61698 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

and the environment from the adverse 

effects of surface coal mining 

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of 

SMCRA requires that State laws 

regulating surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations be ‘‘in 

accordance with’’ the requirements of 

SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that 

State programs contain rules and 

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to SMCRA. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, we have evaluated the potential 

effects of this rule on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have 

determined that the rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

The basis for this determination is that 

our decision is on a State regulatory 

program and does not involve a Federal 

program involving Indian lands. 

Executive Order 13211—Regulations 

That Significantly Affect the Supply, 

Distribution, or Use of Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 which requires 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) 

considered significant under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Because 

this rule is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a 

proposed State regulatory program 

provision does not constitute a major 

Federal action within the meaning of 

section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C)). A determination has been 

made that such decisions are 

categorically excluded from the NEPA 

process (516 DM 8.4.A). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior has 

determined that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal 

that is the subject of this rule is based 

upon counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an economic analysis was 

prepared and certification made that 

such regulations would not have a 

significant economic effect upon a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that 

existing requirements previously 

promulgated by OSM will be 

implemented by the State. In making the 

determination as to whether this rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact, the Department relied upon the 

data and assumptions for the 

counterpart Federal regulations. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: (a) Does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million; 

(b) Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, geographic 

regions, or Federal, State or local 

governmental agencies; and (c) Does not 

have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. This 

determination is based upon the fact 

that the State submittal, which is the 

subject of this rule, is based upon 

counterpart Federal regulations for 

which an analysis was prepared and a 

determination made that the Federal 

regulation was not considered a major 

rule. 

Unfunded Mandates 

This rule will not impose a cost of 

$100 million or more in any given year 

on any governmental entity or the 

private sector. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: September 29, 2006. 

Michael K. Robinson, 

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian 

Region. 

[FR Doc. E6–17369 Filed 10–18–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–06–122] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Thames River, New London, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily change the drawbridge 

operating regulations governing the 

operation of the Amtrak Bridge across 

the Thames River, mile 0.8, at New 

London, Connecticut. This notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would 

allow the bridge owner to open the 

bridge on a temporary opening schedule 

from November 15, 2006 through May 

15, 2007. This proposed rule is 

necessary to facilitate bridge pier 

repairs. 

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast 

Guard on or before November 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to 

Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard 

District Bridge Branch, One South 

Street, Battery Park Building, New York, 

New York 10004, or deliver them to the 

same address between 7 a.m. and 3 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (212) 668–7165. The First Coast 

Guard District, Bridge Branch, 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the First Coast Guard District, Bridge 

Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 

Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7195. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

publishing an NPRM with a shortened 

comment period of 15 days, and under 

5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds 

that good cause exists for making this 

rule effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. Due 

to the urgency of the repairs, it is 

essential that this rule becomes effective 

on November 15, 2006. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61699 

The owner of the bridge, National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak), requested a temporary final 

rule to facilitate un-scheduled structural 

bridge repairs. 

On June 29, 2006, the bridge owner 

discovered that one of the main bridge 

piers had shifted as a result of pile 

driving for the new adjacent Amtrak 

Bridge. In order to perform corrective 

repairs, minimize structural 

impingement, and continue to provide 

for rail traffic, the bridge must remain in 

the closed position, except during 

specific time periods during which the 

bridge will remain in the full open 

position for the passage of vessel traffic. 

The Coast Guard published a 

temporary deviation in the Federal 

Register on July 24, 2006 [71 FR 41730], 

to allow immediate repairs to the bridge 

to commence. 

On September 6, 2006, Amtrak 

contacted the Coast Guard and 

requested a temporary regulation 

effective from November 15, 2006 

through May 15, 2007, to facilitate the 

completion of the bridge repairs. 

The Coast Guard believes this 

shortened comment period and effective 

date is reasonable because the bridge 

repairs facilitated by this temporary rule 

are vital and necessary, thus, they must 

be performed with all due speed in 

order to assure the continued safe and 

reliable operation of the bridge. 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments or related material. If you do 

so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (CGD01–06–122), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know if they reached us, please 

enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. We may 

change this proposed rule in view of 

them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to the First 

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at 

the address under ADDRESSES explaining 

why one would be beneficial. If we 

determine that one would aid this 

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time 

and place announced by a later notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Amtrak Bridge across the Thames 

River, mile 3.0, at New London, 

Connecticut, has a vertical clearance of 

30 feet at mean high water and 33 feet 

at mean low water in the closed 

position. The existing operating 

regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.224. 

The owner of the bridge, Amtrak, 

requested a temporary change to the 

drawbridge operation regulations to 

facilitate repairs to one of the main 

bridge piers. 

On June 29, 2006, the bridge owner 

discovered that one of the main bridge 

piers had shifted as a result of pile 

driving for the new adjacent Amtrak 

Bridge. 

In order to perform corrective repairs, 

minimize structural impingement, and 

continue to provide for rail traffic, the 

bridge must remain in the closed 

position except during specific time 

periods during which the bridge will 

remain in the full open position for the 

passage of vessel traffic. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed change would allow 

the Amtrak Bridge to operate on 

temporary schedule from November 15, 

2006 through May 15, 2007, to facilitate 

the completion of repairs to one of the 

main bridge piers damaged by nearby 

pile driving. 

Under this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, from November 15, 2006 

through May 15, 2007, the Amtrak 

Bridge across the Thames River, mile 

3.0, at New London, Connecticut, shall 

remain in the full open position for the 

passage of vessel traffic as follows: 

Monday through Friday: 5 a.m. to 5:40 

a.m.; 11:20 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.; 3:35 p.m. 

to 4:15 p.m.; and 8:30 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. 

Saturday: 8:30 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.; 12:35 

p.m. to 1:05 p.m.; 3:40 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.; 

5:35 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.; and 7:35 p.m. to 

8:40 p.m. 

Sunday: 8:30 a.m. to 9:20 a.m.; 11:35 

a.m. to 12:15 p.m.; 1:30 p.m. to 1:55 

p.m.; 6:30 p.m. to 7:10 p.m.; and 8:30 

p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 

The bridge shall open on signal at any 

time for the passage of U.S. Navy 

submarines and escort vessels. At all 

other times the draw shall remain in the 

closed position. Vessels that can pass 

under the draw without a bridge 

opening may do so at all times. 

The Coast Guard believes this 

proposed rule is reasonable because the 

required repair work is vital and 

necessary in order to ensure the safe and 

continued reliable operation of the 

bridge. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of 

Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. This conclusion is based 

on the fact that the vessel traffic that 

normally transits this bridge should 

only be minimally affected as they will 

still be able to transit the bridge under 

the temporary opening schedule. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 

section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reason: The 

Thames River is navigated 

predominantly by recreational vessels 

and U.S. Navy vessels. 

The temporary opening schedule 

should not preclude recreational vessel 

traffic from transiting the bridge because 

the recreational vessels that normally 

use this waterway will be in winter 

storage for most of the time period this 

rule is in effect and the U.S. Navy 

submarines and associated vessels will 

be provided bridge openings on demand 

at any time. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
61700 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact us in writing 

at, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch, One South 

Street, New York, NY 10004. The 

telephone number is (212) 668–7165. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this rule or any policy 

or action of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that may disproportionately affect 

children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it would not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.1D and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction, from further 

environment documentation because 

this action relates to the promulgation of 

operating regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Checklist’’ is 

not required for this rule. Comments on 

this section will be considered before 

we make the final decision on whether 

to categorically exclude this rule from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g); 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under 

the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 Stat. 

5039. 

2. From November 15, 2006 through 

May 15, 2006, § 117.224 is amended by 

suspending paragraphs (a) and (b) and 

adding a temporary paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 117.224 Thames River. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) The draw shall remain in the 

full open position for the passage of 

vessel traffic as follows: Monday 

through Friday from 5 a.m. to 5:40 a.m.; 

11:20 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.; 3:35 p.m. to 

4:15 p.m.; and 8:30 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. 

Saturday from 8:30 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.; 

12:35 p.m. to 1:05 p.m.; 3:40 p.m. to 

4:10 p.m.; 5:35 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.; and 

7:35 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. Sunday from 8:30 

a.m. to 9:20 a.m.; 11:35 a.m. to 12:15 

p.m.; 1:30 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.; 6:30 p.m. 

to 7:10 p.m.; and 8:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 

(2) The draw shall open on signal at 

all times for the passage of U.S. Navy 

submarines, Navy escort vessels and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules 61701 

commercial vessels. At all other times 

the draw need not open for the passage 

of vessel traffic. 

Dated: October 13, 2006. 

Timothy S. Sullivan, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 06–8814 Filed 10–17–06; 2:34 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0086, FRL–8231–8] 

RIN 2060–AN80 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Semiconductor Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Semiconductor 

Manufacturing, published on May 22, 

2003. We are proposing amendments to 

the final rule to clarify the emission 

requirements for process vents by 

establishing a new maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) floor level 

of control for combined hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) process vent streams 

containing inorganic and organic HAP 

and adding new source requirements for 

combined HAP process vents. 

Requirements for existing combined 

HAP process vents would be no control, 

which is the MACT floor. The new 

source combined HAP process vent 

limit would be the same level of control 

as is currently required for new 

inorganic and organic HAP process 

vents. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 4, 2006. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA by November 8, 2006 requesting to 

speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold 

a public hearing on November 20, 2006. 

If you are interested in attending the 

public hearing, contact Lala Alston at 

(919) 541–5545 to verify that a hearing 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0086, by one of 

the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2002–0086. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA7–

HQ–OAR–2002–0086, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0086, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B–

108, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–

0086. 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. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI to only the following 

address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer, EPA (C404–

02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2002–0086, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part 

or all of the information that you claim 

to be CBI. 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 email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0086, EPA West 

Building, Room B–102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying docket materials. 

Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered 

damage due to flooding during the last week 

of June 2006. The Docket Center is 

continuing to operate. However, during the 

cleanup, there will be temporary changes to 

Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, 

and hours of operation for people who wish 

to visit the Public Reading Room to view 

documents. Consult EPA’s Federal Register 

notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the 

EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epahome/dockets.htm for current 

information on docket status, locations, and 

telephone numbers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Schaefer, EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, 

Measurement Policy Group (D–243–05), 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number (919) 541–0296; fax 

number (919) 541–1039; e-mail address 

schaefer.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially 

affected by the direct final amendments 

to the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants for 

semiconductor manufacturing are those 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities. 

Regulated categories and entities 

include: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS