Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60095 

(3) By fax to the Docket Management 

Facility at 202–493–2251. 

(4) Electronically through the Web 

site for the Docket Management System 

at http://dms.dot.gov. 

The Docket Management Facility 

maintains the public docket for the 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public will become 

part of this docket and will be available 

for inspection or copying at room PL–

401, located on the Plaza level of the 

Nassif Building at the same address 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may electronically access the 

public docket by performing a ‘‘Simple 

Search’’ for docket number 25767 on the 

internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Electronic forms of all comments 

received into any of our dockets can be 

searched by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor unit, etc.) 

and is open to the public without 

restriction. You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information concerning this 

notice and the public meeting, contact 

Commander Gustav Wulfkuhle, Chief 

Enforcement Branch, Ninth Coast Guard 

District, Cleveland, Ohio at (216) 902–

6091. If you have any questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–493–0402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Meetings 

The Coast Guard will hold three 

additional public meetings as follows: 

Monday, October 30, 2006 in Rochester, 

NY; Wednesday, November 1, in the 

Milwaukee WI/Chicago, IL area; and 

Friday, November 3, in Charlevoix, MI. 

These meetings will be held to take 

comments regarding the proposed 

Safety Zones; U.S. Coast Guard Water 

Training Areas, Great Lakes, published 

on August 1, 2006, in the Federal 

Register at 71 FR 43402. Specific times, 

locations and additional information for 

the public meetings will be announced 

in a subsequent notice in the Federal 

Register. 

The Coast Guard encourages 

interested persons to submit written 

data, views, or comments. Persons 

submitting comments should please 

include their name and address and 

identify the docket number (USCG–

2006–2567). You may submit your 

comments and material by mail, hand 

delivery, fax or electronic means to the 

Docket Management Facility at the 

address under ADDRESSES. 

Regulatory History 

On August 1, 2006, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM)(71 FR 43402) to 

establish permanent safety zones 

throughout the Great Lakes to conduct 

live fire gun exercises. The initial 

comment period for this NPRM ended 

on August 31, 2006. In response to 

public requests, the Coast Guard reopened the comment period on this 

NPRM. (71 FR 53629, September 12, 

2006) Re-opening the comment period 

from September 12, 2006 to November 

13, 2006, provides the public more time 

to submit comments and 

recommendations. In addition, the Coast 

Guard announced on September 19, 

2006 it would hold public meetings in 

Duluth, MN; Grand Haven/Spring Lake, 

MI; Port Huron/Marysville, MI; and 

Cleveland, OH to discuss issues related 

to the proposed permanent safety zones. 

See, 71 FR 54792. The times and 

locations of these four meetings were 

announced in the Federal Register on 

September 27, 2006. (71 FR 56420) 

This document announces the 

decision to include three additional 

meetings to the list of currently 

scheduled public meetings. These 

added meetings will be held as follows: 

Monday, October 30, 2006 in Rochester, 

NY; Wednesday, November 1, in the 

Milwaukee, WI/Chicago, IL area; and 

Friday, November 3, in Charlevoix, MI. 

Specific times, locations and additional 

information for the public meetings will 

be announced in a subsequent notice in 

the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

These safety zones are necessary to 

protect vessels and people from hazards 

associated with live fire gun exercises. 

Such hazards include projectiles that 

may ricochet and damage vessels and/ 

or cause death or serious bodily harm. 

The thirty-four zones will be located 

throughout the Great Lakes in order to 

accommodate 56 separate Coast Guard 

units. The proposed safety zones are all 

located at least three nautical miles from 

the shoreline. 

Procedural 

The meetings are open to the public. 

Please note that the meetings may close 

early if all business is finished. If you 

are unable to attend, you may submit 

comments to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

by November 13, 2006. 

Information on Services for Individuals 

With Disabilities 

If you plan to attend the public 

meeting and require special assistance, 

such as sign language interpretation or 

other reasonable accommodations, 

please contact us as indicated in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Requests 

for special assistance should reach the 

Coast Guard within seven (7) business 

days of the meeting. 

Dated: October 3, 2006. 

John E. Crowley, Jr., 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E6–16903 Filed 10–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 242 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 100 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Public Lands in Alaska; Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Council Membership 

AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice solicits written 

comments and suggestions on the 

membership qualifications for Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils 

established under Subsistence 

Management Regulations. The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 

requires that advisory councils be 

constituted with a balanced 

membership. The current Federal 

regulations set a goal of 70 percent 

subsistence users to 30 percent sport 

and commercial users on the Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils. This notice is the first step in 

an administrative action with respect to 

that regulation, made necessary because 

of an order entered by the U.S. District 

Court for Alaska. Because the U.S. 

District Court has enjoined application 

of the current 70/30 percent goal after 

2006, it is necessary to give further 

reconsideration to alternative methods 

for assuring balance in membership for 

Regional Advisory Councils in time to 

make any decision applicable to the 

2007 appointments. Therefore, no 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
60096 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

extension of the review deadline will be 

granted. 

DATES: The Federal Subsistence Board 

must receive your written public 

comments and suggestions on this 

proposed rule no later than November 

13, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials by any one of several methods: 

1. E-mail: Subsistence@fws.gov. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file 

formats and other information. 

2. U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Office 

of Subsistence Management, 3601 C 

Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, AK 

99503. 

3. You may submit comments via the 

Federal E-Rulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Attention: Pete Probasco, Office of 

Subsistence Management; (907) 786–

3888. For questions specific to National 

Forest System lands, contact Steve 

Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program 

Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, (907) 786–3592. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic 

submission of comments to 

Subsistence@fws.gov is preferred. You 

may submit comments and suggested 

alternatives and other data as Adobe 

Acrobat (PDF) or MS Word files, 

avoiding the use of any special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

Background 

Title VIII of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126) 

requires that the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture implement a 

program to grant a preference for 

subsistence uses of fish and wildlife 

resources on Federal public lands and 

waters, unless the State of Alaska enacts 

and implements laws of general 

applicability that are consistent with 

ANILCA and that provide for the 

subsistence definition, preference, and 

participation specified in Sections 803, 

804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State 

implemented a program that the 

Department of the Interior previously 

found to be consistent with ANILCA. 

However, in December 1989, the Alaska 

Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. 

State of Alaska that the rural preference 

in the State subsistence statute violated 

the Alaska Constitution. The Court’s 

ruling in McDowell required the State to 

delete the rural preference from the 

subsistence statute and, therefore, 

negated State compliance with ANILCA. 

The Court stayed the effect of the 

decision until July 1, 1990. 

As a result of the McDowell decision, 

the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Agriculture 

(Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, 

responsibility for implementation of 

Title VIII of ANILCA on Federal public 

lands and waters. On June 29, 1990, the 

Temporary Subsistence Management 

Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska 

were published in the Federal Register 

(55 FR 27114). With the State unable to 

create a program in compliance with 

Title VIII by May 29, 1992, the 

Departments published a final rule in 

the Federal Register (57 FR 22940). On 

January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the 

Departments published a final rule to 

extend jurisdiction to include certain 

waters in which there exists a Federal 

reserved water right. This amended rule 

became effective October 1, 1999, and 

conformed the Federal Subsistence 

Management Program to the Ninth 

Circuit’s ruling in Alaska v. Babbitt. 

In Subparts A, B, and C of these 

regulations, as revised January 8, 1999 

(64 FR 1276), the Departments 

established a Federal Subsistence Board 

(Board) to administer the Federal 

Subsistence Management Program. The 

Board’s composition consists of a Chair 

appointed by the Secretary of the 

Interior with concurrence of the 

Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska 

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional 

Director, U.S. National Park Service; the 

Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management; the Alaska Regional 

Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; 

and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA 

Forest Service. Through the Board, these 

agencies participate in the development 

of the Federal Subsistence Management 

Regulations (Subparts A, B, C, and D). 

Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory 

Councils 

Pursuant to the Record of Decision, 

Subsistence Management Regulations 

for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, 

April 6, 1992, and the Subsistence 

Management Regulations for Federal 

Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR 242.11 

(1999) and 50 CFR 100.11 (1999), and 

for the purposes identified therein, 

Alaska is divided into 10 subsistence 

resource regions, each of which is 

represented by a Federal Subsistence 

Regional Advisory Council. The 

Regional Councils provide a forum for 

the residents of the particular region 

with personal knowledge of local 

conditions and resource requirements to 

have a meaningful role in the 

subsistence management of fish and 

wildlife on Alaska Federal public lands 

and waters. 

The Board reviews applications for 

membership on the Regional Councils 

and makes recommendations to the 

Secretaries on the appointments to the 

Councils. The appointments themselves 

are then made by the Secretary of the 

Interior with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of Agriculture. The Regional 

Council members represent varied 

geographical areas, cultures, interests, 

and resource users within each region. 

A Regional Council member must be a 

resident of the region in which he or she 

is appointed and be knowledgeable 

about the region and subsistence uses of 

the Federal public lands and waters 

therein. 

In 1998, Safari Club International and 

others filed suit in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Alaska. This 

suit, among other things, challenged the 

balance of membership on the Regional 

Councils required by the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 

1972, Public Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770 

(Safari Club v. Demientieff, No. A98–

0414–CV). In the meantime, the 

Secretary of the Interior, as part of a 

national review of advisory councils 

and in response to inquiries related to 

the Federal Subsistence Regional 

Advisory Councils in Alaska, requested 

the Board examine its process for 

selecting nominees, and ‘‘see that’’

groups such as ‘‘residents of non-rural 

areas, commercial users of fish and 

wildlife resources and sportsmen are 

represented on the RACs.’’ Based on 

Board recommendations following that 

in-depth examination, the Secretary of 

the Interior, with concurrence of the 

Secretary of Agriculture, in 2002 

increased the size of nine of the 

Regional Councils; established the goal 

of making appointments to the Regional 

Council so as to achieve, where 

possible, a representation goal of 70 

percent subsistence users and 30 

percent sport/commercial users; revised 

the application/evaluation/selection 

process and forms; and approved a 3- 

year implementation period (67 FR 

30559, May 7, 2002). 

The Native Village of Venetie Tribal 

Government et al. were permitted to 

intervene in the Safari Club case and to 

challenge the 70/30 ratio 

representational goals established by the 

Secretaries. In January 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for Alaska entered an 

order recognizing that with respect to 

the Regional Councils ‘‘* * * a council 

comprised of only subsistence users is 

not fairly balanced. Subsistence users 

are not the only persons directly 

affected by regional advisory council 

recommendations and subsistence users 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 60097 

are not the only persons who might be 

interested in the management of fish 

and wildlife on Federal lands * * *. 

Non-subsistence users of fish and 

wildlife are directly affected by 

management of fish and wildlife for 

subsistence uses and have a legitimate 

interest in the proper scientific 

management of same * * *. While all 

points of view and all persons directly 

affected are not entitled to 

representation on a FACA committee, in 

this instance, a cross-section of those 

affected by fish and wildlife 

management on Federal public lands 

must be, in a reasonable and fair 

manner, afforded representation on 

regional advisory councils.’’

In ruling on the cross-claim of the 

Native Village of Venetie, the Court also 

invalidated the Secretaries’ policy of a 

goal of a 70/30 (subsistence users/sport 

and commercial users) membership 

representation for failure to 

procedurally comply with the 

provisions of the Administrative 

Procedure Act found at 5 U.S.C. 553, 

and found that the policy should have 

been put before the public for comment 

in a rulemaking process. The District 

Court also ordered that the Secretaries 

promptly initiate and conclude a 

rulemaking to promulgate an 

appropriate Regional Council regulation 

consistent with FACA after compliance 

with 5 U.S.C. 553. The Secretaries 

initiated action with a proposed rule 

published on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 

19964), and received testimony on the 

proposed rule at a May 2004 public 

hearing. 

On October 14, 2004, the Secretaries 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 60957). The underlying 

purpose of the change to § ll.11(b), 

while complying with the District 

Court’s order, was to ensure continued 

compliance with both the fairly 

balanced representational requirements 

of FACA and the requirements and 

purposes of Title VIII of ANILCA in the 

appointments to the Regional Councils. 

In the change, the Secretaries 

recognized that some persons with 

interests other than subsistence uses are 

entitled under FACA to be represented 

on the Regional Councils, while 

recognizing that Congress intended in 

Title VIII for rural Alaska residents 

‘‘who have personal knowledge of local 

conditions and requirements * * * to 

have a meaningful role in the 

management of fish and wildlife and of 

subsistence uses on public lands in 

Alaska,’’ and that Congress also 

intended that ‘‘large urban population 

centers’’ not be allowed to dominate the 

Regional Council system. This rule 

established the 70/30 representational 

goal in the change to § ll.11(b). The 

purpose was to assure the appropriate 

representation and meaningful majority 

role for rural Alaska residents, while 

providing an appropriate representation 

for the interests of nonrural residents 

and nonsubsistence users. 

The interveners then challenged the 

final rule, and on August 8, 2006, the 

Court declared the 70/30 membership 

structure to be arbitrary and capricious 

because the Secretaries and the Board 

had failed to adequately explain the 

analysis of the relevant factors and to 

articulate their rationale in adopting the 

final rule. That order stated that ‘‘the 

court has not concluded that the 70/30 

rule for RAC membership is contrary to 

law. The court’s holding is that 

defendants have not submitted to the 

court an administrative record that 

provides a rationale for that rule.’’

The purpose of the process that the 

Secretaries and the Board are 

undertaking, in this notice, is to fulfill 

the requirements of the district court’s 

August 8, 2006, decision, to lay out a 

full administrative record, display a 

complete assessment of alternatives 

considered, and provide a fuller 

explanation for the option selected for 

providing a balanced membership on 

the Regional Councils. 

The Regional Councils must have a 

balanced membership in accordance 

with FACA and the court’s rulings. This 

necessitates that representatives from 

groups such as commercial users of fish 

and wildlife resources and sportsmen 

must be sitting as members of each 

Council. In order to implement that 

balanced membership, the Secretaries 

and the Board must have some method 

of identifying which interest or interests 

a prospective Council member would 

represent. Self-identification by an 

applicant is the best way to obtain that 

information. Many individuals using the 

fish and wildlife resources of Alaska do 

so within different user groups. 

Subsistence fishermen frequently hold 

commercial fishing licenses; 

commercial fishermen may also be sport 

fishermen or hunters. Sport hunters may 

have personal use fishing permits, while 

hunting guides may also hold sport 

fishing licenses. In almost all cases, 

however, an individual usually holds 

certain convictions and beliefs that 

would cause him or her to represent one 

of his or her interests more strongly than 

another interest when making 

recommendations on potential 

regulations or policies that would 

impact his or her use of the resource. 

For that reason, the Secretaries and the 

Board requested that each applicant for 

a Regional Council identify a primary 

interest. In this way, the Board can 

identify and recommend to the 

Secretaries applicants who would 

provide a balanced membership for each 

Regional Council. 

Even though FACA requires a 

membership balanced in viewpoints, 

the purpose of the Regional Councils is 

to provide Alaska residents ‘‘who have 

personal knowledge of local conditions 

and requirements * * * to have a 

meaningful role in the management of 

fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses 

on public lands in Alaska.’’ The 

Secretaries believe that, in order to 

fulfill this mandate, subsistence 

interests must constitute a majority of 

members on each Regional Council. 

Likewise, since sport and commercial 

users are also entitled to be represented 

(where such qualified individuals may 

be present), a Regional Council 

composed of only subsistence users is 

not a Regional Council that meets the 

requirements of FACA. The Secretaries 

and the Board, in adopting the current 

regulations, therefore, considered 

subsistence, sport, and commercial 

membership ratios of 60/40, 70/30, 80/ 

20, and 90/10 percent, respectively. 

The Secretaries discarded the 90/10 

ratio because a single individual on a 

10-member Regional Council could not 

adequately represent both sport and 

commercial interests and could easily 

be intimidated by the remaining 90 

percent of the Council. Council 

meetings are routinely held in remote 

villages and some Council members 

have difficulty attending meetings, 

particularly if they are engaged in 

harvesting fish or wildlife resources at 

the time or are weathered out. If that is 

the single person representing sport and 

commercial users when that happens, 

then there is no representation of those 

viewpoints. The Board also discarded 

the 60/40 ratio. A Council with a 60/40 

ratio with one or two members 

representing subsistence missing from 

the meeting could easily be dominated 

by sport and commercial interests. The 

same domineering situation could exist 

with an 80/20 membership ratio if one 

of the sport or commercial 

representatives were absent. A 70/30 

membership ratio provides a majority 

representation for subsistence users 

without domination by sport or 

commercial interests, but the 30 percent 

membership would also allow both 

sport and commercial interests to be 

meaningfully represented. All Regional 

Council members are still expected to 

examine each proposal, policy, or plan 

and develop Regional Council 

recommendations based on recognized 

principles of fish and wildlife 

conservation, satisfaction of subsistence 

needs, and substantial evidence, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
60098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

consistent with Title VIII of ANILCA, 

and are not expected to act as only 

single interest representatives. 

The Regional Councils were first 

constituted with a 70/30 membership 

representation goal before their winter 

2004 meetings. Since then, the 10 

Regional Councils have held 50 

regularly scheduled meetings. In almost 

every instance, these meetings have 

occurred without rancor or hostility 

among represented interests. Many 

members have expressed gratitude for 

the opportunity to associate and learn 

from members representing other 

interests. Part of the success of the 

balanced Councils results from the fact 

that all these interests depend on the 

same fish and wildlife resources, with 

conservation the main concern. 

By way of this notice, the Board and 

Secretaries are requesting your 

comments on the existing 70/30 

representational membership goal that 

is currently in regulation for the 

Regional Councils. This membership 

requirement is set forth at 36 CFR 

242.11(b) and 50 CFR 100.11(b). Your 

suggestions for any modifications to the 

existing 70/30 goal are also sought. The 

Board and Secretaries also invite you to 

submit any suggested alternative ideas 

for providing a balanced membership 

that complies with FACA, while still 

meeting the intent of ANILCA. 

Following the close of the comment 

period as identified in the DATES

section, the public comments, 

suggestions, and identified alternatives 

will be presented to the Regional 

Councils during their winter 2007 

meetings. This procedure will allow 

both the Regional Councils and the 

public to have an opportunity to present 

ideas and testimony related to the issue 

of a methodology for achieving balanced 

Regional Councils. This is not required 

by Section 805(c) of ANILCA and any 

recommendations the Councils may 

make are not recommendations subject 

to Section 805(c). Any suggestions, 

alternatives, or recommendations from 

the Regional Councils will then be 

presented to the Federal Subsistence 

Board at its May 2007 meeting. There 

will also be another opportunity for the 

public to submit suggestions or 

alternatives at this Board meeting. 

Following public testimony and Council 

recommendations, the Board will 

deliberate various options and 

recommend a course of action to the 

Secretaries. A formal rulemaking 

process would follow, if necessary. The 

recommendation may also be to make 

no changes to the current regulations 

but merely to offer further explanation 

of that rule. 

Drafting Information 

William Knauer drafted this notice 

under the guidance of Pete Probasco of 

the Office of Subsistence Management, 

Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Chuck Ardizzone, Alaska State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management; Greg Bos, 

Carl Jack, and Jerry Berg, Alaska 

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; Sandy Rabinowitch and Nancy 

Swanton, Alaska Regional Office, 

National Park Service; Warren Eastland 

and Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional 

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 

Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional Office, 

USDA-Forest Service, provided 

additional guidance. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 

3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C. 

1733. 

Dated: September 19, 2006. 

Peter J. Probasco, 

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. 

Steve Kessler, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA-Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–8594 Filed 10–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2006–0685, 

FRL–8230–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York; 

Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection 

and Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for New 

York’s motor vehicle enhanced 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program which includes the adoption of 

a statewide On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) 

program. New York has made revisions 

to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules 

and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection 

and Maintenance Program 

Requirements,’’ and Title 15 NYCRR 

Part 79, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Inspection 

Regulations,’’ to comply with EPA 

regulations and to improve performance 

of its I/M program. The intended effect 

of this action is to maintain consistency 

between the State-adopted rules and the 

federally approved SIP and to approve 

a control strategy that will result in 

emission reductions that will help 

achieve attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standard for ozone. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 13, 2006. Public 

comments on this action are requested 

and will be considered before taking 

final action. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R02–

OAR–2006–0685, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–02–OAR–2006–

0685. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL