viable new transportation services that as are FTA’s Alternatives Analyses. equipment will be carried out should can demonstrate air quality benefits and General studies that fall outside specific the original terms of the agreement be eventually cover their costs as much as project development do not qualify for altered (e.g., due to insolvency, change possible. Other funding sources should CMAQ funding. Examples of such in ownership, or other changes in the supplement and ultimately replace efforts include major investment structure of the PPP). CMAQ funds for operating assistance, as studies, commuter preference studies, Public funds should not be invested these projects no longer represent modal market polls or surveys, transit where a strong public benefit cannot be additional, net air quality benefits but master plans, and others. These 16 23 U.S.C. 149(b). 14 40 CFR parts 51 and 93. 15 23 U.S.C. 116. 17 23 U.S.C. 149(e).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76043

demonstrated. Consequently, CMAQ specifically excluded from CMAQ fleet storage facilities (See Section VII.C. funds must be devoted only to PPPs that eligibility.18 for a possible expansion to privately- benefit the general public by clearly i. Programs for improved public owned equipment and facilities). reducing emissions, not for financing transit; 3. Alternative Fuels and Vehicles marginal projects. Consistent with the ii. Restriction of certain roads or lanes planning and project selection to, or construction of such roads or Fuel provisions of the Federal-aid highway lanes for use by, passenger buses or With the exception of Missouri, Iowa, program, the FHWA considers it HOV; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, essential that all interested parties have iii. Employer-based transportation and Ohio, fuel costs are not an eligible full, open, and timely access to the management plans, including expense as a stand-alone project. Only project selection process. incentives; these seven states may use CMAQ funds There are several other statutory iv. Trip-reduction ordinances; to purchase alternative fuels as defined restrictions and special provisions on v. Traffic flow improvement programs in section 301 of the 1992 Energy Policy the use of CMAQ funds in PPPs. Eligible that reduce emissions; ii.fringe and Act (natural gas, ethanol, etc.) or costs under this section may not include transportation corridor parking facilities biodiesel, assuming such projects meet costs to fund an obligation imposed on serving multiple-occupancy vehicle other applicable eligibility requirements private sector or non-profit entities programs or transit service; noted in Section VII.B. above. under the CAA or any other Federal vii. Programs to limit or restrict Establishing publicly-owned fueling law. However, if the private or non- vehicle use in downtown areas or other facilities and other infrastructure profit entity is clearly exceeding its areas of emission concentration needed to fuel alternative-fuel vehicles obligations under Federal law, CMAQ particularly during periods of peak use; is an eligible expense, unless privately- funds may be used for that incremental viii. Programs for the provision of all owned fueling stations are in place and portion of the project. forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride reasonably accessible. Additionally, Eligible non-monetary activities that services; CMAQ funds may support converting a satisfy the non-Federal match ix. Programs to limit portions of road private fueling facility to support requirements under the partnership surfaces or certain sections of the alternative fuels through a public- provisions include the following: metropolitan area to the use of non- private partnership agreement (See motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, • Ownership or operation of land, Section VII.C.). both as to time and place; facilities, or other physical assets. x. Programs for secure bicycle storage Non-transit Vehicles • Construction or project facilities and other facilities, including management. CMAQ funds may be used to purchase bicycle lanes, for the convenience and publicly-owned alternative fuel • Other forms of participation protection of bicyclists, in both public vehicles, including passenger vehicles, approved by the U.S. DOT. and private areas; refuse trucks, street cleaners, and others. Sharing of total project costs, both xi. Programs to control extended Costs associated with converting fleets capital and operating, is a critical idling of vehicles; to run on alternative fuels are also element of a successful public-private xii. Reducing emissions from extreme eligible. When private vehicles are venture, particularly if the private entity cold-start conditions; purchased, only the cost difference is expected to realize profits as part of xiii. Employer-sponsored programs to between the alternative fuel vehicles the joint venture. State and local permit flexible work schedules; and comparable conventional fuel officials are urged to consider a full xiv. Programs and ordinances to vehicles is eligible. Such vehicles range of cost-sharing options when facilitate non-automobile travel, should be fueled by one of the developing a PPP, including a larger provision and utilization of mass transit, alternative fuels identified in section State/local match than the usual 20 and to generally reduce the need for 301 of the 1992 Energy Policy Act or percent required under Federal law. For SOV travel, as part of transportation biodiesel. detailed information on cost principles planning and development efforts of a beyond the scope of this guidance, locality, including programs and Hybrid Vehicles please consult OMB Circular A–87, ordinances applicable to new shopping Although not defined by the Energy which focuses on determining allowable centers, special events, and other Policy Act of 1992 as alternative fuel costs for State, local, and tribal centers of vehicle activity; and vehicles, certain hybrid vehicles that governments; and 49 CFR Part 18, xv. Programs for new construction have lower emissions rates than their which provides direction on and major reconstructions of paths, non-hybrid counterparts may be eligible administering Federal grants to State tracks, or areas solely for the use by for CMAQ investment. Hybrid passenger and local governments. pedestrian or other non-motorized vehicles must meet EPA’s low emissions D. Eligible Projects and Programs means of transportation when and energy efficiency requirements for economically feasible and in the public certification under the HOV exception Eligibility information is provided interest. provisions of the SAFETEA–LU to be below. Not all possible requests for eligible for CMAQ funding.19 CMAQ funding are covered—this 2. Extreme Low-Temperature Cold Start Projects involving heavier vehicles, section provides examples of activities Programs including refuse haulers and delivery eligible for CMAQ funds. Projects intended to reduce emissions trucks, also may be appropriate for 1. Transportation Control Measures from extreme cold-start conditions are program support. Eligibility should be (TCMs) eligible for CMAQ funding. Such based on a comparison of the emissions projects include retrofitting vehicles and Most of the TCMs included in Section fleets with water and oil heaters and 19 23 U.S.C. 166(e) (SAFETEA–LU section 108 of the CAA, listed below, are installing electrical outlets and 1121(a)). The required rulemaking is under eligible for CMAQ funding. One CAA development by EPA and is expected to list Tier 2/ equipment in publicly-owned garages or Bin 5—the average of the Tier 2 tailpipe emission TCM, programs to encourage removal of standards—as the minimum level for low-emission pre-1980 light-duty vehicles, is 18 23 U.S.C. 149(1)(A). certification under the HOV exception.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76044 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

projections of these larger candidate based parking cash-out policies that 5. Transit Improvements vehicles and other comparable models. provide financial incentives to avoid Many transit projects are eligible for parking or driving alone. Parking 4. Congestion Reduction & Traffic Flow CMAQ funds. The general guideline for pricing integrated with other pricing Improvements determining eligibility is whether the strategies is encouraged. project increases capacity and would Traffic flow improvements may Pricing encompasses a variety of likely result in an increase in transit include the following: market-based approaches such as: ridership and a potential reduction in a. Traditional Improvements • HOT lanes, or High Occupancy Toll congestion. As with other types of Traditional traffic flow improvements, lanes, on which variable tolls are CMAQ projects, there should be a such as the construction of roundabouts, charged to drivers of low-occupancy quantified estimate of the project’s HOV lanes, left-turn or other managed vehicles using High-Occupancy Vehicle emissions benefits accompanying the lanes, are eligible for CMAQ funding (HOV) lanes, such as the ‘‘FasTrak’’ proposal. provided they demonstrate net Lanes on I–15 in San Diego and the The FTA administers most transit emissions benefits. recently converted I–394 in Minneapolis projects. Once the FTA determines a b. Intelligent Transportation Systems in which prices vary dynamically every project eligible, CMAQ funds will be Intelligent Transportation Systems two minutes based on traffic conditions. transferred from the FHWA to the FTA, • (ITS) projects, such as traffic signal New variably tolled express lanes and the project will be administered synchronization projects, traffic on existing toll-free facilities, such as according to the requirements of the management projects, and traveler the ‘‘91 Express Lanes’’ on State Route FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Grant information systems, can be effective in 91 in Orange County, CA. Program.21 Certain types of transit • relieving traffic congestion, enhancing Variable tolls on existing or new projects for which the FTA lacks transit bus performance, and improving toll roads, such as on the bridges and statutory authority, such as diesel air quality. The following have the tunnels operated by the Port Authority retrofit equipment for public school bus greatest potential for improving air of New York and New Jersey. fleets, are administered by the FHWA. quality: • Network-wide or cordon pricing, • Regional multi-modal traveler such as implemented in Stockholm, a. Facilities information systems London and Singapore. New transit facilities (e.g., lines, • Traffic signal control systems • Usage-based vehicle pricing, such stations, terminals, transfer facilities) • Freeway management systems as mileage-based vehicle taxation being are eligible if they are associated with • Electronic toll-collection systems explored by the State of Oregon, or pay- • new or enhanced mass transit service. Transit management systems per-mile car insurance. • Routine maintenance or rehabilitation of Incident management programs As with any eligible CMAQ project, existing facilities is not eligible, as it A lengthier discussion of the benefits value pricing must generate an does not reduce emissions. However, associated with various operational emissions reduction. Marketing and rehabilitation of a facility may be improvements can be found at: http:// outreach efforts to expand and _ eligible if the vast majority of the project ops.fhwa.dot.gov/program areas/ encourage the use of eligible pricing involves physical improvements that programareas.htm measures may be funded indefinitely. will increase capacity. In such cases c. Value/Congestion Pricing Eligible expenses for reimbursement there should be supporting As part of its National Strategy include, but are not limited to: Tolling documentation showing an increase in referenced above, the Department infrastructure, such as transponders and transit ridership that is more than broadly promotes highway congestion other electronic toll or fare payment minimal. If the vast majority of the pricing and is also seeking an area-wide systems; small roadway modifications to project involves capacity enhancements, demonstration of the effectiveness of enable tolling, marketing, public other elements involving refurbishment congestion pricing (along with other outreach, and support services, such as and replacement-in-kind also are elements). Congestion pricing is a transit in a newly tolled corridor. eligible. market-based mechanism that allows Innovative pricing approaches yet to be tolls to rise and fall depending on deployed in the U.S. also may be b. Vehicles and Equipment available capacity and demand. It has supported through the Value Pricing New transit vehicles (bus, rail, or van) gained increasing attention and Pilot Program. A more complete to expand the fleet or replace existing popularity in recent years following discussion of projects currently vehicles are eligible. Transit agencies several highly successful facility underway in the U.S. can be found at: are encouraged to purchase vehicles that demonstrations in the U.S. and several http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/ are most cost-effective in reducing network wide demonstrations abroad. value_pricing/index.htm. emissions. Diesel engine retrofits, such Tolls can be charged electronically, Operating expenses for traffic flow as replacement engines and exhaust thereby eliminating the need for improvements are eligible for CMAQ after-treatment devices, are eligible if tollbooths. In addition to the benefits funding for a period not to exceed three certified or verified by the EPA or associated with reducing congestion, years if they can be shown to produce California Air Resources Board (CARB). revenue is generated that can be used to air quality benefits, if the expenses are Routine preventive maintenance for pay for a wide range of transportation incurred from new or additional vehicles is not eligible as it only returns improvements, including Title 23- services, and if previous funding the vehicles to baseline conditions. eligible transit services in the newly mechanisms, such as fares or fees for Besides diesel engine retrofits, other tolled corridor. services, are not displaced. transit equipment may be eligible if it Parking pricing can include time-of- Projects or programs that involve the represents a major system-wide upgrade day parking charges that reflect purchase of integrated, interoperable that will significantly improve speed or congested conditions. These strategies emergency communications equipment reliability of transit service, such as should be designed to influence trip- are eligible for CMAQ funding.20 advanced signal and communications making behavior and may include systems. charges for using a parking facility at 20 23 U.S.C. 149(b)(6) (SAFETEA–LU section peak periods, or a range of employer- 1808(b)(4)). 21 49 U.S.C. 5307.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76045

c. Fuel the reduced or free fare with a robust broken out as distinct line items (See Fuel, whether conventional or marketing program to inform SOV Section VII.D.8. below). Eligible telecommuting activities alternative fuel, is an eligible expense drivers of other transportation options. include planning, preparing technical only as part of a project providing The subsidy is not subject to the three- and feasibility studies, and training. operating assistance for new or year limit for operating assistance. Construction of telecommuting centers expanded transit service under the 6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and and computer and office equipment CMAQ program. This includes fuels and Programs purchases are not eligible for CMAQ fuel additives considered diesel retrofit Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and funds. technologies by the EPA or CARB. See programs are included as a TCM in Section VII.D.3 for statutory exceptions section 108(f)(1)(A) of the CAA. The 8. Public Education and Outreach for certain states regarding the purchase following are eligible projects: Activities of alternative fuel with CMAQ funds. • Constructing bicycle and pedestrian The goal of CMAQ-funded public d. Operating Assistance facilities (paths, bike racks, support education and outreach activities is to facilities, etc.) that are not exclusively educate the public, community leaders, Operating assistance to introduce new recreational and reduce vehicle trips. and potential project sponsors about transit service or expand existing • Non-construction outreach related connections among trip making and service is eligible. It may be a new type to safe bicycle use. transportation mode choices, traffic of service, service to a new geographic • Establishing and funding State congestion, and air quality. Public area, or an expansion of existing service bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions education and outreach can help providing additional hours of service or for promoting and facilitating communities reduce emissions and reduced headways. For a service nonmotorized transportation modes congestion by inducing drivers to expansion, only the operating costs of through public education, safety change their transportation choices. the new increment of service are programs, etc. (Limited to one full-time More important, an informed public is eligible. Eligible operating costs include position per State).22 likely to support larger regional labor, fuel, maintenance, and related measures necessary to reduce expenses. Operating assistance may be 7. Travel Demand Management congestion and meet CAA requirements. CMAQ-funded for a maximum of three Travel demand management (TDM) A wide range of public education and years. The intent is to support the encompasses a diverse set of activities outreach activities is eligible for CMAQ demonstration of new services that may that focus on physical assets and funding, including activities that prove successful enough to sustain with services that provide real-time promote new or existing transportation other funding sources, and to free up information on network performance services, developing messages and CMAQ funds to generate new air quality and support better decision-making for advertising materials (including market benefits. travelers choosing modes, times, routes, research, focus groups, and creative), It is not appropriate to use CMAQ and locations. Such projects can help placing messages and materials, funds for operating assistance for New ease congestion and reduce SOV use— evaluating message and material Start projects because these projects contributing to mobility, while dissemination and public awareness, require dedicated, stable sources of enhancing air quality and saving energy technical assistance, programs that funding for their operation. Relying on resources. Similar to ITS and Value promote the Tax Code provision related CMAQ funds for the initial operating Pricing, today’s TDM programs seek to to commute benefits,23 transit ‘‘store’’ costs of these projects is contrary to the optimize the performance of local and operations, and any other activities that need to establish permanent State and regional transportation networks. The help forward less-polluting local funding sources to cover operating following activities are eligible if they transportation options. and maintenance costs. are explicitly aimed at reducing SOV Using CMAQ funds, communities e. Transit Fare Subsidies travel and associated emissions: have disseminated many transportation • Fringe parking and air quality public education CMAQ funds may be used to • Traveler information services messages, including maintain your subsidize regular transit fares in an • Shuttle services vehicle; curb SOV travel by trip effort to prevent the NAAQS from being • Guaranteed ride home programs chaining, telecommuting and using exceeded, but only under the following • Market research and planning in alternate modes; fuel properly; observe conditions: The reduced or free fare support of TDM implementation speed limits; don’t idle your vehicle for must be part of a comprehensive area- • Carpools, vanpools (see item 10 long durations; eliminate ‘‘jack-rabbit’’ wide program to prevent the NAAQS below) starts and stops, and others. from being exceeded. ‘‘Ozone Action’’ • Traffic calming measures The It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air programs vary in scope around the • Parking pricing public education messages and country, but they generally include • Variable road pricing materials (regarding vehicle actions that individuals and employers • Telecommuting maintenance, proper fueling, trip can take and they are aimed at all major • Employer-based commuter choice sources of air pollution, not just programs 23 Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code transportation. The subsidized fare must CMAQ funds may support capital allows employers to pay their employees, in 2006, be available to the general public and expenses and up to three years of up to $105 per month for transit and vanpool may not be limited to specific groups. It operating assistance to administer and expenses and up to $205 per month for qualified parking. 26 U.S.C. 132(f). Each of these benefits is may only be offered during periods of manage new or expanded TDM subject to annual increases based on changes to the elevated pollution when the threat of programs. Consumer Price Index. 26 U.S.C. 1(f)(3). exceeding the NAAQS is greatest; it is Marketing and outreach efforts to Alternately, employers may allow employees to use not intended for the entire high-ozone expand use of TDM measures may be their pre-tax income to purchase these commuter benefits. Employers may also provide a season. Finally, the fare subsidy funded indefinitely, but only if they are combination of these employer-paid and employee proposal must demonstrate that the paid tax-free benefits. For more information, please responsible local agencies will combine 22 23 U.S.C. 217(d). visit http://www.commuterchoice.com/.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76046 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

chaining, and alternate modes) have costs, limited to three years, include eligible investment of program funds. been successful in raising awareness, empty-seat subsidies, maintenance, However, equipment that provides a garnering funds and in-kind support, insurance, administration, and other transportation function or directly and building coalitions of diverse related expenses. supports this function is eligible, such groups across the country. These CMAQ funds should not be used to as railyard switch locomotives or commercial-quality materials, which buy or lease vans that would directly shunters. were developed in response to requests compete with or impede private sector initiatives. States and MPOs should 12. Diesel Engine Retrofits & Other by state and local transportation and air Advanced Truck Technologies agencies, are free and communities are consult with the private sector prior to encouraged to use and build on them. using CMAQ funds to purchase vans, The SAFETEA–LU places a new More information is available at http:// and if private firms have definite plans emphasis on diesel engine retrofits and www.italladdsup.gov/. to provide adequate vanpool service, the various types of projects that fall The Best Workplaces for CMAQ funds should not be used to under this broad category.26 These CommutersSM program provides supplant that service. efforts are defined as vehicle national recognition to employers Carpooling and vanpooling activities replacement, repowering (replacing an offering commuter benefits that meet the may be funded with up to 100% federal engine with a cleaner engine), EPA’s National Standard of Excellence. funding, with certain limitations.24 rebuilding an engine, or other technologies determined by the EPA as Development of materials and public 11. Freight/Intermodal education messages promoting Best appropriate for reducing emissions from Workplaces for CommutersSM and Projects and programs targeting diesel engines.27 This latter point, employer provided commuter benefits freight capital costs—rolling stock or highlighting developing technologies, may be eligible for funding. More ground infrastructure—are eligible establishes a degree of flexibility and a information is available at http:// provided that air quality benefits can be need for periodic adjustment in the www.bwc.gov/. demonstrated. Freight projects that definition by the EPA. The legislation Long-term public education and reduce emissions fall generally into two defines retrofit projects as applicable to outreach can be effective in raising categories: Primary efforts that target both on-road motor vehicles and awareness that can lead to changes in emissions directly or secondary projects nonroad construction equipment; the travel behavior and ongoing emissions that reduce net emissions. latter must be used in Title 23 projects reductions; therefore, these activities Successful primary projects could based in nonattainment or maintenance may be funded indefinitely. include new diesel engine technology or areas for either PM or ozone. retrofits of vehicles or engines. There are a number of project types in 9. Transportation Management Eligibility is not confined to highway the diesel retrofit area for which CMAQ Associations projects, but also applies to nonroad funds are eligible. Assuming all other Transportation Management mobile freight projects, such as rail.25 CMAQ criteria are met, eligible projects Associations (TMAs) are groups of See Section VII.D.12. below on diesel include diesel engine replacement; full citizens, firms, or employers that retrofit technology—examples of engine rebuilding and reconditioning; organize to address the transportation primary freight projects—and for and purchase and installation of after- issues in their immediate locale by information on EPA’s guidance and treatment hardware, including promoting rideshare programs, transit, model rule for emissions reduction particulate matter traps and oxidation shuttles, or other measures. TMAs can credit in the SIP and conformity catalysts, and other technologies; and play a useful role in brokering processes. support for heavy-duty vehicle transportation services to private Secondary projects reduce emissions retirement programs. Project agreements employers. through shifts in or additions to involving replacements of either engine CMAQ funds may be used to establish infrastructure. Support for an or full vehicle should include a TMAs provided that they reduce intermodal container transfer facility provision for disposal of the engine emissions. Eligible expenses include may be eligible if the project block and a process to verify the TMA start-up costs and up to three demonstrates reduced diesel engine retirement of this equipment.28 years of operating assistance. Eligibility emissions when balancing the drop in CMAQ funds may be used to purchase of specific TMA activities is addressed truck VMT against the increase in and install emission control equipment throughout this guidance. locomotive or other non-highway on school buses. (Such projects, activity. Intermodal facilities, such as generally, should be administered by 10. Carpooling and Vanpooling inland transshipment ports or on-dock FHWA; see VII.D.5, Transit Eligible activities can be divided into rail, may generate substantial emissions Improvements, above.) two types of costs: Marketing (which reductions through the decrease in Refueling is not eligible as a stand- applies to both carpools and vanpools) miles traveled for pre-1986 heavy-duty alone project, and is eligible only if it is and vehicle (which applies to vanpools diesel trucks. This secondary, indirect required to support the installation of only). effect on truck traffic and the ensuing emissions control equipment, a. Carpool/vanpool marketing covers drop in diesel emissions help repowering, rebuilding, or other retrofits existing, expanded, and new activities demonstrate eligibility. of non-road engines. For example, ultra- designed to increase the use of carpools The transportation function of these low sulfur diesel (ULSD) may be and vanpools, and includes purchase freight/intermodal projects should be purchased as part of a project to install and use of computerized matching emphasized. Marginal projects that diesel particulate filters on nonroad software and outreach to employers. support freight operations in a very Guaranteed ride home programs are also tangential manner are not eligible for 26 23 U.S.C. 149(b)(f) (SAFETEA–LU section considered marketing tools. Marketing CMAQ funding. Warehouse handling 1808(d)). 27 costs may be funded indefinitely. 23 U.S.C. 149(f)(2) (SAFETEA–LU section equipment, for example, is not an 1808(d)). b. Vanpool vehicle capital costs 28 Reimbursement of costs for full-vehicle include purchasing or leasing vans for 24 23 U.S.C. 120(c) replacement may be limited to those elements that use in vanpools. Eligible operating 25 23 U.S.C. 149(b)(3) lead to emission reductions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76047

construction equipment because these usually a heavy-duty truck—must travel existing funding (including inspection devices need ULSD to function within, or in proximity to and primarily fees) should not be displaced, and properly. Costs associated with ULSD benefiting, a nonattainment or operating expenses are eligible for a are eligible for CMAQ funding only maintenance area. maximum of three years. until the standards are effective and the There have been several instances Privately Owned I/M Facilities fuel becomes commonly available where operating assistance funds have In States that rely on privately owned through the regional supply and been requested for TSE services. CMAQ I/M facilities, State or local I/M logistics chain, effectively rendering funding to date for TSE projects has program-related administrative costs ULSD the only diesel fuel distributed. been limited to capital costs (i.e., may be funded under the CMAQ Eligible costs are limited to the deployment of TSE infrastructure). program as in States that use public difference between standard nonroad Operating assistance for TSE projects is I/M facilities. However, CMAQ support diesel fuel and ULSD. not an eligible activity under the CMAQ to establish I/M facilities at privately In addition to equipment and program because TSE projects generate owned stations, such as service stations technology, outreach activities that their own revenue stream and therefore that own the equipment and conduct provide information exchange and should be able to cover all operating emission test-and-repair services, technical assistance to diesel owners expenses from the accumulated requires a public-private partnership and operators on retrofit options are revenue. See Section III.D for (See Section VII.C.). eligible investments. Please see information on innovative financing The establishment of ‘‘portable’’ I/M Appendix 5 for more detail on diesel opportunities available for these efforts. programs, including remote sensing, is retrofits and the various strategies The SAFETEA–LU also permits also eligible under the CMAQ program, available in this developing air quality electrification or other idling reduction provided that they are public services, field. facilities and equipment to be reduce emissions, and do not conflict The FHWA acknowledges that diesel constructed or located on rights-of-way with statutory I/M requirements or EPA retrofit projects may include nonroad of the Interstate system.29 Prior to the regulations. mobile source endeavors, which enactment of the SAFETEA–LU, this 16. Experimental Pilot Projects traditionally have been outside the activity was prohibited. State and local organizations Federal-aid process. However, the The EPA issued guidance in January traditionally have experimented with SAFETEA–LU clarifies CMAQ 2004 on methods for calculating various types of transportation services eligibility for nonroad diesel retrofit emissions reduction credits in SIPs and to better meet the travel needs of their projects. Areas that fund these projects in the transportation conformity process constituents. These ‘‘experimental’’ are not required to take credit for the for long-haul truck idle reduction projects may show promise in reducing projects in the transportation conformity projects. The guidance can be found at emissions, but do not yet have process. For areas that want to take http://www.epa.gov/smartway/ supporting data. The FHWA has credit, the EPA developed guidance for idlingimpacts.htm. estimating diesel retrofit emission supported and funded some of these reductions and for applying the credit in 14. Training projects as demonstrations to determine the SIP and transportation conformity The SAFETEA–LU provides that their benefits and costs. These processes. The guidance can be found at States and MPOs may use Federal-aid experimental pilots are not intended to http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ funds to support training and bypass the definition of basic project stateresources/transconf/ educational development for the eligibility but seek to better define the policy.htm#retrofit. transportation workforce.30 The FHWA projects’ future role in strategies to In addition to retrofit projects, encourages State and local officials to reduce emissions. upgrading long-haul heavy-duty diesel weigh the air quality benefits of such For a project or program to qualify as trucks with advanced technologies, such training against other cost-effective an experimental pilot, it must be as idle reduction devices, cab and trailer strategies detailed elsewhere in this defined as a transportation project and aerodynamic fixtures, and single-wide guidance before using CMAQ funds for be expected to reduce emissions by or other efficient tires, has been this purpose. Training funded with decreasing vehicle miles traveled demonstrated by the EPA’s Smart Way CMAQ dollars must be directly related (VMT), fuel consumption, congestion, or Transport Partnership Program to to implementing air quality by other factors. The FHWA encourages reduce NOX emissions and save fuel. improvements and be approved in States and MPOs to creatively address These strategies also are eligible for advance by the FHWA Division office. their air quality problems and to CMAQ support. Such projects funded experiment with new services, directly by CMAQ that involve the 15. Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) innovative financing arrangements, private sector must be part of a Public- Programs public-private partnerships, and Private Partnership, as discussed in Funds under the CMAQ program may complementary approaches that use Section VII.C. be used to establish either publicly or transportation strategies to reach clean air goals. The CMAQ program may be 13. Idle Reduction privately owned I/M facilities. Eligible activities include construction of used to support a well-conceived project Idle reduction projects that reduce facilities, purchase of equipment, I/M even if the proposal may not fully meet emissions and are located within, or in program development, and one-time the eligibility criteria of this guidance. proximity to and primarily benefiting, a start-up activities, such as updating Given the untried nature of these pilot nonattainment or maintenance area are quality assurance software or projects, before-and-after studies are eligible for CMAQ investment (The developing a mechanic training required to determine actual project geographic requirement mainly applies curriculum. The I/M program must impacts on air quality as measured by to off-board projects, i.e. truck stop constitute new or additional efforts, net emissions reduced. These electrification (TSE) efforts). However, if assessments should document the CMAQ funding is used for an on-board 29 23 U.S.C. 111(d) (SAFETEA–LU section 1412). project’s immediate impacts in addition project (i.e., auxiliary power units, 30 23 U.S.C. 504(e) (SAFETEA–LU section to long-term benefits. A schedule for direct fired heaters, etc.) the vehicle— 5204(e)). completing the study must be a part of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76048 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

the project agreement. Completed include advertising alternatives to SOV projects must be identified by year and studies must be submitted to the FHWA travel, employer outreach, and public proposed funding source. Division office within three years of education campaigns, may fall into this Close coordination is necessary implementation of the project or one category. The primary benefit of these between the State and MPO to ensure year after the project’s completion, activities is enhanced communication that CMAQ funds are used whichever is sooner. and outreach that is expected to appropriately and to maximize their VIII. Project Selection Process— influence travel behavior, and thus air effectiveness in meeting the CAA General Conditions quality. requirements. Proposals for CMAQ funding should 3. Analyzing Groups of Projects States and MPOs must fulfill this include a precise description of the In some situations, it may be more responsibility so that nonattainment and project, providing information on its appropriate to examine the impacts of maintenance areas are able to make size, scope, location, and timetable. comprehensive strategies to improve air good-faith efforts to attain and maintain Also, an assessment of the project’s quality by grouping projects. For the NAAQS by the prescribed deadlines. expected emission reduction benefits is example, transit improvements coupled State DOTs and MPOs should consult required prior to project selection to with demand management to reduce with State and local air quality agencies better inform the selection of CMAQ SOV use in a corridor might best be to develop an appropriate project list of projects (See Below). analyzed together. Other examples CMAQ programming priorities that will have the greatest impact on air quality. A. Air Quality Analysis include linked signalization projects, transit improvements, marketing and In developing this list, MPOs and States 1. Quantitative Analyses outreach programs, and ridesharing should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Quantified emissions benefits (i.e., programs that affect an entire region or the projects and give priority emissions reductions) and disbenefits corridor. consideration to those that will create (i.e., emissions increases) should be the greatest emissions reductions for the 4. Tradeoffs included in all project proposals, except least cost. The SAFETEA–LU calls out where it is not possible to quantify As noted above, emissions benefits diesel retrofits as one type of cost- emissions benefits (see Qualitative should be calculated for all pollutants effective project to which priority Assessment, below). Benefits and for which an area is in nonattainment or consideration shall be given. The EPA disbenefits should be included for all maintenance status. Some potential has conducted an extensive study on the pollutants for which the area is in projects may lead to benefits for one cost-effectiveness of diesel retrofits in nonattainment or maintenance status. pollutant and increased emissions for reducing PM emissions.32 The National Benefits should be listed in a consistent another, especially when the balance Academy of Science’s Transportation fashion (i.e., kg/day) across projects to involves precursors such as NOX and Research Board has evaluated the cost- allow accurate comparison during the VOC. States and MPOs should consult effectiveness of other CMAQ eligible project selection process. with relevant air agencies to weigh the projects, with a focus on NOX and HC State and local transportation and air net benefits of the project. reductions. Information on the cost- quality agencies conduct CMAQ-project effectiveness of CMAQ-eligible projects air quality analyses with different IX. Program Administration is presented in Appendix 4, which can approaches, analytical capabilities, and A. Project Selection—MPO and State be used as a guidepost in evaluating the technical expertise. The SAFETEA–LU Responsibilities cost-effectiveness of different types of encourages State DOTs and MPOs to projects under consideration by an MPO CMAQ projects are selected by the consult with State and local air quality or State. However, cost-effectiveness State or the MPO. MPOs, State DOTs, agencies about the estimated emission ultimately will depend on local and transit agencies should develop reductions from CMAQ proposals.31 conditions and project specific factors CMAQ project selection processes in However, while no single method is that affect emission reductions and accordance with the metropolitan and/ specified, every effort must be taken to costs. or statewide planning process. The ensure that determinations of air quality selection process should involve State B. Federal Agency Responsibilities and benefits are credible and based on a and/or local transportation and air Coordination reproducible and logical analytical quality agencies. procedure. 1. Program Administration The CMAQ project selection process 2. Qualitative Assessment should be transparent, in writing, and The FHWA Division offices and the Although quantitative analysis of air publicly available. The process should FTA Regional offices are responsible for quality impacts is required for almost all identify the agencies involved in rating administering the CMAQ program. The project types, an exception to this proposed projects, clarify how projects FHWA transfers funds to the FTA to requirement will be made when it is not are rated, and name the committee or administer CMAQ-funded transit possible to accurately quantify group responsible for making the final projects. In cases where the FTA lacks emissions benefits. In these cases, a recommendation to the MPO board or statutory authority, (e.g., school bus qualitative assessment based on a other approving body. The selection fleets) the FHWA will administer the reasoned and logical determination that process should also clearly identify the transit project. For projects that involve the project or program will decrease basis for rating projects, including transit and non-transit elements, such as emissions and contribute to attainment emissions benefits, cost effectiveness, park-and-ride lots and intermodal or maintenance of a NAAQS is and any other ancillary selection factors passenger projects, the administering acceptable. such as congestion relief, greenhouse agency is decided on a case-by-case Public education, marketing, and gas reductions, safety, system basis. All other projects are other outreach efforts, which can preservation, access to opportunity, administered by the FHWA. sustainable development and freight, 31 23 U.S.C. 149(e) (SAFETEA–LU section reduced SOV reliance, multi-modal 32 More information is available at http:// 1808(e)). benefits, and others. At a minimum, www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/publications.htm.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76049

2. Eligibility Determinations transit service, etc. Include all transit information includes: greenhouse gas The administering agency makes the projects whether administered by the emission reductions, safety, congestion final determination on CMAQ FTA or the FHWA. relief, and other ancillary benefits. • Shared Ride: vanpool and carpool eligibility. The FHWA, FTA, and EPA programs and parking for shared-ride Appendix 1: 23 U.S.C. 149 field offices should establish and services. maintain a consultation and SAFETEA–LU Changes in Underlined • Traffic Flow Improvements: traffic coordination process to review CMAQ Italics management and control services, funding proposals as needed. The § 149. Congestion mitigation and air signalization projects, ITS projects, consultation process should provide for quality improvement program intersection improvements, and timely review and handling of CMAQ (a) Establishment.—The Secretary construction or dedication of HOV funding proposals. The FHWA and FTA shall establish and implement a lanes. congestion mitigation and air quality headquarters offices are available to • Demand Management: trip improvement program in accordance consult with their field offices on reduction programs, transportation with this section. eligibility determinations as needed. management plans, flexible work (b) Eligible Projects.—Except as schedule programs, vehicle restriction 3. Tracking Mandatory/Flexible Funds provided in subsection (c), a State may programs. The FHWA Division office is • Pedestrian/Bicycle: bikeways, obligate funds apportioned to it under responsible for tracking obligation of storage facilities, promotional activities. section 104 (b)(2) for the congestion mandatory and flexible CMAQ funds in • I/M and other TCMs: projects not mitigation and air quality improvement appropriate areas (See Section V.B.). covered by the above categories. program only for a transportation project or program if the project or C. Annual Reports • STP/CMAQ: projects funded with flexible funds. program is for an area in the State that States are required to prepare annual For reporting purposes, obligations for is or was designated as a nonattainment reports detailing how CMAQ funds have all CMAQ-eligible phases (beginning area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or 33 been invested. CMAQ reporting is not with the NEPA process) should be particulate matter under section 107(d) only useful for the FHWA, the FTA, and reported for the project they support. of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407 (d)) the general public, but maintenance of 2. The amount of CMAQ funds and classified pursuant to section a cumulative database of all CMAQ obligated or deobligated for each project 181(a), 186(a), 188(a), or 188(b) of the projects is required by the SAFETEA– during the federal fiscal year. Enter Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 (a), 7512 LU. In addition, the annual reports will deobligations as a negative number. (Do (a), 7513 (a), or 7513 (b)) or is or was be key in developing the CMAQ not include Advance Construct funds, designated as a nonattainment area Evaluation and Assessment, a major as these are not obligations of federal under such section 107 (d) after research effort designed to gauge the CMAQ funds. Such projects should be December 31, 1997, or is required to impact of the program, and also reported later when converted to CMAQ prepare, and file with the Administrator required by the statute.34 funds.) of the Environmental Protection Agency, CMAQ annual reports must be 3. Emissions benefits (and disbenefits) maintenance plans under the Clean Air submitted through the web-based for each project developed from project- Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and— CMAQ Tracking System. More level analyses. Report projected (1)(A)(i) if the Secretary, after information on the CMAQ system is emissions benefits expected to occur in consultation with the Administrator available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ the first year that a project is fully determines, on the basis of information environment/cmaqpgs/ operational, in kilograms reduced per published by the Environmental usersguidemail.htm. day. Benefits should be reported the Protection Agency pursuant to section The FHWA Division offices, State first time a project is entered into the 108(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (other DOTs, and MPOs should develop a system, and only then to avoid double than clause (xvi)) that the project or process for entering and approving the counting of benefits. (Because funds program is likely to contribute to— data in a timely manner. This report may be obligated for a project over (I) the attainment of a national should be approved by the FHWA several years, an individual CMAQ ambient air quality standard; or Division office by the first day of March project may show up in reports for (II) the maintenance of a national following the end of the previous multiple years.) Additionally, address ambient air quality standard in a Federal fiscal year (September 30) and all pollutants for which the area is in maintenance area; and cover all CMAQ obligations for that nonattainment or maintenance status. (ii) a high level of effectiveness in fiscal year. Thus, State DOTs and MPOs Do not enter emissions benefits for reducing air pollution, in cases of need to report the data early enough that deobligations or projects funded with projects or programs where sufficient the Division office has time to review flexible funds (STP/CMAQ). information is available in the database and comment on the report. The report 4. Public-private partnerships and established pursuant to subsection (h) to as entered into the CMAQ Tracking experimental pilot projects should be determine the relative effectiveness of System should include: identified in the system. Transmit such projects or programs; or, 1. A list of projects funded under electronic versions of completed before- (B) in any case in which such CMAQ, in seven main project and-after studies for experimental pilot information is not available, if the categories: projects to the Division offices (See Secretary, after such consultation, • Transit: facilities, vehicles, and Section VII.D.16., Experimental Pilot determines that the project or program equipment, operating assistance for new Projects). is part of a program, method, or strategy 5. Other required information: MPO, described in such section 108(f)(1)(A); 33 The FHWA is in the process of acquiring the nonattainment/maintenance area, (2) if the project or program is required clearance pursuant to the Paperwork project description. included in a State implementation plan Reduction Act from the Office of Management and Budget to collect this data. 6. Optional information: TIP, State that has been approved pursuant to the 34 23 U.S.C. 149(h) (SAFETEA–LU section and/or FMIS project numbers—highly Clean Air Act and the project will have 1808(f)). recommended. Other optional air quality benefits;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76050 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

(3) the Secretary, after consultation than peak travel times. In areas of a (2) Forms of participation by with the Administrator of the State which are nonattainment for ozone entities.—Participation by an entity Environmental Protection Agency, or carbon monoxide, or both, and for under paragraph (1) may consist of— determines that the project or program PM–10 resulting from transportation (A) ownership or operation of any is likely to contribute to the attainment activities, the State may obligate such land, facility, vehicle, or other physical of a national ambient air quality funds for any project or program under asset associated with the project; standard, whether through reductions in paragraph (1) or (2) without regard to (B) cost sharing of any project vehicle miles traveled, fuel any limitation of the Department of expense; consumption, or through other factors; Transportation relating to the type of (C) carrying out of administration, (4) to establish or operate a traffic ambient air quality standard such construction management, project monitoring, management, and control project or program addresses. management, project operation, or any facility or program if the Secretary, after (c) States Receiving Minimum other management or operational duty consultation with the Administrator of Apportionment.— associated with the project; and the Environmental Protection Agency, (1) States without a nonattainment (D) any other form of participation determines that the facility or program, area.—If a State does not have, and approved by the Secretary. (3) Allocation to entities.—A State including advanced truck stop never has had, a nonattainment area may allocate funds apportioned under electrification systems, is likely to designated under the Clean Air Act (42 section 104 (b)(2) to an entity described contribute to the attainment of a U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the State may use in paragraph (1). national ambient air quality standard; funds apportioned to the State under (4) Alternative fuel projects.—In the (removed ‘‘or’’) section 104 (b)(2) for any project in the case of a project that will provide for the (5) if the program or project improves State that— traffic flow, including projects to use of alternative fuels by privately (A) would otherwise be eligible under improve signalization, construct high owned vehicles or vehicle fleets, this section as if the project were carried occupancy vehicle lanes, improve activities eligible for funding under this out in a nonattainment or maintenance intersections, improve transportation subsection— area; or systems management and operations (A) may include the costs of vehicle that mitigate congestion and improve (B) is eligible under the surface refueling infrastructure, including air quality, and implement intelligent transportation program under section infrastructure that would support the transportation system strategies and 133. development, production, and use of such other projects that are eligible for (2) States with a nonattainment emerging technologies that reduce assistance under this section on the day area.—If a State has a nonattainment emissions of air pollutants from motor before the date of enactment of this area or maintenance area and receives vehicles, and other capital investments paragraph; funds under section 104 (b)(2)(D) above associated with the project; (6) if the project or program involves the amount of funds that the State (B) shall include only the incremental the purchase of integrated, would have received based on its cost of an alternative fueled vehicle, as interoperable emergency nonattainment and maintenance area compared to a conventionally fueled communications equipment; or population under subparagraphs (B) and vehicle, that would otherwise be borne (7) if the project or program is for— (C) of section 104 (b)(2), the State may by a private party; and use that portion of the funds not based (C) shall apply other governmental (A) the purchase of diesel retrofits on its nonattainment and maintenance financial purchase contributions in the that are— area population under subparagraphs calculation of net incremental cost. (i) for motor vehicles (as defined in (B) and (C) of section 104 (b)(2) for any (5) Prohibition on federal section 216 of the Clean Air Act (42 project in the State that— participation with respect to required U.S.C. 7550)); or (A) would otherwise be eligible under activities.—A Federal participation (ii) published in the list under this section as if the project were carried payment under this subsection may not subsection (f)(2) for non-road vehicles out in a nonattainment or maintenance be made to an entity to fund an and non-road engines (as defined in area; or obligation imposed under the Clean Air section 216 of the Clean Air Act (42 (B) is eligible under the surface Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) or any other U.S.C. 7550)) that are used in transportation program under section Federal law. construction projects that are— 133. (f) Cost-Effective Emission Reduction (I) located in nonattainment or Guidance.— (d) Applicability of Planning maintenance areas for ozone, PM , or (1) Definitions.—In this subsection, 10 Requirements.—Programming and PM (as defined under the Clean Air the following definitions apply: 2.5 expenditure of funds for projects under Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)); and (A) Administrator.—The term (II) funded, in whole or in part, under this section shall be consistent with the ‘Administrator’ means the this title; or requirements of sections 134 and 135 of Administrator of the Environmental (B) the conduct of outreach activities this title. Protection Agency. that are designed to provide information (e) Partnerships With (B) Diesel retrofit.—The term ‘diesel and technical assistance to the owners Nongovernmental Entities.— retrofit’ means a replacement, and operators of diesel equipment and (1) In general.—Notwithstanding any repowering, rebuilding, after treatment, vehicles regarding the purchase and other provision of this title and in or other technology, as determined by installation of diesel retrofits. accordance with this subsection, a the Administrator. No funds may be provided under this metropolitan planning organization, (2) Emission reduction guidance.— section for a project which will result in State transportation department, or The Administrator, in consultation with the construction of new capacity other project sponsor may enter into an the Secretary, shall publish a list of available to single occupant vehicles agreement with any public, private, or diesel retrofit technologies and unless the project consists of a high nonprofit entity to cooperatively supporting technical information for— occupancy vehicle facility available to implement any project carried out under (A) diesel emission reduction single occupant vehicles only at other this section. technologies certified or verified by the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76051

Administrator, the California Air (A) determine the direct and indirect 104(b)(2) of such title to purchase Resources Board, or any other entity impact of the projects on air quality and alternative fuel (as defined in section recognized by the Administrator for the congestion levels; and 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 same purpose; (B) ensure the effective U.S.C. 13211)) or biodiesel. (B) diesel emission reduction implementation of the program. (2) Database.—Using appropriate APPENDIX 2: 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(2) technologies identified by the APPORTIONMENT Administrator as having an application assessments of projects funded under and approvable test plan for verification the congestion mitigation and air [DRAFT VERSION—NOT CODIFIED by the Administrator or the California quality program and results from other YET] research, the Secretary shall maintain Air Resources Board that is submitted (2) Congestion mitigation and air and disseminate a cumulative database not later that 18 months of the date of quality improvement program.— enactment of this subsection; describing the impacts of the projects. (3) Consideration.—The Secretary, in (A) In general.—For the congestion (C) available information regarding consultation with the Administrator, mitigation and air quality improvement the emission reduction effectiveness and shall consider the recommendations program, in the ratio that— cost effectiveness of technologies and findings of the report submitted to (i) the total of all weighted identified in this paragraph, taking into Congress under section 1110(e) of the nonattainment and maintenance area consideration air quality and health Transportation Equity Act for the 21st populations in each State; bears to effects. Century (112 Stat. 144), including (ii) the total of all weighted (3) Priority.— recommendations and findings that nonattainment and maintenance area (A) In general.—States and would improve the operation and populations in all States. (B) Calculation of weighted metropolitan planning organizations evaluation of the congestion mitigation nonattainment and maintenance area shall give priority in distributing funds and air quality improvement program. received for congestion mitigation and population.—Subject to subparagraph air quality projects and programs from SAFETEA–LU Section 1808: Additional (C), for the purpose of subparagraph (A), apportionments derived from Provisions the weighted nonattainment and application of sections 104(b)(2)(B) and The following provisions were maintenance area population shall be 104(b)(2)(C) to— included in the SAFETEA–LU Section calculated by multiplying the (i) diesel retrofits, particularly where 1808. These provisions do not amend 23 population of each area in a State that necessary to facilitate contract U.S.C. and therefore sunset when the was a nonattainment area or compliance, and other cost-effective SAFETEA–LU expires. To avoid maintenance area as described in emission reduction activities, taking confusion, they are presented here section 149(b) for ozone or carbon into consideration air quality and health separate from the rest of the statutory monoxide by a factor of— effects; and text. (i) 1.0 if, at the time of (ii) cost-effective congestion (g) Flexibility in the State of apportionment, the area is a mitigation activities that provide air Montana.—The State of Montana may maintenance area; quality benefits. use funds apportioned under section (ii) 1.0 if, at the time of the apportionment, the area is classified as (B) Savings.—This paragraph is not 104(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, a marginal ozone nonattainment area intended to disturb the existing for the operation of public transit under subpart 2 of part D of title I of the authorities and roles of governmental activities that serve a nonattainment or Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511 et seq.); agencies in making final project maintenance area. (iii) 1.1 if, at the time of the selections. (h) Availability of Funds for State of Michigan.—The State of Michigan may apportionment, the area is classified as (4) No effect on authority or use funds apportioned under section a moderate ozone nonattainment area restrictions.—Nothing in this subsection 104(b)(2) of such title for the operation under such subpart; modifies or otherwise affects any and maintenance of intelligent (iv) 1.2 if, at the time of the authority or restriction established transportation system strategies that apportionment, the area is classified as under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 serve a nonattainment or maintenance a serious ozone nonattainment area et seq.) or any other law (other than area. under such subpart; provisions of this title relating to (i) Availability of Funds for the State (v) 1.3 if, at the time of the congestion mitigation and air quality). of Maine.—The State of Maine may use apportionment, the area is classified as (g) Interagency Consultation.—The funds apportioned under section a severe ozone nonattainment area Secretary shall encourage States and 104(b)(2) of such title to support, under such subpart; metropolitan planning organizations to through September 30, 2009, the (vi) 1.4 if, at the time of the consult with State and local air quality operation of passenger rail service apportionment, the area is classified as agencies in nonattainment and between Boston, Massachusetts, and an extreme ozone nonattainment area maintenance areas on the estimated Portland, Maine. under such subpart; emission reductions from proposed (j) Availability of Funds for Oregon.— (vii) 1.0 if, at the time of the congestion mitigation and air quality The State of Oregon may use funds apportionment, the area is not a improvement programs and projects. apportioned on or before September 30, nonattainment or maintenance area as (h) Evaluation and Assessment of 2009, under section 104(b)(2) of such described in section 149(b) for ozone, Projects.— title to support the operation of but is classified under subpart 3 of part (1) In general.—The Secretary, in additional passenger rail service D of title I of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7512 consultation with the Administrator of between Eugene and Portland. et seq. as a nonattainment area the Environmental Protection Agency, (k) Availability of Funds for Certain described in section 149(b) for carbon shall evaluate and assess a Other States.7mdash;The States of monoxide; or representative sample of projects Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, (viii) 1.0 if, at the time of funded under the congestion mitigation Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio may use apportionment, an area is designated as and air quality program to— funds apportioned under section nonattainment for ozone under subpart

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76052 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

1 of part D of title I of such Act (42 impact attenuators, concrete barrier adjusted to 2005 dollars to account for U.S.C. 7512 et seq.). endtreatments, breakaway utility poles, inflation. (C) Additional Adjustment for Carbon or priority control systems for It is important to note that while the Monoxide Areas.—If, in addition to emergency vehicles or transit vehicles at NAS study reflects the best available being designated as a nonattainment or signalized intersections may amount to data at the time of its completion, there maintenance are for ozone as described 100 percent of the cost of construction are limitations inherent in such an in section 149(b), any county within the of such projects; except that not more assessment. The data presented are area was also classified under subpart 3 than 10 percent of all sums apportioned based on a select sampling of projects of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act for all the Federal-aid systems for any that may not completely capture the (42 U.S.C. 7512 et seq.) as a fiscal year in accordance with section potential cost effectiveness of other nonattainment or maintenance area 104 of this title shall be used under this techniques of implementing particular described in section 149(b) for carbon subsection. strategies. Therefore, the median cost monoxide, the weighted nonattainment should be coupled with the cost range or maintenance area population of the APPENDIX 4: COMPARATIVE COST- to better portray a project’s potential county, as determined under clauses (i) EFFECTIVENESS OF POTENTIAL cost-effectiveness. through (vi) or clause (viii) of CMAQ FUNDED PROJECTS The NAS study did not consider subparagraph (B), shall be further While the SAFETEA–LU maintains advanced truck stop electrification multiplied by a factor of 1.2. the existing roles and authorities of (TSE) projects or diesel engine retrofit projects. Cost-effectiveness data for TSE (D) Minimum apportionment.— public agencies in project selection, the projects were obtained from the EPA Notwithstanding any other provision of law also indicates that priority for Office of Transportation and Air this paragraph, each State shall receive CMAQ funding should be given to cost- 1 2 Quality. The cost-effectiveness of a minimum of ⁄ of 1 percent of the effective emission reduction and funds apportioned under this paragraph. various diesel engine retrofit congestion mitigation measures.35 The (E) Determinations of population.—In technologies, highlighted in the SAFETEA–LU specifically highlights determining population figures for the SAFETEA–LU as a priority CMAQ diesel retrofits as a priority cost- purposes of this paragraph, the funding item, are illustrated in Figures effective measure. Secretary shall use the latest available B and C and are based on the cost annual estimates prepared by the In 2002, the National Academy of (estimated 2007 dollars) per ton of PM Secretary of Commerce. Sciences’ (NAS) Transportation reduced. Research Board (TRB) published a While most of the technologies are APPENDIX 3: 23 U.S.C. § 120 FEDERAL study, in response to a congressional presented in terms of tons of NOX SHARE PAYABLE request that assessed the cost- reduced, diesel engine retrofits are (c) INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE effectiveness of various CMAQ-eligible presented in terms of tons of PM FOR CERTAIN SAFETY PROJECTS. strategies to reduce congestion and reduced. A direct comparison is [excerpt] emissions. The study measured the cost- therefore not appropriate, as the health The Federal share payable on account effectiveness of projects based on cost effects and emissions inventories differ of any project for traffic control per ton of emissions (HC and NOX) between the two pollutants. It costs signalization, traffic circles (also known reduced. In preparing the assessment, more to reduce a ton of PM than it does as ’roundabouts’), safety rest areas, TRB gave NOX reductions four times the to reduce a ton of NOX. However, the pavement marking, commuter weight of HC reductions. The findings, health benefits of reducing a ton of PM carpooling and vanpooling, rail- shown in Figures A and D, are reported are significantly greater than the highway crossing closure, or installation as the median values for each category benefits of reducing an equal amount of of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, analyzed. The cost information has been NOX.

FIGURE A: NOX/HC COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS PROJECT TYPES

Median cost Cost range (2005 dollars)/ton Strategy (2005 dollars)/ton of NOX/HC of NOX/HC reduced reduced

I/M ...... 2,155 2,041–6,577 Regional Rideshare ...... 8,392 1,361–18,144 Charges and Fees ...... 11,680 907–56,020 Vanpool Programs ...... 11,907 5,897–100,926 Misc. TDM ...... 14,175 2,608–37,649 Conventional Fuel Bus Replacements ...... 18,257 12,474–45,247 Alternative-Fuel Vehicles ...... 20,185 4,536–35,834 Traffic Signalization ...... 22,793 6,804–145,152 Employer Trip Reduction ...... 25,742 6,464–199,017 Conventional Service Upgrades ...... 27,896 4,309–136,193 Park-and-Ride Lots ...... 48,762 9,752–80,174 Modal Subsidies and Vouchers ...... 52,844 907–534,114 New Transit Capital Systems/Vehicles ...... 75,298 9,639–533,887 Bike/Pedestrian ...... 95,369 4,763–390,890 Shuttles, Feeder, Paratransit ...... 99,225 13,948–223,398 Freeway Management ...... 116,122 2,608–616,783 Alternative-Fuel Buses ...... 143,338 7,598–644,772 HOV Lanes ...... 199,811 6,464–381,931

35 23 U.S.C. 149(f).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76053

FIGURE A: NOX/HC COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS PROJECT TYPES—Continued

Median cost Cost range Strategy (2005 dollars)/ton (2005 dollars)/ton of NOX/HC of NOX/HC reduced reduced

Telework ...... 285,541 15,082–9,329,418 Source: TRB Special Report 264—The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience, Chap- ter 4, 2002.

Advanced Truck Stop Electrification ...... 1,696 1,416-1,976

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation & Air Quality (Measured in dollars/ton of NOX reduced), 2006.

In March, 2006, the EPA released a Through Retrofits, that analyzed diesel information in Figure A and D, which report, Diesel Retrofit Technology: An oxidation catalysts (DOC) and catalyzed is measured in tons of NOX/HC reduced. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of diesel particulate filters (CDPF). These The EPA did not provide median Reducing Particulate Matter Emissions technologies are assessed in dollars per values, instead providing a cost- from Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ton of PM reduced, unlike the effectiveness range.

FIGURE B: PM COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN DIESEL RETROFIT APPLICATIONS

Range of $/ton of PM reduced Vehicle Retrofit technology (Estimated 2007 dollars) *

School Bus ...... DOC ...... 12,000–49,100 CDPF ...... 12,400–50,500 Class 6 & 7 Truck ...... DOC ...... 27,600–67,900 CDPF ...... 28,400–69,900 Class 8b Truck ...... DOC ...... 11,100–40,600 CDPF ...... 12,100–44,100 * The cost per ton of PM reduced will depend on a variety of factors including the age and activity levels of the vehicles or equipment.

FIGURE C: PM COST-EFFECTIVENESS IN NONROAD RETROFIT APPLICATIONS

Range of $/ton of PM reduced Equipment Retrofit technology (Estimated 2007 dollars) *

Off-highway trucks ...... DOC ...... 17,200–43,500 CDPF ...... 14,300–36,300 Loaders/Backhoes/Tractors ...... DOC ...... 13,800–25,100 CDPF ...... 11,500–20,900 Excavators ...... DOC ...... 17,800–49,600 CDPF ...... 14,800–41,300 Skid Steer Loaders ...... DOC ...... 11,600–25,900 CDPF ...... 9,700–21,600 Generator Sets ...... DOC ...... 15,500–36,900 CDPF ...... 12,900–30,800 250 hp Bulldozer ...... DOC ...... 18,100–49,700 CDPF ...... N/A * The cost per ton of PM reduced will depend on a variety of factors including the age and activity levels of the vehicles or equipment.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76054 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices

States and MPOs are encouraged to with cleaner vehicles/equipment technologies that are verified under the consider the information presented in (including hybrid or alternative fuel EPA’s Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program this Appendix during their CMAQ models), repowering or engine or CARB. A list of EPA-verified project selection and prioritization replacement, rebuilding the engine to a technologies is available at http:// process. cleaner standard, the purchase and www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/ Those seeking further information on installation of advanced emissions retroverifiedlist.htm. CARB’s the cost-effectiveness of CMAQ projects control technologies (such as particulate verification program can be found at should consult TRB Special Report matter traps or oxidation catalysts) or http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/ 264—The Congestion Mitigation and Air the use of a cleaner fuel to support home/home.htm. eligible nonroad devices. The legislation Quality Improvement Program: Refueling Assessing 10 Years of Experience, defines retrofit projects as applicable to Chapter 4. both on-road motor vehicles and Refueling is eligible only when nonroad construction equipment. combined with an overall diesel retrofit APPENDIX 5: CONSIDERATIONS FOR Retrofit strategies include: project for which the cleaner fuel is DIESEL RETROFIT PROJECTS required. For example, ultra-low sulfur Emissions Control Technologies The term diesel retrofit includes any diesel (ULSD) may be purchased as part technology or system that achieves The EPA and the California Air of a project to install diesel particulate emission reductions beyond that Resources Board (CARB) have retrofit filters on highway construction required by the EPA regulations at the technology verification programs that equipment only because these devices time of engine certification. Assuming evaluate the performance of advanced require ULSD to function properly. all other criteria are met, eligible diesel emissions control technologies and Fuel-related technologies identified in retrofit projects include the replacement engine rebuild kits. CMAQ-funded EPA’s list of retrofit strategies are of high-emitting vehicles/equipment diesel retrofit projects must use retrofit eligible only until standards for such

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES EN19DE06.000 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Notices 76055

clean fuel are effective. For example, processes for these projects, see the emitting engine with a newer, cleaner ULSD is eligible for CMAQ only until EPA’s retrofit guidance at: http:// engine. Engine replacements can also be the standard is effective. For on-road www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ combined with emission control use, ULSD is mandated for use in transconf/policy.htm#retrofit. technologies. The engines being October 2006. According to EPA’s Generally, the replacement vehicle or replaced should be scrapped or regulatory development calendar, low equipment would perform the same remanufactured to a cleaner standard. sulfur diesel (500 ppm of sulfur) will be function as the vehicle or equipment As noted above, for areas that want to required for nonroad use in 2007, while that is being replaced (e.g., an excavator take credit in the SIP and transportation ULSD (15 ppm of sulfur) will be used to dig pipelines or utility trenches conformity processes for these projects, required for nonroad use in 2010. would be replaced by an excavator that see EPA’s retrofit guidance at: http:// continues these duties). www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ Vehicle/Equipment Replacement In addition, the vehicle or equipment transconf/policy.htm#retrofit. Projects being replaced would be in good New engines also must be EPA- working order and able to perform the certified. For a complete list of all EPA Replacement projects occur when duties of the new vehicle or equipment. older vehicles/equipment are replaced certified large highway and nonroad Removing vehicles that no longer engines, please consult the list at with cleaner vehicles/equipment before function or are at the end or their useful they would have been removed through http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm. life will not lead to an emissions For more information on diesel normal fleet turnover or attrition. The reduction. retrofits, please see the EPA’s National vehicle or equipment being replaced Clean Diesel Campaign Web site at should be scrapped or the engine Repower or Engine Replacement http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/. remanufactured to a cleaner standard. Projects For areas that want to take credit in the Engine replacement projects involve [FR Doc. 06–9679 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] SIP and transportation conformity the replacement of an older, higher BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19DEN2.SGM 19DEN2 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Part IV

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76058 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR practicable, we are to make this finding We evaluated the information in the within 90 days of our receipt of the petitions in accordance with our Fish and Wildlife Service petition, and publish our notice of the regulations at title 50 of the Code of finding promptly in the Federal Federal Regulations (CFR), § 424.14(b). 50 CFR Part 17 Register. The process of making a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife In making this finding, we based our decision on information provided by the § 424.14(b) of our regulations is based and Plants; 90-Day Finding on on a determination of whether the Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area petitioners in petitions dated December 28, 2001, and November 10, 2005, and information in the petition meets the Population of the Greater Sage-Grouse ‘‘substantial scientific information’’ as Threatened or Endangered otherwise available in our files at the time of the petition review. As part of threshold. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, an active and ongoing partnership with Our standard for substantial scientific Interior. the States of California and Nevada in or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition collaborative sage-grouse conservation amount of information that would lead finding. efforts, we contacted the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and the a reasonable person to believe that the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and California Department of Fish and Game measure proposed in the petition may Wildlife Service (Service), announce a (CDFG) subsequent to receiving the be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that the petition presents 90-day finding on two petitions to list 2005 petition, to obtain information substantial scientific or commercial the Mono Basin area population of about sage-grouse for the Mono Basin information, we are required to greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus area, as sage-grouse are a game species promptly commence a status review of urophasianus) in the Bi-State area of managed by the States. We received California and Nevada as threatened or the species. information from these agencies on On January 2, 2002, we received a endangered under the Endangered population levels, lek distribution, Species Act of 1973, as amended. We petition, dated December 28, 2001, from harvest and harvest seasons, and the Institute for Wildlife Protection find that the petitions do not present implementation of projects of benefit to substantial scientific or commercial requesting that the greater sage grouse sage-grouse. We also contacted the U.S. (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) information indicating that listing this Geological Survey—Biological population may be warranted. occurring in the Mono Basin area of Resources Division (USGS–BRD), Dixon Mono County, California, and Lyon Therefore, we are not initiating a status Field Station of the Western Ecological review in response to these petitions. County, Nevada, be emergency listed as Research Center, to obtain reports from an endangered distinct population We ask the public to submit to us any a 3-year study of sage-grouse in the Bi- new information that becomes available segment (DPS) under the Act. Although State area that was mostly funded by the the petitioner referred to greater sage- concerning the status of this population CDFG and the Service. New information or threats to it or its habitat at any time. grouse in the Mono Basin area by the (i.e. information not already in our files) subspecific epithet ‘‘phaios’’ we have DATES: This finding was made on obtained from NDOW, CDFG, and concluded that the subspecies December 19, 2006. USGS–BRD as a result of these contacts, designations for greater sage-grouse are ADDRESSES: The complete file for this was not used as a basis for this 90-day inappropriate give current taxonomic finding is available for public finding. Specifically we did not utilize standards (September 12, 2006, Federal inspection, by appointment, during the new information we obtained in our Register, p. 53781). In response to normal business hours at the Nevada evaluation of threats (see Threats recent judicial direction, the Service is Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Analysis, below), which is the basis of in the process of revisiting our current Wildlife Service, 1340 Financial Blvd., this finding. This approach is consistent interpretation of the taxonomic status of Suite #234, Reno, NV 89502. Submit with recent court decisions that the greater sage-grouse subspecies. We new information, materials, comments, invalidated the Service’s 90-day have not included subspecies or questions concerning this species to findings for the Yellowstone cutthroat designations any further in this finding. us at the address above. trout (Center for Biological Diversity, et The petition clearly identified itself as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: al v. Morgenweck, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1137, such and included the requisite Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, 1143–44 (D. Colo. 2004)) and the identification information for the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see Colorado River cutthroat trout (Colorado petitioners, as required in 50 CFR ADDRESSES) or 775–861–6300 (voice), or River Cutthroat Trout, et al. v. 424.14(a). In a March 20, 2002, letter to 775–861–6301 (fax). Kempthorne et al., No. 00–2497, slip op. the petitioners, we responded that we SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: at 12 (D. D.C. September 7, 2006)). In reviewed the petition and determined these cases, the courts ruled that the that an emergency listing was not Background Service over-reached the limited review necessary. On December 26, 2002, we Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered involved in a 90-finding by soliciting published a 90-day finding that this Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) information from State and Federal petition did not present substantial (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the agencies after the receipt of the petition scientific or commercial information Service make a finding on whether a and relied on that information to indicating that the petitioned action petition to list, delist, or reclassify a supplement petition findings. Therefore, may be warranted (67 FR 78811). Our species presents substantial scientific or the Service did not rely on any new finding was based the lack of substantial commercial information indicating that information received from the States or information in the petition indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. from USGS–BRD in the threats analysis. that the Mono basin area sage-grouse is Such findings are based on information We have however, included some of the a distinct population segment (DPS) contained in the petition and new information in the Species under our DPS policy (61 FR 47222), information otherwise available in our Information section (see below) to help and thus we concluded it was not a files at the time we make the the public understand the status of the listable entity (Federal Register, determination. To the maximum extent population. December 26, 2002, pp. 78813–78814).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76059

Our 2002 finding also included a day finding by December 8, 2006, and short grass steppe, windswept ridges, determination that the petition did not if substantial, to complete the 12-month exposed knolls, or other relatively open present substantial information that the finding by December 10, 2007. This sites may serve as leks (Connelly et al. Mono Basin area sage grouse was notice constitutes the 90-day finding on 2004, p. 3–7). Leks range in size from 1 threatened with extinction (Federal the November 2005 petition and hectare (ha) (2.5 acre (ac)) to at least 16 Register, December 26, 2002, p. 78814). reevaluation of the December 2001 ha (39.5 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3– On November 15, 2005, we received petition. In completing this finding, we 7) and can host several to hundreds of a formal petition dated November 10, reviewed the December 2001 petition in males. Some leks are used for many 2005, submitted by the Stanford Law the context of whether it provided years. These ‘‘historic’’ leks are typically School Environmental Law Clinic on additional information not discussed in surrounded by smaller ‘‘satellite’’ leks, behalf of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, the November 2005 petition. which may be less stable in both size Western Watersheds Project, the Center and location within the course of 1 year Species Information for Biological Diversity, and Christians and between 2 or more years. A group Caring for Conservation to list the Mono The sage-grouse is the largest North of leks where males and females may Basin area greater sage-grouse American grouse species. Adult males interact within a breeding season (Centrocercus urophasianus) as range in size from 65 to 75 centimeters (approximately late February to early threatened or endangered. The petition (cm) (26 to 30 inches (in)) and weigh June each year) or between years is clearly identified itself as a petition and between 1.7 and 2.9 kilograms (kg) (3.8 called a lek complex. Males defend included the requisite identification and 6.4 pounds (lb)); adult females individual territories within leks and information for the petitioners, as range in size from 50 to 60 cm (19.7 to perform elaborate displays with their required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a 23.6 in) and weigh between 1 and 1.8 kg specialized plumage and vocalizations March 28, 2006, letter to the petitioners, (2.2 and 3.9 lb) (Schroeder et al. 1999, to attract females for mating (Connelly we responded that we reviewed the p. 19–20). Males and females have dark et al. 2004, pp. 3–7 to 3–8). petition and determined that emergency grayish-brown body plumage with many Females may travel over 20 km (12.5 listing was not warranted. We also small gray and white speckles, fleshy mi) after mating, and typically select stated that due to court orders and yellow combs over the eyes, long nest sites under sagebrush cover, settlement agreements for other listing pointed tails, and dark-green toes although other shrub or bunchgrass and critical habitat actions that required (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2). Males also species are sometimes used (Connelly et nearly all of our listing and critical have blackish chin and throat feathers, al. 2000, p. 970). Nests are relatively habitat funding for fiscal year 2006, we conspicuous phylloplumes (specialized simple and consist of scrapes on the would not be able to further address the erectile feathers) at the back of the head ground. Clutch sizes range from about petition at that time. On April 17, 2006, and neck, and white feathers forming a 6–9 eggs (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3–10). we received a 60-day notice of intent ruff around the neck and upper belly. Nest success ranges from 12 to 86 letter from the Stanford Environment During breeding displays, males also percent (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 969). Law Clinic, dated April 14, 2006, exhibit olive-green apteria (fleshy bare Sage grouse generally have low notifying us that the petitioners intend patches of skin) on their breasts reproductive rates and high annual to sue the Service for violating the Act’s (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2). survival compared to other grouse requirement to make a petition finding Sage-grouse depend on a variety of species (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 970). within 12 months after receiving a shrub steppe habitats throughout their Shrub canopy and grass cover provide petition. life cycle, and are particularly concealment for sage grouse nests and On November 18, 2005, the Institute associated with several species of young, and may be critical for for Wildlife Protection and Dr. Steven G. sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Throughout reproductive success (Connelly et al. Herman filed a Complaint for much of the year, adult sage-grouse rely 2000, p. 971). Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in on sagebrush to provide roosting cover Sage-grouse typically live between 1 United States District Court for the and food (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4). and 4 years. However, sage-grouse up to Western District of Washington During the winter, they depend almost 10 years of age have been recorded in (Institute for Wildlife Protection et al. v. exclusively on sagebrush for food the wild (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3–12). Norton et al., No. C05–1939 RSM) (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). The type Annual survival ranges from about 36 to challenging the Service’s finding in and condition of shrub steppe plant 78 percent for females and about 30 to 2002 that their petition did not present communities strongly affect habitat use 60 percent for males (Connelly et al. substantial information indicating that by sage grouse populations. However, 2004, p. 3–12). The generally higher the petitioned action may be warranted. these populations also exhibit strong survival rate of females accounts for a On April 11, 2006, we reached a site fidelity. Sage-grouse populations female-biased sex ratio in adult birds stipulated settlement agreement with may disperse up to 160 kilometers (km) (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). the plaintiffs. Under this settlement (100 miles (mi)) between seasonal use Prior to settlement of the western agreement we agreed to evaluate both areas; however, average population United States by European immigrants the November 2005 petition submitted movements are generally less than 34 greater sage-grouse were found in 13 by the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, km (21 mi) (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3). States and 3 Canadian provinces— Western Watersheds Project, the Center Movements between season use areas Washington, Oregon, California, for Biological Diversity, and Christians may involve dispersal over areas of Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Caring for Conservation (hereafter unsuitable habitat. Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North referred to as the November, 2005 During the spring breeding season, Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona, British petition), and to reconsider the primarily during the morning hours just Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan December 2001 petition submitted by after dawn, male sage-grouse gather (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 368). Greater the Institute for Wildlife protection together and perform courtship or sage-grouse still occur in most of these (hereafter referred to as the December, strutting displays on areas called leks states and provinces except for 2001 petition). The settlement (an area where animals assemble and Nebraska, British Columbia, and agreement calls for the Service to submit perform courtship displays) (Connelly et possibly Arizona where they have been to the Federal Register a completed 90- al. 2004, p. 3–8). Areas of bare soil, extirpated (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76060 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

368–369). Sagebrush habitats that greater sage-grouse becoming an Prior to development of the Greater potentially supported greater sage- endangered species in the foreseeable Sage Grouse Conservation Plan for grouse covered approximately 1,200,483 future (Federal Register, January 12, Nevada and Eastern California, the square kilometers (sq km) (463,509 2005, pp. 2280–2281). State of Nevada sponsored development square miles (sq mi)) before the year of the Nevada Sage-Grouse Conservation Mono Basin Area Sage Grouse 1800 (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 366). Strategy (Sage-Grouse Conservation Current distribution is estimated at The States of California and Nevada Planning Team 2001). This Strategy 668,412 sq km (258,075 sq mi) or 56 jointly supported development of a established Population Management percent of the potential pre-settlement conservation plan, entitled Greater Sage Units (PMUs) for Nevada and California distribution (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada as management tools for defining and 369). and Eastern California (Sage-Grouse monitoring sage-grouse distribution The number of greater sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004). A draft (Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning that existed in North America prior to version of the Greater Sage Grouse Team 2001, p. 31). The PMU boundaries European expansion across the Conservation Plan for Nevada and are based on aggregations of leks, sage- continent is unknown. The Western Eastern California was submitted to a grouse seasonal habitats, and existing States Sage- and Columbian Sharp- seven-person team for external science sage-grouse telemetry data (Sage-Grouse Tailed Grouse Technical Committee peer review (Sage-Grouse Conservation Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. (WSSCSTGTC) estimated there were 1.1 Team 2004, p. 6). The conservation plan 31). PMUs that comprise the Mono million sage-grouse in 1800 written specifically for sage-grouse in Basin area include the Pine Nut, Desert (WSSCSTGTC 1999), although this the Mono Basin area is the Greater Sage- Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, Bodie, South estimate was for both greater sage- Grouse Conservation Plan for the Bi- Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. The grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern Bi-State Plan (2004) is the only existing (Centrocercus minimus). Braun (1998, California (Bi-State Plan) (Bi-State Local assessment of greater sage-grouse unpaginated) estimated that there were Planning Group 2004), and is an populations and habitats specific to the about 142,000 sage-grouse (both greater appendix of the Greater Sage-Grouse PMUs that comprise the Mono Basin and Gunnison sage-grouse) rangewide in Conservation Plan for Nevada and area. 1998. Connelly et al. (2004, p. 13–5) did Eastern California. The 2005 petition Currently in the Mono Basin area, not estimate a rangewide population for frequently refers to the Bi-State Plan. sage-grouse leks occur in the Pine Nut, greater sage-grouse, but did state that The Bi-State Plan was not peer Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, Mount Grant, the number is probably much greater reviewed. The group that developed the South Mono, and White Mountains than the estimate by Braun (1998). Bi-State Plan consisted of local PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). Most of the Although Connelly et al. (2004) were biologists, land managers, land users, leks occur in the Bodie and South Mono unable to estimate rangewide and others with concerns about sage- PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). Of the 122 population numbers for greater sage- grouse in western Nevada and eastern known lek locations in the Mono Basin grouse, they did use lek count data as California (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. vi). area: 56 are on Bureau of Land an indication of population changes The Bi-State Plan covers the same Management (BLM) land, 30 are on U.S. since 1965 (Connelly et al. 2004, geographic area described in the 2001 Forest Service (USFS) land, 4 are on Chapter 6). They reported substantial and 2005 petitions as the Mono Basin Department of Defense land, 2 are on declines from 1965 through 2003 with area, but refers to it as the Bi-State area State of California land, 9 are on Los an average decline of 2 percent of the (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, Angeles Department of Water and Power population per year during this time pp. 4–5). The Mono Basin area includes land, and 21 occur on private land period (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6–71). portions of Alpine and Inyo Counties, (Espinosa 2006; Taylor 2006). Overall, The decline was more pronounced from and most of Mono County in California 83 percent of the leks are on public land 1965 through 1985, with an average and portions of Lyon, Douglas, Carson and 17 percent occur on private land. annual change of 3.5 percent (Connelly City, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties Based upon the extent of previous et al. 2004, p. 6–71). However, the rate in Nevada. survey work, it is unlikely that more of decline rangewide slowed from 1986 Sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area leks will be found in the Nevada to 2003 to 0.37 percent annually historically occurred approximately portions of the Pine Nut and Desert (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6–71). throughout Mono, eastern Alpine, and Creek-Fales PMUs (Espinosa 2006). Due The best available scientific and northern Inyo Counties, California (Hall to long-term and extensive survey commercial information regarding the 1995, Figure 1); and parts of Carson efforts, it also is unlikely that new leks past, present, and future threats faced by City, Esmeralda, Mineral, Lyon, and will be found in the California portion the greater sage-grouse were reviewed Douglas Counties, Nevada. The current of the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales by the Service, including information on range of the population in California is PMUs or the Bodie and South Mono population declines. Based on that reduced from the historic range (Leach PMUs (Gardner 2006). However, it is review, on January 12, 2005, the Service and Hensley, 1954, p. 386; Hall 1995, p. possible that more leks will be published a finding that listing the 54). Gullion and Christensen (1957, pp. discovered in the Mount Grant PMU greater sage-grouse was not warranted 131–132) documented that sage-grouse and the Nevada portion of the White (70 FR 2243). The Service noted that occurred throughout most of their Mountains PMU because these are less although sagebrush habitat and sage- historic range in Nevada, including accessible and there has been less grouse populations had declined and occurrences in Esmeralda, Mineral, survey effort in them (Espinosa 2006). were continuing to decline in some Lyon, and Douglas Counties, but not in More leks also may be discovered in the areas, the most recent data indicated Carson City County, although Espinosa California portion of the White overall population declines had slowed, (2006) hypothesized that birds may still Mountains PMU, which is difficult to stabilized, or populations had increased, persist in this County. Sage-grouse access and has not been well surveyed and that the threats, when considered in habitat has been lost in the Nevada (Gardner 2006). relation to the status, trend, and portion of the Bi-State area but the Sage-grouse population trends distribution of the current population, extent of the loss has not been estimated analyzed for California and Nevada for were not sufficient to result in the (Stiver 2002). 1965–2003 (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6–

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76061

24 to 6–26 and 6–36 to 6–39) led to a South Mono, Bodie, Mount Grant, and grouse home ranges ranged in size from conclusion that populations in Desert Creek-Fales PMUs (CDFG 2006; 6.1 to 245.7 sq km (2.3 to 94.9 sq mi), California had slightly increased over NDOW 2006). They also include with a mean home range size of 62.9 sq this timeframe while those in Nevada population estimates from the Nevada km (24.1 sq mi) (Overton 2006). had declined (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. portion of the Pine Nut PMU (NDOW Distinct Population Segment 6–67 to 6–68). However, this analysis 2006). However, they do not include was performed at the State level and did population estimates for the White We consider a species for listing not specifically analyze population Mountains PMU or the California under the Act if available information trends for the Mono Basin area. portion of the Pine Nut PMU (CDFG indicates such an action might be The Bi-State Plan (2004) provides 2006; NDOW 2006). The White warranted. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the some information on population trends Mountain PMU and the California Act as including any species or for some of the PMUs in the Mono Basin portion of the Pine Nut PMU together subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, area, and indicates that in some areas comprise about 41 percent of the Mono and any distinct vertebrate population population declines occurred Basin area. Due to the lack of segment of fish or wildlife that historically. However, the number of information on sage-grouse habitat for interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. leks surveyed, survey methodology, and the Mono Basin, we cannot state what 1532 (16)). We, along with the National techniques for estimating population percent of the current habitat occurs in Marine Fisheries Service (now the size are inconsistent and have varied these two areas for which population National Oceanic and Atmospheric considerably over time, making it very estimates are unavailable. The recent Administration—Fisheries), developed difficult to interpret or rely on the spring population estimates for the areas the Policy Regarding the Recognition of information. In 2003, the NDOW began described above are as follows: 2003— Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments estimating population numbers based a low estimate of 2820 birds and a high (DPS Policy) (February 7, 1996, 61 FR on a peer reviewed and accepted estimate of 3181 birds, 2004—a low 4722) to help us in determining what formula (NDOW, 2006, p. 1), and estimate of 3682 birds and a high constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies consequently we believe the most estimate of 4141 birds, 2005—a low three elements that are to be considered accurate population estimates for the estimate of 3496 birds and a high in a decision regarding the status of a Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area estimate of 3926 birds, and 2006—a low possible DPS. These elements include start in 2003. Prior to that, Nevada estimate of 4218 birds and a high (1) the discreteness of a population in survey efforts varied from year to year, estimate of 4740 birds (CDFG 2006; relation to the remainder of the species with no data for some years, and NDOW 2006). Spring populations to which it belongs; (2) the significance inconsistent survey methodology. largely reflect the number of breeding of the population segment to the species Although CDFG methods for estimating sage-grouse in this area. The number of to which it belongs; and (3) the populations of sage-grouse have been breeding sage-grouse is representative of population segment’s conservation more consistent prior to 2003, using effective population size and probably status in relation to the Act’s standards population estimates for sage-grouse one of the best ways to assess the health for listing. Our policy further recognizes derived before 2003 would lead to of the overall population. it may be appropriate to assign different invalid and unjustified conclusions At a minimum, the spring population classifications (i.e., threatened or given the variation in the number of leks estimates for sage-grouse in the Mono endangered) to different DPSs of the surveyed, survey methodology, and Basin area indicate that the surveyed same vertebrate taxon (February 7, 1996, population estimation techniques populations have not declined in recent 61 FR 4722). between NDOW and CDFG. Due to past years. Indeed, 2004 to 2006 spring lek Discreteness differences in consistency in population counts for the Long Valley lek complex, estimation techniques for the two States, which comprises most of the leks in the The November 2005 and December in this description of populations we are South Mono PMU, are the highest 2001 petitions assert that Mono Basin only presenting population numbers numbers counted in the last 30 years area sage-grouse qualify as a Distinct from 2003–2006. During this period of and sage-grouse in this area are more Population Segment (DPS) based on time, both states used the same productive than anywhere else in discreteness. Both petitions cite the population estimation methods. We California (Gardner 2006). Services’ DPS policy under the Act provide this information to help inform Casazza et al. (2006) conducted a 3- (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722) and both the public, and for the reasons described year study on sage-grouse in the Mono assert that Mono Basin area sage-grouse above, we did not consider this Basin area to determine movements. are discrete based on genetic information in our Threats Analysis The researchers radio-marked birds in distinctiveness. The DPS policy states (below) and it was not part of the basis Mono County within the Desert Creek- that a population segment may be for making this finding. Fales, Bodie, White Mountains, and considered discrete if it satisfies either CDFG and NDOW annually South Mono PMUs (Casazza et al. 2006, one of the following conditions: (1) It is coordinate sage-grouse lek counts in the unpaginated). The greatest distances markedly separated from other California and Nevada portions, moved by radio-tagged birds between populations of the same taxon as a respectively, of the Mono Basin area. two points is as follows: About 29 consequence of physical, physiological, Results from these lek counts are used percent moved 0–8 km (0–5 mi); about ecological, or behavioral factors. by CDFG and NDOW to estimate sage- 41 percent moved 8–16 km (5–10 mi); Quantitative measures of genetic or grouse populations for PMUs in the about 25 percent moved 16–24 km (10– morphological discontinuity may Mono Basin area. CDFG and NDOW 15 mi); about 4 percent moved 24–32 provide evidence of this separation. (2) calculate low and high sage-grouse km (15–20 mi); and about 1 percent It is delimited by international population estimates for the PMUs, moved a distance greater than 32 km (20 governmental boundaries within which based on low and high lek detection mi) (Overton 2006). Female sage-grouse differences in control of exploitation, rates, respectively, to account for the home range size ranged from 2.3 to management of habitat, conservation range in lek detection rates. 137.1 sq km (0.9 to 52.9 sq mi), with a status or regulatory mechanisms exist The following spring population mean home range size of 38.6 sq km that are significant in light of section estimates are based on lek counts for the (14.9 sq mi) (Overton 2006). Male sage- 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In a previous 90-

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76062 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

day finding, we reviewed the December suggest that Mono Basin area sage- of a taxon; (3) Evidence that the discrete 2001 petitioners’ claim that Mono Basin grouse are genetically distinct from population segment represents the only area sage-grouse are a DPS, and found other greater sage-grouse populations surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that there was not substantial scientific (Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et that may be more abundant elsewhere as or commercial information indicating al. 2005). The November 2005 an introduced population outside its that Mono Basin area sage-grouse may petitioners assert that genetic work by historic range; or (4) Evidence that the be discrete from other greater sage- Benedict et al. (2003) or Oyler-McCance discrete population segment differs grouse (December 26, 2002, Federal et al. (2005) support their contention markedly from other populations of the Register, p. 78811). Our 2002 that Mono Basin area sage-grouse area species in its genetic characteristics. determination was based on a lack of are presently isolated from other sage- The November 2005 petition claims information to demonstrate that Mono grouse populations by present day that the Mono Basin area is a unique Basin sage-grouse are physically habitat conditions, but this claim is ecological setting and cites a map in isolated from other nearby populations, inaccurate. These genetic studies Rowland et al. (2003) to support this the limited extent of sage-grouse genetic provided evidence that the present claim. This petition also asserts that the sampling within the Mono Basin area at genetic uniqueness exhibited by Mono loss of the Mono Basin area population that time, information from a Basin area sage-grouse occurred over would result in a significant gap in the comparative study which indicated that thousands and perhaps tens of range of the greater sage-grouse and that Mono Basin sage-grouse are not thousands of years (Benedict et al. 2003, the population differs markedly from behaviorally different from other p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. other sage-grouse populations in genetic populations of great sage-grouse, and 1307). Hence, the genetic uniqueness of characteristics. the lack of any morphological this sage-grouse population developed The Mono Basin area sage-grouse information on Mono Basin sage-grouse. prior to the Euro-American settlement populations do occur in an ecological We still believe that there are no in the Mono Basin area that resulted in province labeled the Mono province in significant behavioral differences changes in habitat conditions for this Rowland et al. (2003, p. 63). However, between sage-grouse populations. population. this ecological province is part of the Young et al. (1994) compared greater The Services’ DPS policy requires that Great Basin, and on a gross scale all the sage-grouse behavioral attributes for only one of the discreteness criteria be ecological provinces that comprise this populations in the Mono Basin area and satisfied in order for a population area are characterized by basin and outside it for males displaying on leks. segment of a vertebrate species to be range topography. Basin and range This study concluded that sage-grouse discrete. There is substantial topography covers a large portion of the in the Mono Basin area do not exhibit information indicating that Mono Basin western United States and northern any appreciable behavioral differences area sage-grouse are genetically distinct Mexico. It is typified by a series of in male mating displays from other from other greater sage-grouse north-south oriented mountain ranges greater sage-grouse populations (Young populations. Therefore, we conclude running parallel to each other, with arid et al., 1994). that there is substantial information valleys between the mountains. Most of In contrast to results from indicating that the Mono Basin area Nevada and eastern California are comparative behavioral studies, sage-grouse may satisfy the discreteness covered by basin and range topography. comparative genetics studies have criterion of the DPS policy. Hence, we do not concur that Mono documented genetic differences Basin area sage-grouse occur in an between greater sage-grouse populations Significance ecological setting that is unique for the in the Mono Basin area and those Both the December 2001 petition and taxon. Based on the extant range of outside of it. The November 2005 the November 2005 petition also assert greater sage-grouse provided by petition correctly cites Benedict et al. that Mono Basin area sage-grouse Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 369), we do (2003), Oyler-McCance et al. (2005), and further qualify as a DPS based on not agree that the loss of the Mono Basin the Bi-State Plan (2004) with regard to significance. The DPS policy (February area sage-grouse population would how sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area 7, 1996, Federal Register, p. 4725) states result in a significant gap in the range are genetically unique from other that if a population segment is of greater sage-grouse. Schroeder et al. populations of greater sage-grouse. considered discrete under one or more (2004, p. 363) estimated total extant Since we published our previous 90-day of the discreteness criteria then its range of greater sage-grouse to be finding, comparisons of genetic material biological and ecological significance 668,412 sq km (258,075 sq mi) and the from many sage-grouse populations will be considered in light of total area of the PMUs that comprise the across the range of the species have Congressional guidance that the Mono Basin area is 18,310 sq km (7,069 been completed and demonstrate that authority to list DPSs be used ‘‘*** mi) (Bi-State Plan 2004). Hence, the Mono Basin area sage-grouse contain sparingly’’ while encouraging the total area comprised by the Mono Basin unique haplotypes not found elsewhere conservation of genetic diversity. In represents at most about 3 percent of the within the range of the greater sage- such an examination, the Service total extant range of greater sage-grouse grouse (Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler- considers available scientific evidence and loss of the population in this area McCance et al. 2005). Genetic sampling of the discrete population segment’s would not result in a significant gap in continues in the Mono Basin area, as the importance to the taxon to which it the range of the species. Mono Basin full geographic extent of this genetic belongs. As specified in the DPS policy area sage-grouse are not the only uniqueness has not yet been February 7, 1996, Federal Register, p. surviving occurrence of the taxon, and determined. However since our 4725), this consideration of the as previously discussed represent a previous 90-day finding on Mono Basin significance may include, but is not small proportion of the total extant area sage-grouse (December 26, 2002, 67 limited to, the following: (1) Persistence range of the species. However, existing FR 78811), most leks in the Mono Basin of the discrete population segment in an genetic evidence (Benedict et al. 2003; area have now been genetically ecological setting unusual or unique to Oyler-McCance et al. 2005) does sampled. Although the full extent of this the taxon; (2) Evidence that loss of the indicate that Mono Basin area sage- genetic uniqueness is undetermined, discrete population segment would grouse differ from other populations of there now exists sufficient evidence to result in a significant gap in the range greater sage-grouse in their genetic

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76063

characteristics, as discussed previously Act may be warranted. Our evaluation border has not changed (Schroeder et al. with regard to the discreteness criterion. of this information is presented below. 2004, pp. 368–369). A considerable Therefore, based on information amount (approximately 71 percent) of A. Present or Threatened Destruction, regarding genetics, we conclude that the original sage-grouse habitat has been Modification, or Curtailment of the there is substantial information lost in the California portion of the Species’ Habitat or Range indicating that the Mono Basin area Mono Basin area (Hall, 1995, p. 54; sage-grouse may satisfy the significance Geographic Range December 26, 2002, Federal Register, p. criterion of the DPS policy. The November 2005 petition asserts 78813). The extent of habitat has also declined within the Nevada portion of DPS Conclusion that the range of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area is greatly reduced and the Mono Basin area, but no estimates We have reviewed the information that the populations are scattered among are provided in the petitions or presented in the petitions, and have several counties in western Nevada and available in our files regarding the evaluated the information in accordance eastern California. Petitioners cite the Nevada portion. The Bi-State Plan with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In a 90-day work of Schroeder et al. (2004) and (2004) provides limited anecdotal finding, the question is whether a claim that in pre-settlement time the information about the historic range of petition presents substantial habitat for the species was continuous the population in the Mono Basin area, information that the petitioned action along the California-Nevada border and and the distribution and range discussion is focused primarily on may be warranted. We do not make final extended from Inyo County, California, current conditions. Additionally the determinations regarding DPSs at this into Oregon. The petition further states work cited from Oyler-McCance et al. stage; rather, we determine whether a that by 2000 the Mono Basin area (2001) and Braun (1998) is not specific petition presents substantial population had become physically to the Mono Basin area. Connelly et al. information that a population may be a isolated from other sage-grouse (2004) did assess changes for the DPS. On the basis of our review, we find populations and now only occurs in sagebrush ecosystem, but this analysis that the November 2005 petition, and small isolated groups. The petitioners was also performed at the rangewide our files, do present substantial cite a Western States Sage Grouse level for sage-grouse and not specific to scientific or commercial information to Technical Committee report (WSSGTC indicate that Mono Basin area sage- the Mono Basin area. Although sage- 1999) and state that for the Nevada grouse habitat and range has been grouse may be a DPS based, on genetic portion of the Mono Basin area sage- evidence, which may meet both the reduced from pre-settlement conditions, grouse are extirpated from Storey and and some additional habitat losses may discreteness and significance criteria of Carson City Counties, at extreme risk in the DPS policy. Based on this be occurring at present, neither the Douglas and Esmeralda Counties, and at petitioners, nor our files, provide preliminary assessment, we proceeded risk in Lyon and Mineral Counties. with an evaluation of information information on the rate or extent of Regarding sage-grouse range in habitat losses for the Mono Basin area. presented in both petitions, as well as California, the petition cites Hall (1995) information in our files, to determine The Bi-State Plan (2004) documents and states that there has been a 55 some loss of specific localized habitat whether there is substantial scientific or percent reduction statewide in the range areas due to wildfire. The Service commercial information indicating that of the species from its historic range. recognizes that historically there has listing this population may be More specific to the Mono Basin area, been destruction and modification of warranted. Our threats analysis and the petitioners cite our December 26, the habitat and range of sage-grouse in conclusion follow. 2002, 90-day finding (67 FR 78811), the Mono Basin area. However, historic Threats Analysis which states that suitable habitat for the impacts are not the focus of the California portion of the Mono Basin evaluation called for under Factor A; Section 4 of the Act and its area has declined approximately 71 rather, Factor A specifically addresses implementing regulations (50 CFR part percent from historic levels based on the present or threatened destruction, 424) set forth the procedures for adding information in Hall (1995). The modification, or curtailment of habitat species to the Federal List of petitioners also cited Oyler-McCance et or range. Although the petitioners and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife al. (2001) to state that extirpations of our files contain information on historic and Plants. A species may be local populations of Gunnison sage- reductions in range, neither the determined to be an endangered or grouse have occurred because of the loss petitioners, nor our files, provide threatened species due to one or more and fragmentation of habitat caused by substantial information that documents of the five factors described in section human activities; cited Barbour (1988, the present or threatened loss of sage- 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or unpaginated) regarding impacts to grouse range for sage-grouse in the threatened destruction, modification, or sagebrush habitat in California; and Mono Basin area. Therefore, we curtailment of habitat or range; (B) cited Braun’s (1998, unpaginated) conclude that there is not substantial overutilization for commercial, assessment of factors that have caused scientific or commercial information to recreational, scientific, or educational sage-grouse declines across the western indicate that listing may be warranted purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) United States, which included habitat due to the present or threatened inadequacy of existing regulatory loss. destruction or modification of habitat or mechanisms; or (E) other natural or We agree with the petitioners that range for the sage-grouse population in manmade factors affecting its continued there has been a reduction in the the Mono Basin area. existence. In making this 90-day distribution of greater sage-grouse along finding, we evaluated whether the California-Nevada border (Schroeder Private Land Development information on threats to the Mono et al. 2004, pp. 368–369). Distribution in The November 2005 petition cites Basin area sage-grouse in our files and the Mono Basin area is much more private land development as a presented in the November 2005 and the disjunct now compared to pre- significant threat to Mono Basin area December 2001 petitions constitutes settlement conditions; however, the sage-grouse. The petitioners state that substantial scientific or commercial southern limit of sage-grouse over 329,000 acres (close to 12 percent) information such that listing under the distribution along the California-Nevada of land in the Mono Basin area is

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76064 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

privately owned and susceptible to al. (2004, pp. 7–25, 7–26) included South Mono PMU that occur in lek areas development. They cite the Bi-State some analysis of the effects of in the near proximity of the Mammoth Plan (2004) regarding private land development (including associated Yosemite Airport have been exposed to development in several of the PMUs and infrastructure) on sage-grouse, but the commercial air traffic in the past, and reference discussions of: community analysis was conducted at the they are presently exposed to private air expansion in the Pine Nut PMU; rangewide scale (Connelly et al. 2004, traffic. Effects of the FAA proposal to conversion of private rangeland to pp. 12–1 to 12–23) and not specific to reinstate commercial air traffic at the residential and vacation homes, the Mono Basin area. The Bi-State Plan Mammoth Yosemite Airport on sage- conversion of grouse winter habitat to (2004) recognizes urban expansion as a grouse are unknown at this time, as the irrigated pasture and hay fields, and risk to sage-grouse in the Pine Nut PMU level of commercial flight traffic these increased pressure of subdivision and (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 24), the Desert birds may be exposed to is development in the Desert Creek-Fales Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, undetermined and subject to PMU; increasing development of private p. 47), the Bodie PMU (Bi-State Plan commercial success by the airlines. lands for residential, commercial and 2004, p. 88), and the South Mono PMU Also, since the proposal by FAA has yet recreational purposes in the Bodie PMU; (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169). to be implemented, any assessment of and development of private lands in the Although development of private effects is speculative. The FAA will South Mono PMU. The petitioners claim lands may impact sage-grouse habitat develop an environmental analysis for that Mono County intends to (Connelly et al. 2004) and there are the proposed project pursuant to the significantly expand the Benton concerns about private lands being National Environmental Policy Act Crossing Landfill, which could impact developed for housing in the Mono (NEPA) (FAA 2006), which will include sage-grouse through direct habitat loss, Basin area (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 4), an assessment of impacts to wildlife. increased predation, and a potential about 89 percent of the land area within The Town of Mammoth Lakes is increase in disease (Mono County 2004). the Mono Basin area is federally proposing commercial development on They also cite a process to revise the managed land, primarily USFS and a tract of land immediately adjacent to Mammoth Lakes general plan BLM lands (Bi-State Plan 2004). These the existing airport (Town of Mammoth (Mammoth Lakes 2005) and claim the public lands are not the areas where Lakes 2005, p. 2–9). We do not have revised plan will allow for more traditional development into housing information in our files to determine development on non-Federal lands. The communities is occurring and are not whether the area of proposed petitioners assert that expansion of the subject to such development. development involves sage-grouse Mammoth Lakes airport to Furthermore, although some housing habitat. accommodate commercial jets and development has occurred on private In summary, development of private construction of an adjacent business lands within the Mono Basin area, the lands for housing and the associated park would pose a significant impact to five housing subdivisions cited by the construction of roads and power lines sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU. petitioners are considered speculative, within the Mono Basin area would Petitioners cite a California Department as they have not moved beyond the occur mostly in areas where sage-grouse of Fish and Game memo (California planning stage. The petitioners are are not present. Furthermore, Department of Fish and Game 2001) and correct that the Town of Mammoth petitioners’ claims about expansion of state that the California Department of Lakes General Plan is being updated and the Mammoth Yosemite Airport are no Fish and Game expressed serious does allow for more housing longer valid, and they did not provide concerns about the impacts of the development on private land; however, information which documents how the proposed airport expansion on sage- the petitioners fail to note that this proposed resumption of commercial air grouse. The petitioners claim that growth is planned to occur within the service at the Airport, combined with California Department of Fish and Game Mammoth Lakes Urban Growth the construction of an adjacent business expressed several concerns, including Boundary (Town of Mammoth Lakes park, would impact sage-grouse in the that aircraft may disturb birds on leks 2005, pp. 3–9 to 3–14), well away from South Mono PMU. Most significantly, and while they are wintering and that known lek sites, and therefore it will not about 89 percent of the Mono Basin area the airport expansion project would directly impact sage-grouse. is federally managed land (Bi-State Plan have growth-inducing impacts to the Additionally, the Benton Crossing 2004), where development into housing region. Finally, they claim that a Landfill will not be expanded as the communities is not occurring. Neither number of other proposed developments petition asserts (Town of Mammoth the petitioners, nor our files, provide could affect the South Mono sage-grouse Lakes 2005, p. 2–38). information on the extent or magnitude population. The Federal Aviation Administration of private development to indicate that The December 2001 petition also cited (FAA) has dropped its proposal to listing of the Mono Basin area sage- development and habitat conversion to expand the Mammoth Yosemite Airport grouse may be warranted due to the suburbs and ranchettes as a threat to (FAA 2006). However, the FAA is present or threatened destruction, sage-grouse. However, this petition did currently proposing to resume regional modification, or curtailment of sage- not provide additional information commercial air service using the grouse habitat or range due to private beyond what was provided in the existing Mammoth Yosemite Airport land development. November 2005 petition. facilities, with two winter flights per The November 2005 petition is day initially and potentially increasing Public Land Development incorrect in asserting that close to 12 to a maximum of eight winter flights per The November 2005 petition states percent of the Mono Basin area is day by 2012–2013 (FAA 2006). The that the majority of the Mono Basin area privately owned. Their figures do not Mammoth Yosemite Airport had sage-grouse habitat is managed by BLM include the White Mountains PMU, regional commercial air service from and the USFS under multiple-use which comprises about 38 percent of the 1970 to the mid-1990s (FAA 2006) and policies that have harmed sage-grouse total area; including this PMU, it currently supports about 400 flights and degraded their habitat. Petitioners approximately 8 percent of lands within per month, primarily single-engine assert that public land is subject to some the Mono Basin area are privately aircraft (Town of Mammoth Lakes 2005, forms of development and that private owned (Bi-State Plan 2004). Connelly et p. 4–204). Therefore, sage-grouse in the land development often affects the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76065

integrity and health of adjacent public As noted previously, the majority of ecosystems. There is also potential for lands. The petitioners cite the Bi-State the land area in the Mono Basin area, wind energy and geothermal energy Plan (2004) with regard to the Bodie and therefore most of the sage-grouse development in the South Mono PMU PMU and state that habitat loss and habitat, is managed by BLM and the (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 178). The South fragmentation associated with land use USFS; approximately 89 percent of the Mono PMU has an existing geothermal change and development is not land in the Mono Basin area is plant and the Bi-State Plan discusses restricted to private lands in this PMU. administered by these agencies (Bi-State four other proposed geothermal energy Petitioners further assert that Plan 2004). Both of these Federal projects in the PMU, only one of which development of private lands can also agencies manage public lands on a has been approved (Bi-State Plan 2004, have indirect effects on sage-grouse multiple-use basis under Federal laws pp. 178–181). The Bi-State Plan populations and habitat on public lands. (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. indicates that geothermal development They cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) for the 2272, 2274). The multiple-use in the South Mono PMU is a Desert Creek-Fales PMU and note that management approach allows for a wide manageable risk, and that the USFS and residential development may reduce array of actions on Federal lands, BLM both have management plans in habitat, resulting in risks to habitat including some forms of development place that consider effects of this quality and fragmentation. The that may be detrimental, as well as activity on sage-grouse (Bi-State Plan petitioners indicate that the Bi-State conservation measures that are 2004, p. 181). One of the geothermal Plan provides no new regulatory beneficial, for habitat of wildlife species projects discussed in the Bi-State Plan is measures or funding for mitigation of such as sage-grouse. When private lands being evaluated by the USFS (Inyo threats from private land use and adjacent to public lands are developed, National Forest 2005). The project development. there can be impacts to sage-grouse on would occur in suitable habitat for sage- The petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan the public lands (Braun 1998, grouse, and birds have been (2004) to support their claim that 13 unpaginated) and Connelly et al. (2004, documented within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of sites have been authorized for pp. 7–24 to 7–26), both document the site (Inyo National Forest, 2005, p. monitoring for wind energy impacts to sage-grouse as a result of 7). However, the USFS evaluation development in the Pine Nut PMU and urbanization, such as loss of habitat. concluded that while the proposed wind turbines may be constructed on Several urban and suburban areas in geothermal project may affect these sites. The petitioners also state this PMU are continuing to expand in individuals it would not likely result in that numerous geothermal energy the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, a loss of sage-grouse viability because: developments have been proposed or p. 24). For the Bodie PMU, the Bi-State the area was surveyed for leks and none approved on public and private land in Plan does indicate that habitat loss and were found; only about 3 acres of the South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan fragmentation associated with land use habitat would be lost; prior to 2004) and specifically reference a change and development is not construction, an area adjacent to the proposal for the Inyo National Forest restricted to private lands (Bi-State Plan construction corridor would be claiming that sage-grouse have been 2004, p. 88). Rights-of-ways across surveyed for nests and if nests are found within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the public lands for roads, utility lines, located, construction would not be proposed project and that the project sewage treatment plants and other allowed within 30 meters (100 feet) may displace individual sage-grouse by public purposes are frequently until after the young had fledged (Inyo eliminating suitable habitat for the requested, and granted, to support National Forest 2005, p. 22). species (USFS 2005). development activities on adjacent We acknowledge that development of The petition claims that a myriad of private lands (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 88). public lands for a variety of purposes other smaller projects or activities are But the Bi-State Plan concludes that (including rights-of-ways for roads, authorized and developed on Federal land use and development on most power lines, utility lines, and wind and lands. In support of this assertion, the lands in the Bodie PMU are guided by geothermal energy development) may petitioners indicate that records they existing land use plans and that the impact some sage-grouse habitat. obtained from the BLM-Carson City development is a manageable risk for However, neither the petitioners, nor Field Office for these smaller projects sage-grouse (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 88). our files, provide information on the and lesser activities authorized between Residential development was reported present or future extent or magnitude of 2001 and 2005 included 55 records of to be very low in the White Mountains public development as a threat for the categorical exclusions and 13 findings PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 124). Mono Basin area. Therefore, we of no significant impact under the Effects of public land development were conclude that there is not substantial National Environmental Policy Act not cited among the risk factors scientific or commercial information to (NEPA). The petitioners further stated described for the Mount Grant PMU (Bi- indicate that listing of the Mono Basin that these decisions were for a variety of State Plan 2004). area sage-grouse may be warranted as a projects, including rights-of-way, road We have also evaluated the threat of result of the present or threatened construction, communication towers, energy development as presented by the destruction, modification, or power lines, gas/water/sewer pipelines, petitioners. According to the Bi-State curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or water tanks, fiber optic/telephone Plan (2004, p. 31) three sites in the Pine range due to public land development. cables, seismometer stations, irrigation Nut PMU have been authorized for facilities, monitoring wells, and a monitoring wind energy potential, not Fences, Power Lines, Roads railroad. The petition asserts that, 13 sites as presented by the petitioners. The November 2005 petition cites although the size and scope of these are The Bi-State Plan expresses concern Braun (1998) in stating that fences and considered minor by Federal about possible threats arising from power lines fragment sage-grouse management agencies, and hence their infrastructure, such as roads and power habitat, cause direct mortality, and potential environmental impacts are not lines, associated with wind energy provide perches for avian predators. The assessed under NEPA, their cumulative development in this area (Bi-State Plan petition cites a Sierra Pacific Power impact fragments and degrades 2004, p. 31). Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7– Company report (Sierra Pacific Power sagebrush habitat in the Mono Basin 43) discuss wind energy development as Company 2003) and states that area. a factor that could impact sagebrush construction of transmission lines can

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76066 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

increase weed invasion in sagebrush. threat to sage-grouse. However, this and strutting activity and that radio- The petitioners also cite a personal petition did not provide additional tagged sage-grouse lost to avian communication with F. Hall from the information beyond what was provided predation increased as the distance to Bi-State Plan (2004) which indicates in the November 2005 petition. utility lines decreased (Bi-State Plan that, in northern California, power lines The effects of fencing on sage-grouse 2004, p. 81). The Bi-State Plan (2004, had a negative effect on lek attendance include direct mortality through pp. 81–82) identifies several utility lines and strutting activity, and fewer radio- collisions, creation of predator (raptor) in the Bodie PMU that may be marked birds were lost as distance from perch sites, the potential creation of a negatively affecting sage-grouse. Land power lines increased. For the Pine Nut predator corridor along fences use plans in Bodie PMU do not predict PMU the petitioners cite the Bi-State (particularly if a road is maintained next or plan for any additional major, multi- Plan (2004) in stating that: The North to the fence), incursion of exotic species line, or high-voltage utility lines in this Pine Nut lek is bordered on two sides along the fencing corridor, and habitat PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 82). For the by power lines; strutting grounds and fragmentation (January 12, 2005, 70 FR Mount Grant PMU, the Bi-State Plan nest sites are within the hunting 2257). Power lines can directly affect (2004, p. 137) indicates that a power territory of ravens (Corvus corax) that sage-grouse by posing a collision and line fragments this PMU and that the nest on power lines; and more new electrocution hazard, and can have line provides perches for raptors. In the power lines have been requested in the indirect effects by increasing predation, South Mono PMU, transmission lines area. The petitioners also cite a BLM fragmenting habitat, and facilitating the were considered to be a risk to sage- Environmental Assessment (BLM- invasion of exotic annual plants grouse on a yearlong basis (Bi-State Plan Carson City Field Office 2004) in stating (January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2256). Impacts 2004, p. 169). The Bi-State Plan also that BLM recently authorized from roads to sage-grouse may include mentions three transmission lines that construction of a power line in the Pine direct habitat loss, direct mortality, the either are impacting sage-grouse or may Nut PMU and this area includes suitable creation of barriers to migration potentially impact them, and that future sage-grouse habitat and is within 5 corridors or seasonal habitats, providing geothermal development may result in miles of a lek. For the Desert Creek- predator travel corridors, facilitation of expansion of transmission lines in the Fales PMU, petitioners cite the Bi-State the spread of invasive plant species, and South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, Plan (2004) in stating that recent other indirect influences such as noise p. 169). The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 120) declines in this PMU may be linked to (January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2257). indicates that construction of new power line construction in the last 10 The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 28) does transmission lines may fragment years. Petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan state that in the Pine Nut PMU there are occupied or potential sage-grouse (2004) and state that in the Bodie area, power lines bordering the North Pine habitat in the White Mountains PMU. a number of power lines may be Nut lek. However, it also indicates that BLM-Bishop Field Office (undated) affecting sage-grouse, and in the South these power lines are 3.2–4.8 km (2–3 documented increased sage-grouse Mono PMU, sage-grouse are currently mi) away from active strutting grounds mortality and decreased use of leks impacted by power lines and more may (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 28) so they do when fences or power lines are built be constructed due to energy not occur in close proximity to the leks. development. The petitioners other assertions about nearby although the source of this The November 2005 petition cites a the Pine Nut PMU are accurate. The statement was a summary sheet of BLM-Bishop Field Office document BLM-Carson City Field Office did information put together for a (BLM-Bishop Field Office undated), recently authorize construction of a presentation, not a published report or which indicates that mortalities increase power line in the Pine Nut PMU as study. Fatooh et al. (undated) reported and lek use decreases when fences or stated by petitioners (BLM-Carson City that sage-grouse were displaced from power lines are built nearby. Petitioners Field Office 2004). However, sage- one lek area by fence construction. cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating grouse habitat is not present along the Fences were considered a risk to sage- that fences in the Bodie area have been power line route or in its vicinity (BLM- grouse in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU identified as a potentially significant Carson City Field Office 2004, p. 3–15) (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54) and the Bodie threat and they also cite Fatooh et al. and the closest known leks to the line PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 80). Within (undated), which reports that sage- are more than 8 km (5 mi) away (BLM- the Bodie PMU, there have been grouse in the Bodie Hills area were Carson City Field Office 2004, p. 3–20). instances where sage-grouse avoided displaced from one lek area by a fence. For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU the Bi- habitat areas following fence Regarding roads as a threat to sage- State plan concludes that power lines construction and several documented grouse, the November 2005 petition are one of several types of infrastructure cases where mortalities resulted from cites Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) in that are a risk to sage-grouse which can collisions with fences (Bi-State Plan stating that roads are an important cause impact habitat for the species (Bi-State 2004, p. 80). However, the Bi-State Plan of fragmentation and degradation of Plan 2004, p. 54). It also states that discussion of fences in the Bodie PMU Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. recent declines in the Fales population also indicated that properly designed Petitioners also cite the assessment by in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU may be and sited fences are an important Wisdom et al. (2003) in asserting that related to construction of power lines management tool that may improve human disturbances from roads and and other associated land use activities sage-grouse habitat quality, and that other activities can also exacerbate the (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). In the Bodie fencing is clearly a manageable risk (Bi- spread of cheatgrass into sagebrush PMU, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 81) State Plan 2004, p. 80). For the White ecosystems, and that disturbances such characterizes utility lines as a past, Mountains PMU, fences can potentially as road construction and use, current, and future risk that affects affect sage-grouse populations or habitat inappropriate grazing, energy multiple sites and multiple birds. Also, negatively, and construction of new development, mining, and recreational the Bodie PMU utility line discussion in fences may fragment occupied or activities can cause cheatgrass the Bi-State Plan cites a personal potential habitat for the species (Bi-State expansion. communication with F. Hall indicating Plan 2004, pp. 120, 124). In the South The December 2001 petition also cited that in northern California these lines Mono PMU, fences and other types of fences, power lines, and roads as a have a negative effect on lek attendance infrastructure are considered to be a risk

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76067

to sage-grouse and sage-grouse mortality Therefore, we conclude that there is not this loss, however, depends on the caused by collision with a fence has substantial scientific or commercial quality, amount, and type of habitat been documented (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. information to indicate that listing of disturbed; in some cases, if the type of 169). However, the South Mono PMU the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be habitat disturbed is not a limiting factor discussion also indicated that fences are warranted due to the present or for a local population, then loss of that a valuable rangeland management tool threatened destruction, modification, or habitat will not result in a population and that mitigation of potential impacts curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or decline. However, the effects of mining to sage-grouse from fences includes range due to the impacts of fences, on sage-grouse populations are not well design and placement (Bi-State Plan power lines, or roads. known (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 974). 2004, p. 169). Fences were not The petition correctly cites the Bi- Mining considered to be a risk factor for either State Plan (2004, pp. 89–90) in the Pine Nut or Mount Grant PMUs (Bi- The November 2005 petition states describing potential mineral exploration State Plan 2004). that mining directly eliminates habitat in the Bodie PMU and the associated Roads were one of several factors wherever it occurs in sagebrush steppe, impacts. However, most of the causing habitat degradation for the may poison surface water, and may discussion of mining impacts for the Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado expose wildlife to toxic chemicals. Bodie PMU relate to either effects of (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 324). Petitioners also assert that mining often past mining operations, or the potential Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 10–3) indicates requires the construction of roads, for future mining impacts should that disturbance factors, including power lines, ditches, pipelines, and mineral deposits be discovered and roads, can facilitate cheatgrass spread. slagheaps that fragment habitat. The developed (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89– For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, roads petition claims that hard-rock mining 90). The discussion for the Bodie PMU were considered to be a type of risk to for silver and gold is a prominent threat concludes that the current risk is sage-grouse for the (Bi-State Plan 2004, in the Bodie PMU, citing the Bi-State restricted to small-scale gold and silver p. 54). Roads were considered as a type Plan, stating that within this PMU: exploration and sand and gravel of disturbance in the White Mountains Mineral exploration is likely to continue extraction activities that are considered that can potentially negatively impact for the foreseeable future; recent to have minimal impacts on sage-grouse sage-grouse populations or habitat (Bi- proposals to mine for gold, silver, sand (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 90). Furthermore, State Plan 2004, p. 124), and and gravel would affect a sage-grouse although Braun (1998) indicated that construction of new roads in this PMU summer concentration near the mining and the associated infrastructure may fragment occupied or potential Panamount Mine and a lek area on Dry negatively impact sage-grouse numbers habitat for the species (Bi-State Plan Lakes Plateau; and disturbances and habitat in the short term, there is 2004, p. 120). For the South Mono PMU, associated with these activities include some recovery of populations following roads are listed as a risk factor that noise, stream sedimentation, water and initial development and subsequent affect sage-grouse habitat and soil contamination, and habitat removal reclamation of the affected sites populations (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169). (Bi-State Plan, pp. 89–90). Additionally, (although sage-grouse may not attain Roads were not presented as a specific the petitioners cite Braun (1998) in population levels present prior to risk factor for the Pine Nut, Bodie, or asserting that there is no evidence that development) (Braun 1998). Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). sage-grouse populations are able to Within the Mono Basin area, sage- Fences, power lines, and roads are reach their pre-mining numbers on grouse were impacted by past mining in present in all the PMUs that comprise reclaimed areas. The petition states that the Bodie PMU. While mining could the Mono Basin area. The presence of sage-grouse may use areas reclaimed potentially impact some sage-grouse this type of human infrastructure in from mining, but only if migration habitat in the Bodie PMU in the future, areas where sage-grouse occur may have corridors from source populations are petitioners’ claims regarding this are direct or indirect impacts to the species available (Braun 1998). Petitioners also speculative, since the potential for (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. cite problems in mineland reclamation, mining will depend largely on where 2256–2258). In the Bi-State area, power including that it is difficult to establish mineral deposits are discovered and lines and fences are considered to be a sagebrush and forbs on reclaimed areas, developed (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89– risk factor for most of the PMUs, but reclamation is expensive, invasive 90). Also, the potential impacts of future roads were not (Bi-State Plan 2004). weeds can spread on reclaimed sites, mineral development would be Although the Bi-State Plan (2004) and shrub densities on reclaimed sites influenced by factors such as new provides some direct examples of may not be adequate to support sage- technology and economic impacts to sage-grouse from fences, grouse. considerations. Furthermore, the power lines, and roads, most of what it The December 2001 petition also cited amount of suitable habitat that might be presents is the potential for impacts to mining as habitat conversion that is a involved, the number of sage-grouse that sage-grouse without providing threat to sage-grouse. However, this might be impacted, and the actual documentation that this infrastructure petition did not provide additional nature of the impacts resulting from threatens sage-grouse or specifically information beyond what was provided mining are inherently speculative at this how it is a threat and whether this in the November 2005 petition in time and would depend on local infrastructure has actually affected relation to mining and its relationship to conditions, including whether the populations. In general, we the present or threatened destruction, habitat impacted was a limiting factor acknowledge that where fences, power modification, or curtailment of the for the local sage-grouse population in lines, and roads occur in close habitat or range of sage-grouse in the that area. proximity to occupied sage-grouse Mono Basin area. Neither the petitioners, nor our files, habitat, they may impact the species. We previously have concluded that provide information on the present or However, neither the petitioners, nor surface mining for any mineral resource future extent, magnitude, or immediacy our files, provide information on the will result in direct habitat loss for sage- of mining as a threat for the Mono Basin extent or magnitude of fences, power grouse if the mining occurs in occupied area. Therefore, we conclude that there lines, and roads as a threat for sage- habitat (January 12, 2005, Federal is not substantial scientific or grouse habitat in the Mono Basin area. Register, p. 2260). The actual effect of commercial information to indicate that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76068 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

listing of the Mono Basin area sage- in areas where forbs and arthropods The December 2001 petition also cited grouse may be warranted due to the were more available, whereas in less grazing as a threat to sage-grouse. present or threatened destruction, productive habitats sage-grouse chicks However, this petition did not provide modification, or curtailment of sage- consumed 65 percent sagebrush) (Drut additional information beyond what grouse habitat or range due to mining et al. 1994). was provided in the November 2005 activities. The petitioners cite an Inyo National petition. Livestock Grazing Forest sage-grouse management plan In reviewing several of the documents (Inyo National Forest 1966) in claiming cited by the petitioners (Beck and The November 2005 petition asserts that livestock grazing was a factor in Mitchell 2000; Connelly and Braun that livestock grazing is associated with historic declines in Mono Basin area 1997; Holloran et al. 2005; Gregg and the widespread decline of sage-grouse sage-grouse populations. Petitioners also Crawford 1991; Schroeder and Baydack across their range through habitat claim that livestock grazing affects other 2001; and Call 1979), we found that the degradation, loss, and fragmentation seasonal habitats for sage-grouse. In cited materials offered a more and cites Connelly and Braun (1997) support of this claim, they cite Belsky comprehensive discussion of the threats and Webb and Salvo (2002) to support et al. (1999) in stating that livestock from grazing. For example, although this assertion. According to the damage riparian areas and associated Beck and Mitchell (2000) found more petitioners, Beck and Mitchell (2000) meadows; they cite Owens and Norton negative than positive impacts of found that there were more negative (1992) in stating that livestock eat and grazing, they concluded that indirect impacts than positive impacts of trample sagebrush; and they cite livestock grazing; negative impacts often impacts of livestock grazing have Bedunah (1992) in asserting that affect large areas, whereas positive affected sage-grouse habitat more than livestock grazing introduces and spreads grazing affects are localized; and direct impacts (Beck and Mitchell 2000, unpalatable weeds in sagebrush habitat, livestock grazing appears to affect sage- p. 997) and that presently little which reduces sage-grouse food sources. grouse productivity. information is available regarding the The petitioners cite Gregg and Further, the petition asserts that the direct impacts of grazing on sage-grouse Crawford (1991) and Holloran et al. range developments that support habitat (Beck and Mitchell 2000, p. 993). (2005) in asserting that livestock eat and livestock grazing also harm sage-grouse. Connelly and Braun (1997, p. 231–232) trample sagebrush, and the grasses and The petitioners state that fence posts stated that although excessive grazing forbs around sagebrush, which degrades provide raptor perches, and livestock during the breeding season may have or eliminates nesting habitat; and the water developments may artificially negative impacts on sage-grouse petitioners cite Gregg et al. (1994), increase sage-grouse predators or populations, there is little direct Delong et al. (1995), and Sveum et al. competitors. They cite Autenrieth evidence linking grazing practices to (1998) to state that this affects both (1981) in asserting that conversion of sage-grouse population levels and that nesting success and chick survival. The sagebrush to crested wheatgrass and more information is needed on the petitioners cite information from other livestock forage species eliminates relationship of livestock grazing to sage- multiple authors and studies in sage-grouse habitat. The petitioners cite grouse production. Additionally, asserting the following: the availability Wilkenson (2001) in stating that sage- although several authors (Holloran et al. of forbs during the pre-laying period grouse are low fliers and frequently 2005; Gregg and Crawford 1991; Gregg may affect the nutritional status of hens collide with fences used to manage et al. 1994; Delong et al. 1995; Sveum and their reproductive success (Barnett livestock. et al. 1998; 1994; Connelly et al. 1991; and Crawford 1994); herbaceous cover is The November 2005 petition claims and Wakkinen 1990) discuss the important in nest site selection that commercial livestock grazing on relationship between sagebrush grass (Connelly et al. 1991; Wakkinen 1990); public lands affects broad swaths of and herbaceous cover and nesting nest success is positively correlated sage-grouse habitat in the Mono Basin success as presented by the petitioners, with presence of big sagebrush area. The petitioners cite the Bi-State none of these studies are direct (Artemisia tridentata) and thick grass Plan (2004) in listing the number of comparisons of grazed versus non- and forb cover (Beck and Mitchell 2000; livestock allotments in the Desert Creek- grazed sites, but rather they all compare Connelly et al. 1991; Gregg et al. 1994); Fales, Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs successful to unsuccessful nest sites and herbaceous cover is important for and in stating that about 75 percent of hypothesize that grazing may negatively nesting sage-grouse for concealment, the Bodie PMU is subject to grazing. impact nesting success. Furthermore, security, and shelter from weather and They also assert that all PMUs in the Bi- neither Holloran et al. (2005) nor Gregg predators (Schroeder and Baydack 2001; State area are subject to livestock and Crawford discuss livestock eating Sveum et al. 1998); unsuitable nesting grazing. The petitioners further cite the sagebrush and trampling sagebrush or habitat may contribute to lower nesting Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that: the grasses and forbs around them as success (Connelly and Braun 1997); the enforcement of permit conditions, asserted by the petitioners. Beck and presence of livestock can cause sage- seasons of use, numbers of livestock, Mitchell (2000) did not demonstrate that grouse to abandon their nests and trespass grazing is a concern for sagebrush cover and grass or herbaceous (Rasmussen and Griner 1938; Call 1979); part of the Pine Nut PMU; riparian cover was important to nest success but consumption of forbs by livestock in habitats are being adversely impacted by rather summarized the work of other late spring and early summer may limit grazing in the White Mountains PMU; researchers. Sveum et al. (1998, p. 268) their availability for sage-grouse chicks and trespass livestock are impacting did find that sagebrush cover and tall (Call 1979); insects are an important habitat in the Mount Grant PMU. grass cover was greater for successful food source for sage-grouse chicks (Pyle Finally, the petitioners cite two Great nests than for those lost to predation, and Crawford 1991; Johnson and Boyce Basin assessments (Wisdom et al. 2003; but Schroeder and Baydack (2001) only 1990) and insects are less abundant in Rowland et al. 2003) in stating that vast discuss predation for prairie grouse degraded habitats; the availability of areas of sagebrush habitat in Nevada are species in general without providing primary foods directly affects the diets at risk of cheatgrass invasion and may specific conclusions for sage-grouse. of sage-grouse chicks (forbs and insects be sensitive to inappropriate livestock Call (1979, p. 25) cites work by comprise over 75 percent of chick diets grazing. Patterson (1950) in which livestock

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76069

presence at a site resulted in nest and Wilkinson (2001), who documents the sagebrush habitat in Nevada is on desertion and destruction, but Call sage-grouse mortalities caused by fences lands protected outright from (1979; p. 30) also states that while sheep used to manage livestock. disturbances like energy development or can cause nest abandonment, cattle are For the Mono Basin area, all the sage- inappropriate grazing, and this generally not considered to cause nest grouse PMUs are subject to livestock information is not specific to the Mono desertion. Call (1979, p. 25) indicates grazing (Bi-State Plan 2004), as stated by Basin area. that consumption of forbs by livestock petitioners. Petitioners also accurately Petitioners accurately cite a BLM in spring and summer may have an characterize the number of grazing Environmental Assessment authorizing adverse impact on young sage-grouse, allotments for the Desert Creek-Fales, livestock grazing (BLM-Bishop Field but this was not based on a comparative Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State Office 2003, pp. 22–23). However, the study of grazed versus ungrazed sites. Plan 2004, pp. 56–57, 82, and 138). The 2005 petitioners’ assessment of grazing Barnett and Crawford (1994, p. 114) petition accurately characterizes actions for BLM-Bishop Field Office documented the importance of forb concerns related to grazing for the lands is not consistent with the availability to nesting females, but as southern part of the Pine Nut PMU (Bi- characterization of grazing provided in with other studies, they did not State Plan 2004, p. 29); however, the Bi- the Bi-State Plan. Most of the land compare grazed sites to ungrazed sites State Plan indicates that public land administered by the BLM-Bishop Field to directly address grazing effects on grazing in this PMU is being managed Office occurs in the Bodie and South forb availability. in such a way that it is not known to Mono PMUs. For these two PMUs, the Both Pyle and Crawford (1991) and be impacting sage-grouse habitat at this discussions of livestock grazing in the Johnson and Boyce (1990, pp. 90–91) time (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 29). Bi-State Plan do not indicate that demonstrated that insects were Petitioners asserted that riparian livestock grazing is a major risk, or that important in the diet of young sage- habitats in general are being impacted in it is having major impacts on sage- grouse. However, Pyle and Crawford did the White Mountains PMU; whereas, grouse populations in these areas (Bi- not compare grazed to ungrazed sites, according to the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. State Plan 2004, pp. 82–85 and 175– and the results in Johnson and Boyce 122), impacts are discussed for only 176). (1990, pp. 89–91) are based on captive three specific riparian areas and there is Beck and Mitchell (2000), Connelly et birds, not a field study. Furthermore, no indication that livestock grazing is al. (2000), Connelly et al. (2004), and Johnson and Boyce (1990, p. 91) state considered to be a major risk for sage- Crawford et al. (2004) present that results from their work cannot be grouse in this PMU. For the Mount information about the effects of related directly to effects of insect Grant PMU, the petitioners assert that livestock grazing on sage-grouse, reductions on wild populations, because trespass livestock are impacting habitat including what is documented and what insect types and abundance needed for in this PMU, whereas the Bi-State Plan has not been documented. Livestock young sage-grouse to meet their (2004, p. 138) only states that there are grazing has some effects on sagebrush requirements are unknown. Drut et al. some trespass cattle present in one habitat and therefore some effects on (1994, pp. 91–92) did document that specific area. There is no indication in sage-grouse. Most of the impacts on sage sage-grouse chicks ate more forbs and the Bi-State Plan (2004, pp. 138–139) grouse appear to be indirect (Beck and insects at a site where these were more that livestock grazing is considered to be Mitchell 2000, p. 993). There is little abundant, and they consumed more a major risk for the Mount Grant PMU. direct experimental evidence linking sagebrush at another study site where Nor is livestock grazing considered to be grazing practices to sage-grouse forbs and insects were less available. a major risk for sage-grouse in the Desert population levels (Connelly et al. 2004, However, they did not directly compare Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 974). Excessive livestock grazing has grazed to ungrazed sites and only make pp. 56–57). The Bi-State Plan does negatively impacted sage-grouse habitat inferences about land use practices characterize livestock grazing as a risk by creating conditions that favor annual based on major outcomes of their work to sage-grouse for the Bodie PMU (Bi- grasses and reducing perennial grasses (Drut et al. 1994, p. 93). State Plan 2004, p. 82); however, it also used as nesting and escape cover by The sage-grouse management plan states that permitted grazing is a sage-grouse (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 12). developed for the Inyo National Forest manageable risk with current However, the specific relationship (Inyo National Forest 1966, p. 2) does management practices representing a between grazing pressure and sage- suggest that livestock grazing was a significant improvement over historic grouse nest success has not been factor in historic declines of sage-grouse use (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 85). Finally, evaluated, and more research is needed populations in Inyo and Mono Counties. for the South Mono PMU, the Bi-State to address the direct effects of livestock However, this plan is 40 years old and Plan (2004, pp. 175–176) states the grazing on the species (Crawford et al. it refers to livestock as a factor in livestock grazing occurs on public lands 2004, p. 12). historic declines in sage-grouse that in this PMU but it does not characterize Specific to the Mono Basin area, most occurred in the 20th century, and does grazing as a major risk to sage-grouse. of the land area that is grazed by not relate directly to present conditions The petition accurately characterizes livestock in the Mono Basin area is or present grazing management both the Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xiv) public land managed by BLM and USFS practices in the Mono Basin area. and Rowland et al. (2003, p. 16) under rangeland management practices The petitioners correctly cite other assessments of the Great Basin and guided by agency land use plans. works (Belsky et al. 1999; Owens and Nevada regarding the large area at risk Livestock grazing is a long-term and Norton 1992; and Bedunah 1992) that to cheatgrass displacement and historic use in the Mono Basin area, and document effects of grazing on sensitivity to inappropriate grazing. sage-grouse have persisted here over sagebrush habitat. However these However, both of these assessments time. Neither the petitioners, nor our authors only present effects of livestock were completed at a large geographic files, provide information on the present grazing on habitat and do not document area scale. Neither of these assessments or threatened extent, magnitude, or how grazing directly impacts sage- is specific to the Mono Basin area. With immediacy of livestock grazing as a grouse. Petitioners do correctly cite regard to inappropriate livestock threat for the Mono Basin area. Autenrieth (1980, p. 772) regarding grazing, the Rowland et al. (2003, p. 16) Therefore, we conclude that there is not conversion of sagebrush to grasslands assessment only states that very little of substantial scientific or commercial

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76070 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

information to indicate that listing of cheatgrass (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7– Mono PMUs, this was not found to be the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be 14). a risk factor in any of these areas (Bi- warranted due to the present or Wisdom et al. (2003, pp. 4–3 to 4–13) State Plan 2004, pp. 118, 140, 177). threatened destruction, modification, or assessed the risk of cheatgrass Non-native plants were not considered curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or displacement of native vegetation and to be a risk factor in the Desert Creek- range due to livestock grazing. presented their results for the Great Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004). Basin eco-region and then separately for Neither the petitioners, nor our files, Non-Native Species the State of Nevada. We agree with provide substantial information to The November 2005 petition states petitioners that for their Nevada document the extent or magnitude of that non-native plants are common in assessment, Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xi) the present or future threat of non- sagebrush-steppe habitat and degrade reported that 44 percent of existing native plant species for sage-grouse habitat quality for sage-grouse. The sagebrush habitat was at either a habitat in the Mono Basin area. petitioners cite the description of the moderate or high risk of displacement Therefore, we conclude that there is not impacts of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) by cheatgrass, but we also note that 56 substantial scientific or commercial invasion and other invasive plants on percent of sagebrush habitat is at low information to indicate that listing of sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse risk of displacement (Wisdom et al. the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be provided by Connelly et al. (2004). They 2003, p. xi). Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xii) warranted due to the present or also cite the Bi-State Plan in stating that also stated that for Nevada sage-grouse threatened destruction, modification, or in the Pine Nut PMU noxious weeds habitat, 14 percent was at high risk and curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or and cheatgrass are invading sagebrush another 26 percent was at moderate risk range due to non-native plant species. of cheatgrass replacement within and wet meadow sites throughout the Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment PMU. Petitioners cite Wisdom et al. Nevada, but that 60 percent of sage- The November 2005 petition cites the (2003) as reporting that 26 percent of grouse habitat in Nevada is at low risk impacts of pinyon-juniper (Pinus edulis- sage-grouse habitat in Nevada is at of being displaced by cheatgrass Juniperus spp.) encroachment described moderate risk and another 14 percent of (Wisdom et al. 2003, p. xii). by Connelly et al. (2004) on sagebrush this habitat is at high risk of cheatgrass Furthermore, the assessment stated that steppe habitat and sage-grouse. The invasion, and that 44 percent of all the amount of habitat present and its petition asserts that pinyon-juniper sagebrush habitat in Nevada currently associated threats do not directly encroachment into sagebrush habitat is faces a moderate or high risk of being correlate with population effects for a occurring throughout the Mono Basin replaced by non-native cheatgrass. The given species, and that new research is area and has widespread impacts on petitioners cite a related assessment needed to evaluate the performance of their cheatgrass risk model, including sage grouse habitat. The petition also completed by Rowland et al. (2003) in cites USFS information that the Inyo stating that sage-grouse habitat for the extensive field evaluation (Wisdom et al. 2004, p. 9–2 and 4–12). The Rowland National Forest noticed encroachment BLM-Carson City District lands, where of pinyon pine into sagebrush habitat in Mono Basin area sage-grouse occur, are et al. (2003) habitat assessment was a component of the Wisdom et al. (2003) the Crowley Lake area in 1966 (Inyo at moderate risk of displacement by National Forest 1966). For the Pine Nut cheatgrass, and 13 percent of these assessment. We note also that the assessments PMU, the petitioners cite the Bi-State lands are at high risk of displacement by conducted by Wisdom et al. (2003) and Plan (2004) in stating that many of the cheatgrass. Rowland et al. (2003) were conducted at ecological sites that support big The December 2001 petition also cited large landscape scales and do not sagebrush have been converted to invasive species as a threat to sage- provide information specific to the pinyon-juniper woodlands over the past grouse. However, this petition did not Mono Basin area. The Rowland et al. 100 years. The petition further cites the provide additional information beyond (2003) assessment provided a summary Bi-State Plan (2004) for the Pine Nut what was provided in the November for lands within BLM’s Carson City PMU in stating that: Encroachment is 2005 petition. Field Office boundary, but a large impacting potential nesting and brood We recognize that a wide variety of portion of the lands administered by habitat at multiple sites; it may also be plant species are considered invasive this Field Office do not occur within the affecting connectivity between breeding across the range of the sagebrush Mono Basin area, and consequently it is populations; and the effects of ecosystem that sage-grouse occupy not appropriate to apply these results encroachment may become permanent (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. directly to the Mono Basin area. and irreversible without active 2265). Cheatgrass is a non-native annual The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 30) states management. For the Desert Creek-Fales grass species that was introduced to that noxious weeds and cheatgrass are PMU petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan western North America and was well invading sagebrush and meadow sites (2004) in stating that pinyon-juniper established by the late 1920s (Connelly throughout the Pine Nut PMU, and that encroachment is occurring throughout et al. 2004, p. 7–14). Cheatgrass readily exotic plant species negatively affect the entire PMU and is adversely outcompetes native plant species for sage-grouse habitat quality and quantity. affecting both the habitat quality and water and nutrients, and standing dead The Bi-State Plan also identifies quantity for sage-grouse. For the Bodie cheatgrass is more flammable than cheatgrass in some sagebrush PMU they assert that Fatooh et al. native species, leading to increased fire communities in the Bodie PMU and (undated) questioned whether ‘‘pinyon intensity and frequency, which greatly states that there is some risk of habitat and juniper may be limiting potential shortens the fire return interval in areas type conversion, but it is for limited winter habitat or constraining potential where it dominates compared to native sagebrush habitats in this PMU and migration routes.’’ The petitioners also sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al. there have not been any conversions of cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating 2004, p. 7–14). The more frequent fires sagebrush habitat to non-native annual that all or portions of the other PMUs encouraged by the presence of grasslands in the Bodie PMU to date (Bi- are also affected by pinyon-juniper cheatgrass directly eliminate native State Plan 2004, p. 93). Although non- encroachment, and they cite the work of shrubs, forbs, and perennial grasses, native plants are present in the White Wisdom et al. (2003) in stating that 41 resulting in self-perpetuating stands of Mountains, Mount Grant, and South percent of Great Basin ecosystems were

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76071

at moderate or high risk of pinyon- National Forest document on the extent species. The December 2001 petition juniper invasion. or magnitude of pine encroachment in also cited military operations as a threat We agree that the work by Connelly this limited area by Crowley Lake. to sage-grouse. However, this petition et al. (2004) describes the expansion of The Bi-State Plan reports that within did not provide additional information pinyon-juniper woodlands as a threat to the Pine Nut PMU, pinyon-juniper beyond what was provided in the the sagebrush ecosystem, and encroachment is occurring and many November 2005 petition. specifically within the Great Basin big sagebrush sites have been converted We agree that the U.S. Army manages region, these woodlands have expanded to pinyon-juniper woodland (Bi-State 19,804 ha (48,936 ac) of land within the greatly in comparison to their Plan 2004, p. 20). The petition correctly Mount Grant PMU as part of its distribution over 150 years ago cites other concerns expressed for the Hawthorne Army Depot (Bi-State Plan (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–7). Potential Pine Nut PMU in the Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 127). However, the petitioner’s causes for this increase include a (2004, p. 20) as well as concerns about claim that these lands cannot be decrease in fire frequencies; climate pinyon-juniper encroachment in the considered suitable or protected habitat change; past patterns of livestock Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan because they are open to development grazing; and increases in carbon dioxide 2004, p. 39), and Bodie, White and activities that negatively impact in the atmosphere (Connelly et al. 2004, Mountains, Mount Grant, and South sage-grouse is not valid. The Bi-State p. 7–7). This expansion has resulted in Mono PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 96, Plan (2004) describes Hawthorne Army the loss of many bunchgrass and 119, 133, 167). The Bi-State Plan Depot lands in the Mount Grant PMU as sagebrush-bunchgrass communities that indicates that pinyon-juniper some of the best sage-grouse habitat formerly dominated the Intermountain encroachment is occurring to some within this PMU because of the West (January 12, 2005, Federal degree in all of the PMUs in the Mono exclusion of livestock and the public Register, p. 2266). Wisdom et al. (2003, Basin area with the greatest risk (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 149). Livestock p. 4–1 to 4–7) modeled the risk that occurring in the Pine Nut, Desert Creek- grazing has not occurred on the pinyon-juniper woodlands would Fales, and Bodie PMUs (Bi-State Plan Hawthorne Army Depot lands in the displace sagebrush habitats in the Great 2004, pp. 20, 39, 96). However, the Bi- Mount Grant PMU since the 1930s and Basin and found that nearly 60 percent State Plan does not provide military activities such as testing and of the area occupied by sagebrush was documentation of the amount of training have been fairly minor on these at low risk of replacement, 6 percent of sagebrush habitat lost to encroachment lands (Nachlinger 2003, p. 38). all sagebrush cover was at moderate in the Mono Basin area, nor does it not Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7–43) risk, and 35 percent of sagebrush cover demonstrate that pinyon-juniper summarizes impacts of military training was at high risk of replacement. encroachment has caused sage-grouse due to military exercises involving However, they also reported that new populations to decline in any of the tracked and wheeled vehicles, and fires research is needed to evaluate the PMUs. Information about the time from ordnance impacts from across the performance of their pinyon-juniper risk period over which encroachment has range of sagebrush ecosystems. model, including extensive field been ongoing is lacking, but it has been However, this assessment was evaluation, and that the amount of occurring since at least the 1960’s (Inyo generalized for all military lands within habitat and associated threats does not National Forest 1966, p. 22). the range of the sage-grouse and did not directly correlate with populations Our evaluation shows that neither the include information specific to military effects for a given species (Wisdom et al. petitions, nor our files, provide lands in the Mono Basin area. 2003, p. 4–6 and 9–2). We note also that documentation of the extent or Hawthorne Army Depot lands within the assessments by Connelly et al. magnitude of the present or future threat the Mount Grant PMU have been (2004) and Wisdom et al. (2003) were of pinyon-juniper encroachment to sage- documented to provide relatively high for large geographic areas covering grouse habitat within the Mono Basin quality habitat for sage-grouse multiple states in the range of the area. Therefore, we conclude that there (Nachlinger 2003, p. 38; Bi-State Plan species, and hence they do not provide is not substantial scientific or 2004, p. 149), and we are not aware of a specific assessment of conditions in commercial information to indicate that any other U.S. military lands elsewhere the Mono Basin area. listing of the Mono Basin area sage- in the Mono Basin area. Neither the The quote of Fatooh et al. (undated) grouse may be warranted as a result of petitioners, nor our files, provide in the petition was incomplete. Fatooh the present or threatened destruction, documentation to substantiate claims et al. (undated) actually stated that ‘‘in modification, or curtailment of sage- that military training or development on a heavy snow winter we may want to grouse habitat or range due to pinyon- military lands is a present or future note whether pinyon and juniper may juniper encroachment. threat to the habitat or range of the sage- be limiting potential winter habitat or grouse population in the Mono Basin Military Lands constraining potential migration routes’’ area. Therefore, we conclude that there (Fatooh et al., undated). Thus the The November 2005 petition states is not substantial scientific or information in Fatooh et al. is that 19,804 hectares (ha) (48,936 acres commercial information to indicate that inconclusive, as it relates to period of (ac)) of sage-grouse habitat in the Mono listing of the Mono Basin area sage- heavy winter snow and poses questions, Basin area are managed by the grouse may be warranted due to the rather than providing evidence, in Department of Defense as an army depot present or threatened destruction, relation to possible effects on potential (a facility used for storage, renovation, modification, or curtailment of sage- habitat and potential migration routes. and disposal of conventional army grouse habitat or range due to military The Inyo National Forest reported that weapons). The petitioners cite Connelly training or development of military some pinyon pine encroachment into et al. (2004) regarding impacts of lands. sagebrush has occurred (Inyo National military training and related activities Forest 1966, p. 22). However, that on sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse Water Development statement related to past conditions and and conclude that these lands cannot be The November 2005 petition states was limited to the east side of the considered suitable or protected habitat that the conversion of natural basins to Crowley Lake area. Also, there is no since they are open to development and managed watersheds for the purpose of information presented by the Inyo activities that negatively impact the providing water for agriculture and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76072 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

urban centers negatively affects extent and magnitude of this impact current extent of breeding and summer semiarid ecosystems. The petitioners would have been limited, given the sage-grouse habitat degradation also state that the City of Los Angeles small overlap in the historic range of attributable to wild horses is Department of Water and Power sage-grouse and the Elmore et al. (2003) insignificant due to low horse numbers, (LADWP) manages land in the Mono study area. Also, Elmore et al. (2003, p. and the extent of winter habitat Basin area and diverts, collects, and 454) did not find any negative response degradation due to this factor also is exports water from this area to Los of sagebrush plant communities (which insignificant because sagebrush cover is Angeles. They cite the work of Elmore sage-grouse require) to groundwater minimally affected by horse use (Bi- et al. (2003) and indicate that the pumping. Furthermore, the sagebrush State Plan 2004, p. 86). The BLM diversion, exportation, and inter-basin type in the Elmore et al. (2003, p. 447) captured and removed some wild horses transfer of water from arid environments study only comprised a minor portion of from part of the Bodie PMU in 2003 (Bi- results in adverse ecological impacts to their study area (about 4 percent of the State Plan 2004, pp. 86–87). aquatic, riparian, wetland, mesic, and area), and the nearest sage-grouse leks to Neither the petitioners, nor our files, other systems dependent on that water. the Owens Valley are at high-elevation provide substantial information to They also cite Elmore et al. (2003) in sites in the White Mountains, and document the extent, magnitude, or stating that: groundwater pumping groundwater pumping would not immediacy of present or future threats adversely affects semi-arid habitats that directly impact these birds. None of the posed by feral horses to sage-grouse are dependent on groundwater when PMU discussions in the Bi-State Plan throughout the Mono Basin area. droughts occur; that native vegetation identified groundwater pumping by Therefore, we conclude that there is not decreases during drought when LADWP as a risk to sage-grouse. substantial scientific or commercial groundwater pumping lowers water Neither the petition, nor our files, information to indicate that listing of tables; in some areas the decline in provide documentation that the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be native vegetation is followed by an groundwater pumping in the Owens warranted as a result of the present or increase in non-native weed species Valley of California is the cause of the threatened destruction, modification, or after the drought ended; and that these present or threatened destruction, curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or effects are amplified when vegetation modification, or curtailment of the range due to feral horses. habitat or range of the greater sage- communities are disturbed by other Wildfire factors such as burning, grazing, and grouse in the Mono Basin. Therefore, we The November 2005 petition states agriculture. According to the conclude that there is not substantial that wildfire is often mentioned as a petitioners, a variety of plant scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the Mono Basin area significant threat to sage-grouse. It cites communities are present in the Owens the Connelly et al. (2004) review of River Valley, including sagebrush sage-grouse may be warranted due to water development. wildfire impacts on sagebrush steppe habitat and Mono Basin sage-grouse habitats and sage-grouse. The were historically present in this area. Feral Horses petitioners also cite Wisdom et al. The petitioners cite Elmore et al. (2003) The November 2005 petition claims (2003) and state that: Wildfire often and assert that this study demonstrated that feral horses affect sage-grouse leads to cheatgrass invasion of that where LADWP has drilled wells populations at several locations in the sagebrush habitats; that the number and and pumped water, the lowered water Mono Basin area and cites the Bi-State size of wildfires across the Great Basin tables have caused a loss of native Plan (2004) in claiming they are a and Nevada have increased in the past vegetative cover within 19 percent of potentially significant risk for the 7- 20 years and this trend continues; and the valley landscape. Finally, the Troughs lek in the Bodie PMU. They that reducing the spread of cheatgrass in petitioners assert that the loss of mesic also cite the discussion of impacts from native shrublands through mitigation of and semi-arid habitats adversely affects wild horse and burros in Connelly et al. human disturbances that facilitate its sage-grouse in the Owens Valley by (2004). spread is probably the most important eliminating habitat and degrading and Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7–36—7–37) consideration in reducing the frequency, fragmenting the sagebrush habitats that stated that habitat occupied by horses intensity, and area of undesirable remain. exhibits lower grass cover, fewer shrubs, wildfires. We concur that Elmore et al. (2003) and less total vegetative cover, and that The December 2001 petition also cited demonstrated that groundwater horse alteration of spring or other mesic fire as a threat to sage-grouse. However, pumping from the Owens River Valley areas may be a concern with regard to this petition did not provide additional by LADWP impacted some native plant sage-grouse brood rearing (Connelly et information beyond what was provided communities in this area. However, the al. 2004, p. 7–37). However, these in the November 2005 petition. petitioners failed to note that only a observations were general and not We note the Connelly et al. (2004) small portion of the Owens Valley study specific to the Mono Basin area. The Bi- assessment of fire data across the range area (Elmore et al. 2003, p. 449) actually State Plan (2004, pp. 28, 86, 122, 139, of the sagebrush ecosystem and their overlaps with the Mono Basin area (in 177) included discussions on wild conclusions that the number of fires and the White Mountains PMU). They also horses for the Pine Nut, Bodie, White total area burned had increased for the fail to note that only a small portion of Mountains, Mount Grant, and South period from 1980–2003, and that fires the Owens Valley study area (Elmore et Mono PMUs. For all PMUs except are an increasingly significant al. 2003, p. 449) overlaps with the Bodie, the discussions in the Bi-State disturbance throughout much of the historic range of sage-grouse in Inyo Plan are brief and focused on one or a sagebrush ecosystem (Connelly et al. County (Hall 1995, Figure 1) or that few locations within each PMU where 2004, p. 7–6). Repeated fires in more sage-grouse are no longer present in the wild horses may be impacting sage- arid sagebrush stands have allowed area where the Elmore et al. (2003) grouse habitat. The most extensive cheatgrass to replace native shrubs and study occurred (Hall 1995, Figure 1). discussion is for the Bodie PMU (Bi- herbs with fires occurring at more Even if groundwater pumping by State Plan 2004, pp. 86–87), where there frequent intervals (Connelly et al. 2004, LADWP was a factor in the reduction of is risk of disturbance to the 7-Troughs p. 7–5). Cheatgrass recovers more sage-grouse range in Inyo County, the lek. However, for the Bodie PMU, the quickly after fire, effectively preventing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76073

the return of native sagebrush (January habitat have been lost here due to fire. to Mono Basin area sage-grouse. 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 2265). Hence, information on the extent and Connelly et al. (2004) reviewed the From a rangewide perspective, altered magnitude of wildfire is lacking for the impacts of hunting on sage-grouse fire regimes due to cheatgrass invasion Mono Basin area. Wildfires are a natural populations. Autenrieth (1981) assessed is a factor in the loss of sage-grouse part of the environment in which the hunting of sage-grouse and stated that habitat (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–5). sage-grouse has evolved and persisted. harvest rates should be more Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 10–1) conducted Due to the changes in fire regimes conservative in xeric (dry) areas close to a bioregional assessment of the Great described, wildfire remains a potential urban centers than in more mesic Basin eco-region and similarly threat to sage-grouse in the Mono Basin (moist) areas. Connelly et al. (2003) concluded that the number and size of area. However, neither the petitioners, studied sage-grouse response to hunting wildfire across this region have nor our files, provide substantial and reported that: Areas open to increased dramatically in the last 20 scientific or commercial information hunting had lower rates of increase than years, and that this trend continues. that indicates wildfire poses a did areas with no hunting; both They further concluded that reducing substantial risk of present or threatened moderate and restricted hunting seasons the spread of cheatgrass in native destruction, modification, or slowed population recovery; and shrublands, and mitigating human curtailment of the habitat or range of the populations in low elevation habitats disturbances that facilitate its spread are greater sage-grouse in the Mono Basin close to urban centers, and isolated due probably the most important area to such an extent as to indicate to habitat fragmentation, may be less considerations in reducing the listing may be warranted. able to withstand a harvest rate that frequency, intensity, and area of Summary for Factor A would not affect populations in more wildfires (Wisdom et al. 2003, p. 10–1). extensive, contiguous, remote, or mesic However, both the analysis performed Habitat loss and modification for sage- areas. The petitioners also cited Gibson by Connelly et al. (2004) and the grouse has occurred in the Mono Basin (1998), who analyzed the effect of assessment by Wisdom et al. (2003) area in the past as a result of many of hunting sage-grouse on two populations were conducted at large landscape the situations and actions described in the Mono Basin area and found that scales, and neither provides an above. However, the question being for the Long Valley area, which was evaluation of the present or potential addressed in Factor A is the present or characterized as an isolated population, future effects of wildfire on greater sage- future, not the past. Our evaluation hunting mortality could depress and grouse habitat in the Mono Basin area. (above) shows that the 2001 and 2005 hold population levels well below the petitions, and information in our files, For the Mono Basin area, the Bi-State carrying capacity. In contrast, for do not present substantial information Plan (2004) states that: wildfire is a another local population that was that indicates listing is warranted under factor that can affect the quality of contiguous with other sage-grouse local Factor A in relation to any of the sagebrush habitat for the Desert Creek- populations in Nevada, Gibson (1998) individual activities described in the Fales and South Mono PMUs; wildfire found that population level was not petitions. Further, neither the petitions is a low risk for sage-grouse in the White related to hunting mortality. The nor information in our files present Mountains PMU; and only three recent petition states that Gibson (2001) later substantial information that collectively fires have occurred in the Mount Grant concluded that: The Long Valley these actions indicate that listing is PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 53, 124, population of sage-grouse is heavily warranted under Factor A. 140, 178). The Bi-State Plan indicates impacted by hunting; changes in that some wildfires occur in the Pine In summary, we evaluated the threats population size in this area have been Nut PMU nearly every year with the cited in both petitions. We find that the driven by CDFG hunting regulations potential to remove sagebrush habitats petitions and other information in our over the past 40 years; and despite (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 26). Wildfire is files do not present substantial scientific reduced permit numbers over the past a risk to sage-grouse habitat in the Pine or commercial information indicating 10 years, this population has not Nut PMU; however, the Bi-State Plan that the petitioned action may be rebounded like it did when the season (2004, p. 26) does not provide warranted due to the present or was closed for several years each in the information on the extent or magnitude threatened destruction, modification, or 1960s and 1980s. The petition cites the of fire, or how it has impacted sage- curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or Bi-State Plan (2004) to state that for the grouse in this PMU. For the Bodie PMU, range. the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 92) indicates Bodie PMU, direct mortality of sage- B. Overutilization for Commercial, grouse from hunting is a potentially that all sagebrush habitats in the PMU Recreational, Scientific, or Educational are subject to some fire-related risk. significant risk, and that during a Purposes However, it also states that: Recent closure of the hunting season in Mono wildfire activity in the PMU is limited; The November 2005 petition asserts County the population increased but no landscape-scale fires have occurred that given the declines in sage-grouse then declined after the season was over the last 40 years and even the populations across the West, there are reopened. largest recent burns have been small; no many concerns about the possible The December 2001 petition also significant impacts to key sage-grouse impacts of continued sport hunting on identified hunting as a threat to Mono habitats have been documented; and fire this species. The petition further states Basin area sage-grouse. The December is a manageable risk (Bi-State Plan 2004, that the impacts of hunting may 2001 petition states that roads and the p. 93). disproportionately affect small and use of off-road vehicles greatly increase Rangewide, wildfires have led to the isolated populations of sage-grouse. The the level of poaching, and that hunting loss of some sage-grouse habitat. Within petitioners also claim that hunting in seasons for other upland game birds the Mono Basin area, wildfire is a the South Mono and Bodie PMUs could expose sage-grouse to mortality when potential threat to sage-grouse habitat, suppress local populations and the areas open to hunting overlap with but neither the petitioners, nor our files, jeopardize the Mono Basin area sage- sage-grouse range, as they may be provide any documentation that large grouse rangewide. The petitioners cite misidentified and shot. The petition landscape fires have occurred in this the following information to support also asserts that falconry, bird watching, area or that significant amounts of their contention that hunting is a threat and scientific study disturb or stress

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76074 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

sage-grouse. However, that petition did birds in the Mono Basin area. Casazza The December 2001 petition also not provide any additional information et al. (2005, p. 10) indicate that in two indicates that disease and parasites beyond that presented in the November years of study of radio-marked sage- could cause local declines in sage- 2005 petition that was substantial. grouse, the deaths of only 3 birds was grouse populations. The petition The effect of harvest on greater sage- attributed to handling of the birds by discusses losses in sage-grouse grouse has been assessed across the researchers. Thus, mortality related to populations due to coccidiosis. It also range of the species (Connelly et al. scientific studies of sage-grouse in the states that numerous parasites are 2004, pp. 9–1 to 9–6). Some negative Mono Basin area is negligible. associated with sage-grouse, including effects have been documented to The petitions provided information tapeworms, protozoans, and ticks. The particular populations of sage grouse, regarding the impacts of hunting for a petitioner states that other diseases such but Connelly et al. (2004, p. 9–6) limited part of the Mono Basin area. as salmonellosis, botulism, aspergillosis, conclude that no studies have However, as described above the extent avian tuberculosis, and pasturellosis demonstrated that hunting is a primary of hunting of sage-grouse in the Mono affect sage grouse. The petitioner claims cause of reduced numbers of greater Basin area is quite limited. The petitions that disease outbreaks need not kill or sage-grouse. The only known did not provide substantial information, even cause physiologic effects in assessment of hunting effects specific to nor did our files contain information, individual birds to reduce population the Mono Basin area is the analysis by indicating that the extent or magnitude viability. The petition cites Boyce (1990) Gibson (2001) for the Bodie Hills and of hunting and other potential in stating that even mild malaria Long Valley lek complexes. The overutilization factors are significant outbreaks can affect reproduction assessment by Gibson (2001) indicated threats to this sage-grouse population because male sage-grouse infected with that populations in the Long Valley area such that the requested listing action malaria attend leks significantly less were depressed by hunting for the may be warranted. frequently during the mating season. period of years examined, but the Bodie C. Disease or Predation Finally, the petition claims that the Hills populations were not. However, introduction of exotic game birds in an Gibson’s analysis covered a 45-year The November 2005 petition asserts area to provide hunting opportunities period (Gibson 1998), and CDFG has that West Nile virus is a threat to Mono carries a substantial risk of disease and significantly changed hunting seasons Basin area sage-grouse. The petitioners parasite spread to sage-grouse. for sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area cite Naugle et al. (2004) as stating ‘‘If The November 2005 petition states over this time period, as described survival in our marked sample is that there are many studies that below. representative of broader impacts of correlate predation of sage-grouse to Prior to 1983, there was no limit on West Nile virus, the virus may be an reduced and degraded habitat. The hunting permits in the Mono Basin area, important new stressor on sage-grouse petitioners cite a BLM-Bishop Field then the season was closed from 1983 to populations.’’ They further quote Office source in stating, ‘‘56% of 1986 (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 73–74). Naugle et al. (2004) as stating, ‘‘Survival monitored sage grouse leks were lost CDFG instituted a permit system in of females has been shown to be from predation in the Long Valley in 1987 when the season was re-opened, limiting in sage-grouse populations and 2003, despite a high nest initiation and issued hundreds of permits each declines due to West Nile virus rate.’’ The petition also indicates that year until 1998 when permit numbers occurred in late summer when survival poor habitat quality may have been the were reduced significantly over what typically is high.’’ Additionally they cite causative factor with regard to these they had been during the period of Naugle et al. (2004) as stating, ‘‘Of losses. Petitioners also cite work by 1987–1997 (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 74– immediate concern are the potential Casazza et al. (2005, p. 10) in stating, 75). From 1998 to the present, the consequences of West Nile virus for ‘‘recent research documented that number of hunting permits issued by small populations * * * of greater sage- predators killed 55 of 136 radio-collared CDFG has ranged from 10 to 35 per year grouse in California,’’ and ‘‘Stochastic sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area in for the two hunt units (the North Mono events such as disease exacerbate risk of 2003 and 2004.’’ Also, petitioners Hunt Area in the Bodie Hills portion of extinction due to the combined effect of quoted the Bi-State Plan as stating that the Bodie PMU, and the South Mono demographic stochasticity, ‘‘steep declines in the sage-grouse Hunt Area in the Long Valley part of the deterministic stressors, and inbreeding population for any reason. * * * could South Mono PMU) open to hunting in depression in small, fragmented render the population vulnerable to the California portion of the Mono Basin populations. Moreover, because small or predation impacts’’ (Bi-State Plan 2004, area (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 173). CDFG isolated populations generally show p. 77). has concluded that the removal of reduced genetic variation, they are less The December 2001 petition also cited individual animals from resident game likely to include individuals resistant to predation as a threat to sage-grouse. bird populations statewide (including emerging infectious disease.’’ The However, this petition did not provide sage-grouse) will not significantly petition further cites Oyler-McCance et additional information beyond what reduce those populations and will al. (2005) as stating, ‘‘Populations with was provided in the November 2005 therefore not have a significant relatively low levels of genetic diversity petition. environmental impact on resident game can suffer from inbreeding effects and West Nile virus was first diagnosed in birds (CDFG 2002, p. 7). can be more susceptible to parasitic greater sage-grouse in 2003 (January 12, Hunting (gun) has been closed in the agents and disease.’’ The petitioners cite 2005, Federal Register, p. 2269). Data Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area Casazza et al. (2005) in stating that two from four studies in the eastern half of since 1999 (Greater Sage-Grouse birds in the Bodie PMU and one in the the greater sage-grouse range (Alberta, Conservation Plan for Nevada and Desert Creek-Fales PMU have been Montana, and Wyoming) showed Eastern California 2004, p. 108). killed by West Nile virus. The petition survival in these populations declined Regarding possible effects of bird also asserts that West Nile virus could 25 percent in July and August as a result watching at leks or from scientific eliminate entire populations in the near of the West Nile virus infection (Naugle studies of sage-grouse, neither CDFG nor future because they are small and et al. 2004, p. 709). Populations of NDOW had any specific information isolated, which makes them more greater sage-grouse not affected by West about how these activities may affect susceptible to disease. Nile virus showed no similar decline.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76075

However, the Naugle et al. (2004) study et al. 2004, pp. 10–7 to 10–11). Avian The 2005 petition statement that did not include any sage-grouse from malaria has been documented to affect ‘‘steep declines in the sage-grouse the Mono Basin area, and even in the male reproductive performance on sage- population for any reason * * * could region where the Naugle et al. (2004) grouse leks (Boyce 1990, p. 265); render the population vulnerable to study was conducted, lek counts in however, the petitions and the predation impacts’’ was taken out of 2004 indicated that regional sage-grouse information available in our files do not context. The statement only applies to populations did not decline. This provide evidence that this disease the Bodie PMU and not the Bi-State area suggests that the initial effects of West affects sage-grouse populations in the as a whole (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77). Nile virus were localized (January 12, Mono Basin area. Additionally, the Bodie PMU discussion 2005, Federal Register, p. 2270) and did Regarding the introduction of exotic (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77) also stated not have a substantial effect on local game birds for state hunting programs, that predation is not known to be a populations. As cited by the petitioners, we acknowledge that it may be possible significant limiting factor in the Bodie Casazza et al. (2005, p. 10) documented for diseases carried by exotic birds to PMU, and few studies have identified the loss of three sage-grouse to West infect native sage-grouse populations. predation as primary factor limiting Nile virus in the Mono Basin area. However, neither the December 2001 sage-grouse populations elsewhere. However, this is very minor and petition, nor information available to us In summary, neither the petitioners, localized mortality and there is no in our files, provides evidence that nor our files, provide substantial information presented by the petitions, exotic game bird introductions threaten information to document the extent or nor is there information in our files, that sage-grouse populations in the Mono magnitude of the present or future threat West Nile virus is a major factor Basin area. of disease or predation to sage-grouse in contributing to mortality of sage-grouse Predation is the most commonly the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we in the Mono Basin area. identified cause of direct mortality for conclude that there is not substantial Greater sage-grouse host a variety of sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. scientific or commercial information to potentially pathogenic organisms. 14; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228). The indicate that listing of the Mono Basin However, there have been few November 2005 petition states that area sage-grouse may be warranted due systematic surveys for parasites and many studies have linked predation of to disease or predation. infectious diseases completed for greater sage-grouse to degraded habitat. This D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory sage-grouse (Connelly et al., 2004, p. relationship is confirmed by the Mechanisms 10–3). The disease coccidiosis, which is literature (Schroeder and Baydack, p. caused by the protozoan Eimeria spp., 28; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 10–2 and The November 2005 petition asserts has been documented to cause sage- 10–3). However, the petitioners’ that no plan or agreement has been grouse mortalities (Connelly et al., 2004, statement that ‘‘56 percent of monitored drafted that contains adequate p. 10–4). However, no cases of sage- sage-grouse leks were lost from regulatory mechanisms to prevent grouse mortality resulting from predation in Long Valley in 2003’’ is further decline of Mono Basin area sage- coccidiosis have been documented since inaccurate. This statement is based on a grouse and avoid listing the species. The the early 1960s (Connelly et al., 2004, p. table comparing nest initiation rates, petition discusses Candidate 10–4). Although tapeworms are known nest success, renesting success, nest Conservation Agreements (CCAs) and to parasitize sage-grouse, the grouse predation rate, and other nesting references a 2001 application by CDFG remain in good physical condition parameters from Long Valley with those to the Service to acquire funding for (Connelly et al., 2004; p. 10–5). for the Bodie Hills (BLM-Bishop Field developing a CCA for sage-grouse in Greater sage-grouse host many Office, undated). The statement in the Mono County, and asserts that the external parasites, including lice, ticks, November 2005 petition should have Service awarded the funding but the and dipterans (midges, flies, read, ‘‘56 percent of monitored sage- CCA was not developed. mosquitoes, and keds) (Connelly et al., grouse nests were lost from predation in The November 2005 petition 2004, pp. 10–6 to 10–7). Some studies Long Valley in 2003.’’ This translates to discusses the Bi-State Plan (2004) and have suggested that lice infestations can a nest success of 44 percent for acknowledges it is a component of the affect sage-grouse mate selection (Boyce monitored nests in Long Valley, which Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan 1990, p. 266), but they have not been is well within the range of nest success for the Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada shown to significantly affect the status from across the range of the species, and Eastern California. Petitioners of sage-grouse populations (Connelly et 14.5 to 86.1 percent, as summarized for reference the six goals and objectives of al. 2004, p. 10–6). Connelly et al. (2004, a variety of studies in a variety of states the Bi-State Plan (2004) and indicate p. 10–7) stated that the presence of ticks and one province by Connelly et al. they are an excellent starting point but is not a threat to sage-grouse (2004, p. 3–21). that the Bi-State Plan will not meet populations. Annual mortality of breeding-age them. The petitioners contend that the A variety of bacterial, fungal, and sage-grouse varies from 55 to 75 percent Bi-State Plan (2004) only seeks to viral diseases are known to infect for females and 38 to 60 percent for maintain current populations of sage- greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. males (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. grouse in the Bi-State planning area and 2004, p. 10–7). However, in relation to 25); therefore the statement in the that there is no discussion of restoring the diseases cited by the 2001 petition, November 2005 petition ‘‘that predators historic sage-grouse numbers or habitat salmonellosis is not an important killed 55 of 136 radio-collared sage- in the area. disease of wild birds, botulism is not grouse in the Mono Basin area in 2003 The 2005 petition cites the Policy for considered a significant threat because and 2004,’’ although accurate (Casazza Evaluation of Conservation Efforts the potential for exposure is low, there et al. 2005, p. 10), is misleading. Similar When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) is no evidence to suggest that to the nest success rate for Long Valley, (March 28, 2003, 68 FR 15100) and lists aspergillosis plays a significant role in the loss of approximately 40 percent of the criteria under the policy regarding sage-grouse ecology, and avian the radio-collared sage-grouse to the certainty that a conservation effort tuberculosis has not been documented predators is well within the normal will be implemented and the certainty in sage-grouse and thus is not range of annual mortality for the that the conservation effort will be considered a significant threat (Connelly species. effective. According to the petitioners,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76076 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

the Bi-State Plan (2004) does not and concluded that BLM has seriously the Bi-State Plan does not prescribe contain adequate regulatory mismanaged public lands; that BLM restoring historic sage-grouse numbers mechanisms that meet PECE policy does not adequately monitor, plan, or or range does not mean the Plan is criteria to avoid listing the Mono Basin measure sage-grouse populations or inadequate, nor does it mean that area sage-grouse under the ESA. They habitat needed to restore the species; existing regulatory mechanisms are further contend that the Bi-State Plan’s and that the Service cannot rely on BLM inadequate. (2004) management prescriptions are to follow Federal environmental laws to We agree that the recommended voluntary, dependent on the conserve sage-grouse. This petition also actions in the Bi-State Plan are cooperation and participation of provided a review of management on voluntary and depend on the interested parties and agencies, and may USFS lands and concluded that the cooperation and participation of be altered or abandoned at any time. agency is not giving adequate attention interested parties and agencies, and that Also, there is no penalty for non- to sage-grouse on National Forests or the Bi-State Plan does not include any compliance with the Plan and no National Grasslands. Management of a prohibitions against actions that harm prohibition against activity that will National Guard training area, sage-grouse or their habitat. The Service harm sage-grouse or their habitat. The Department of Energy lands, and did review the Bi-State Plan as part of petitioners contend that the Service National Park Service lands were also our rangewide status review for greater cannot rely on voluntary conservation included in the petition, which found sage-grouse (January 12, 2005, 70 FR efforts, or on the promise of future shortcomings in the management of all 2244). In that review, we evaluated conservation efforts, by Federal and these federal lands with regard to sage- formalized conservation efforts that State agencies and private parties to grouse. The petitioner also reviewed have not been implemented or have not delay listing the Mono Basin area sage- management of sage-grouse by the demonstrated effectiveness, to grouse under the ESA. From their Service and asserts that the Service has determine if they met the standard in review of the Bi-State Plan (2004), the mismanaged both its ESA duties, PECE. In accordance with PECE, a petitioners conclude that often action including listing responsibilities, and conservation effort can contribute to a items were not included to address the lands in the National Wildlife determination that listing is not risks, that the action items are voluntary Refuge System. The petition also asserts necessary if it is found to be sufficiently and lack funding to complete, that that management of the Conservation certain to be implemented and effective regulatory mechanisms are lacking, and Reserve Program (CRP) of the U.S. so as to have contributed to the that often the actions identified do not Department of Agriculture has failed to elimination or adequate reduction of conserve sage-grouse. halt severe declines in sage-grouse one or more threats to the species. The petitioners cite a Service review populations to date. (March 28, 2003, Federal Register, p. of the Bi-State Plan (USFWS 2004) in At the State level, the petition 15111). The petition correctly states that which we evaluated the conservation assessed management of sage-grouse by the Service found that 1 of 30 measures proposed in the Plan pursuant the States and asserts they have a poor conservation efforts included in the Bi- to PECE. In citing that review, record of conserving the species. State Plan fully met standard in PECE petitioners state the Service found that Regarding State management, the (USFWS 2004, p. 4). This does not, 1 of the 30 individual conservation petition cites the general lack of however, mean that regulatory efforts in the Bi-State Plan fully meets conservation plans for sage-grouse and mechanisms are inadequate. The fact PECE and the other 29 do not. indicates that those which have been that conservation efforts in the plan are Petitioners conclude that if the Bi-State completed are not regulatory voluntary does not mean that further Plan (2004) does not meet the Service’s mechanisms in any sense and do not regulatory mechanisms are necessary to PECE policy (March 28, 2003, 68 FR assure funding for conservation actions. conserve the sage-grouse in the Mono 15100), then adequate regulatory Finally, the petition provided an Basin area, nor does it mean that the mechanisms are not in place to conserve assessment of management by private actions it recommends to conserve sage- the sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. parties and concluded that, aside from grouse will fail to be implemented and Finally, the 2005 petition references hunting seasons, there are no regulatory effective. Further, PECE applies to the BLM-Bishop Field Office Resource mechanisms to protect sage-grouse on determining that a conservation effort(s) Management Plan (BLM-Bishop Field private lands. is sufficiently certain to be implemented Office 1993) and asserts that sage-grouse We concur that the Service did and effective so as to have contributed have continued to struggle since the provide funding to CDFG for to the elimination or adequate reduction Resource Management Plan was development of a CCA for sage-grouse in of one or more threats to the species adopted in 1993. The petitioners suggest Mono County, and to our knowledge identified through the threats analysis that a possible reason for suppressed this CCA has not yet been completed. (March 28, 2003, Federal Register, p. sage-grouse populations is the small However, a CCA is not essential to 15115); PECE is not applicable when management buffers recommended by providing adequate regulatory such threats are not documented to the Resource Management Plan for mechanisms. Regarding the Bi-State exist. certain activities within 0.4 to 0.5 km Plan (2004), we agree that it is focused In regard to the BLM-Bishop Resource (0.25 to 0.33 mi) of active leks. on maintaining existing breeding Management Plan, although the The 2001 petition contends that population in the Bi-State area (Bi-State petitioners assert that management existing regulatory mechanisms are Plan 2004, p. 186). However, there is no buffers and seasonal restrictions that virtually non-existent and existing apparent need to return sage-grouse BLM imposes on land use activities are management is inadequate to conserve populations and habitat in the Mono insufficient to conserve sage-grouse, the sage-grouse. This petition contends Basin area to historic levels in order to they do not provide information that that Federal laws such as NEPA, preclude the need for listing the species documents how this impacts sage- National Forest Management Act, as threatened or endangered. When grouse. We note also that BLM resource Federal Lands Policy and Management populations and habitat are at less than management plans are guided by Act, and others do not provide for sage- historic levels, it does not mean a direction in the Federal Land Policy and grouse conservation. The petitioner also species is threatened or endangered as Management Act (FLPMA) and reviewed management on BLM lands defined by the Act. Thus, the fact that associated regulations, BLM’s Special

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76077

Status Species Management Policy, the the inadequacy of existing regulatory vehicles (January 12, 2005, Federal National BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat mechanisms is presently a threat to Register, p. 2278). Off-road vehicle use Conservation Strategy, and Regulations Mono Basin area sage-grouse such that could have indirect impacts to sage- on Grazing Administration Exclusive of the petitioned action may be warranted. grouse habitat; this type of activity Alaska (January 12, 2006, FR p. 2272– E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors generally is known to reduce sagebrush 2274. canopy cover through repeated trips in The 2001 petition provides many Affecting the Species’ Continued Existence an area, increased sediment production, citations to support the petitioners’ and decreased soil infiltration rates contention that existing regulatory Off-Road Vehicle Use (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. mechanisms are inadequate and The November 2005 petition states 2278). threaten Mono Basin area sage-grouse. that off-road vehicles are a threat to a We cannot validate the substantiality of The Bi-State Plan discusses off-road number of sage-grouse populations in the petitioners’ claims concerning the vehicles as a risk factor in the Pine Nut the Mono Basin area. Regarding the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms PMU and the Mount Grant PMU (Bi- Bodie PMU, the petition quotes the Bi- because the petitioners did not provide State Plan 2004, p. 27 and pp. 137–138, State Plan (2004) as stating that copies of these citations and thus we respectively). However, for the Bodie cannot verify the quality and validity of ‘‘population impacts of motorized and South Mono PMUs, the Bi-State the citations, whether the information recreation include disturbance, Plan (2004, pp. 91–92 and pp. 170–171 was cited correctly, or whether the displacement, and direct mortality from respectively) discusses off-road vehicles information directly relates to the status vehicle collisions’’ and that recreation in the context of all types of recreational of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. in this PMU ‘‘is characterized as a past, activities (motorized and non- We note that most of the information in current, and future risk to multiple birds motorized). For the Pine Nut PMU, the the petition regarding this factor is not and multiple sites.’’ It also cites the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 24) indicates specific to the Mono Basin area. South Mono PMU section of the Bi-State concerns about unrestricted road access, Specifically, most of the discussion in Plan (2004) in stating that recreational including increased human presence in the 2001 petition regarding BLM and activities are affecting multiple birds on critical habitats in critical times of the multiple sites year round and increased USFS lands was not specific to the year, disruption of daily activities for urbanization threatens to increase this Mono Basin area. Further, there are no individual birds and broods, and risk. Petitioners also quote a portion of National Guard training areas in the existing law enforcement limitations. the Pine Nut PMU section of the Bi- Mono Basin area, and the only U.S. The Pine Nut PMU section of the Bi- State Plan (2004), which states that Department of Defense lands in the area State Plan also mentions off-road ‘‘unrestricted road access throughout are the Hawthorne Army Depot, an area vehicle races, which could impact the Pine Nut PMU provides the that provides some of the best remaining individual and multiple birds by direct potential for increased human presence habitat for sage-grouse, as discussed mortality or disturbance (Bi-State Plan in critical habitats during critical times above. There are no National Parks or 2004, p. 27). However, the Bi-State Plan of the year,’’ and ‘‘people particularly National Wildlife Refuges in any of the (2004, p. 27) does not indicate that this affect nesting, early brood, and late PMUs in the Mono Basin area, and we is a major risk for the Pine Nut PMU. are unaware of any private lands in the brood habitat during spring through fall where critical habitats are easily The off-road vehicle discussion for the area that are enrolled in the CRP Mount Grant PMU states that off-road program. Thus, none of the assertions in accessed by vehicles [and] increased human presence disrupts daily activities vehicle use is restricted to designated the 2001 petition regarding these lands routes within this PMU, minimizing any are relevant. The 2001 petition for individual birds and broods.’’ The petition also asserts that another threat risks to birds in this PMU. However, the indicated that California and Nevada Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 137) continues to had not yet completed conservation in the Pine Nut PMU is an off-road state that some off-road vehicle use is on plans for sage-grouse, but this is no vehicle race that goes through sage- undesignated routes within the Mount longer the case for the Mono Basin area, grouse brood habitat and affects birds by Grant PMU, causing damage to due to completion of the Greater Sage- direct mortality or by disturbances that meadows that provide potential habitat Grouse Conservation Plan for the Bi- break up broods and cause chick for sage-grouse. For the Bodie PMU, the State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern mortality. Finally, the petitioners cite California and its component, the Bi- Robertson and Bushman (2001) in Bi-State Plan considered population State Plan (2004). asserting that BLM is currently impacts of motorized recreation, As discussed under Factor B, above, considering recommendations to including disturbance, displacement, there are only two areas where sage- develop new off-road facilities within and direct mortality (Bi-State Plan 2004, grouse are hunted in the Mono Basin sage-grouse habitat. p. 91), but the statement that recreation area and the harvest of birds in these The December 2001 petition also cited is a past, current, and future risk to areas is closely regulated by CDFG such off road vehicles as a threat to sage- multiple birds and multiple sites refers that it has determined that there is no grouse. However, this petition did not to all types of recreation, not just off- significant environmental impact on provide additional information beyond road vehicles (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 91). this game bird (CDFG 2002, p. 7). Also, what was provided in the November The Bi-State Plan states that the 89 percent of the lands in the Mono 2005 petition. prospect of increased motorized Basin area are public lands managed by We are not aware of any published recreational use is a concern, but it does BLM and USFS under federal laws such studies concerning recreational effects not indicate that this factor is a major as FLPMA, the National Forest on sage-grouse, although recreation threat to sage-grouse in the Bodie PMU Management Act, and NEPA, along with could disturb sage-grouse on leks and in (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 92). In the South other related agency policies (January nesting areas (January 12, 2005, Federal Mono PMU, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. 2272– Register, p. 2278). Also, we are not 170) states that recreational activities 2276). Neither the petitions, nor our aware of any scientific reports that are affecting multiple birds on multiple files, provide substantial scientific or document direct mortality of sage- sites year round, but this statement commercial information indicating that grouse through collision with off-road refers to all types of recreational

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76078 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

activities combined, not just off-road Plan includes human disturbance as a environmental variation, habitat vehicle use alone. risk factor for sage-grouse, stating that recovery time, and genetic introgression. Robertson and Bushman (2001) some sage-grouse habitats in this PMU The December 2001 petition cited provide limited recommendations to are accessible for public recreation year numerous sources to support the BLM for managing existing recreational round or are adjacent to recently contention that these other threats pose uses (motorized and non-motorized) in developed housing areas, but it does not a threat to Mono Basin sage-grouse. The the wildland urban interface zone east indicate this is a major threat to sage- information cited is generic in nature of Carson City, Minden, and grouse in this PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, and was not specific to sage-grouse or Gardnerville, including improvements p. 51). Neither the petitions, nor our not specific to the Mono Basin or Mono at existing staging areas, creation of new files, present information that Basin sage-grouse. The petitioner did staging areas, and improving documents the extent, magnitude, or not provide copies of these citations and management of existing recreational immediacy of human disturbance as a hence we cannot validate the activities at access points to Federal threat to sage-grouse for the Mono Basin substantiality of the petitioner’s claims land that are already being used. We do area. Therefore, we conclude that there regarding these threats, nor do our files not know whether BLM has is not substantial scientific or contain information to validate any of implemented the recommendations in commercial information to indicate that the other threats cited by the petitioner. the report. Using Robertson and listing of the Mono Basin area sage- We cannot verify the quality and Bushman (2001), we mapped the grouse may be warranted due to human validity of the citations, or whether the locations of the recreational areas disturbance. information was correctly cited. These described in the report. While there may other threats cited by the petition are be some sagebrush habitat associated Insecticides speculative in nature. The 2001 petition with these recreational areas, the The November 2005 petition lists does not provide information that majority (80 percent) of the known lek insecticides as a factor affecting sage- documents the extent, magnitude, or areas in the Pine Nut PMU are at least grouse habitat in the Mono Basin area. immediacy of these other threats on 17.6 km (11 mi) east of these areas, and The petitioners cite Beck and Mitchell sage-grouse throughout the Mono Basin the other few remaining leks in this (2000) as recommending against area. PMU are a minimum of 11.2 km (7 mi) application of insecticides to sage- In summary, neither the petition nor southeast of these areas. Hence, sage- grouse summer habitat, a Johnson and our files contain substantial scientific or grouse do not currently use sagebrush Boyce (1990) finding that insects are commercial information that indicating habitat in the near vicinity of the essential to chick development and that other natural or man-made factors recreation areas discussed in Robertson they are required by chicks of all ages threaten the sage-grouse population in and Bushman (2001). for normal development, and a report by the Mono Basin area such that the In summary, the Bi-State Plan (2004) Blus et al. (1989) that in southeastern petitioned action may be warranted. discusses the effects of recreational Idaho there was a sage-grouse die-off activities and off-road vehicles. Most of Finding after organophosphorus insecticides the discussions in the Bi-State Plan We reviewed the petitions and were applied to cultivated crops. relate to only the potential for off-road supporting information provided by the vehicles to disturb, disrupt, or cause None of the studies cited by the petitioners and evaluated that mortalities to sage-grouse, with petitioners are specific to the Mono information to determine whether the relatively few specific examples of Basin area. In the Bi-State Plan the only sources cited in the petitions support impacts to the species in the area, and mention of this as a threat factor was for the claims made in the petitions. Based all of these examples involved indirect the White Mountains PMU risk on this review and evaluation, we find effects. Neither the petitions, nor our assessment, which indicates that the petitions do not present substantial files, provided information that accidental exposure to pesticides and scientific or commercial information documents the extent, magnitude, or herbicides can kill sage-grouse, but that that listing the Mono Basin area sage- immediacy of the threat of off-road these compounds are not generally used grouse as threatened or endangered may vehicles to sage-grouse, or their habitat, in this area because the human be warranted at this time. We note that within the Mono Basin area. Therefore, population and agricultural activities in making this finding we did not use we conclude that there is not substantial are limited (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 112). any of the new information received scientific or commercial information to Neither the petitions, nor our files, from the States or USGS–BRD indicate that listing of the Mono Basin provide any specific information about subsequent to our receipt of the 2005 area sage-grouse may be warranted due how insecticides impact sage-grouse in petition; if we had used that new to the present or threatened effects to the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we information, we would have reached the Mono Basin area sage-grouse, or their conclude that there is not substantial same conclusion. We encourage habitat, due to off-road vehicle use. scientific or commercial information to interested parties to continue gathering indicate that listing Mono Basin area data that will assist with the Human Disturbance sage-grouse may be warranted due to conservation and monitoring of sage- The November 2005 petition cites the insecticide use. grouse in the Mono Basin area. Bi-State Plan (2004) in asserting that Other Threats Information regarding the Mono Basin human disturbance is affecting multiple area sage-grouse may be submitted to birds on multiple sites in the Desert The December 2001 petition cited the Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Creek-Fales PMU. other threats to sage-grouse in the Mono Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section), Other than citing the Bi-State Plan Basin area, including: Noise, acoustic at any time. (2004) with regard to the Desert Creek- interference, disturbance, oil and gas Fales PMU, the November 2005 petition operations, weather effects, climate References Cited does not specify the types of human change and global warming, ozone layer A complete list of all references cited disturbances that affect sage-grouse or depletion, air pollution, acid herein is available upon request from the extent of the impacts. The Desert precipitation, effects of chemical and the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see Creek-Fales PMU part of the Bi-State radiological agents, natural factors and ADDRESSES).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76079

Author Authority Dated: December 7, 2006. The primary author of this notice is Kenneth Stansell, The authority for this action is the Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. Kevin Kritz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Act of 1973, as [FR Doc. E6–21135 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Office (see ADDRESSES). BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM 19DEP3 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Part V

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 6 Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76082 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION • Fax: 202–564–0072, Attention: Docket Center homepage at http:// AGENCY Robert Hargrove. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. • Mail: EPA–HQ–OECA–2005–0062, Docket: All documents in the docket 40 CFR Part 6 Environmental Protection Agency, EPA are listed in the http:// Docket Center (EPA/DC), Enforcement www.regulations.gov index. Although [EPA–HQ–OECA–2005–0062; FRL–8257–1] and Compliance Docket and Information listed in the index, some information is RIN 2020–AA42 Center, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, information whose disclosure is Procedures for Implementing the DC 20460. In addition, please mail a restricted by statute. Certain other National Environmental Policy Act and copy of your comments on the material, such as copyrighted material, Assessing the Environmental Effects information collection provisions to the will be publicly available only in hard Abroad of EPA Actions Office of Information and Regulatory copy form. Publicly available docket Affairs, Office of Management and materials are available either AGENCY: Environmental Protection Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for electronically in http:// Agency (EPA). EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at ACTION: Proposed rule. DC 20503. the Public Reading Room, Room B102, • Hand Delivery: Public Reading Enforcement and Compliance Docket SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Room, Room B102, Enforcement and and Information Center, EPA West Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing Compliance Docket and Information Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, amendments to its procedures for Center, EPA West Building, 1301 NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public implementing the requirements of the Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to National Environmental Policy Act of DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 1969 (NEPA). This proposed rule also accepted during the Docket’s normal excluding legal holidays. The telephone includes minor, technical amendments hours of operation, and special number for the Public Reading Room is to the Agency’s procedures for arrangements should be made for (202) 566–1744, and the telephone implementing Executive Order 12114, deliveries of boxed information. number for the OECA Docket is (202) ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 566–1752. Federal Actions.’’ Instructions: Direct your comments to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. This proposed rule would amend Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2005– 0062. EPA’s policy is that all comments Robert Hargrove; NEPA Compliance EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures Division; Office of Federal Activities by: consolidating and standardizing the received will be included in the public docket without change and may be (Mailcode 2252A); Environmental procedural provisions and requirements Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania of the Agency’s environmental review made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; process under NEPA; clarifying the telephone (202) 564–7157; fax number: general procedures associated with personal information provided, unless the comment includes information (202) 564–0072; e-mail address: categorical exclusions, consolidating the [email protected]. categories of actions subject to claimed to be Confidential Business categorical exclusion, amending existing Information (CBI) or other information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This and adding new categorical exclusions, whose disclosure is restricted by statute. preamble is organized according to the and consolidating and amending Do not submit information that you following outline: consider to be CBI or otherwise existing and adding new extraordinary I. General Information circumstances; consolidating and protected through http:// A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me? amending the listing of actions that www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments generally require an environmental http://www.regulations.gov Web site is II. Introduction impact statement; clarifying the an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which A. Statutory authority means EPA will not know your identity B. Background procedural requirements for C. Exemptions From NEPA for Certain EPA consideration of applicable or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Actions environmental review laws and D. EPA’s Voluntary NEPA Policy and executive orders; and incorporating If you send an e-mail comment directly Procedures other proposed revisions consistent to EPA without going through http:// III. Purpose and Policy with the Council on Environmental www.regulations.gov, your e-mail IV. Proposed Changes to the Regulations and Quality’s regulations (CEQ’s address will be automatically captured Objectives of These Proposed Changes Regulations). and included as part of the comment A. Proposed Revision to the Title for EPA’s that is placed in the public docket and Regulations at Part 6 DATES: Comments must be received on made available on the Internet. If you B. Restructuring and Standardizing EPA’s or before February 20, 2007. Under the submit an electronic comment, EPA NEPA Implementing Regulations Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on recommends that you include your 1. Consolidate and Standardize the the information collection provisions Procedural Provisions and Requirements name and other contact information in of the Agency’s Environmental Review must be received by the Office of the body of your comment and with any Process Under NEPA Management and Budget (OMB) on or disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 2. Clarify the General Procedures before January 18, 2007. cannot read your comment due to Associated With Categorical Exclusions; ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, technical difficulties and cannot contact Consolidate the Categories of Actions identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– you for clarification, EPA may not be Subject to Categorical Exclusion; Amend OECA–2005–0062, by one of the able to consider your comment. Existing and Add New Categorical following methods: Electronic files should avoid the use of Exclusions; and Consolidate and Amend • Existing and Add New Extraordinary http://www.regulations.gov: Follow special characters, any form of Circumstances the on-line instructions for submitting encryption, and be free of any defects or 3. Consolidate and Amend the Listing of comments. viruses. For additional information Actions that Generally Require an • E-mail: [email protected]. about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Environmental Impact Statement

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76083

4. Clarify the Procedural Requirements for require those defined in the proposed note, E.O. 12114, 44 FR 1979, 3 CFR Consideration of Applicable regulations as applicants (that is, grant 1979, Comp., p. 356). EPA actions Environmental Review Laws and and permit applicants) to provide typically subject to Executive Order Executive Orders environmental information for EPA’s 5. Other Proposed Revisions Consistent 12114 include major EPA actions that With the CEQ Regulations use in its environmental review process. affect the environment of a foreign C. Proposed amendments to EPA’s Currently, EPA’s NEPA implementing nation or the global commons and may Procedures for Implementing Executive regulations apply, by subpart, to specific include: major research or Order 12114 types of EPA proposed actions. For demonstration projects, ocean dumping 1. Amendment to Re-Designate the Subpart example, Subpart E applies to the award activities carried out under section 102 for EPA’s Procedures Implementing of wastewater treatment construction of the Marine Protection, Research, and Executive Order 12114 grants under Title II of the Clean Water Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), 2. Amendments to Update Office Names Act, and Subpart F applies to EPA’s and major permitting or licensing of and Titles environmental review process for 3. Amendment to Reference in the facilities by EPA (such as EPA-issued Executive Order 12114 Implementing issuance of new source National permits for hazardous waste treatment, Procedures to EPA’s Voluntary NEPA Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storage, or disposal facilities under Policy (NPDES) permits. The proposed section 3005 of the Resource 4. Amendment to Reference in the regulations would consolidate and Conservation and Recovery Act (42 Executive Order 12114 Implementing standardize the environmental review U.S.C. 6925), National Pollutant Procedures to EPA’s NEPA process applicable to all EPA proposed Discharge Elimination System permits Implementing Procedures actions subject to NEPA, including 5. Amendments for Correction of Cross- under section 402 of the Clean Water those actions now specifically Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), and prevention of References and Typographical Errors addressed in the current regulations and V. Proposed Amended and New Categories of significant deterioration approvals Actions Eligible for Categorical other actions subject to NEPA but not under Part C of the Clean Air Act (42 Exclusion; Amended and New specifically addressed in the current U.S.C. 7470 et seq.). Extraordinary Circumstances; and regulations (e.g., certain EPA grant To determine whether your project Amended Listing of Actions That awards for special projects identified in would be subject to these procedures, Generally Require an Environmental the State and Tribal Assistance Grants you should carefully examine the Impact Statement (STAG) account authorized by Congress applicability criteria in § 6.101 and VI. Administrative Requirements through the Agency’s annual Subpart C of the NEPA implementing A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Appropriations Act, including grants for procedures, and § 6.401 of the Executive Planning and Review the Border Environmental Cooperation B. Paperwork Reduction Act Order 12114 implementing procedures Commission/Border Environmental C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in this proposed rule. If you have Infrastructure Fund and Colonias grant D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act questions regarding the applicability of projects). As with EPA’s current E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism these procedures to a particular entity, F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation regulations, the proposed regulations consult the person listed in the and Coordination With Indian Tribal would supplement and be used in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Governments conjunction with the government-wide preceding G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Council on Environmental Quality CONTACT section of this Preamble. Children From Environmental Health (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40 CFR Parts B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments Risks and Safety Risks 1500–1508). H. Executive Order 13211: Actions For additional information of interest When submitting comments, Concerning Regulations That remember to: Significantly Affect Energy Supply, to applicants, please see Preamble Distribution and Use IV.B.5, ‘‘Other proposed revisions (a) Identify the rulemaking by docket I. National Technology Transfer and consistent with the CEQ Regulations. number and other identifying Advancement Act This section provides further information (subject heading, Federal J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions information on proposed revisions that Register date and page number). to Address Environmental Justice in apply to applicants. (b) Follow directions for commenting Minority Populations and Low-Income EPA’s Procedures for Implementing according to the ADDRESSES section of Populations Executive Order 12114. As with EPA’s this Preamble. I. General Information current Executive Order 12114 (c) Explain why you agree or disagree; implementing procedures, compliance suggest alternatives and substitute A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to with these procedures would be the Me? language for your requested changes. responsibility of EPA’s Responsible (d) Describe any assumptions and Those subject to the proposed rule Officials. As with the current provide any technical information and/ include EPA employees who must procedures, for applicant-proposed or data that you used. comply with NEPA or Executive Order actions, applicants may be required to (e) If you estimate potential costs or 12114, and certain grant and permit provide environmental information for burdens, explain how you arrived at applicants who must submit EPA’s use in its environmental review your estimate in sufficient detail to environmental information process. EPA’s Executive Order 12114 allow for it to be reproduced. documentation to EPA for their implementing procedures ensure that proposed projects. environmental information is available (f) Provide specific examples to EPA’s Procedures for Implementing to the Agency’s decision-makers and illustrate your concerns, and suggest NEPA. As with EPA’s current NEPA other appropriate Federal agencies and alternatives. implementing regulations, compliance officials for proposed actions subject to (g) Explain your views as clearly as with the proposed regulations would be Executive Order 12114. possible, avoiding the use of profanity the responsibility of EPA’s Responsible Today’s proposed rule also includes or personal threats. Officials. For applicant-proposed minor, technical amendments to the (h) Make sure to submit your actions, certain procedures in the Agency’s procedures for implementing comments by the comment period proposed NEPA regulations would Executive Order 12114 (42 U.S.C. 4321, deadline identified.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76084 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

II. Introduction certain executive orders with the and building wastewater treatment environmental review procedures. It facilities. The amendments to Subpart E A. Statutory Authority provided a brief recitation of the and related sections of the EPA NEPA The National Environmental Policy provisions of those laws or executive regulations streamlined and clarified the Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321– orders and EPA implementing criteria and process for an 4347, establishes the federal procedures. Subpart D described the environmental review and for preparing government’s national policy for public information requirements to be an EIS, including partitioning of the protection of the environment. The undertaken in conjunction with the review process and the public Council on Environmental Quality environmental review requirements involvement requirements. These Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 under Subparts E through I. Subparts E amendments also included Office name CFR parts 1500 through 1508 establish through I established specific criteria for and technical changes to reflect an procedures implementing this national conducting environmental reviews for Agency reorganization. policy. The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR particular types of actions and In 1986, EPA amended its Part 6 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt categorical exclusions applicable to NEPA regulations to clarify and and, as needed, revise their own NEPA those actions. Specifically, Subpart E streamline procedures for partitioning implementing procedures to established NEPA environmental review and re-evaluating environmental supplement the CEQ Regulations and to procedures for the Wastewater reviews, making categorical exclusion ensure their decision-making processes Treatment Construction Grants Program determinations, providing for public are consistent with NEPA. of the Clean Water Act; Subpart F for participation, and producing and Executive Order 12114, the issuance of new source NPDES distributing environmental review ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major permits; Subpart G for research and documents; and to make various Federal Actions,’’ (see 46 FR 3364) is development program actions; Subpart technical changes including Office the authority and basis for EPA’s policy, H for solid waste demonstration name changes due to reorganizations. criteria, and procedures contained in projects; and Subpart I for EPA actions In 1991, EPA amended Subpart G of the portion of today’s proposed rule for construction of special purpose its Part 6 NEPA regulations by adding entitled ‘‘Assessing the Environmental facilities or facility renovations. EPA’s categorical exclusions and a list of Effects Abroad of EPA Actions.’’ ‘‘Statement of Procedures on Floodplain projects that normally result in B. Background Management and Wetlands Protection,’’ preparation of EAs; revising the criteria dated January 5, 1979, was included as used to determine whether preparation The Environmental Protection Agency Appendix A to clarify the effective date of an EIS is required; revising the initially established its NEPA and to emphasize the importance of this provision directing coordination, where regulations as 40 CFR Part 6 (Part 6), Statement of Procedures. feasible, with other EPA program Subparts A through H on April 14, 1975 In 1981, Subpart J, ‘‘Assessing the reviews; and clarifying the NEPA review (see 40 FR 16823). Subpart I was added Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA process for Office of Research and on January 11, 1977 (see 42 FR 2450). Actions,’’ was added as EPA’s general Development actions (see 56 FR 20541). On November 29, 1978, the Council on policy, criteria, and procedures for In addition, EPA amended Subpart D by Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing Executive Order 12114, eliminating the requirement for public promulgated regulations establishing ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major notice of categorical exclusion uniform federal procedures for Federal Actions’’ (see 46 FR 3364). determinations for all EPA programs implementing NEPA (see 43 FR 55978). Executive Order 12114 does not impose except the Wastewater Treatment Section 103 of NEPA and the CEQ NEPA compliance requirements on Construction Grants Program. Regulations require federal agencies to Federal agencies, rather it ‘‘furthers the In 1993, EPA amended its Part 6 adopt appropriate NEPA procedures to purpose’’ of NEPA and identifies the NEPA regulations to address the supplement those regulations. As a documents, including environmental requirement that EPA actions conform result, EPA amended its NEPA impact statements (EISs) and to any air quality State implementation regulations on November 6, 1979, to environmental assessments (EAs), to be plan, and to clarify that air pollution make them consistent with the CEQ used when conducting assessments control requirements need to be Regulations (see 44 FR 64177). under Executive Order 12114. considered when performing NEPA Under the Agency’s 1979 Part 6 In 1982, the Agency revised its Part 6 reviews for wastewater treatment works amendments, Subparts A through D NEPA regulations by removing CEQ (see 58 FR 63214). described general NEPA procedures for from the consultation process on C. Exemptions From NEPA for Certain preparing environmental reviews requests to segment wastewater EPA Actions applicable to all EPA NEPA actions and treatment facility construction grant established certain categorical projects (see 47 FR 9831). In 1983, EPA Certain EPA actions are exempt from exclusions. Subpart A contained an revised the categorical exclusions and the procedural requirements of NEPA, overview of EPA’s NEPA regulations, the criteria for not granting an including the CEQ Regulations. including environmental impact exclusion, and corrected a factual error Congress has provided specific statutory statement (EIS) requirements for EPA on the responsibility for preparing a exemptions for certain EPA actions legislative proposals and requirements final EA (see 48 FR 1012). taken under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for environmental information In 1985, the Agency promulgated and all EPA actions taken under the documents (EIDs) to be submitted to procedural amendments and minor Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, EPA by applicants, grantees, or substantive amendments to its Part 6 under CWA Section 511(c)(1), EPA is permitees as required in Subparts E NEPA regulations to accommodate exempt from preparing EISs for all through I. Subpart B described the changes in EPA’s regulations for the actions taken under the CWA except for requirements for the content of an EIS construction grants program found at 40 issuance of NPDES permits under CWA prepared pursuant to Subparts E CFR Part 35 (see 50 FR 26310). The Section 402 for ‘‘new sources’’ as through I. Subpart C described the modifications in the construction grants defined in Section 306, and for Federal requirements for coordination of program changed the process that EPA financial assistance provided for applicable environmental laws and grant recipients followed in planning assisting construction of publicly owned

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76085

treatment works under CWA Section changes to the voluntary NEPA policy procedures; and correct cross-references 201 (33 U.S.C. 1371(c)). Under the and procedures. However, the proposed and typographical errors. Energy Supply and Environmental rule can serve as a framework for the IV. Proposed Changes to the Coordination Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. preparation of voluntary NEPA Regulations and Objectives of These 793(c)(1)), all actions taken under the documents. Proposed Changes CAA are deemed not to be major federal III. Purpose and Policy actions significantly affecting the A. Proposed Revision to the Title for environment. This proposed rule has two purposes. EPA’s Regulations at Part 6 Further, the courts have exempted The first purpose is to update and revise EPA proposes to retitle its regulations certain EPA actions from the procedural EPA’s procedures for implementing the at Part 6 to clarify that the proposed rule requirements of NEPA through the procedural requirements of NEPA and includes two sets of Agency procedures: functional equivalence doctrine. Under the CEQ Regulations by restructuring the Agency’s procedures for the functional equivalence doctrine, and standardizing these regulations (see courts have found EPA to be exempt implementing the National Section IV below). The revised NEPA Environmental Policy Act; and the from the procedural requirements of procedures would continue to be NEPA for certain actions under the Agency’s procedures for implementing consistent with the declaration of Executive Order 12114, ‘‘Environmental Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and national environmental policy as stated Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Resource Effects Abroad of Major Federal in Title I, Section 101(a) of NEPA (42 Actions.’’ Both sets of implementing Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), U.S.C. 4331(a)). Under the proposed the Toxic Substances Control Act procedures are currently, and will NEPA rule, EPA’s environmental review remain, in Part 6. However, EPA (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act process would continue to ensure that, (SDWA), and the Marine Protection, believes the proposed amended title when required, environmental will clarify that the procedures Research, and Sanctuaries Act information is available and taken into (MPRSA). The courts reasoned that EPA implementing Executive Order 12114 account before EPA makes a finding of are not based on NEPA authority and do actions under these statutes are no significant impact or signs a Record functionally equivalent to the analysis not impose NEPA compliance of Decision. The NEPA environmental requirements on EPA. required under NEPA because they are review process would continue to undertaken with full consideration of include: identification of alternatives to B. Restructuring and Standardizing environmental impacts and the proposed action, description of the EPA’s NEPA Implementing Regulations opportunities for public involvement. affected environment, and analyses of See, e.g., EDF v. EPA, 489 F.2d 1247 Restructuring and standardizing the environmental consequences. For EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures (D.C. Cir. 1973) (FIFRA); State of proposed actions subject to NEPA, EPA Alabama v. EPA, 911 F. 2d 499 (11th will clarify that the regulations apply to would continue to prepare all proposed actions that are subject Cir. 1990) (RCRA); Warren County v. environmental impact statements (EISs) North Carolina, 528 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. both to EPA’s control and responsibility for major federal actions significantly N.C. 1981) (TSCA); Western Nebraska and NEPA, including actions not affecting the quality of the human Resources Council v. U.S. EPA, 943 F.2d specifically addressed in the current environment. As part of its NEPA 867 (8th Cir. 1991) (SDWA); Maryland regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded environmental review process, EPA also v. Train, 415 F. Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976) for special projects identified in the would continue to determine the (MPRSA). STAG account authorized through the Agency actions exempt from the applicability of other laws and Agency’s annual Appropriations Act). requirements of NEPA would remain executive orders early in the planning The proposed revisions also take into exempt under this proposed rule. If a process and incorporate applicable account the environmental review question arises regarding the requirements as early in the NEPA exemptions to NEPA established by applicability of the NEPA requirements review process as possible. EPA’s NEPA Congress and the courts. to certain proposed actions, the implementing regulations will be This proposed rule would restructure Responsible Official should consult amended in consultation with the and amend EPA’s NEPA implementing with the NEPA Official and the Office Council on Environmental Quality (see regulations in order to: (1) Consolidate of General Counsel. 40 CFR 1507.3(a)). and standardize the procedural The second purpose of today’s provisions and requirements of the D. EPA’s Voluntary NEPA Policy and proposed rule is to make minor, Agency’s environmental review process Procedures technical amendments to Subpart D, under NEPA; (2) clarify the general In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell ‘‘Assessing the Environmental Effects procedures associated with categorical Train determined that the Agency could Abroad of EPA Actions,’’ which exclusions, consolidate the categories of voluntarily prepare EISs for certain contains the Agency’s procedures for actions subject to categorical exclusion, regulatory activities that were exempt implementing Executive Order 12114, amend existing and add new categorical from NEPA. In 1998, Administrator ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major exclusions, and consolidate and amend Carol Browner amended this policy to Federal Actions.’’ The scope of this existing and add new extraordinary permit the preparation of non-EIS NEPA portion of the proposed regulations is circumstances; (3) consolidate and documents for certain EPA regulatory limited to these minor, technical amend the listing of actions that actions. The Agency’s current ‘‘Notice of changes. These minor, technical generally require an EIS; (4) clarify the Policy and Procedures for Voluntary changes are described in the Preamble procedural requirements for Preparation of National Environmental in Section IV.C. and include consideration of applicable Policy Act (NEPA) Documents’’ (see 63 amendments to: Re-designate the environmental review laws and FR 58045) sets out the policy and subpart for EPA’s procedures executive orders; and (5) incorporate procedures EPA uses when preparing implementing Executive Order 12114; other proposed revisions consistent environmental review documents under update office names and titles and the with the CEQ Regulations. Preamble the Voluntary NEPA Policy. This references to EPA’s Voluntary NEPA sections IV.B.1 through 5 summarize the proposed rule does not make any Policy and NEPA implementing objectives of these proposed changes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76086 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

1. Consolidate and Standardize the Generally Require an Environmental applicable requirements as early in the Procedural Provisions and Impact Statement. NEPA review process as possible. This Requirements of the Agency’s general procedural requirement would 3. Consolidate and Amend the Listing of Environmental Review Process Under be applicable to all EPA actions subject Actions That Generally Require an to NEPA. This revision also would NEPA Environmental Impact Statement eliminate the need to amend the Currently, as discussed in Section II Currently, some subparts of EPA’s regulations whenever the laws and above, EPA’s NEPA implementing NEPA implementing regulations list executive orders change. Moreover, regulations apply, by subpart, to specific proposed actions that generally require today, the environmental review laws, actions. The proposed regulations EISs, and one also lists proposed actions regulations, and executive orders are would consolidate the definitions and that generally require EAs. The available through the Internet (for environmental review procedures in a proposed regulations would consolidate example, many executive orders are single set of definitions and and amend the criteria for actions that linked through CEQ’s Web site on environmental review procedures generally require EISs. These criteria for NEPAnet at: applicable to all EPA proposed actions actions that generally require EISs in the http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ subject to NEPA. proposed regulations would be executiveorders.htm). Guidance The proposed regulations also would applicable to all EPA actions subject to documents have been issued by the consolidate the notification and public NEPA. responsible oversight agencies, CEQ, participation procedures that apply to 4. Clarify the Procedural Requirements and EPA for many of these including all EPA proposed actions subject to for Consideration of Applicable those frequently addressed in a NEPA NEPA. The proposed regulations no Environmental Review Laws and review. (For example, see: CEQ longer require a public meeting or Executive Orders guidance documents available at: http:// hearing as part of the NEPA process. ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ However, consistent with the CEQ Currently, Subpart C of EPA’s NEPA guidance.html; and EPA guidance such Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6(c)), the implementing regulations focuses on as ‘‘Guidance for Incorporating integrating the requirements of Agency will hold meetings and/or Environmental Justice Concerns in applicable environmental laws and hearings when appropriate or in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses,’’ executive orders with environmental accordance with statutory requirements. EPA, April 1998.) review requirements independent of This does not diminish the Agency’s NEPA with the Agency’s NEPA 5. Other Proposed Revisions Consistent commitment to NEPA’s requirement for environmental review procedures. With the CEQ Regulations full public disclosure. The proposed Subpart C also provides a brief outline regulations also state the conditions for Consolidate and standardize the of the provisions of certain notification of and consultation with definitions in the existing regulations. environmental laws and executive state and local governments, and The proposed NEPA implementing orders and EPA implementing regulations would consolidate and federally-recognized Indian tribes procedures, including but not limited (tribes) and for public participation. standardize the definitions in EPA’s to: The National Historic Preservation current NEPA regulations, as well as 2. Clarify the General Procedures Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); the adding new definitions. Currently, Associated With Categorical Exclusions; Archaeological and Historic EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations Consolidate the Categories of Actions Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.); apply, by subpart, to specific actions. Subject to Categorical Exclusion; Executive Order 11593, ‘‘Protection and The proposed regulations would Amend Existing and Add New Enhancement of the Cultural consolidate the definitions in a single Categorical Exclusions; and Consolidate Environment;’’ the Historic Sites Act (16 set of definitions applicable to all EPA and Amend Existing and Add New U.S.C. 461 et seq.); Executive Order actions subject to NEPA. For example, Extraordinary Circumstances 11990, ‘‘Protection of Wetlands;’’ the proposed NEPA rule defines the Executive Order 11988, ‘‘Floodplain term ‘‘action,’’ and replaces the terms Currently, EPA’s NEPA implementing Management;’’ the Farmland Protection ‘‘grantee,’’ ‘‘applicant’’ and ‘‘permit regulations include general and, by Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.); the applicant’’ with the single defined term subpart, action-specific categorical Coastal Zone Management Act (16 ‘‘applicant.’’ The current regulations exclusions and extraordinary U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); the Wild and define and list by title the specific EPA circumstances. The proposed Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274 et officials responsible for the various regulations would consolidate the seq.); the Coastal Barrier Resources Act program and action-specific actions categorical exclusions and extraordinary (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); the Fish and identified by subpart. In the proposed circumstances in a single location. Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. et rule, the Responsible Official would be Thus, the procedures for determining if seq.); the Endangered Species Act (16 defined simply and without title as the a proposed action fits within a U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and air quality EPA official responsible for compliance categorical exclusion or involves any conformity pursuant to the Clean Air with NEPA for individual actions extraordinary circumstances would be Act (42 U.S.C. 7476(c) and 42 U.S.C. thereby precluding the need for applicable to all EPA actions subject to 7616). Appendix A provides EPA’s technical change to the regulations NEPA. ‘‘Statement of Procedures on Floodplain whenever there is an Agency The proposed regulations also Management and Wetlands Protection.’’ reorganization and/or change to the title propose amending existing and adding The proposed NEPA regulations would of an organizational unit or management new categories of actions for categorical remove the outlines and Appendix A, position. Generally, the Responsible exclusion as discussed in Section V and replace them with the general Official is an Assistant Administrator or below, Proposed Amended and New procedural requirement to determine, to a Regional Administrator, and the NEPA Categories of Actions Eligible for the fullest extent possible, the Official is the EPA official responsible Categorical Exclusion; Amended and applicability of other environmental for overall review of EPA’s NEPA New Extraordinary Circumstances; and laws and executive orders early in the compliance (currently the Director of Amended Listing of Actions that planning process, and to incorporate the Office of Federal Activities within

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76087

the Office of Enforcement and Official would notify the applicant if the Federal Activities (OFA). The proposed Compliance Assurance). Responsible Official determines that the rule contains amendments to update Delegation of responsibilities. action is categorically excluded; if EPA this information. Likewise, the proposed Currently, Subpart G of EPA’s NEPA needs additional information to support rule also contains amendments to implementing regulations provides for the application of a categorical update other office names and titles. delegation of responsibilities for exclusion; or if the submitted The following proposed office name and carrying out the environmental review information does not support the title amendments are identified process by EPA’s Office of Research and application of a categorical exclusion according to the paragraph numbers in Development; other subparts are silent and an EA or an EIS and supporting the proposed rule; e.g., § 6.401(a)(5) in regarding delegation of responsibilities. documents would be required for the the proposed rule corresponds to In order to clarify and standardize the project. The Responsible Official also § 6.1002(a)(5) in the current rule, regulations, the proposed NEPA rule would notify the applicant if an EID § 6.403(b)(1) in the proposed rule would standardize the delegation of would not be required. Unless so corresponds to § 6.1004(b)(1) in the responsibilities by stating that the notified or unless the applicant and current rule, § 6.405 in the proposed NEPA-related responsibilities may be Responsible Official implement a third- rule corresponds to § 6.1006 in the delegated to a level no lower than the party agreement, the applicant, in current rule, and § 6.406 in the Branch Chief or equivalent consultation with the Responsible proposed rule corresponds to § 6.1007 organizational level. Official, would prepare an EID that is of in the current rule. In § 6.401(a)(5), Clarify the general requirements for sufficient scope to enable the ‘‘OER’’ would be amended to ‘‘OFA’’. In an environmental assessment. Responsible Official to prepare an EA § 6.403(b)(1), ‘‘The Assistant Consistent with the CEQ Regulations at or, if necessary, an EIS. Administrator for Water and Waste §§ 1501.3 and 1508.9, and considering Management’’ would be amended to C. Proposed Amendments to EPA’s the information contained in ‘‘The ‘‘The Assistant Administrator for Procedures for Implementing Executive NEPA Task Force Report to the Council Water’’. In § 6.405, ‘‘the Director, Office Order 12114 on Environmental Quality, Modernizing of Environmental Review (OER)’’ would NEPA Implementation’’ (September Today’s proposed rule also includes be amended to ‘‘the Director, Office of 2003), the proposed NEPA regulations minor, technical amendments to the Federal Activities (OFA)’’; ‘‘Director would include specific elements that Agency’s procedures for implementing Office of International Activities (OIA)’’ generally must be addressed in an EA Executive Order 12114, ‘‘Environmental would be amended to ‘‘Assistant such as the need for the proposed Effects Abroad of Major Federal Administrator, Office of International action, the alternatives considered, Actions,’’ included in EPA’s proposed Affairs (OIA)’’; ‘‘Director, OER’’ would description of the affected environment, regulations in Subpart D, ‘‘Assessing the be amended to ‘‘Director, OFA’’; and and the environmental impacts of the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA ‘‘Director, OIA’’ would be amended to proposed action and the alternatives. Actions.’’ These proposed amendments ‘‘Assistant Administrator, OIA’’. In Consolidate and standardize the are described below. For this subpart, § 6.406, paragraphs (a) through (c), procedures that apply to applicants. the scope of the proposal is limited to ‘‘OER’’ would be amended to ‘‘OFA’’. Currently, EPA’s NEPA implementing these minor, technical amendments and 3. Amendment to Reference in the regulations include, by subpart, EPA is requesting comments only on Executive Order 12114 Implementing procedures applicable to certain these amendments. grantees and new source NPDES permit Procedures to EPA’s Voluntary NEPA applicants. These procedures require 1. Amendment to Re-Designate the Policy those grantees and permit applicants Subpart for EPA’s Procedures Currently, EPA’s procedures for (together referred to as applicants) to Implementing Executive Order 12114 implementing Executive Order 12114 submit information to the Responsible Currently, EPA’s procedures reference EPA’s Voluntary EIS Policy Official for use in EPA’s environmental implementing Executive Order 12114 dated October 21, 1974. The Agency review process. The proposed NEPA are in Part 6 at Subpart J. As part of the revised this policy in 1998. For this regulations would consolidate and overall restructuring of Part 6, these reason and to clarify the applicability of standardize these procedures in Subpart procedures are proposed to be re- these procedures to ocean dumping C, ‘‘Requirements for Environmental designated as Subpart D. The sections in activities in the global commons under Information Documents and Third-Party this subpart are proposed to be re- section 102(a) of the MPRSA, in Agreements.’’ These procedures would numbered accordingly; § 6.1001 would § 6.403(b)(1), the sentences: ‘‘For ocean be applicable to all applicant-proposed become § 6.400, § 6.1002 would become dumping site designations prescribed actions subject to NEPA. § 6.401, § 6.1003 would become § 6.402, pursuant to section 102(c) of the Compliance with the proposed NEPA § 6.1004 would become § 6.403, § 6.1005 MPRSA and 40 CFR part 228, EPA shall regulations would be the responsibility would become § 6.404, § 6.1006 would prepare an environmental impact of the Responsible Official. The become § 6.405, and § 6.1007 would statement consistent with the proposed NEPA regulations require the become § 6.406, respectively and in requirements of EPA’s Procedures for applicant to submit an environmental accordance with Federal Register the Voluntary Preparation of information document (EID) unless the numbering, in the proposed rule. Environmental Impact Statements dated action is categorically excluded or the October 21, 1974 (see 30 FR 37419). applicant prepares and submits a draft 2. Amendments To Update Office Also EPA shall prepare an EA and supporting documents. As Names and Titles environmental impact statement for the appropriate and according to the In 1981 when Subpart J was included establishment or revision of criteria proposed procedures in Subpart C, the in Part 6, the Office of Environmental under section 102(a) of MPRSA.’’ would applicant would be able to submit Review (OER) housed the EPA official be amended to: ‘‘For ocean dumping site information to the Responsible Official responsible for overall review of EPA’s designations prescribed pursuant to regarding the applicability of a NEPA compliance as required by 40 section 102(c) of the MPRSA and 40 categorical exclusion to the applicant’s CFR 1507.2(a). Today, this CFR part 228, and for the establishment pending action. The Responsible responsibility resides in the Office of or revision of criteria under section

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76088 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

102(a) of the MPRSA, EPA shall prepare proposed rule corresponds to Consistent with the CEQ Regulations appropriate environmental documents § 6.1004(d) in the current rule. at § 1508.4, the proposed rule would consistent with EPA’s Notice of Policy define ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ to V. Proposed Amended and New and Procedures for Voluntary mean ‘‘those circumstances * * * that Categories of Actions Eligible for Preparation of National Environmental may cause a significant environmental Categorical Exclusion; Amended and Policy Act (NEPA) Documents dated effect such that an action that otherwise October 29, 1998 (see 63 FR 58045).’’ New Extraordinary Circumstances; and meets the requirements of a categorical This proposed amendment is identified Amended Listing of Actions That exclusion may not be categorically according to the paragraph number in Generally Require an Environmental excluded.’’ Like its current NEPA the proposed rule; e.g., § 6.403(b)(1) in Impact Statement implementing regulations, EPA’s the proposed rule corresponds to The Environmental Protection Agency proposed rule includes a list of § 6.1004(b)(1) in the current rule. (EPA or Agency) is proposing extraordinary circumstances. Some are generally the same as those in its 4. Amendment to Reference in the amendments to its procedures for current NEPA implementing Executive Order 12114 Implementing implementing the requirements of the regulations, some are new, and some are Procedures to EPA’s NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of proposed amendments based on current Implementing Procedures 1969 (NEPA). The proposed rule also includes minor, technical amendments extraordinary circumstances, the criteria Currently, EPA’s procedures for to the Agency’s procedures for for actions that generally require implementing Executive Order 12114 implementing Executive Order 12114, environmental impact statements (EISs), reference § 6.506 of EPA’s current NEPA ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major and NEPA’s policy direction to implementing procedures. Because EPA Federal Actions.’’ emphasize real environmental issues proposes to restructure its NEPA Pursuant to CEQ’s Regulations that and alternatives. The extraordinary implementing procedures, in § 6.403(d), are applicable to all Federal agencies for circumstances would be consolidated in ‘‘40 CFR 6.506 details’’ would be implementing the procedural provisions the proposed rule. As required by CEQ’s amended to ‘‘40 CFR part 6, subparts A of NEPA, Federal agencies must, to the Regulations, the proposed rule also through C, detail’’. This proposed fullest extent possible, reduce includes a consolidated listing of amendment is identified according to paperwork and accumulation of actions that generally require an EIS (see the paragraph number in the proposed extraneous background data and 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(i)). rule; e.g., § 6.403(d) in the proposed rule The proposed amendments to EPA’s emphasize real environmental issues corresponds to § 6.1004(d) in the current NEPA implementing regulations and alternatives. (40 CFR 1500.2(b)) rule. include: (1) Consolidating and CEQ’s Regulations (40 CFR standardizing the procedural provisions 5. Amendments for Correction of Cross- 1507.3(b)(2)(ii)) provide that agencies and requirements of the Agency’s References and Typographical Errors are to adopt their own implementing environmental review process under procedures to supplement CEQ’s NEPA In § 6.400(a), ‘‘the Marine Protection NEPA; (2) clarifying the general implementing procedures, including Research and Sanctuaries Act’’ would procedures associated with categorical specific criteria for and identification of be amended to ‘‘the Marine Protection, exclusions, consolidating the categories classes of action which normally do not Research, and Sanctuaries Act’’. In of actions subject to categorical § 6.401(a), ‘‘of by EPA as set forth require either an environmental impact exclusion, amending existing and below:’’ would be amended to ‘‘of EPA statement or an environmental adding new categorical exclusions, and as follows:’’. In § 6.401(a)(5), ‘‘(see assessment (e.g., categorical exclusions consolidating and amending existing § 6.1007(c)).’’ would be amended to (see 40 CFR 1508.4)). and adding new extraordinary ‘‘(see § 6.406(c)).’’ In § 6.401, ‘‘(b) As part of the amendments to its circumstances; (3) consolidating and [Reserved].’’ would be added to meet NEPA implementing regulations, the amending the listing of actions that the Federal Register requirement for a Agency is proposing to amend existing generally require environmental impact second paragraph in this section. In and add new categories of actions statements; (4) clarifying the procedural § 6.403(d), ‘‘or water quality eligible for categorical exclusion. requirements for consideration of agreements’’ would be amended to ‘‘of Consistent with the CEQ Regulations at applicable environmental review laws water quality agreements’’ in the § 1508.4, the proposed rule would and executive orders; and (5) sentence, ‘‘Where water quality impacts define ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ to mean incorporating other proposed revisions identified in a facility plan are the ‘‘a category of actions that does not consistent with CEQ’s Regulations. The subject of water quality agreements with individually or cumulatively have a general reasons for the amended and Canada or Mexico, nothing in these significant effect on the human new categorical exclusions, regulations shall impose on the facility environment * * *’’ and have been extraordinary circumstances, and planning process coordination and found by EPA to have no such effect. criteria for actions that generally require consultation requirements in addition to The proposed rule would require that to an EIS are as follows: those required by such agreements.’’ find that a proposed action is These proposed amendments are categorically excluded, EPA’s (1) Consolidation and standardization of identified according to the paragraph Responsible Official must determine the procedural provisions and numbers in the proposed rule; e.g., that the proposed action fits within a requirements of the Agency’s § 6.400(a) in the proposed rule categorical exclusion listed in the environmental review process under corresponds to § 6.1001(a) in the current proposed regulations, and the proposed NEPA rule, § 6.401(a) in the proposed rule action does not involve any The proposed regulations would corresponds to § 6.1002(a) in the current extraordinary circumstances. Some of consolidate and standardize the rule, § 6.401(a)(5) in the proposed rule EPA’s proposed new categorical environmental review process corresponds to § 6.1002(a)(5) in the exclusions are essentially the same as applicable to all EPA actions subject to current rule, § 6.401 in the proposed categorical exclusions of other Federal NEPA, including those actions now rule corresponds to § 6.1002 in the agencies; others are more specific to specifically addressed in the current current rule, and § 6.403(d) in the EPA. regulations and other actions subject to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76089

NEPA but not specifically addressed in include any of these except EPA actions records prepared to support categorical the current regulations (e.g., certain for construction of special purpose exclusions may include documentation grants awarded for special projects facilities or facility renovations. As with of: Professional staff and expert identified in the State and Tribal EPA’s current NEPA implementing opinions; research study results; past Assistance Grants (STAG) account regulations, compliance with the NEPA action records; and similar authorized by Congress through the proposed NEPA regulations would be categorical exclusion actions by other Agency’s annual Appropriations Act). the responsibility of EPA’s Responsible agencies. [‘‘Modernizing NEPA Officials and certain grant or permit Implementation, Chapter 5, Categorical (2) Clarify the general procedures applicants who must submit Exclusions,’’ The NEPA Task Force associated with categorical exclusions, environmental information Report to the Council on Environmental consolidate the categories of actions documentation to EPA for their Quality, September 2003] subject to categorical exclusion, amend proposed projects. Categorical Exclusions. EPA’s existing and add new categorical Currently, EPA’s NEPA implementing proposed rule identifies 15 categories of exclusions, and consolidate and amend regulations apply, by subpart, to specific action eligible for categorical exclusion existing and add new extraordinary actions. For example, Subpart E applies included in two listings. The first five circumstances to the award of wastewater treatment proposed categorical exclusions, listed Currently, EPA’s NEPA implementing construction grants under Title II of the in the proposed rule at § 6.204(a)(1)(i) regulations include general and, by Clean Water Act, and Subpart F applies through (v), are more likely to involve subpart, program-specific categorical to EPA’s environmental review process extraordinary circumstances and require exclusions and extraordinary for issuance of new source NPDES the EPA Responsible Official to circumstances. The proposed permits. The proposed regulations document a determination that a regulations would consolidate the would consolidate and standardize the categorical exclusion applies. It is also categorical exclusions and extraordinary environmental review process EPA’s opinion that these actions circumstances in a single location. applicable to all EPA actions subject to generally do not pose the potential for Thus, the procedures for determining if NEPA, including those actions now environmental impacts, and that a proposed action fits within a specifically addressed in the current confirmation there are no extraordinary categorical exclusion or involves any regulations and other actions subject to circumstances would satisfy a extraordinary circumstances would be NEPA but not specifically addressed in determination that the use of a CE is the same for all EPA actions subject to the current regulations (e.g., certain appropriate. The first three of these are NEPA. grants awarded for special projects substantially the same as, or similar to, (3) Consolidate and amend the listing of identified in the STAG account.) As categorical exclusions in EPA’s current actions that generally require an with EPA’s current regulations, the NEPA implementing regulations with environmental impact statement proposed regulations would supplement amendments to clarify their and be used in conjunction with the applicability to all EPA actions subject Currently, some subparts of EPA’s CEQ Regulations. Certain EPA actions to NEPA and to clarify the intended NEPA implementing regulations list are exempt from the procedural applicability of the categorical actions that generally require EISs, and requirements of NEPA and would exclusion. Proposed categorical one also lists specific actions that remain exempt under the proposed rule. exclusion (i) is similar to other Federal generally require EAs. The proposed EPA is proposing to consolidate and agencies’ categorical exclusions (in regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review general terms, minor rehabilitation). amend the criteria for actions that process applicable to all EPA actions Proposed categorical exclusions (ii) and generally require EISs. These criteria for subject to NEPA. As part of this process, (iii) are specific to EPA and are similar actions that generally require EISs in the EPA is consolidating the categories of to current EPA categorical exclusions; proposed regulations would be actions eligible for categorical they have been documented as proposed applicable to all EPA actions subject to exclusion, and amending existing and categorical exclusions through past NEPA. adding new categorical exclusions. NEPA action records. Categorical EPA’s NEPA regulations apply to the CEQ’s Regulations state that Federal exclusion (iv) is a proposed new actions and decisions of EPA that are agencies must implement NEPA categorical exclusion based on EPA’s subject to NEPA’s procedural procedures, in part, ‘‘to reduce past NEPA action records. Categorical requirements in order to ensure that paperwork and the accumulation of exclusion (v) is a proposed new environmental information is available extraneous background data; and to categorical exclusion based on EPA’s to the Agency’s decision-makers and the emphasize real environmental issues view that these actions for award of public before decisions are made and and alternatives.’’ (40 CFR 1500.2(b)) funds are not likely to have the potential before actions are taken. This includes EPA believes that the proposed for environmental impacts because the actions such as the award of wastewater amended and identification of new project for which the grant is being treatment construction grants under categorical exclusions meets the intent awarded was completed prior to the Title II of the Clean Water Act, EPA’s of this NEPA policy as paperwork is date the appropriation was enacted. issuance of new source National reduced or eliminated for EPA’s However, EPA has discretion to award Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Responsible Officials and applicants. these grants, so they should be screened (NPDES) permits, certain research and Likewise, EPA’s attention will be to determine whether there may be development projects, EPA actions focused on proposed actions with real extraordinary circumstances associated involving renovations at or new environmental issues and the associated with the completed project that should construction of EPA facilities, and analysis of alternatives, including be addressed by conducting a NEPA certain grants awarded for special mitigation measures, that will eliminate review (e.g., avoidance or mitigation of projects identified in the STAG account or reduce the project’s environmental potential impacts). authorized by Congress through the impacts. It is EPA’s view that the next 10 listed Agency’s annual Appropriations Act. The NEPA Task Force Report to the categorical exclusions are generally EPA actions subject to NEPA that are Council on Environmental Quality notes administrative in nature, do not based on applicant proposals may that federal agency administrative generally involve extraordinary

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76090 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

circumstances and do not require the emphasize real environmental issues in the current rule, there is no direct tie EPA Responsible Official to document a and alternatives and on consideration of to environmental impacts. Rather, EPA’s determination that a categorical EPA’s proposed criteria for actions that proposed rule includes an extraordinary exclusion applies (see proposed rule, generally require an EIS. EPA believes circumstance at § 6.204(b)(8) that § 6.204(a)(2)(i) through (x)). One of these there is a relationship between the addresses this concept, including the proposed categorical exclusions is extraordinary circumstances and the potential for environmental impact. substantially the same as one in EPA’s criteria for actions that generally require EPA’s ‘‘Supporting Statement for current Part 6 rule. The other 9 are EISs. EPA notes, however, that Amended and New Categorical proposed new categorical exclusions, extraordinary circumstances are used to Exclusions, Extraordinary one of which incorporates three of the help the Responsible Official determine Circumstances, and Criteria for Actions categorical exclusions in EPA’s current whether, or not, a categorical exclusion that Generally Require EISs under 40 NEPA implementing regulations. These applies to the proposed action, and that CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for proposed new categorical exclusions are the criteria for actions that generally Implementing the National generally for actions involving require an EIS are criteria that generally, Environmental Policy Act and Assessing administrative procedures of the but not always, require an EIS. the Environmental Effects Abroad of Agency. Most are similar to other EPA’s ‘‘Supporting Statement for EPA Actions’’’ is available in the docket Federal agencies’ categorical exclusions, Amended and New Categorical for this proposed rulemaking at and some are also based on EPA’s view Exclusions, Extraordinary www.regulations.gov and provides that they are administrative in nature Circumstances, and Criteria for Actions specific reasons for the amended criteria and generally do not involve that Generally Require EISs under 40 for actions that generally require EISs extraordinary circumstances. In any CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for included in the proposed rule. In case, even for these categorical Implementing the National summary, the intent is to standardize exclusions, the Responsible Official Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the essential concepts and combine the would be required to ensure that none the Environmental Effects Abroad of variously stated criteria into a of the extraordinary circumstances EPA Actions’’’ is available in the docket consolidated set of criteria for actions applies to the action. for this proposed rulemaking at that generally require EISs that are EPA’s ‘‘Supporting Statement for www.regulations.gov and provides applicable to all EPA actions subject to Amended and New Categorical specific reasons for the amended and NEPA. The proposed criteria are not Exclusions, Extraordinary new extraordinary circumstances intended to be a listing of requirements Circumstances, and Criteria for Actions included in the proposed rule. In for preparing EISs in all cases. This is that Generally Require EISs under 40 summary, the intent is to standardize because not all actions examined under CFR Part 6: ‘Procedures for the essential concepts and combine the the criteria rise to the level of Implementing the National variously stated criteria into a significance such that EISs are required Environmental Policy Act and Assessing consolidated set of extraordinary (e.g., an environmental assessment with the Environmental Effects Abroad of circumstances applicable to all EPA provisions for mitigation could be the EPA Actions’’’ is available in the docket actions subject to NEPA. The proposed appropriate level of environmental for this proposed rulemaking at extraordinary circumstances are not review for an action). www.regulations.gov and provides intended to be a listing of requirements In keeping with the public comment specific reasons for the proposed for preparing EISs. Rather, they are to be process for this proposed rulemaking, amended and new categorical used to determine whether a categorical EPA is interested in the public’s exclusions included in EPA’s proposed exclusion applies to the action. If not, comments on these proposed amended rule. EPA’s documentation includes: the EPA Responsible Official may and new categorical exclusions, references to EPA projects documented prepare an environmental assessment to extraordinary circumstances, and with environmental assessments and determine whether a finding of no criteria for actions that generally require findings of no significant impact; significant impact, or an EIS, is the an EIS. reference to other Federal agencies with appropriate NEPA document for the similar provisions for categorical project, or the Responsible Official VI. Administrative Requirements exclusions; and statements of EPA’s proceeds directly with preparing an EIS. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Criteria for Actions that Generally opinion. Planning and Review Extraordinary Circumstances. EPA’s Require EISs. EPA’s proposed rule proposed rule identifies 10 identifies 11 criteria for actions that Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 extraordinary circumstances in the generally require an EIS. These (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed rule at § 6.204(b)(1) through proposed criteria are substantially the action is a ‘‘significant regulatory (10). Four of the proposed extraordinary same as, or similar to, 16 of the 17 action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted circumstances are substantially the criteria in EPA’s current NEPA this action to the Office of Management same as the eight in EPA’s current implementing regulations. The criterion and Budget (OMB) for review under EO regulations, and one of the proposed in EPA’s current rule at § 6.509(b), ‘the 12866 and any changes made in new extraordinary circumstances project is highly controversial,’ is not response to OMB recommendations combines the elements of two in the included in the proposed criteria for have been documented in the docket for current regulations. This proposed rule actions that generally require EISs this action. updates and amends the current because EPA believes that the potential In addition, EPA prepared an analysis extraordinary circumstances to clarify environmental impacts of such a project of the potential costs and benefits the conditions for their applicability, may not necessarily rise to the level of associated with this action. A copy of and consolidates all of the extraordinary significance such that an EIS is the analysis is available in the docket circumstances into a single listing that generally required; e.g., an for this action and the analysis is briefly would be applicable to all EPA actions environmental assessment with summarized here. The total annual subject to NEPA. EPA is also proposing provisions for mitigation could be the public reporting and recordkeeping six new extraordinary circumstances appropriate level of environmental burden for this collection of information based on NEPA’s policy direction to review for the action. Further, as stated is estimated at 48,147 hours and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76091

$3,823,740 for contractor hours and B. Paperwork Reduction Act environmental review process unless costs, direct labor hours and costs, and The information collection the EPA Responsible Official decides to O&M costs. This burden reflects the requirements of this proposed rule have prepare the NEPA documents without annual preparation of documentation been submitted for approval to the assistance from the applicant. If the for an anticipated 312 applicant- Office of Management and Budget applicant cannot afford to provide the proposed projects that may be (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction required environmental information to documented with a CE, or an EA/ Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA, then EPA would undertake the FONSI, or an EIS/ROD. Under the Information Collection Request (ICR) environmental review without input proposed rule, EPA assumes there will document prepared by EPA has been from the applicant. Further, grantees be approximately 300 grantee projects assigned EPA ICR number 2243.02. may be grant-eligible for certain costs annually with about 60% of these The Environmental Protection Agency associated with providing projects documented with a CE, and (EPA or Agency) is proposing to amend environmental information to EPA; about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In its procedures for implementing the permit applicants are not eligible for addition, EPA estimates that one project requirements of the National EPA financial assistance. The NEPA review for a project may will have an EIS/ROD completed during Environmental Policy Act of 1969 result in a categorical exclusion (CE), or the 3-year period of this ICR. For permit (NEPA). Today’s proposed rule also an EA documented with a finding of no includes minor, technical amendments applicants, EPA assumes there will be significant impact (EA/FONSI), or an approximately 12 projects annually with to the Agency’s procedures for EIS documented with a record of about 11 documented with an EA/ implementing Executive Order 12114, decision (EIS/ROD). (EPA assumes a FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major project may be documented with a CE project will have an EIS/ROD completed Federal Actions.’’ only for grantee-proposed projects. EPA EPA is collecting information from annually. None will be documented does not anticipate that an initial new initially with a CE. Over a 3-year period, certain applicants as part of the process source NPDES permit application would EPA anticipates 937 applicant-proposed of complying with either NEPA or be documented with a CE.) For any projects with a 3-year total burden Executive Order 12114. EPA’s Executive specific project, only one of these levels estimate of 144,440 hours and Order 12114 procedures further the of documentation is generally prepared. $11,471,220. Under the current rule, the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA Applicants may submit an individual cost for each type of may be guided by these procedures to environmental information document documentation is the same. However, the extent they are applicable. (EID) to EPA as part of the EPA estimates that 50% of grantee Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental review process. projects are documented with a CE, and environmental assessment pursuant to Alternately, an applicant may submit a 50% are documented with an EA/ its Executive Order 12114 procedures, draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting FONSI. Approximately one project will the Agency generally follows its NEPA documents. Applicants may prepare and have an EIS/ROD completed per three- procedures. For this ICR, applicant- submit the information directly, or may year period, and project estimates for proposed projects subject to either enter a third-party contract agreement NEPA or Executive Order 12114 (and permit applicants are approximately the with EPA for preparation of an EA or that are not addressed in other EPA same (11 projects documented with an EIS and supporting documentation. For programs’ ICRs), are addressed through EA/FONSI; 1 project documented with purposes of determining the maximum the NEPA assessment process. costs to applicants for this ICR, EPA an EIS/ROD). The total burden of the Those subject to the proposed rule current rule is 54,497 hours and assumed that grant and permit include EPA employees who must applicants would expend time and $4,275,180. The proposed rule would comply with NEPA and certain grant decrease the number of hours spent on contractor costs to submit: (1) and permit applicants who must submit Information to support application of a documentation by 6,350 hours, and environmental information to EPA for would have an annual yearly savings of CE with environmental information their proposed projects. The EPA prepared directly by the applicant’s $451,440. Over a three-year period, the Responsible Official is responsible for proposed rule would decrease burden contractor; or (2) a draft EA and the environmental review process, supporting documents prepared directly by 19,050 hours and $1,354,320. Burden including any categorical exclusion by the applicant’s contractor; or (3) a means the total time, effort, or financial determination or the scope, accuracy, draft and final EIS and supporting resources expended by persons to and contents of a final environmental documents prepared by the applicant’s generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or assessment (EA) or environmental contractor under a third-party contract provide information to or for a Federal impact statement (EIS) and any agreement with EPA. agency. This includes the time needed associated documents. The applicant Based on EPA’s past experience, to review instructions; develop, acquire, contributes by submitting under the proposed rule, EPA install, and utilize technology and environmental information to EPA as anticipates there will be approximately systems for the purposes of collecting, part of the environmental review 300 grantee projects annually with validating, and verifying information, process. The information collected from about 60% of these projects documented processing and maintaining grant or permit applicants is one-time with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/ information, and disclosing and only on a per-project basis for EPA FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that providing information; adjust the actions subject to NEPA that are based one project (less than one percent of the existing ways to comply with any on applicant proposals. Grantees total annual grantee projects) will have previously applicable instructions and (primarily grants for special projects an EIS/ROD completed during the 3- requirements; train personnel to be able identified in EPA’s State and Tribal year period of this ICR. For permit to respond to a collection of Assistance Grants (STAG) account) or applicants, EPA assumes there will be information; search data sources; permit applicants (for new source approximately 12 projects annually with complete and review the collection of NPDES permits issued by EPA) are about 11 of the projects documented information; and transmit or otherwise required to provide environmental with an EA/FONSI. In addition, EPA disclose the information. information to EPA as part of the estimates one project will have an EIS/

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76092 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

ROD completed annually. None will be collection estimated that there were comments on the information collection documented initially with a CE. EPA approximately 300 grantee projects requirements contained in this proposal. estimated the one-time costs for annually with about 50% of these C . Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) applicants to prepare the environmental projects documented with a CE and documentation by including contractor about 50% documented with an EA/ The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) hours and costs, direct labor hours and FONSI. Approximately one project generally requires an agency to prepare costs, and O&M for documentation completed an EIS/ROD during the 3- a regulatory flexibility analysis of any submitted to EPA to support a CE year period of the ICR). Over the 3-year rule subject to notice and comment determination, or an EA/FONSI, or an period of this ICR, EPA anticipates 937 rulemaking requirements under the EIS/ROD. For a grantee, EPA estimates applicant-proposed projects with a 3- Administrative Procedure Act or any an applicant’s one-time costs for year total burden estimate of 144,440 other statute unless the agency certifies submitting environmental information hours and $11,471,220. For the 3-year that the proposed rule will not have a will be: 45 hours and $3,292 for CE period of this ICR, the proposed rule significant economic impact on a documentation, or 260 hours and would reduce the total burden by 19,050 substantial number of small entities. $18,340 for EA/FONSI documentation, hours and $1,354,320. Burden means Small entities include small businesses, or 2,840 hours and $324,480 for EIS/ the total time, effort, or financial small organizations, and small ROD documentation. For a permit resources expended by persons to governmental jurisdictions. applicant, EPA estimates an applicant’s generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or For purposes of assessing the impacts one-time costs for submitting provide information to or for a Federal of today’s proposed rule on small environmental information will be: 460 agency. This includes the time needed entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A hours and $53,940 for EA/FONSI to review instructions; develop, acquire, small business as defined by the Small documentation, or 2,840 hours and install, and utilize technology and Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a $328,880 for EIS/ROD documentation. systems for the purposes of collecting, small governmental jurisdiction that is a These figures may vary depending on validating, and verifying information, government of a city, county, town, the complexity of issues associated with processing and maintaining school district or special district with a the project and the availability of information, and disclosing and population of less than 50,000; and (3) relevant information, particularly for providing information; adjust the a small organization that is any not-for- EISs. (For example, EPA’s experience existing ways to comply with any profit enterprise which is independently with a limited number of EISs has previously applicable instructions and owned and operated and is not included one-time costs ranging from requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of dominant in its field. nominal for information submitted by After considering the economic letter to supplement an existing oil and information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of impacts of today’s proposed rule on gas extraction EIS to over a million small entities, I certify that this action dollars for new EISs for a mining project information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. will not have a significant economic and an oil and gas extraction project impact on a substantial number of small with multiple complex issues.) EPA An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to entities. We are proposing amendments believes the calculations for this ICR are to the Agency’s procedures for representative of most projects. respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB implementing the requirements of the For purposes of this ICR, the total control number. The OMB control National Environmental Policy Act of annual public reporting and numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 1969 (NEPA). This proposed rule also recordkeeping burden for this collection CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. includes minor, technical amendments of information is estimated at 48,147 To comment on the Agency’s need for to the Agency’s procedures for hours and $3,823,740 for contractor this information, the accuracy of the implementing Executive Order 12114, hours and costs, direct labor hours and provided burden estimates, and any ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major costs, and O&M costs. This burden suggested methods for minimizing Federal Actions.’’ reflects the annual submission of respondent burden, including the use of Certain applicants must submit documentation for an anticipated 312 automated collection techniques, EPA environmental information to EPA as applicant-proposed projects that may be has established a public docket for this part of the process of complying with documented with a CE, or an EA/ proposed rule, which includes this ICR, either NEPA or Executive Order 12114. FONSI, or an EIS/ROD. Under the under Docket ID number EPA–HQ– EPA’s Executive Order 12114 proposed rule, EPA assumes there will OECA–2005–0062. Submit any procedures further the purpose of NEPA be approximately 300 grantee projects comments related to the ICR for this and provide that EPA may be guided by annually with about 60% of these proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See these procedures to the extent they are projects documented with a CE, and ADDRESSEES section of the beginning of applicable. Therefore, when EPA about 40% with an EA/FONSI. In this notice for where to submit conducts an environmental assessment addition, EPA estimates that one project comments to EPA. Send comments to pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 will have an EIS/ROD completed during OMB at the Office of Information and procedures, the Agency generally the 3-year period of this ICR. For permit Regulatory Affairs, Office of follows its NEPA procedures. applicants, EPA assumes there will be Management and Budget, 725 17th This proposed rule is applicable to approximately 12 projects annually with Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, certain EPA actions subject to NEPA, about 11 documented with an EA/ Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since including certain applicant-proposed FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one OMB is required to make a decision projects. Because the projects are project will have an EIS/ROD completed concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 proposed by the applicants, who are annually. None will be documented days after December 19, 2006, a non-federal entities, including small initially with a CE. The total burden comment to OMB is best assured of businesses and small governments, EPA estimate for this ICR reduces the burden having its full effect if OMB receives it does not know what projects will be of the previous collection by 6,350 by January 18, 2007. The final rule will proposed, when they will be proposed, hours and $451,440 (the previous respond to any OMB or public or what level of NEPA review will be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76093

required for each individual project. In a substantial number of small entities, For grantees, third-party agreement this regard, EPA’s NEPA review process EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the contractor costs may be grant-eligible. is reactive to an applicant’s request. impact of this proposed rule on small Permit applicants are not eligible for These factors are built into this entities. The environmental information EPA financial assistance. screening assessment, including submitted by an applicant under the We continue to be interested in the assumptions about the entities likely to proposed rule is one-time only for EPA potential impacts of the proposed rule be subject to the regulations, the types actions subject to NEPA based on on small entities and welcome of projects they are likely to propose, applicant proposals; i.e., actions comments on issues related to such and the degree of possible economic proposed by grantees seeking funding impacts. impact based on the NEPA review assistance from EPA or for an NPDES D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act process and the three levels of permit application initiated by the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates environmental documentation possible permit applicant. In either case, EPA Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. under this process using available assumes the action will directly benefit 104–4, establishes requirements for historical information as future the applicant (such as a grantee seeking Federal agencies to assess the effects of indicators. More detailed information STAG funding for renovation of a on the small entity screening analysis their regulatory actions on State, local, community drinking water system, or a and tribal governments and the private can be found in the docket for this permit applicant seeking an NPDES proposed rulemaking, EPA–HQ–OECA– sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, permit from EPA to further the EPA generally must prepare a written 2005–0062 (available at http:// applicant’s business interests). www.regulations.gov), and is statement, including a cost-benefit Nonetheless, if the applicant cannot analysis, for proposed and final rules summarized below. afford to provide the required Based on EPA’s past experience, EPA with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may environmental information to EPA, then anticipates that annually there will be result in expenditures to State, local, EPA would undertake the approximately 170 small governments and tribal governments, in the aggregate, environmental review without input applying to EPA for STAG grants for or to the private sector, of $100 million from the applicant. (Applicants would projects subject to NEPA, and four small or more in any one year. Before normally be requested to demonstrate businesses applying to EPA for new promulgating an EPA rule for which a financial hardship, including inability source NPDES permits for a total of written statement is needed, section 205 to provide the requested environmental approximately 174 small entities out of of the UMRA generally requires EPA to potential 312 total entities. Of the 174 information.) Grantees may be grant- identify and consider a reasonable small entities possibly affected by this eligible for certain costs associated with number of regulatory alternatives and proposed rule, we have determined that providing environmental information to adopt the least costly, most cost- the economic impact of submitting one- EPA; permit applicants are not eligible effective or least burdensome alternative time environmental documentation to for EPA financial assistance. Further, that achieves the objectives of the rule. support a CE determination would be EPA has attempted to reduce the cost on The provisions of section 205 do not less than 1% of annual revenues for all all entities, including small entities, apply when they are inconsistent with small entities; and that for the one-time through the following provisions of the applicable law. Moreover, section 205 costs associated with submitting EA- proposed rule: Section 6.300 provides allows EPA to adopt an alternative other related environmental documentation that an EID is not required when the than the least costly, most cost-effective six small entities (3.4%) could action is categorically excluded, or the or least burdensome alternative if the experience an economic impact of 1– applicant will prepare a draft EA and Administrator publishes with the final 3%, and up to four small entities (2%) supporting documents. The Responsible rule an explanation why that alternative could experience an economic impact of Official may prepare the NEPA was not adopted. Before EPA establishes greater than 3%. Additionally, we have documents without assistance from the any regulatory requirements that may also determined that approximately 57 applicant. Section 6.302 provides that significantly or uniquely affect small of the 174 small entities (33%) could the Responsible Official may prepare governments, including tribal experience an economic impact of 1– generic guidance for categories of governments, it must have developed 3%, and up to 26 of the 174 small actions involving a large number of under section 203 of the UMRA a small entities (15%) could experience an applicants; and must ensure early government agency plan. The plan must economic impact of greater than 3% for involvement of applicants, consult with provide for notifying potentially the one-time costs associated with the applicant and provide guidance affected small governments, enabling submitting EIS-related environmental describing the scope and level of officials of affected small governments documentation. In all, these environmental information required, to have meaningful and timely input in approximately 83 small entities and provide guidance on a project-by- the development of EPA regulatory represent about 48% of the estimated project basis to any applicant seeking proposals with significant Federal 174 total number of small entities that assistance. This Section also provides intergovernmental mandates, and could experience a one-time economic that the Responsible Official must informing, educating, and advising impact of 1–3% or greater of annual consider the extent to which the small governments on compliance with revenues. Of these 83 small entities, 79 applicant is capable of providing the the regulatory requirements. are likely to be governmental grant required information, must not require EPA has determined that this applicants and could be grant-eligible the applicant to gather data or perform proposed rule does not contain a for EPA financial assistance with only analyses that unnecessarily duplicate Federal mandate that may result in one EIS anticipated per three years with either existing data or the results of expenditures of $100 million or more this likelihood spread over 300 total existing analyses available to EPA, and for State, local, and tribal governments, grant applicants, including small and must limit the request for environmental in the aggregate, or the private sector in large governments, including tribes, and information to that necessary for the any one year. special districts. environmental review. Section 6.303 EPA is proposing to amend its Although this proposed rule will not provides that an applicant may enter procedures for implementing the have a significant economic impact on into a third-party agreement with EPA. requirements of the National

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76094 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 The NEPA review for a project may will be: $3,292 for CE documentation, or (NEPA). Today’s proposed rule also result in a CE determination, or an EA $18,340 for EA/FONSI documentation, includes minor, technical amendments documented with a finding of no or $324,480 for EIS/ROD to the Agency’s procedures for significant impact (EA/FONSI), or an documentation. For a permit applicant, implementing Executive Order 12114, EIS documented with a record of EPA estimates an applicant’s one-time ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major decision (EIS/ROD). For any specific costs for submitting environmental Federal Actions.’’ project, only one of these levels of information will be: $53,940 for EA/ EPA is collecting information from documentation is generally prepared. FONSI documentation, or $328,880 for certain applicants as part of the process Applicants may submit an EIS/ROD documentation. These figures of complying with either NEPA or environmental information document may vary depending on the complexity Executive Order 12114. EPA’s Executive (EID) to EPA as part of the of issues associated with the project and Order 12114 procedures further the environmental review process. the availability of relevant information, purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA Alternately, an applicant may submit a particularly for EISs. (For example, may be guided by these procedures to draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting EPA’s experience with a limited number the extent they are applicable. documents. Applicants may prepare and of EISs has included one-time costs Therefore, when EPA conducts an submit the information directly, or may ranging from nominal for information environmental assessment pursuant to enter a third-party contract agreement submitted by letter to supplement an its Executive Order 12114 procedures, with EPA for preparation of an EA or existing oil and gas extraction EIS to the Agency generally follows its NEPA EIS and supporting documentation. over a million dollars for new EISs for procedures. For purposes of UMRA, Governmental grantees may be grant- a mining project and an oil and gas applicant-proposed projects subject to eligible for certain costs associated with extraction project with multiple either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 providing environmental information to complex issues.) EPA believes the are addressed through the NEPA EPA, including certain third-party calculation for this UMRA assessment is assessment process. contract costs; private sector permit representative of most projects. On an Those subject to the proposed NEPA applicants are not eligible for EPA annual one-time submission basis, rule include EPA employees who must financial assistance. For purposes of EPA’s aggregate estimate for applicants comply with NEPA and certain grant maximum cost estimates to applicants is $3,823,740 for contractor hours and and permit applicants who must submit for UMRA purposes, EPA assumed that costs, direct labor hours and costs, environmental information to EPA for applicants would expend time and including third-year costs for an EIS/ their proposed projects. The EPA contractor costs to submit: (1) ROD for one grantee project. The Responsible Official is responsible for Information to support application of a requirement in today’s proposed rule for the environmental review process, CE with environmental information applicants to submit one-time, project- including any categorical exclusion (CE) prepared directly by the applicant’s specific environmental information does determination or the scope, accuracy, contractor; or (2) a draft EA and not impose substantial compliance costs and contents of a final environmental supporting documents prepared directly on applicants, including governmental assessment (EA) or environmental by the applicant’s contractor; or (3) a grantees, because it is not likely to result impact statement (EIS) and any draft and final EIS and supporting in the expenditure by applicants, associated documents. The applicant documents prepared by the applicant’s including State and local governments, contributes by submitting contractor under a third-party contract and tribes, in the aggregate, or the environmental information to EPA as agreement with EPA. private sector, of $100 million or more part of the environmental review in any one year. Thus, today’s proposed process. The information submitted by Based on EPA’s past experience, rule is not subject to the requirements grant or permit applicants is one-time under the proposed rule, EPA of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. only on a per-project basis for EPA anticipates there will be approximately actions subject to NEPA that are based 300 grantee projects annually with E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism on applicant proposals. Grantees are about 60% of these projects documented Executive Order 13132, entitled generally governmental jurisdictions, with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/ ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, including State and local governments, FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates that 1999), requires EPA to develop an and tribes applying to EPA for special one project (less than one percent of the accountable process to ensure projects identified in EPA’s State and total annual grantee projects) will have ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG an EIS/ROD completed during a 3-year and local officials in the development of account) or private sector applicants for period. For permit applicants, EPA regulatory policies that have federalism new source NPDES permits issued by assumes there will be approximately 12 implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have EPA. Applicants are required to provide projects annually with about 11 of the federalism implications’’ is defined in environmental information to EPA as projects documented with an EA/ the Executive Order to include part of the environmental review FONSI. In addition, EPA estimates one regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct process unless the EPA Responsible project will have an EIS/ROD completed effects on the States, on the relationship Official decides to prepare the NEPA annually. None of the projects will be between the national government and documents without assistance from the documented initially with a CE. EPA the States, or on the distribution of applicant. If the applicant, including estimated one-time costs for applicants power and responsibilities among the governmental grantees, cannot afford to to prepare the environmental various levels of government.’’ provide the required environmental documentation by including contractor Neither the proposed amendments to information to EPA, then EPA would hours and costs, direct labor hours and EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations undertake the environmental review costs, and O&M for documentation nor the minor, technical amendments to without input from the applicant. submitted to EPA to support a CE EPA’s procedures implementing Further, governmental grantees may be determination, or an EA/FONSI, or an Executive Order 12114 have federalism grant-eligible for certain costs associated EIS/ROD. For a grantee, EPA estimates implications. They will not have with providing environmental an applicant’s one-time costs for substantial direct effects on the States, information to EPA. submitting environmental information on the relationship between the national

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76095

government and the States, or on the process. Section 6.204 of the proposed regulations might require EPA to distribution of power and NEPA regulations lists extraordinary involve tribes in the environmental responsibilities among the various circumstances that would bar the review process. For example, § 6.202 levels of government, as specified in Responsible Official from determining encourages early coordination and Executive Order 13132. The proposed that a categorical exclusion applies to cooperation with federal agencies, state NEPA regulations do not impose new the action. The Responsible Official may and local governments, and tribes with regulatory obligations on the States. ask the relevant State for assistance in jurisdiction by law or special expertise. Under EPA’s current NEPA regulations, determining whether the proposed Section 6.203 requires the Responsible as well as the proposed rule, State and action meets these criteria. Official to ensure meaningful public local governments are required to In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, participation. EPA anticipates that tribes submit environmental information only and consistent with EPA policy to would participate in the public when the State or local government is a promote communications between EPA participation process as appropriate. project-applicant for an EPA action and State and local governments, EPA Section 6.204 of the proposed NEPA subject to NEPA, for example, when the specifically solicits comment on this regulations lists extraordinary State or local government applies for a proposed rule from State and local circumstances that would bar the grant for a special project identified in officials. Responsible Official from determining EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation that a categorical exclusion applies to (STAG) account, or for a new source and Coordination With Indian Tribal the action. The Responsible Official may NPDES permit issued by EPA. The Governments ask the relevant tribe for assistance in requirement to submit environmental determining whether the proposed information to EPA for the NEPA review Executive Order 13175, entitled action meets these criteria. ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with does not impose substantial compliance EPA specifically solicits additional Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR costs because it is not likely to result in comment on this proposed rule from 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA the expenditure by State and local tribal officials. to develop an accountable process to governments in the aggregate of $100 ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of million or more in any one year. tribal officials in the development of Children From Environmental Health Further, this requirement does not regulatory policies that have tribal Risks and Safety Risks preempt State law. The proposed minor, implications.’’ This proposed rule does Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of technical amendments to EPA’s not have tribal implications, as specified Children from Environmental Health procedures for implementing Executive in Executive Order 13175. Risks and Safety Risks,’’ (62 FR 19885, Order 12114 do not impose new Neither the proposed amendments to April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: regulatory obligations on the States or EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically alter the current relationship between nor the minor, technical amendments to significant’’ as defined under Executive the States and the Federal government. EPA’s procedures implementing Order 12866, and (2) concerns an Under EPA’s current Executive Order Executive Order 12114 impose new environmental health or safety risk that 12114 regulations, as well as the regulatory obligations on tribes. They EPA has reason to believe may have a proposed amendments, States are will not have substantial direct effects disproportionate effect on children. If required to submit environmental on tribes, on the relationship between the regulatory action meets both criteria, information only when the State is a the national government and tribes, or the Agency must evaluate the project-applicant for an EPA action on the distribution of power and environmental health or safety effects of subject to Executive Order 12114. The responsibilities between the national the planned rule on children, and requirement to submit environmental government and tribes. Under EPA’s explain why the planned regulation is information to EPA for the Executive current regulations, as well as the preferable to other potentially effective Order 12114 review does not impose proposed rule, Tribes are required to and reasonably feasible alternatives substantial compliance costs because it submit environmental information only considered by the Agency. is not likely to result in the expenditure when the Tribes are project-applicants EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 by State and local governments in the for EPA actions subject to NEPA or as applying only to those regulatory aggregate of $100 million or more in any Executive Order 12114, for example, actions that are based on health or safety one year. Further, this requirement does when Tribes apply for grants for special risks, such that the analysis required not preempt State law. Thus, Executive projects identified in EPA’s State and under section 5–501 of the Order has Order 13132 does not apply to this Tribal Assistance (STAG) account, or for the potential to influence the regulation. proposed rule. new source NPDES permits issued by This proposed rule, including the Although this proposed rule does not EPA. The requirement to submit proposed amendments to EPA’s NEPA have federalism implications, as with environmental information to EPA for implementing procedures and the EPA’s current rule, some parts of the the environmental review process do proposed minor, technical amendments proposed NEPA regulations might not impose substantial compliance costs to the Agency’s procedures for require EPA to involve the States in the because it is not likely to result in the implementing Executive Order 12114, is NEPA environmental review process. expenditure by state, local, and tribal not subject to Executive Order 13045 For example, § 6.202 encourages early governments in the aggregate of $100 because it does not establish an coordination and cooperation with million or more in any one year. environmental standard intended to federal agencies, state and local Further, these requirements do not mitigate health or safety risks. governments, and tribes with preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive jurisdiction by law or special expertise. Order 13175 does not apply to this H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Section 6.203 requires the Responsible proposed rule. Concerning Regulations That Official to ensure meaningful public Although this proposed rule does not Significantly Affect Energy Supply, participation. EPA anticipates that State have Executive Order 13175 Distribution and Use and local governments would implications, as with EPA’s current rule, This proposed rule is not a participate in the public participation some parts of the proposed NEPA ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76096 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 1500.5(g) and 1502.25, the EPA Concerning Regulations That Actions To Address Environmental Responsible Official must determine the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Justice in Minority Populations and applicability of executive orders, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May Low-Income Populations including Executive Order 12898, and 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to EPA maintains an ongoing should incorporate applicable have a significant adverse effect on the commitment to ensure environmental requirements as early in the NEPA supply, distribution, or use of energy. justice for all people, regardless of race, review process as possible. In addition, Today’s proposed rule includes EPA’s color, national origin, or income. § 6.203(a)(5) and (c)(3)(iv) require the proposed amendments to its procedures Ensuring environmental justice means Responsible Official to choose public for implementing the requirements of not only protecting human health and participation methods and engage in the National Environmental Policy Act the environment for everyone, but also outreach designed to reach those in of 1969 and minor, technical ensuring that all people are treated ‘‘potentially affected communities amendments to the Agency’s procedures fairly and given the opportunity to where the proposed action is known or for implementing Executive Order participate meaningfully in the expected to have potentially significant 12114, ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad development, implementation, and environmental impacts or where the of Major Federal Actions.’’ It does not enforcement of environmental laws, proposed action may have impose new regulatory obligations regulations, and policies. In recognizing disproportionately high and adverse related to energy supply, distribution, or that minority and/or low-income human health or environmental effects use of energy on EPA, state or local communities frequently may be exposed in any communities, including minority governments, tribes, or individual disproportionately to environmental communities, low-income communities, applicants required to provide harms and risks, EPA works to protect or federally-recognized Indian tribal environmental information to EPA for these and other burdened communities communities.’’ EPA provides guidance certain grants or permits. Therefore, we from adverse human health and to Responsible Officials and EPA staff have concluded that this proposed rule environmental effects of its programs, on incorporating environmental justice is not likely to have any adverse energy consistent with existing environmental concerns into the NEPA analysis. See effects. and civil rights laws, and their ‘‘Final Guidance For Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in I. National Technology Transfer and implementing regulations, as well as EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses, Advancement Act Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental ‘‘April 1998. Section 12(d) of the National Justice in Minority Populations and List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 6 Technology Transfer and Advancement Low-Income Populations.’’ (59 FR 7629 Environmental protection, Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law (Feb. 11, 1994)). Executive Order 12898 Environmental assessments, 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) establishes federal executive policy on Environmental impact statements, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus environmental justice. Its main Environmental protection reporting, standards in its regulatory activities provision directs federal agencies, to the Foreign relations, Grant programs— unless to do so would be inconsistent greatest extent practicable and environmental protection, Reporting with applicable law or otherwise permitted by law, to make and recordkeeping requirements. impractical. Voluntary consensus environmental justice part of their standards are technical standards (e.g., mission by identifying and addressing, Dated: December 11, 2006. materials specifications, test methods, as appropriate, disproportionately high Stephen L. Johnson, sampling procedures, and business and adverse human health or Administrator. practices) that are developed or adopted environmental effects of their programs, Therefore, for the reasons set forth in by voluntary consensus standards policies, and activities on minority the preamble, EPA hereby proposes to bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to populations and/or low-income amend title 40 chapter I of the Code of provide Congress, through OMB, populations. In developing this Federal Regulations by revising part 6 to explanations when the Agency decides proposed rule in compliance with read as follows: not to use available and applicable Executive Order 12898, EPA determined voluntary consensus standards. This that the proposed rule did not raise any PART 6—PROCEDURES FOR proposed rulemaking, which includes environmental justice concerns. IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL EPA’s proposed amendments to its Today’s proposed rule, including the ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND procedures for implementing the proposed amendments to EPA’s NEPA ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL requirements of the National implementing procedures and the EFFECTS ABROAD OF EPA ACTIONS Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and proposed minor, technical amendments minor, technical amendments to the to the Agency’s procedures for Subpart A—General Provisions for EPA Actions Subject to NEPA Agency’s procedures for implementing implementing Executive Order 12114, Executive Order 12114, ‘‘Environmental does not impose new regulatory 6.100 Policy and Purpose. Effects Abroad of Major Federal program, policy, or activity obligations 6.101 Applicability. 6.102 Definitions. Actions,’’ does not involve technical on EPA, state or local governments, 6.103 Responsibilities of the NEPA Official standards. Therefore, EPA is not tribes, or individual applicants required and Responsible Officials. considering the use of any voluntary to provide environmental information to consensus standards. EPA welcomes EPA for certain grants or permits. Subpart B—EPA’s NEPA Environmental Review Procedures comments on this aspect of the Therefore, we have concluded that this proposed rulemaking and, specifically, proposed rule is not likely to have any 6.200 General requirements. invites the public to identify adverse effects on minority or low- 6.201 Coordination with other environmental review requirements. potentially-applicable voluntary income populations, including tribes. 6.202 Interagency cooperation. consensus standards and to explain why However, the proposed NEPA rule at 6.203 Public participation. such standards should be used in this § 6.201 requires that for specific 6.204 Categorical exclusions and regulation. projects, consistent with 40 CFR extraordinary circumstances.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76097

6.205 Environmental assessments. to NEPA. EPA actions subject to NEPA environmental review and prepare 6.206 Findings of no significant impact. include the award of wastewater either an EA and FONSI or an EIS and 6.207 Environmental impact statements. treatment construction grants under record of decision (ROD) for the 6.208 Records of decision. Title II of the Clean Water Act, EPA’s proposed action. 6.209 Filing requirements for EPA EISs. (5) Environmental review or NEPA 6.210 Emergency circumstances. issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System review means the process used to Subpart C—Requirements for (NPDES) permits under section 402 of comply with section 102(2) of NEPA or Environmental Information Documents and the Clean Water Act, certain research the CEQ Regulations including Third-Party Agreements for EPA Actions development, supplementation, Subject to NEPA and development projects, development and issuance of regulations, EPA actions adoption, and revision of NEPA 6.300 Applicability. involving renovations or new documents. 6.301 Applicant requirements. construction of facilities, and certain (6) Extraordinary circumstances 6.302 Responsible Official requirements. means those circumstances listed in 6.303 Third-party agreements. grants awarded for special projects identified in the State and Tribal § 6.204 that may cause a significant Subpart D—Assessing the Environmental Assistance Grants (STAG) account environmental effect such that a Effects Abroad of EPA Actions authorized by Congress through the proposed action that otherwise meets 6.400 Purpose and policy. Agency’s annual Appropriations Act. the requirements of a categorical 6.401 Applicability. (b) The appropriate Responsible exclusion may not be categorically 6.402 Definitions. Official will undertake certain EPA excluded. 6.403 Environmental review and actions required by the provisions of (7) NEPA document is a document assessment requirements. prepared pursuant to NEPA. 6.404 Lead or cooperating agency. subparts A through C of this part. (c) Certain procedures in subparts A (8) NEPA Official is the Assistant 6.405 Exemptions and considerations. Administrator for Enforcement and 6.406 Implementation. through C of this part apply to the responsibilities of the NEPA Official. Compliance Assurance, who is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 7401– responsible for EPA’s NEPA 7671q. Subpart D also issued under 42 U.S.C. (d) Certain procedures in subparts A through C of this part apply to compliance. 4321, note, E.O. 12114, 44 FR 1979, 3 CFR, (9) Responsible Official means the applicants who are required to provide 1979 Comp., p. 356. EPA official responsible for compliance environmental information to EPA. Subpart A—General Provisions for (e) When the Responsible Official with NEPA for individual proposed EPA Actions Subject to NEPA decides to perform an environmental actions. review under EPA’s Voluntary NEPA § 6.103 Responsibilities of the NEPA § 6.100 Policy and Purpose. Policy (see 63 FR 58045), the Official and Responsible Officials. (a) The National Environmental Responsible Official generally will (a) The NEPA Official will: Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. follow the procedures set out in (1) Ensure EPA’s compliance with 4321 et seq., as implemented by the subparts A through C of this part. NEPA pursuant to 40 CFR 1507.2(a) and Council on Environmental Quality (f) Subparts A through C of this part the regulations in subparts A through C (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500– do not apply to the actions of EPA for of this part. 1508), requires that Federal agencies which NEPA review is not required, (2) Act as EPA’s liaison with the CEQ include in their decision-making including proposed actions for which and other federal agencies, state and processes appropriate and careful analyses that have been conducted local governments, and federally- consideration of all environmental under another statute have been recognized Indian tribes on matters of effects of proposed actions, analyze determined to be functionally policy and administrative procedures potential environmental effects of equivalent to NEPA. regarding compliance with NEPA. proposed actions and their alternatives (3) Approve procedural deviations for public understanding and scrutiny, § 6.102 Definitions. from subparts A through C of this part. avoid or minimize adverse effects of (a) Subparts A through C of this part (4) Monitor the overall timeliness and proposed actions, and restore and use the definitions found at 40 CFR part quality of EPA’s compliance with enhance environmental quality to the 1508. Additional definitions are listed subparts A through C of this part. extent practicable. The U.S. in this subpart. (5) Advise the Administrator on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (b) Definitions. (1) Administrator NEPA-related actions that involve more will integrate these NEPA requirements means the Administrator of the United than one EPA office, are highly as early in the Agency planning States Environmental Protection controversial, are nationally significant, processes as possible. The Agency. or establish new EPA NEPA-related environmental review process will be (2) Applicant means any individual, policy. the focal point to ensure NEPA agency, or other entity that has: (6) Support the Administrator by considerations are taken into account. (i) Filed an application for federal providing policy guidance on NEPA- (b) Through this proposed rule, EPA assistance; or related issues. adopts the CEQ’s regulations (40 CFR (ii) Applied to EPA for a permit. (7) Assist EPA’s Responsible Officials Parts 1500–1508) implementing NEPA; (3) Assistance agreement means an with establishing and maintaining subparts A through C of this part award of federal assistance in the form adequate administrative procedures to supplement those regulations, for of money or property in lieu of money comply with subparts A through C of actions proposed by EPA that are from EPA to an eligible applicant this part, performing their NEPA duties, subject to NEPA requirements. Subparts including grants or cooperative and training personnel and applicants A through C are to be used in agreements. involved in the environmental review conjunction with the CEQ Regulations. (4) Environmental information process. document (EID) means a written (8) Consult with Responsible Officials § 6.101 Applicability. analysis prepared by an applicant that and CEQ regarding the addition, (a) Subparts A through C apply to the provides sufficient information for the amendment, or deletion of a categorical proposed actions of EPA that are subject Responsible Official to undertake an exclusion.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(b) For individual proposed actions, (b) The Responsible Official must applicant will be required to prepare an the Responsible Official will: determine the scope of the EID for the proposed action. (1) Ensure EPA’s compliance with the environmental review by considering (3) Review relevant planning or CEQ regulations and subparts A through the type of proposed action, the decision-making documents, whether C of this part. reasonable alternatives, and the type of prepared by EPA or another federal (2) Ensure that environmental reviews environmental impacts. The scope of an agency, to determine if the proposed are conducted on proposed actions at EIS will be determined as provided in action or any of its alternatives have the earliest practicable point in EPA’s 40 CFR 1508.25. been considered in a prior federal NEPA decision-making process and in (c) During the environmental review document. EPA may adopt the existing accordance with the provisions of process, the Responsible Official must: document, or will incorporate by subparts A through C of this part. (1) Integrate the NEPA process and reference any pertinent part of it, (3) Ensure, to the extent practicable, the procedures of subparts A through C consistent with 40 CFR 1506.3 and early and continued involvement of of this part into early planning to ensure 1502.21. interested federal agencies, state and appropriate consideration of NEPA’s (4) Review relevant environmental local governments, federally-recognized policies and to minimize or eliminate review document prepared by a state or Indian tribes, and affected applicants in delay; local government or federally- the environmental review process. (2) Emphasize cooperative recognized Indian tribe to determine if (4) Coordinate with the NEPA Official consultation among federal agencies, the proposed action or any of its and other Responsible Officials, as state and local governments, and alternatives have been considered in appropriate, on resolving issues federally-recognized Indian tribes before such a document. EPA will incorporate involving EPA-wide NEPA policy and an EA or EIS is prepared to help ensure by reference any pertinent part of that procedures and/or unresolved conflicts document consistent with 40 CFR with other federal agencies, state and compliance with the procedural 1502.21. local governments, and federally- provisions of subparts A through C of recognized Indian tribes, and/or this part and with other environmental (e) During the decision-making advising the Administrator when review requirements, to address the process for the proposed action, the necessary. need for interagency cooperation, to Responsible Official must: (5) Coordinate with other Responsible identify the requirements for other (1) Incorporate the NEPA review in Officials, as appropriate, on NEPA- agencies’ reviews, and to ensure decision-making on the action. related actions involving their specific appropriate public participation. Processing and review of an applicant’s interests. (3) Identify at an early stage any application must proceed concurrently (6) Consistent with national NEPA potentially significant environmental with the NEPA review procedures set guidance, provide specific policy issues to be evaluated in detail and out in subparts A through C of this part. guidance, as appropriate, and ensure insignificant issues to be de- EPA must complete its NEPA review that the Responsible Official’s office emphasized, focusing the scope of the before making a decision on the action. establishes and maintains adequate environmental review accordingly; (2) Consider the relevant NEPA administrative procedures to comply (4) Involve other agencies and the documents, public and other agency with subparts A through C of this part. public, as appropriate, in the comments (if any) on those documents, (7) Upon request of an applicant and environmental review process for and EPA responses to those comments, consistent with 40 CFR 1501.8, set time proposed actions that are not as part of consideration of the action limits on the NEPA review appropriate categorically excluded to: (see 40 CFR 1505.1(d)). to individual proposed actions. (i) Identify the federal, state, local, (3) Consider the alternatives analyzed (8) Make decisions relating to the and federally-recognized Indian tribal in an EA or EIS before rendering a preparation of the appropriate NEPA entities and the members of the public decision on the action; and documents, including preparing an EA that may have an interest in the action; (4) Ensure that the decision on the or EIS, and signing the decision (ii) Request that appropriate federal, action is to implement an alternative document. state, and local agencies and federally- analyzed or is within the range of (9) Monitor the overall timeliness and recognized Indian tribes serve as alternatives analyzed in the EA or EIS quality of the Responsible Official’s cooperating agencies consistent with 40 (see 40 CFR 1505.1(e)). respective office’s efforts to comply with CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5; and (f) To eliminate duplication and to subparts A through C of this part. (iii) Integrate, where possible, review foster efficiency, the Responsible (c) The NEPA Official and the of applicable federal laws and executive Official should use tiering (see 40 CFR Responsible Officials may delegate orders into the environmental review 1502.20 and 1508.28) and incorporate NEPA-related responsibilities to a level process in conjunction with the material by reference (see 40 CFR no lower than the Branch Chief or development of NEPA documents. 1502.21) as appropriate. equivalent organizational level. (d) When preparing NEPA documents, (g) For applicant-related proposed Subpart B—EPA’s NEPA the Responsible Official must: actions: Environmental Review Procedures (1) Utilize a systematic, (1) The Responsible Official may interdisciplinary approach to integrate request that the applicant submit § 6.200 General requirements. the natural and social sciences with the information to support the application (a) The Responsible Official must environmental design arts in planning of a categorical exclusion to the determine whether the proposed action and making decisions on proposed applicant’s pending action. meets the criteria for categorical actions subject to environmental review (2) The Responsible Official may exclusion or whether it requires under subparts A through C of this part gather the information and prepare the preparation of an EA or an EIS to (see 40 CFR 1501.2(a) and 1507.2); NEPA document without assistance identify and evaluate its environmental (2) Plan adequate time and funding from the applicant, or, pursuant to impacts. The Responsible Official may for the NEPA review and preparation of Subpart C of this part, have the decide to prepare an EIS without first the NEPA documents. Planning applicant prepare an EID or a draft EA undertaking an EA. includes consideration of whether an and supporting documents, or enter into

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76099

a third-party agreement with the (c) To prepare a single document to calendar-day comment period, the applicant. fulfill both NEPA and state or local Responsible Official must notify the (3) During the environmental review government, or federally-recognized NEPA Official before taking such action. process, applicants may continue to Indian tribe requirements, consistent If the NEPA Official determines that a compile additional information needed with 40 CFR 1506.2, the Responsible reduced comment period would be in for the environmental review and/or Official should enter into a written the best interest of the Government, the information necessary to support an agreement with the involved state or NEPA Official will inform the application for a permit or assistance local government, or federally- Responsible Official, as soon as agreement from EPA. recognized Indian tribe that sets out the possible, of this approval. (h) For all NEPA determinations (CEs, intentions of the parties, including the (c) EIS and ROD requirements. (1) As soon as practicable after the decision to EA/FONSIs, or EIS/RODs) that are five responsibilities each party intends to prepare an EIS and before beginning the years old or older, and for which the assume and procedures the parties scoping process, the Responsible subject action has not yet been intend to follow. Official must ensure that a notice of implemented, the Responsible Official § 6.203 Public participation. intent (NOI) (see 40 CFR 1508.22) is must re-evaluate the proposed action, (a) General requirements. (1) The published in the Federal Register. The environmental conditions, and public procedures in this section apply to NOI must briefly describe the proposed views to determine whether to conduct EPA’s environmental review processes, action; a preliminary list of a supplemental environmental review of including development, environmental issues to be analyzed, the action and complete an appropriate supplementation, adoption, and and possible alternatives; EPA’s NEPA document or reaffirm EPA’s revision of NEPA documents. proposed scoping process including, if original NEPA determination. If there (2) The Responsible Official will make available, whether, when, and where has been substantial change in the diligent efforts to involve the public, any scoping meeting will be held; and proposed action that is relevant to including applicants, in the preparation the name and contact information for environmental concerns, or if there are of EAs or EISs consistent with 40 CFR the person designated by EPA to answer significant new circumstances or 1501.4 and 1506.6 and applicable EPA questions about the proposed action and information relevant to environmental public participation regulations (e.g., 40 the EIS. The NOI must invite comments concerns and bearing on the proposed CFR Part 25). and suggestions on the scope of the EIS. action or its impacts, the Responsible (3) EPA NEPA documents will use (2) The Responsible Official must Official must conduct a supplemental plain language to the extent possible. disseminate the NOI consistent with 40 environmental review of the action and (4) The Responsible Official will, to CFR 1506.6. complete an appropriate NEPA the greatest extent possible, give notice (3) The Responsible Official must document. to any state or local government, or conduct the scoping process consistent federally-recognized Indian tribe that, in § 6.201 Coordination with other with 40 CFR 1501.7 and any applicable environmental review requirements. the Official’s judgment, may be affected EPA public participation regulations by an action for which EPA plans to (e.g., 40 CFR Part 25). Consistent with 40 CFR 1500.5(g) and prepare an EA or an EIS. (i) Publication of the NOI in the 1502.25, the Responsible Official must (5) The Responsible Official must use Federal Register begins the scoping determine the applicability of other appropriate communication procedures process. environmental laws and executive to ensure meaningful public (ii) The Responsible Official must orders, to the fullest extent possible. participation throughout the NEPA ensure that the scoping process for an The Responsible Official should process. The Responsible Official must EIS allows a minimum of thirty (30) incorporate applicable requirements as make reasonable efforts to involve the days for the receipt of public comments. early in the NEPA review process as potentially affected communities where (iii) The Responsible Official may possible. the proposed action is expected to have hold one or more public meetings as § 6.202 Interagency cooperation. environmental impacts or where the part of the scoping process for an EPA proposed action may have human EIS. The Responsible Official must (a) Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.5, health or environmental effects in any announce the location, date, and time of 1501.6, and 1508.5, the Responsible communities, including minority public scoping meetings in the NOI or Official will request other appropriate communities, low-income communities, by other appropriate means, such as federal and non-federal agencies to be or federally-recognized Indian tribal additional notices in the Federal joint lead or cooperating agencies in the communities. Register, news releases to the local preparation of NEPA documents for (b) EA and FONSI requirements. At media, or letters to affected parties. actions as a means of encouraging early least thirty (30) calendar days before Public scoping meetings should be held coordination and cooperation with making the decision on whether, and if at least fifteen (15) days after public federal agencies, state and local so how, to proceed with a proposed notification. governments, and federally-recognized action, the Responsible Official must (iv) The Responsible Official must use Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or make available to the interested federal appropriate means to publicize the special expertise. agencies, state and local governments, availability of draft and final EISs and (b) For an EPA action related to an federally-recognized Indian tribes and the time and place for public meetings action of any other federal agency, the the affected public the EA and or hearings on draft EISs. The methods Responsible Official must comply with preliminary FONSI for review and chosen for public participation must the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.5 and comment. The Responsible Official focus on reaching persons who may be 1501.6 relating to lead agencies and must respond to any substantive interested in the proposed action. Such cooperating agencies, respectively. The comments received and finalize the EA persons include those in potentially Responsible Official will work with the and FONSI before making a decision on affected communities where the other involved agencies to facilitate the proposed action. Where proposed action is known or expected to coordination and to reduce delay and circumstances make it necessary to take have environmental impacts including duplication. the action without observing the 30- minority communities, low-income

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76100 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

communities, or federally-recognized of existing facilities; functional support the normal conduct of EPA Indian tribal communities. replacement of equipment, acquisition business. (v) The Responsible Official must and installation of equipment, or (ii) Acquisition actions (compliant circulate the draft and final EISs construction of new minor ancillary with applicable procedures for consistent with 40 CFR 1502.19 and any facilities adjacent to or on the same sustainable or ‘‘green’’ procurement) applicable EPA public participation property as existing facilities. and contracting actions necessary to regulations and in accordance with the (ii) Actions relating to existing support the normal conduct of EPA 45-day public review period for draft infrastructure systems (such as sewer business. EISs and the 30-day public review systems; drinking water supply systems; (iii) Actions involving information period for final EISs (see § 6.209). and stormwater systems, including collection, dissemination, or exchange; Consistent with § 6.209(b), the combined sewer overflow systems) that planning; monitoring and sample Responsible Official may establish a involve minor upgrading, or minor collection wherein no significant longer public comment period for a expansion of system capacity or alteration of existing ambient conditions draft or final EIS. rehabilitation (including functional occurs; educational and training (vi) After preparing a draft EIS and replacement) of the existing system and programs; literature searches and before preparing a final EIS, the system components (such as the sewer studies; computer studies and activities; Responsible Official must solicit the collection network and treatment research and analytical activities; comments of appropriate federal system, the system to collect, treat, store development of compliance assistance agencies, state and/or local and distribute drinking water; and tools; and architectural and engineering governments, and/or federally- stormwater systems, including studies. These actions include those recognized Indian tribes, and the public combined sewer overflow systems) or conducted directly by EPA and EPA (see 40 CFR 1503.1). The Responsible construction of new minor ancillary actions relating to contracts or Official must respond in the final EIS to facilities adjacent to or on the same assistance agreements involving such substantive comments received (see 40 property as existing facilities. This actions. (iv) Actions relating to or conducted CFR 1503.4). category does not include actions that: completely within a permanent, existing (vii) The Responsible Official may involve new or relocated discharges to contained facility, such as a laboratory, conduct one or more public meetings or surface or ground water; will likely or other enclosed building, provided hearings on the draft EIS as part of the result in the substantial increase in the that reliable and scientifically sound public involvement process. If meetings volume or the loading of pollutant to the methods are used to appropriately or hearings are held, the Responsible receiving water; will provide capacity to Official must make the draft EIS dispose of wastes and safeguards exist serve a population 30% greater than the to prevent hazardous, toxic and available to the public at least thirty (30) existing population or is not supported days in advance of any meeting or radioactive materials in excess of by the state, or other regional growth allowable limits from entering the hearing. plan or strategy; or directly or indirectly (4) The Responsible Official must environment. Where such activities are involve or relate to upgrading or conducted at laboratories, the Lab make the ROD available to the public extending infrastructure systems upon request. Director or other appropriate official primarily for the purposes of future must certify in writing that the § 6.204 Categorical exclusions and development. laboratory follows good laboratory extraordinary circumstances. (iii) Actions in unsewered practices and adheres to all applicable (a) A proposed action may be communities relating to the use of federal, state, local and federally- categorically excluded if the action fits proposed wastewater on-site recognized Indian tribal laws and within a category of action that is technologies where such technologies regulations. This category does not eligible for exclusion and the proposed replace existing systems. include activities related to construction action does not involve any (iv) Actions involving re-issuance of a and/or demolition within the facility extraordinary circumstances. NPDES permit for a new source (see paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section). (1) Certain actions eligible for providing the conclusions of the (v) Actions involving emergency categorical exclusion require the original NEPA document are still valid preparedness planning and training Responsible Official to document a (including the appropriate mitigation), activities. determination that a categorical there will be no degradation of the (vi) Actions involving the acquisition, exclusion applies. The documentation receiving waters, and the permit transfer, lease, disposition, or closure of must include: a brief description of the conditions do not change or are more existing permanent structures, land, proposed action; the categorical environmentally protective. equipment, materials or personal exclusion that applies to the action; and (v) Actions for award of grants property provided that the property: has a statement confirming that and authorized by Congress under EPA’s been used solely for office functions; explaining why no extraordinary annual Appropriations Act that are has never been used for laboratory circumstances apply to the proposed solely for reimbursement of the costs of purposes by any party; does not require action. The Responsible Official must a project that was completed prior to the site remediation; and will be used in make a copy of the determination date the appropriation was enacted. essentially the same manner such that document available to the public upon (2) Certain actions eligible for the type and magnitude of the impacts request. The categorical exclusions categorical exclusion do not require the will not change substantially. This requiring this documentation are listed Responsible Official to document a category does not include activities in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(v) determination that a categorical related to construction and/or of this section. exclusion applies. These categorical demolition of structures on the property (i) Actions at EPA owned or operated exclusions are listed in paragraphs (see paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section). facilities involving routine facility (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(x) of this section. (vii) Actions involving providing maintenance, repair, and grounds- (i) Procedural, ministerial, technical advice to federal agencies, keeping; minor rehabilitation, administrative, financial, personnel, and state or local governments, federally- restoration, renovation, or revitalization management actions necessary to recognized Indian tribes, foreign

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76101

governments, or public or private commercial, agricultural, recreational, (ii) Actions covered by the proposed entities. residential) or growth and distribution categorical exclusion generally do not (viii) Actions involving approval of of population including altering the involve extraordinary circumstances as EPA participation in international character of existing residential areas, or set out in paragraphs (b)(1) through ‘‘umbrella’’ agreements for cooperation may not be consistent with state or local (b)(14) of this section and generally do in environmental-related activities that government, or federally-recognized not require preparation of an EIS; and would not commit the United States to Indian tribe approved land use plans or (iii) Information adequate to any specific projects or actions. federal land management plans. determine that a proposed action is (ix) Actions involving containment or (8) The proposed action is expected to properly covered by the proposed removal and disposal of asbestos- cause significant public controversy category will usually be available. containing material or lead-based paint about a potential environmental impact (3) The NEPA Official must determine from EPA owned or operated facilities of the proposed action. that the addition, amendment, or when undertaken in accordance with (9) The proposed action may be deletion of a categorical exclusion is applicable regulations. associated with providing financial appropriate. (x) Actions involving new source assistance to a federal agency through (g) Any addition, amendment, or NPDES permit modifications that make an interagency agreement for a project deletion of a categorical exclusion will only technical corrections to the NPDES that is known or expected to have be done by rule-making and in permit (such as correcting typographical potentially significant environmental coordination with CEQ pursuant to 40 errors) that do not result in a change in impacts. CFR 1507.3 to amend paragraph (a)(1) or environmental impacts or conditions. (10) The proposed action may conflict paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (b) The Responsible Official must with federal, state or local government, review actions eligible for categorical or federally-recognized Indian tribe § 6.205 Environmental assessments. exclusion to determine whether any environmental, resource-protection, or (a) The Responsible Official must extraordinary circumstances are land-use laws or regulations. prepare an environmental assessment involved. Extraordinary circumstances (c) The Responsible Official may (EA) (see 40 CFR 1508.9) for a proposed are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through request that an applicant submit action that is expected to result in (b)(10) of this section. (See 40 CFR sufficient information to enable the environmental impacts and the 1508.4.) Responsible Official to determine significance of the impacts is not (1) The proposed action is known or whether a categorical exclusion applies known. An EA is not required if the expected to have potentially significant to the applicant’s proposed action or proposed action is categorically environmental impacts on the quality of whether an exceptional circumstance excluded, or if the Responsible Official the human environment either applies. Pursuant to Subpart C of this has decided to prepare an EIS. (See 40 individually or cumulatively over time part, applicants are not required to CFR 1501.3.) Types of actions that (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)). prepare EIDs for actions that are being typically require the preparation of an (2) The proposed action is known or considered for categorical exclusion. EA include: the award of wastewater expected to have disproportionately (d) The Responsible Official must treatment construction grants under high and adverse human health or prepare an EA or EIS when a proposed Title II of the Clean Water Act; EPA’s environmental effects on any action involves extraordinary issuance of new source NPDES permits community, including minority circumstances. under section 402 of the Clean Water communities, low-income communities, (e) After a determination has been Act; EPA actions involving renovations or federally-recognized Indian tribal made that a categorical exclusion or new construction of facilities; certain communities. applies to an action, if new information grants awarded for special projects (3) The proposed action may or changes in the proposed action identified in the State and Tribal significantly affect federally listed involve or relate to at least one of the Assistance Grants (STAG) account threatened or endangered species or extraordinary circumstances or authorized by Congress through the their critical habitat. otherwise indicate that the action may Agency’s annual Appropriations Act; (4) The proposed action may not meet the criteria for categorical and research and development projects, significantly affect national natural exclusion and the Responsible Official such as initial field demonstration of a landmarks or any property with determines that an action no longer new technology, field trials of a new nationally significant historic, qualifies for a categorical exclusion, the product or new uses of an existing architectural, prehistoric, archeological, Responsible Official will prepare an EA technology, alteration of a local habitat or cultural value, including but not or EIS. limited to, property listed on or eligible (f) The Responsible Official, or other by physical or chemical means, or for the National Register of Historic interested parties, may request the actions that may result in the release of Places. addition, amendment, or deletion of a radioactive, hazardous, or toxic (5) The proposed action may categorical exclusion. substances, or biota. significantly affect environmentally (1) Such requests must be made in (b) Consistent with 40 CFR 1508.9, an important natural resource areas such as writing, be directed to the NEPA EA must provide sufficient information wetlands, floodplains, significant Official, and contain adequate and analysis for determining whether to agricultural lands, aquifer recharge information to support and justify the prepare an EIS or to issue a FONSI (see zones, coastal zones, barrier islands, request. 40 CFR 1508.9(a)), and may include wild and scenic rivers, and significant (2) Proposed new categories of actions analyses needed for other fish or wildlife habitat. for exclusion must meet these criteria: environmental determinations. The EA (6) The proposed action has the (i) Actions covered by the proposed must focus on resources that might be potential to cause significant adverse air categorical exclusion generally do not impacted and any environmental issues quality effects. individually or cumulatively have a that are of public concern. (7) The proposed action will likely significant effect on the human (c) An EA must include: have a significant effect on the pattern environment and have been found by (1) A brief discussions of: and type of land use (industrial, EPA to have no such effect. (i) The need for the proposed action;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76102 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(ii) The alternatives, including the no (f) The Responsible Official may through the release of radioactive, action alternative (which must be proceed with the action subject to any hazardous or toxic substances, or biota. assessed even when the proposed action mitigation measures described in the (vii) The proposed action involves is specifically required by legislation or FONSI after responding to any uncertain environmental effects or a court order); substantive comments received on the highly unique environmental risks that (iii) The affected environment, preliminary FONSI during the 30-day are likely to be significant. including baseline conditions that may comment period, or 30 days after (viii) The proposed action is likely to be impacted by the proposed action and issuance of the FONSI if no substantive significantly affect national natural alternatives; comments are received. landmarks or any property on or eligible (iv) The environmental impacts of the (g) The Responsible Official must for the National Register of Historic proposed action and alternatives, ensure that the mitigation measures Places. including any unresolved conflicts necessary to the FONSI determination, (ix) The proposed action is likely to concerning alternative uses of available at a minimum, are enforceable, and significantly affect environmentally resources; and conduct appropriate monitoring of the important natural resources such as (v) Other applicable environmental mitigation measures. wetlands, significant agricultural lands, laws and executive orders. (h) The Responsible Official may aquifer recharge zones, coastal zones, (2) A listing or summary of any revise a FONSI at any time provided the barrier islands, wild and scenic rivers, coordination or consultation undertaken revision is supported by an EA. A and significant fish or wildlife habitat. with any federal agency, state or local revised FONSI is subject to all (x) The proposed action in government, or federally-recognized provisions of paragraph (d) of this conjunction with related federal, state or Indian tribe regarding compliance with section. local government, or federally- applicable laws and executive orders; recognized Indian tribe projects is likely (3) Identification and description of § 6.207 Environmental impact statements. to produce significant cumulative any mitigation measures considered, (a) The Responsible Official will impacts. including any mitigation measures that prepare an environmental impact (xi) The proposed action is likely to must be adopted to ensure the action statement (EIS) (see 40 CFR 1508.11) for significantly affect the pattern and type will not have significant impacts; and major actions significantly affecting the of land use (industrial, commercial, (4) Incorporation of documents by quality of the human environment, recreational, residential) or growth and reference, if appropriate, including, including actions for which the EA distribution of population including when available, the EID for the action. analysis demonstrates that significant altering the character of existing § 6.206 Findings of no significant impact. impacts will occur that will not be residential areas. (a) The Responsible Official may issue reduced or eliminated by changes to or (3) EISs are typically prepared for the a finding of no significant impact mitigation of the proposed action. following actions: (FONSI) (see 40 CFR 1508.13) only if the (1) An EIS must be prepared (i) New regional wastewater treatment EA supports the finding that the consistent with 40 CFR part 1502. facilities or water supply systems for a (2) A proposed action normally proposed action will not have a community with a population greater significant effect on the human requires an EIS if it meets any of the than 100,000. environment. If the EA does not support following criteria. (See 40 CFR (ii) Expansions of existing wastewater a FONSI, the Responsible Official must 1507.3(b)(2).) treatment facilities that will increase (i) The proposed action would result prepare an EIS and issue a ROD before existing discharge to an impaired water in a discharge of treated effluent from a taking action on the proposed action. by greater than 10 million gallons per (b) Consistent with 40 CFR 1508.13, a new or modified existing facility into a day (mgd). FONSI must include: body of water and the discharge is likely (iii) Issuance of new source NPDES (1) The EA, or in lieu of the EA, a to have a significant effect on the quality permit for a new major industrial summary of the supporting EA that of the receiving waters. discharge. includes a brief description of the (ii) The proposed action is likely to (iv) Issuance of a new source NPDES proposed action and alternatives directly, or through induced permit for a new oil/gas development considered in the EA, environmental development, have significant adverse and production operation on the outer factors considered, and project impacts; effect upon local ambient air quality or continental shelf. and local ambient noise levels. (v) Issuance of a new source NPDES (2) A brief description of the reasons (iii) The proposed action is likely to permit for a deepwater port with a why there are no significant impacts. have significant adverse effects on projected discharge in excess of 10 mgd. (c) In addition, the FONSI, must surface water reservoirs or navigation (b) When appropriate, the Responsible include: projects. Official will prepare a legislative EIS (1) Any commitments to mitigation (iv) The proposed action would be consistent with 40 CFR 1506.8. that are essential to render the impacts inconsistent with state or local (c) In preparing an EIS, the of the proposed action not significant; government, or federally-recognized Responsible Official must determine if (2) The date of issuance; and Indian tribe approved land use plans or an applicant, other federal agencies or (3) The signature of the Responsible regulations, or federal land management state or local governments, or federally- Official. plans. recognized Indian tribes are involved (d) The Responsible Official must (v) The proposed action would be with the project and apply the ensure that an applicant that has inconsistent with state or local applicable provisions of section 6.202 committed to mitigation possesses the government, or federally-recognized and Subpart C of this part. authority and ability to fulfill the Indian tribe environmental, resource- (d) An EIS must: commitments. protection, or land-use laws and (1) Comply with all requirements at (e) The Responsible Official must regulations for protection of the 40 CFR parts 1500–1508; make a preliminary FONSI available to environment. (2) Analyze all reasonable alternatives the public in accordance with § 6.203(b) (vi) The proposed action is likely to and the no action alternative (which before taking action. significantly affect the environment may be the same as denying the action).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76103

Assess the no action alternative even (2) The date of issuance; and environmental review process. when the proposed action is specifically (3) The signature of the Responsible Consistent with 40 CFR 1506.11, the required by legislation or a court order. Official. Responsible Official and the NEPA (3) Describe the potentially affected (d) The Responsible Official must Official should consult with CEQ about environment including, as appropriate, ensure that an applicant that has alternative arrangements at the earliest the size and location of new and committed to mitigation possesses the opportunity. existing facilities, land requirements, authority and ability to fulfill the operation and maintenance commitment. Subpart C—Requirements for requirements, auxiliary structures such (e) The Responsible Official must Environmental Information Documents as pipelines or transmission lines, and make a ROD available to the public. and Third-Party Agreements for EPA construction schedules. (f) Upon issuance of the ROD, the Actions Subject to NEPA (4) Summarize any coordination or Responsible Official may proceed with consultation undertaken with any the action subject to any mitigation § 6.300 Applicability. federal agency, state and/or local measures described in the ROD. The (a) This section applies to actions that government, and/or federally- Responsible Official must ensure involve applications to EPA for permits recognized Indian tribe, including adequate monitoring of mitigation or assistance agreements. copies or summaries of relevant measures identified in the ROD. (b) The Responsible Official is correspondence. (g) If the mitigation identified in the responsible for the environmental (5) Summarize any public meetings ROD will be included as a condition in review process on EPA’s action (that is, during the scoping process including the permit or grant, the Responsible issuing the permit or awarding the the date, time, place, and purpose of the Official must ensure that EPA has the assistance agreement) with the applicant meetings. The final EIS must summarize authority to impose the conditions. The contributing through submission of an the public participation process Responsible Official should ensure that EID or a draft EA and supporting including the date, time, place, and compliance with assistance agreement documents. purpose of meetings or hearings held or permit conditions will be monitored (c) An applicant is not required to after publication of the draft EIS. and enforced under EPA’s assistance prepare an EID when: (6) Consider substantive comments agreement and permit authorities. (1) The action has been categorically received during the public participation (h) The Responsible Official may excluded; or process. The draft EIS must consider the revise a ROD at any time provided the (2) The applicant will prepare and substantive comments received during revision is supported by an EIS. A submit an EA or EIS and supporting the scoping process. The final EIS must revised ROD is subject to all provisions documents. include or summarize all substantive of paragraph (d) of this section. (d) The Responsible Official must comments received on the draft EIS, notify the applicant if EPA will not respond to any substantive comments § 6.209 Filing requirements for EPA EISs. require submission of an EID. on the draft EIS, and explain any (a) The Responsible Official must file changes to the draft EIS and the reason an EIS with the NEPA Official no earlier § 6.301 Applicant requirements. for the changes. than the document being transmitted to (a) The applicant must prepare an EID (7) Include the names and commenting agencies and made in consultation with the Responsible qualifications of the persons primarily available to the public. The Responsible Official, unless the Responsible Official responsible for preparing the EIS Official must comply with any has notified the applicant that an EID is including an EIS prepared under a guidelines established by the NEPA not required. The EID must be of third-party contract (if applicable), Official for the filing system process and sufficient scope and content to enable significant background papers, and the comply with 40 CFR 1506.9 and the Responsible Official to prepare an EID (if applicable). 1506.10. The review periods are EA and FONSI or, if necessary, an EIS (e) The Responsible Official must computed through the filing system and ROD. The applicant must submit prepare a supplemental EIS when process and published in the Federal the EID to the Responsible Official. appropriate, consistent with 40 CFR Register in the Notice of Availability. (b) The applicant must consult with 1502.9. (b) The Responsible Official may the Responsible Official as early as § 6.208 Records of decision. request that the NEPA Official extend possible in the planning process to obtain guidance with respect to the (a) The Responsible Official may not the review periods for an EIS. The NEPA Official will publish notice of an appropriate level and scope of make any decisions on the action until environmental information required for the time periods in 40 CFR 1506.10 have extension of the review period in the Federal Register and notify the CEQ. the EID. been met. (c) As part of the EID process, the (b) A record of decision (ROD) records § 6.210 Emergency circumstances. applicant may consult with appropriate EPA’s decision on the action. Consistent If emergency circumstances make it federal agencies, state and local with 40 CFR 1505.2, a ROD must necessary to take an action that has a governments, and federally-recognized include: (1) A brief description of the proposed significant environmental impact Indian tribes and other potentially action and alternatives considered in without observing the provisions of affected parties to identify their interests the EIS, environmental factors subparts A through C of this part that in the project and the environmental considered, and project impacts; are required by the CEQ Regulations, the issues associated with the project. (2) Any commitments to mitigation; Responsible Official must consult with (d) The applicant must notify the and the NEPA Official at the earliest Responsible Official as early as possible (3) An explanation if an possible time. Actions taken without of other federal agency, state or local environmentally preferred alternative observing the provisions of subparts A government, or federally-recognized was not selected. through C of this part will be limited to Indian tribe requirements related to the (c) In addition, the ROD must include: actions necessary to control the project. The applicant also must notify (1) Responses to any substantive immediate impacts of the emergency; the Responsible Official of any private comments on the final EIS; other actions remain subject to the entities and organizations affected by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76104 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

the proposed project. (See 40 CFR (d) If, prior to completion of the ensure that the contractor is qualified to 1501.2(d)(2).) environmental review for a project, the prepare an EA or EIS, and that the (e) The applicant must notify the Responsible Official receives substantive terms of the contract specify Responsible Official if, during EPA’s notification from the applicant under the information to be developed, and environmental review process, the section 6.301(e) and determines that its the procedures for gathering, analyzing applicant: actions would result in significant and presenting the information; (1) Changes its plans for the project as impacts or would limit alternatives, the (3) The Responsible Official must originally submitted to EPA; and/or Responsible Official must notify the prepare a disclosure statement for the (2) Changes its schedule for the applicant promptly that EPA will take applicant to include in the contract project from that originally submitted to appropriate action to ensure that the specifying that the contractor has no EPA. objectives and procedures of NEPA are financial or other interest in the (f) In accordance with section 6.204 of achieved (see 40 CFR 1506.1(b)). Such outcome of the project (see 40 CFR this part, where appropriate, the actions may include withholding grant 1506.5(c)). applicant may request a categorical funds or denial of permits. (4) The Responsible Official must exclusion determination by the (e) The Responsible Official must ensure that the EA or EIS and any Responsible Official. If requested by the begin the NEPA review as soon as associated documents contain analyses Responsible Official, the applicant must possible after receiving the applicant’s and conclusions that adequately assess submit information to the Responsible EID or draft EA. The Responsible the relevant environmental issues. Official regarding the application of a Official must independently evaluate (b) In order to make a decision on the categorical exclusion to EPA’s pending the information submitted and be action, the Responsible Official must action and the applicant’s project. responsible for its accuracy (see 40 CFR independently evaluate the information 1506.5). submitted in the EA or EIS and any § 6.302 Responsible Official requirements. (f) At the request of an applicant and associated documents, and issue an EA (a) Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.2(d), at the discretion of the Responsible or draft and final EIS. After review of, the Responsible Official must ensure Official, an applicant may prepare an and appropriate changes to, the EA or early involvement of applicants in the EA or EIS and supporting documents or EIS submitted by the applicant, the environmental review process to enter into a third-party contract Responsible Official may accept it as identify environmental effects, avoid pursuant to section 6.303 of this part. EPA’s document. The Responsible delays, and resolve conflicts. (g) The Responsible Official must Official is responsible for the scope, (b) The Responsible Official must have reviewed and taken responsibility accuracy, and contents of the EA or EIS notify the applicant if a determination for the completed NEPA documents and any associated documents (see 40 has been made that the action has been before rendering a final decision on the CFR 1506.5). categorically excluded, or if EPA needs proposed action. (c) A third-party agreement may not be initiated unless both the applicant additional information to support the § 6.303 Third-party agreements. application of a categorical exclusion or and the Responsible Official agree to its (a) If an EA or EIS is to be prepared creation and terms. if the submitted information does not for an action subject to subparts A support the application of a categorical (d) The terms of the contract between through C of this part, the Responsible the applicant and the third-party exclusion and that an EA, or an EIS, will Official and the applicant may enter be required. contractor must ensure that the into an agreement whereby the contractor does not have recourse to (c) When an EID is required for a applicant engages and pays for the EPA for financial or other claims arising project, the Responsible Official must services of a third-party contractor to under the contract, and that the consult with the applicant and provide prepare an EA or EIS and any associated Responsible Official, or other EPA the applicant with guidance describing documents for consideration by EPA. In designee, may give technical advice to the scope and level of environmental such cases, the Responsible Official the contractor. information required. must approve the qualifications of the (1) The Responsible Official must third-party contractor. The third-party Subpart D—Assessing the provide guidance on a project-by-project contractor must be selected on the basis Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA basis to any applicant seeking such of ability and absence of any conflict of Actions assistance. For major categories of interest. Consistent with 40 CFR actions involving a large number of 1506.5(c), in consultation with the § 6.400 Purpose and policy. applicants, the Responsible Official may applicant, the Responsible Official shall (a) Purpose. On January 4, 1979, the prepare and make available generic select the contractor. The Responsible President signed Executive Order 12114 guidance describing the recommended Official must provide guidance to the entitled ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad level and scope of environmental applicant and contractor regarding the of Major Federal Actions.’’ The purpose information that applicants should information to be developed, including of this Executive Order is to enable provide. the project’s scope, and guide and responsible Federal officials in carrying (2) The Responsible Official must participate in the collection, analysis, out or approving major Federal actions consider the extent to which the and presentation of the information. The which affect foreign nations or the applicant is capable of providing the Responsible Official has sole authority global commons to be informed of required information. The Responsible for final approval of an EA or EIS. pertinent environmental considerations Official may not require the applicant to (1) The applicant must engage and and to consider fully the environmental gather data or perform analyses that pay for the services of a contractor to impacts of the actions undertaken. unnecessarily duplicate either existing prepare the EA or EIS and any While based on independent authority, data or the results of existing analyses associated documents without using this Order furthers the purpose of the available to EPA. The Responsible EPA financial assistance (including National Environmental Policy Act Official must limit the request for required match); (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the environmental information to that (2) The Responsible Official, in Marine Protection, Research, and necessary for the environmental review. consultation with the applicant, must Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (33 U.S.C.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76105

1401 et seq.). It should be noted, (b) [Reserved]. Preparation of National Environmental however, that in fulfilling its Policy Act (NEPA) Documents dated responsibilities under Executive Order § 6.402 Definitions. October 29, 1998 (see 63 FR 58045). 12114, EPA shall be guided by CEQ As used in this subpart, environment (2) For individual permits issued by regulations only to the extent that they means the natural and physical EPA under section 102(b) an are made expressly applicable by this environment and excludes social, environmental assessment shall be subpart. The procedures set forth below economic and other environments; made by EPA. Pursuant to 40 CFR part reflect EPA’s duties and responsibilities global commons is that area (land, air, 221, the permit applicant shall submit as required under the Executive Order water) outside the jurisdiction of any with the application an environmental and satisfy the requirement for issuance nation; and responsible official is either analysis which includes a discussion of of procedures under section 2–1 of the the EPA Assistant Administrator or the need for the action, an outline of Executive Order. Regional Administrator as appropriate alternatives, and an analysis of the (b) Policy. It shall be the policy of this for the particular EPA program. Also, an environmental impact of the proposed Agency to carry out the purpose and action significantly affects the action and alternatives consistent with requirements of the Executive Order to environment if it does significant harm the EPA criteria established under the fullest extent possible. EPA, within to the environment even though on section 102(a) of MPRSA. The the realm of its expertise, shall work balance the action may be beneficial to information submitted under 40 CFR with the Department of State and the the environment. To the extent part 221 shall be sufficient to satisfy the Council on Environmental Quality to applicable, the responsible official shall environmental assessment requirement. address the considerations set forth in provide information to other Federal (c) EPA permitting and licensing the CEQ regulations under 40 CFR agencies and foreign nations to heighten activities. The appropriate Regional 1508.27 in determining significant awareness of and interest in the Administrator is responsible for effect. environment. EPA shall further conducting concise environmental cooperate to the extent possible with § 6.403 Environmental review and reviews with regard to permits issued Federal agencies to lend special assessment requirements. under section 3005 of the Resource expertise and assistance in the (a) Research and demonstration Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA preparation of required environmental projects. The appropriate Assistant permits), section 402 of the Clean Water documents under the Executive Order. Administrator is responsible for Act (NPDES permits), and section 165 of EPA shall perform environmental performing the necessary degree of the Clean Air Act (PSD permits), for reviews of activities significantly environmental review on research and such actions undertaken by EPA which affecting the global commons and demonstration projects undertaken by affect the global commons or foreign foreign nations as required under EPA. If the research or demonstration nations. The information submitted by Executive Order 12114 and as set forth project affects the environment of the applicants for such permits or approvals under these procedures. global commons, the applicant shall under the applicable consolidated § 6.401 Applicability. prepare an environmental analysis. This permit regulations (40 CFR parts 122 and 124) and Prevention of Significant (a) Administrative actions requiring will assist the responsible official in Deterioration (PSD) regulations (40 CFR environmental review. The determining whether an EIS is part 52) shall satisfy the environmental environmental review requirements necessary. If it is determined that the document requirement under Section 2– apply to the activities of EPA as follows: action significantly affects the (1) Major research or demonstration environment of the global commons, 4(b) of Executive Order 12114. projects which affect the global then an EIS shall be prepared. If the Compliance with applicable commons or a foreign nation. undertaking significantly affects a requirements in part 124 of the (2) Ocean dumping activities carried foreign nation EPA shall prepare a consolidated permit regulations (40 CFR out under section 102 of the MPRSA unilateral, bilateral or multilateral part 124) shall be sufficient to satisfy the which affect the related environment. environmental study. EPA shall afford requirements to conduct a concise (3) Major permitting or licensing by the affected foreign nation or environmental review for permits EPA of facilities which affect the global international body or organization an subject to this paragraph (c). commons or the environment of a opportunity to participate in this study. (d) Wastewater treatment facility foreign nation. This may include such This environmental study shall discuss planning. 40 CFR part 6, subparts A actions as the issuance by EPA of the need for the action, analyze the through C, detail the environmental hazardous waste treatment, storage, or environmental impact of the various review process for the facilities disposal facility permits pursuant to alternatives considered and list the planning process under the wastewater section 3005 of the Resource agencies and other parties consulted. treatment works construction grants Conservation and Recovery Act (42 (b) Ocean dumping activities. (1) The program. For the purpose of these U.S.C. 6925), NPDES permits pursuant Assistant Administrator for Water shall regulations, the facility plan shall also to section 402 of the Clean Water Act ensure the preparation of appropriate include a concise environmental review (33 U.S.C. 1342), and prevention of environmental documents relating to of those activities that would have significant deterioration approvals ocean dumping activities in the global environmental effects abroad. This shall pursuant to Part C of the Clean Air Act commons under section 102 of the apply only to the Step 1 grants awarded (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.) MPRSA. For ocean dumping site after January 14, 1981, but on or before (4) Wastewater Treatment designations prescribed pursuant to December 29, 1981, and facilities plans Construction Grants Program under section 102(c) of the MPRSA and 40 developed after December 29, 1981. section 201 of the Clean Water Act CFR part 228, and for the establishment Where water quality impacts identified when activities addressed in the facility or revision of criteria under section in a facility plan are the subject of water plan would have environmental effects 102(a) of the MPRSA, EPA shall prepare quality agreements with Canada or abroad. appropriate environmental documents Mexico, nothing in these regulations (5) Other EPA activities as determined consistent with EPA’s Notice of Policy shall impose on the facility planning by OFA and OIA (see § 6.406(c)). and Procedures for Voluntary process coordination and consultation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS 76106 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules

requirements in addition to those are encouraged to provide appropriate The Department of State and the required by such agreements. resources to the agency preparing Council on Environmental Quality shall (e) Review by other Federal agencies environmental documents in order to be consulted as soon as possible on the and other appropriate officials. The avoid duplication of resources. In utilization of such exemptions. responsible officials shall consult with working with a lead agency, EPA shall other Federal agencies with relevant to the fullest extent possible serve as a § 6.406 Implementation. expertise during the preparation of the cooperating agency in accordance with (a) Oversight. OFA is responsible for environmental document. As soon as 40 CFR 1501.6. When other program overseeing the implementation of these feasible after preparation of the commitments preclude the degree of procedures and shall consult with OIA environmental document, the involvement requested by the lead wherever appropriate. OIA shall be responsible official shall make the agency, the responsible EPA official utilized for making formal contacts with document available to the Council on shall so inform the lead agency in the Department of State. OFA shall Environmental Quality, Department of writing. assist the responsible officials in State, and other appropriate officials. carrying out their responsibilities under The responsible official with assistance § 6.405 Exemptions and considerations. these procedures. from OIA shall work with the Under section 2–5(b) and (c) of the Department of State to establish (b) Information exchange. OFA with Executive Order, Federal agencies may procedures for communicating with and the aid of OIA, shall assist the provide for modifications in the making documents available to foreign Department of State and the Council on nations and international organizations. contents, timing and availability of Environmental Quality in developing documents or exemptions from certain the informational exchange on § 6.404 Lead or cooperating agency. requirements for the environmental environmental review activities with (a) Lead Agency. Section 3–3 of review and assessment. The responsible foreign nations. official, in consultation with the Executive Order 12114 requires the (c) Unidentified activities. The Director, Office of Federal Activities creation of a lead agency whenever an responsible official shall consult with (OFA), and the Assistant Administrator, action involves more than one Federal OFA and OIA to establish the type of Office of International Affairs (OIA), agency. In implementing section 3–3, environmental review or document may approve modifications for EPA shall, to the fullest extent possible, appropriate for any new EPA activities situations described in section 2–5(b). follow the guidance for the selection of or requirements imposed upon EPA by The responsible official, in consultation a lead agency contained in 40 CFR statute, international agreement or other with the Director, OFA and Assistant 1501.5 of the CEQ regulations. agreements. (b) Cooperating Agency. Under Administrator, OIA, shall obtain Section 2–4(d) of the Executive Order, exemptions from the Administrator for [FR Doc. E6–21402 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am] Federal agencies with special expertise situations described in section 2–5(c). BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:20 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19DEP4.SGM 19DEP4 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Part VI

The President Proclamation 8091—Wright Brothers Day, 2006

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DED0.SGM 19DED0 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19DED0.SGM 19DED0 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 76109

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 71, No. 243

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Title 3— Proclamation 8091 of December 15, 2006

The President Wright Brothers Day, 2006

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation America has a rich history of exploration and discovery, marked by scientific and technological achievements that have transformed the world. On Wright Brothers Day, we remember two aviation pioneers from Ohio whose big dreams and extraordinary accomplishments helped change the course of human history. On December 17, 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright completed the first manned, powered flight in history and ushered all of mankind into a new era of possibility and promise. With Orville at the controls, the Wright brothers’ small aircraft traveled 120 feet in 12 seconds above the dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The age of flight had begun, and in the decades that followed, advancements in aviation would enable determined American risk-takers to cross oceans, break the sound barrier, and walk on the Moon. Today, our Nation follows the Wright brothers’ example of innovation as we continue to explore the frontiers of air and space. My Administration has outlined a vision for space exploration that includes a return to the Moon and a long-term human and robotic program to explore Mars and the solar system. By working to expand the realm of the possible, we can gain a better understanding of the universe and continue the journey that the Wright brothers began more than a century ago. The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963, as amended (77 Stat. 402; 36 U.S.C. 143), has designated December 17 of each year as ‘‘Wright Brothers Day’’ and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim December 17, 2006, as Wright Brothers Day.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\19DED0.SGM 19DED0 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES 76110 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Presidential Documents

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independ- ence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

[FR Doc. 06–9802 Filed 12–18–06; 11:34 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\19DED0.SGM 19DED0 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES GWBOLD.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 243 Tuesday, December 19, 2006

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING DECEMBER

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. 434...... 70275 Presidential Documents 2 CFR 435...... 70275 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 901...... 70457 600...... 70457 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 3 CFR 606...... 70457 Other Services Proposed Rules: Proclamations: 20...... 74847 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 8087...... 70455 54...... 74848 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 8088...... 70851 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 8089...... 70853 11 CFR TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 8090...... 75083 8091...... 76109 Proposed Rules: Executive Orders: 104...... 71084 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 12866 (See EO 111 ...... 71088, 71090, 71093 World Wide Web 13416) ...... 71033 13317 (Amended by 12 CFR Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 13418) ...... 75647 is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html 205...... 69430 13415...... 70641 215...... 71472 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 13416...... 71033 313...... 75659 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 13417...... 71459 1750...... 75085 http://www.archives. gov/federallregister Administrative Orders: Proposed Rules: E-mail Presidential 205...... 69500 Determinations: Ch. III ...... 74857 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is No. 2007–4 of an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital November 22, 13 CFR form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 2006 ...... 74451 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and No. 2007–5 of 123...... 75407 PDF links to the full text of each document. November 27, To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 2006 ...... 74453 14 CFR Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 5 CFR 13...... 70460 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 23...... 74456 Proposed Rules: 25 ...... 70646, 74755, 74758 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 3201...... 70325 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 39 ...... 70284, 70286, 70294, 7 CFR 70297, 70300, 70648, 70857, To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 70860, 70862, 70865, 70868, and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 33...... 70643 71475, 71478, 71480, the instructions. 249...... 74618 74459,74462,74464,74466, FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 319...... 75649 75106, 75108, 75409, 75411, respond to specific inquiries. 457...... 74455 75413, 75854, 75855 981...... 70646 71 ...... 69438, 70302, 70465, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 1220...... 69429 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 70650, 74761, 75110, 75857, 1792...... 70275 75859, 75860, 75861, 75862, The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 1951...... 75851 75863 regulations. Proposed Rules: 73...... 70466 51...... 69497 97 ...... 69438, 74762, 74764 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, DECEMBER 272...... 71075 401...... 75616 273...... 71075 415...... 75616 69429–70274...... 1 319...... 70330 431...... 75616 70275–70456...... 4 981...... 70683 435...... 75616 70457–70642...... 5 8 CFR 440...... 75616 70643–70850...... 6 460...... 75616 1003...... 70855 70851–71036...... 7 Proposed Rules: 71037–71462...... 8 9 CFR 39 ...... 70908, 71096, 71099, 71462–74450...... 11 71101, 71103, 71492, 71494, Proposed Rules: 71497, 71499, 74873, 74878, 74451–74754...... 12 78...... 74826 75145, 75432, 75684, 75896 74755–75082...... 13 93...... 74827 71 ...... 70909, 70911, 75686 75083–75406...... 14 10 CFR 145...... 70254 75407–75646...... 15 399...... 71106 75647–75850...... 18 70...... 69430 75851–76110...... 19 72...... 71463 430...... 71340 15 CFR 431...... 71340 801...... 75417 433...... 70275 930...... 75864

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\19DECU.LOC 19DECU sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES ii Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Reader Aids

16 CFR 602 ...... 71039, 71040, 71045 21...... 75672 97...... 74823 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 40 CFR Ch. II ...... 74472 1 ...... 71116, 71241, 74482, Ch. I ...... 70709 75898 51...... 74792 2...... 70710 17 CFR 301...... 70335 52 ...... 69486, 70312, 70315, 87...... 70710 70468, 70880, 70883, 71486, 200...... 71037 27 CFR 48 CFR 232...... 74698 71489 Proposed Rules: Ch. I...... 74656, 74680 239...... 74698 60...... 75117 2...... 74667 240...... 74698 9...... 70472 62...... 75117 10...... 74667 249...... 74698 40...... 70476 63...... 70651 12...... 74667 249b...... 74698 41...... 70476 70 ...... 70468, 70665, 75422 16...... 74656, 74667 269...... 74698 44...... 70476 71...... 75422 32...... 74656 274...... 74698 45...... 70476 81...... 71489, 75431 82...... 75386 52...... 74656, 74667 Proposed Rules: 28 CFR 96...... 74792 Ch. 2 ...... 75890 240...... 71109, 75068 61...... 71047 97...... 74792 201...... 69488, 75891 242...... 75002, 75068 Proposed Rules: 122...... 69622 205...... 75891 207...... 75891 18 CFR 570...... 70696 180 ...... 70667, 70670, 71052, 74795, 74802 208...... 69489 50...... 69440 29 CFR 239...... 71241 211...... 75891 292...... 75662 54...... 75055 258...... 71241 212...... 69489, 71072 380...... 69440 2590...... 75014 300...... 70318 215...... 69492 Proposed Rules: 4022...... 69480, 75420 799...... 71058 216...... 74469 2...... 70692 4044...... 69481, 75420 Proposed Rules: 217...... 75891 33...... 70692 4050...... 75115 6...... 76082 219...... 75891 40...... 70695 4281...... 75115 51...... 75902 222...... 71072 365...... 70692 Proposed Rules: 52 ...... 69519, 70338, 70339, 223...... 75891 366...... 70692 102...... 74881 70476, 70699, 70914, 70915, 225...... 75891, 75893 825...... 69504 75687, 75690, 75694, 75916 228...... 75891 19 CFR 230...... 69492 4050...... 75181 62...... 75816 232...... 69489, 75891 12...... 69447 4281...... 75181 63...... 75182 237...... 75891 Proposed Rules: 69...... 74886 30 CFR 252 ...... 69489, 69492, 71072, 210...... 71113 70...... 70476, 70702 74469, 75891, 75893 3...... 71430 81...... 70915 253...... 69492 21 CFR 48...... 71430 180...... 70703 1802...... 71072 2...... 70870 50...... 71430 721...... 75703 1805...... 71072 25...... 74766 75...... 71430 799...... 75704 80...... 70873 1819...... 71072 31 CFR 101...... 74785 42 CFR 1825...... 71072 1827...... 71072 500...... 74766 1...... 69482 405...... 69624, 71062 1828...... 71072 514...... 74766 Proposed Rules: 410...... 69624, 71062 1852...... 71072 520...... 70302, 71038 538...... 71500 411...... 69624, 71062 558 ...... 70304, 74466, 74766 560...... 71500 414...... 69624, 71062 Proposed Rules: 23...... 70937 800...... 75865 415...... 69624, 71062 32 CFR 32...... 75186 1301...... 69478 424...... 69624, 71062 36...... 70937 Proposed Rules: 626...... 71051 460...... 71244 52...... 70937, 75186 2...... 70912 627...... 71051 462...... 71244 719...... 70939 201...... 74474 656...... 71051 466...... 71244 312...... 75147, 75168 33 CFR 473...... 71244 49 CFR 1312...... 69504 476...... 71244 173...... 75679 117 ...... 70305, 70467, 70468, 482...... 71378 70877 571...... 74823 22 CFR Proposed Rules: 151...... 75421 572...... 75304, 75342 41...... 75662 1001...... 71501 158...... 75421 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 165 ...... 69484, 71483, 75664, 171...... 69527 22...... 74880 44 CFR 75666, 75668 172...... 69527 51...... 74880 65...... 70885 173...... 69527 Proposed Rules: 67 ...... 70894, 70904, 75885 23 CFR 165...... 69514, 69517 174...... 69527 401...... 70336 Proposed Rules: 178...... 69527 655...... 75111 67...... 70930, 75918 213...... 70590 Proposed Rules: 34 CFR 214...... 70590 45 CFR 630...... 75898 Proposed Rules: 215...... 70590 674...... 71117 146...... 75014 217...... 70590 25 CFR 682...... 71117 218...... 70590 46 CFR Proposed Rules: 685...... 71117 219...... 70590 292...... 70335 30...... 75421 220...... 70590 502...... 71115 36 CFR 98...... 75421 221...... 70590 546...... 71115 242...... 75883 151...... 75421 222...... 70590 547...... 71115 Proposed Rules: 153...... 75421 223...... 70590 242...... 75899 224...... 70590 26 CFR 47 CFR 225...... 70590 1 ...... 70875, 70877, 71039, 37 CFR 2...... 70671 228...... 70590 71040, 71045, 74467, 75614, 253...... 69486 27...... 70906 229...... 70590 75879, 75882 64 ...... 74469, 74819, 75122 230...... 70590 54...... 75014 38 CFR 74...... 75614 231...... 70590 301...... 71040 3...... 75669 87...... 70671 232...... 70590

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\19DECU.LOC 19DECU sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Reader Aids iii

233...... 70590 50 CFR 665...... 69495 100...... 75899 234...... 70590 17...... 74592 679...... 70323 229...... 70339 235...... 70590 100...... 75883 Proposed Rules: 622...... 70492, 75220 236...... 70590 10...... 75188 648...... 70493, 75226 238...... 70590 229 ...... 70319, 70321, 75679, 660...... 70939, 70941 239...... 70590 75681 17 ...... 70479, 70483, 70715, 240...... 70590 622...... 70680, 75894 70717, 75189, 75215, 75923, 665...... 69527 241...... 70590 635...... 75122 76024, 76058 679 ...... 70943, 75437, 75460 387...... 75433 648 ...... 70682, 70906, 71073, 22...... 74483 697...... 75705 571...... 70477 74471, 75134 92...... 75060

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\19DECU.LOC 19DECU sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES iv Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Reader Aids

REMINDERS Acquisition-related Adult all terrain vehicle Colorado; comments due The items in this list were thresholds; inflation requirements and three- by 12-27-06; published editorially compiled as an aid adjustment; published 12- wheeled all terrain vehicle 11-27-06 [FR E6-19988] to Federal Register users. 19-06 ban; comments due by GENERAL SERVICES Inclusion or exclusion from Material inspection and 12-26-06; published 8-10- ADMINISTRATION this list has no legal receiving report; published 06 [FR 06-06703] Federal Acquisition Regulation significance. 12-19-06 CORPORATION FOR (FAR): Restriction on carbon, alloy, NATIONAL AND Contract debts; policies and and armor steel plate; COMMUNITY SERVICE procedures; comments RULES GOING INTO published 12-19-06 Criminal history checks; Senior due by 12-26-06; EFFECT DECEMBER 19, HEALTH AND HUMAN Companions, Foster published 10-24-06 [FR 2006 SERVICES DEPARTMENT Grandparents, and 06-08806] Food and Drug AmeriCorps Program HEALTH AND HUMAN AGRICULTURE Administration participants; comments due SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Biological products: by 12-26-06; published 10- Centers for Medicare & Farm Service Agency Bacterial vaccines and 26-06 [FR E6-17912] Medicaid Services Program regulations: toxoids; efficacy review DEFENSE DEPARTMENT Medicare and Medicaid: implementation; published Financial assistance; Defense contracting: Long term care facilities; fire 12-19-05 servicing and collection Munitions list/commerce safety requirements; from unauthorized TRANSPORTATION control list items; DLA automatic sprinkler recipients; published 12- DEPARTMENT procedures for eligible systems; comments due 19-06 Federal Aviation purchasers; comments by 12-26-06; published AGRICULTURE Administration due by 12-26-06; 10-27-06 [FR E6-17911] DEPARTMENT Airworthiness directives: published 10-25-06 [FR HEALTH AND HUMAN Rural Business-Cooperative Pratt & Whitney Canada; E6-17848] SERVICES DEPARTMENT Service published 12-4-06 Federal Acquisition Regulation Food and Drug Rolls-Royce plc; published Program regulations: (FAR): Administration 11-14-06 Financial assistance; Contract debts; policies and Human drugs: servicing and collection TREASURY DEPARTMENT procedures; comments Skin bleaching drug from unauthorized Internal Revenue Service due by 12-26-06; products; over-the-counter recipients; published 12- Income taxes: published 10-24-06 [FR use; comments due by 19-06 Corporate reorganizations 06-08806] 12-27-06; published 8-29- AGRICULTURE and distributions; ENVIRONMENTAL 06 [FR E6-14263] DEPARTMENT published 12-19-06 PROTECTION AGENCY HOMELAND SECURITY Rural Housing Service Air pollutants; hazardous; DEPARTMENT Program regulations: COMMENTS DUE NEXT national emission standards: Transportation Security Administration Financial assistance; WEEK Asbestos management and servicing and collection control; comments due by Air cargo security from unauthorized COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 12-28-06; published 11- requirements; comments recipients; published 12- National Oceanic and 28-06 [FR E6-20157] due by 12-26-06; published 19-06 Atmospheric Administration Air pollution; standards of 10-25-06 [FR 06-08904] AGRICULTURE Fishery conservation and performance for new HOUSING AND URBAN DEPARTMENT management: stationary sources: DEVELOPMENT Northeastern United States DEPARTMENT Rural Utilities Service Other solid waste fisheries— Public and Indian housing: Program regulations: incineration units; New England and Mid- comments due by 12-26- Public Housing Operating Financial assistance; Atlantic Fishery 06; published 11-24-06 Fund Program; comments servicing and collection Management Councils; [FR E6-19865] due by 12-26-06; from unauthorized hearings; comments Air programs; approval and published 11-24-06 [FR recipients; published 12- due by 12-29-06; 06-09363] 19-06 promulgation; State plans published 10-31-06 [FR for designated facilities and INTERIOR DEPARTMENT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT E6-18286] pollutants: Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Fishery conservation New Mexico; comments due Migratory birds; revised list; Atmospheric Administration management: by 12-26-06; published comments due by 12-29-06; Northeastern United States Fishery conservation and 11-24-06 [FR E6-19861] published 8-24-06 [FR 06- Fisheries— management: Air quality implementation 07001] Northeastern United States Atlantic bluefish; plans; approval and NATIONAL AERONAUTICS fisheries— comments due by 12- promulgation; various 27-06; published 11-27- AND SPACE Spiny dogfish; published States: ADMINISTRATION 12-20-06 06 [FR E6-20005] West Coast States and Florida; comments due by Federal Acquisition Regulation Ocean and coastal resource Western Pacific 12-28-06; published 11- (FAR): management: Fisheries— 28-06 [FR E6-20073] Contract debts; policies and Coastal Zone Management Pacific Coast groundfish; Georgia; comments due by procedures; comments Act; Federal consistency comments due by 12- 12-28-06; published 11- due by 12-26-06; process 29-06; published 11-29- 28-06 [FR E6-20141] published 10-24-06 [FR Correction; published 12- 06 [FR 06-09451] Texas; comments due by 06-08806] 19-06 CONSUMER PRODUCT 12-27-06; published 11- NATIONAL CREDIT UNION DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SAFETY COMMISSION 27-06 [FR E6-19991] ADMINISTRATION Defense Acquisition Consumer Product Safety Act Solid wastes: Credit Unions: Regulations System and Federal Hazardous State underground storage Organization and Acquisition regulations: Substances Act: tank program approvals— operations—

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19DECU.LOC 19DECU sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Reader Aids v

General lending maturity 12-29-06; published 10- General allocation and pamphlet) form from the limit and other financial 24-06 [FR E6-17818] accounting regulations; Superintendent of Documents, services; comments due Airworthiness directives: tax-exempt bond U.S. Government Printing by 12-26-06; published Bombardier; comments due proceeds; comments due Office, Washington, DC 20402 10-27-06 [FR E6-17835] by 12-29-06; published by 12-26-06; published 9- (phone, 202–512–1808). The NUCLEAR REGULATORY 10-30-06 [FR E6-17650] 26-06 [FR 06-08202] text will also be made COMMISSION EADS SOCATA; comments Correction; comments due available on the Internet from GPO Access at http:// Nuclear power reactors; due by 12-28-06; by 12-26-06; published www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ approaches to risk-inform published 11-28-06 [FR 11-22-06 [FR E6-19789] index.html. Some laws may and performance-base 06-09429] TREASURY DEPARTMENT not yet be available. requirements; comments General Electric Co.; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax due by 12-29-06; published comments due by 12-26- and Trade Bureau H.R. 4766/P.L. 109–394 5-4-06 [FR E6-06745] 06; published 10-24-06 Alcohol, tobacco and other Esther Martinez Native PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT [FR E6-17742] excise taxes: Hartzell Propeller Inc.; American Languages OFFICE Cigars and cigarettes; tax comments due by 12-26- Preservation Act of 2006 Allowances and differentials: classification; comments 06; published 10-27-06 (Dec. 14, 2006; 120 Stat. Cost-of-living allowances due by 12-26-06; [FR E6-17925] 2705) (nonforeign areas)— published 10-25-06 [FR Short Brothers & Harland S. 2250/P.L. 109–395 Alaska, Puerto Rico, and 06-08835] Ltd.; comments due by Virgin Islands; rate Alcoholic beverages: Congressional Tribute to Dr. 12-28-06; published 11- Norman E. Borlaug Act of changes; comments due Labeling and advertising, 28-06 [FR 06-09427] 2006 (Dec. 14, 2006; 120 by 12-26-06; published major food allergen 10-27-06 [FR E6-17950] Sikorsky, et al.; comments Stat. 2708) due by 12-29-06; labeling standards; STATE DEPARTMENT published 10-30-06 [FR comments due by 12-26- Last List December 14, 2006 Deaths and estates; E6-18147] 06; published 9-20-06 [FR 06-07963] comments due by 12-26-06; Teledyne Continental published 10-24-06 [FR E6- Motors; comments due by Public Laws Electronic 17591] 12-26-06; published 10- LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS Notification Service TRANSPORTATION 26-06 [FR E6-17935] (PENS) DEPARTMENT Turbomecca; comments due This is a continuing list of Standard time zone by 12-29-06; published public bills from the current boundaries: 11-29-06 [FR E6-20229] session of Congress which PENS is a free electronic mail Indiana; comments due by TRANSPORTATION have become Federal laws. It notification service of newly 12-28-06; published 11- DEPARTMENT may be used in conjunction enacted public laws. To 28-06 [FR 06-09432] Federal Railroad with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws subscribe, go to http:// TRANSPORTATION Administration Update Service) on 202–741– listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ DEPARTMENT Occupational noise exposure 6043. This list is also publaws-l.html for railroad operating available online at http:// Federal Aviation Note: This service is strictly employees; comments due www.archives.gov/federal- Administration for E-mail notification of new by 12-26-06; published 10- register/laws.html. Air traffic operating and flight laws. The text of laws is not 27-06 [FR 06-08612] rules, etc.: The text of laws is not available through this service. LaGuardia Airport, NY; TREASURY DEPARTMENT published in the Federal PENS cannot respond to congestion management Internal Revenue Service Register but may be ordered specific inquiries sent to this rule; comments due by Income taxes: in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual address.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 18:29 Dec 18, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\19DECU.LOC 19DECU sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES