Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 5791 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2005–ME–0007; A–1–FRL–

8027–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; 

Nitrogen Oxides Exemption Request 

for Northern Maine 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request for 

an exemption from the requirements for 

the control of nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

emissions contained in section 182(f) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for 

northern Maine (specifically Aroostook, 

Franklin, Oxford, Penobscot, 

Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington, and 

portions of Hancock and Waldo 

Counties). This exemption request, 

submitted by the State of Maine, is 

based on a demonstration that NOX

emissions in the exemption area are not 

impacting Maine’s ozone nonattainment 

areas or other ozone nonattainment 

areas in the Ozone Transport Region 

(OTR) during times when elevated 

ozone levels are monitored in those 

areas. As such, additional reductions in 

NOX emissions from this area beyond 

what the state regulations already 

provide for are not necessary for future 

attainment in any of Maine’s ozone 

nonattainment areas or any other ozone 

nonattainment area in the OTR. Thus, as 

provided for in section 182(f)(2), 

additional NOX reductions in these 

areas constitute excess reductions, and 

EPA will waive them. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will 

become effective on March 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR–

2004–ME–0007. All documents in the 

docket are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding legal holidays. 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Bureau of 

Air Quality Control, Department of 

Environmental Protection, First Floor of 

the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental 

Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 

04333–0017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, One Congress Street, 

11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–

2023. Phone: 617–918–1664, Fax: (617) 

918–0664, E-mail: 

burkhart.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

24 , 2005 (70 FR 49526), EPA published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of Maine. The NPR 

proposed approval of a request for an 

exemption from the requirements for 

NOX control contained in section 182(f) 

of the Clean Air Act for northern Maine. 

Specifically the area includes 

Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford, Penobscot, 

Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington, and 

portions of Hancock and Waldo 

Counties. The portions of Waldo and 

Hancock Counties included are those 

that are designated unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. In Waldo County, this 

includes only the following towns: 

Belfast, Belmont, Brooks, Burnham, 

Frankfort, Freedom, Jackson, Knox, 

Liberty, Lincolnville, Monroe, 

Montville, Morrill, Northport, Palermo, 

Prospect, Searsmont, Searsport, 

Stockton Springs, Swanville, Thorndike, 

Troy, Unity, Waldo, and Winterport. In 

Hancock County, this includes only the 

following towns and townships: 

Amherst, Aurora, Bucksport, Castine, 

Dedham, Eastbrook, Ellsworth, Franklin, 

Great Pond, Mariaville, Orland, Osborn, 

Otis, Penobscot, Verona, Waltham, 

Oqiton Township (T4 ND), T3 ND, T39 

MD, T40 MD, T41 MD, T32 MD, T34 

MD, T35 MD, T28 MD, T22 MD, T16 

MD, T8 SD, T9 SD, T10 SD, and T7 SD. 

The Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) 

submitted the request on March 24, 

2005, with supplemental submittals on 

April 19, 2005 and June 28, 2005. 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on the August 24 , 2005 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. One comment 

was from McCain Foods USA, Inc. in 

Easton, Maine, which supported Maine 

DEP’s NOX exemption request for 

northern Maine. The other comments 

were from the Penobscot Indian Nation, 

which had concerns about the NOX

exemption request. EPA offers the 

following in response to the adverse 

comments received. Other information 

and the rationale for EPA’s action are 

explained in the NPR and technical 

support document and will not be 

restated here. 

Response to Comments 

Comment 1. The commenter raised 

concerns about the lack of tribal 

consultation with EPA on this 

rulemaking. 

Response 1: EPA took appropriate 

steps to provide Maine tribes with the 

opportunity to consult with EPA 

concerning the proposed rulemaking. 

Prior to signature of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, EPA sent an email to all of the tribes in Maine 

summarizing Maine DEP’s NOX

exemption request and EPA’s 

forthcoming Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. In the message, EPA 

invited the tribes to contact us if they 

had any questions on the forthcoming 

proposed rulemaking. EPA also invited 

the tribes to submit any comments they 

had on the proposed action, and the 

Penobscot Nation did submit comments. 

In addition to the responses to the 

Penobscot Nation’s comments presented 

in this notice, EPA held a conference 

call with representatives of the Nation 

and the Passamaquoddy Tribe on 

November 2, 2005 to explain to the 

tribes the Agency’s reasons for 

approving this NOX waiver. See 

memorandum to the docket for this 

action dated November 3, 2005 

describing the call. 

Comment 2. The commenter raised 

concerns, that because Maine is not 

included in the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), there needs to be a mechanism 

to reduce NOX emissions in Maine. The 

commenter acknowledged that NOX

emissions in the exemption area are not 

the only reason for increased ozone 

levels in Maine, but appears to believe 

that reducing these emissions ‘‘would 

influence the development of ozone in 

some areas.’’ The commenter asked for 

an explanation of why northern Maine 

NOX sources should be exempt from 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) controls. 

Response 2: EPA acknowledges that 

Maine is not required to adopt 

additional NOX controls pursuant to 

EPA’s CAIR rule. The proposed 

rulemaking notice for Maine DEP’s NOX

exemption request explains that EPA 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
5792 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

ozone modeling performed to support 

the CAIR rule demonstrates that Maine’s 

NOX emissions are not contributing 

significantly to future ozone 

nonattainment anywhere in the eastern 

United States. Thus, EPA is not 

requiring the State of Maine to adopt 

further NOX controls to help mitigate 

interstate ozone transport. This finding 

adds support to Maine DEP’s NOX

exemption request. 

In addition, as explained fully in the 

August 24, 2005 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and the technical support 

document, EPA agrees with Maine 

DEP’s demonstration that NOX

emissions in the exemption area are not 

impacting Maine’s nonattainment areas 

or other nonattainment areas in the 

Ozone Transport Region during times 

when elevated ozone levels are 

monitored in those areas. The 

commenter does not offer any scientific 

evidence that disputes this assertion. As 

such, EPA sees no basis for changing 

our conclusion that additional 

reductions of NOX emissions from the 

waiver area beyond what the state 

regulations already provide for would 

not contribute to and would not be 

necessary for future attainment in any of 

Maine’s ozone nonattainment areas or 

other ozone nonattainment areas in the 

OTR. In acting on the NOX waiver 

request for northern Maine under the 

one-hour standard the Agency adapted 

our guidance to address the 

circumstances of this attainment/ 

unclassifiable area in the extreme 

northeast corner of the OTR, and EPA’s 

approach here is consistent with that 

taken in approving the one-hour NOX

waiver. 60 FR 66748 (Dec. 26, 1995). 

Moreover, based on preliminary 

2003–2005 ozone air quality data, each 

of Maine’s ozone nonattainment areas 

now have air quality better than the 8- 

hour ozone standard. We believe that it 

is likely that once the 2005 data have 

been quality assured and quality 

controlled, attainment with the 8-hour 

ozone standard will be shown 

throughout the State of Maine. As this 

improvement in air quality occurred 

without additional NOX reductions 

resulting from the installation of RACT 

in the northern Maine waiver area, it 

supports the conclusion that additional 

reductions in NOX emissions from the 

waiver area beyond what the state 

regulations already provide for are not 

necessary for future attainment in any of 

Maine’s ozone nonattainment areas. 

Comment 3. The commenter had 

concerns with the EPA statement that 

this NOX exemption, if granted, will not 

have tribal implications. 

Response 3: EPA is required to review 

new rules for tribal implications. In the 

NPR, EPA stated that ‘‘This rule also 

does not have tribal implications 

because it will not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 

FR 22951, November 9, 2000).’’ This 

statement was based on our conclusion 

that the action of approving a NOX

exemption under the Clean Air Act for 

northern Maine will not result in the 

imposition of any new CAA 

requirements on tribes or impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands. Furthermore, EPA agrees 

with DEP’s analysis that shows NOX

emissions in the waiver area do not 

contribute to the elevated ozone levels 

in Maine. Therefore, EPA concluded 

that this action would not have a 

substantial effect on air quality in tribal 

lands. Again, EPA has not seen any 

evidence that would cause the Agency 

to change this conclusion. 

Final Action: EPA is approving a 

request for an exemption from the 

requirements contained in section 182(f) 

of the Clean Air Act. This approval 

exempts major sources of nitrogen 

oxides in Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford, 

Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, 

Washington, and portions of Hancock 

and Waldo Counties from (1) the 

requirements to implement controls 

meeting reasonably available control 

technology under the Clean Air Act, and 

(2) nonattainment area new source 

review (NSR) for new sources and 

modifications. If EPA determines based 

on future air quality analyses that NOX

controls in these areas are necessary, 

EPA may initiate rulemaking to revoke 

this NOX exemption. 

I. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993 we must 

determine whether a regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

or legal or policy issues arising out of 

legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive Order. 

OMB has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

‘‘answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *’’ 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). This rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

‘‘Burden means the total time, effort, 

or financial resources expended by 

persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 

disclose or provide information to or for 

a Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.’’

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 5793 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. This 

waiver approval under section 182(f) of 

the Clean Air Act does not create any 

requirements on small entities but 

simply approves a State’s request for an 

exemption from Federal requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under sections 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, signed into law on March 22, 

1995, EPA must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for propose and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in estimated costs to State, local, 

or tribal governments in the aggregate; 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more. Before promulgating an EPA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires EPA to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt a least 

costly, most cost effective or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an Alternative 

other than the least costly, most cost 

effective or least burdensome alternative 

if the Administrator publishes with the 

final rule an explanation why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have a meaningful and timely input 

in the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action promulgated does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

approves a waiver request and imposes 

no new requirements. Therefore, today’s 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. Therefore, EPA has determined 

that this rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect the small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This rule does not have federalism 

implications. This rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state request for a 

waiver from Federal requirements, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175, because the 

action of approving a NOX exemption 

under the Clean Air Act for northern 

Maine will not result in any new CAA 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this rule, EPA e-mailed a 

description of this action to the Indian 

tribes in Maine before publication of the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

informing them of our proposed action. 

The Region also offered to discuss the 

waiver with the tribes. One Indian tribe 

commented on this action, and EPA’s 

response to those concerns is provided 

in the Response to Comments section of 

this rulemaking. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children 

[additional reductions in NOX emissions 

from this area beyond what the state 

regulations already provide for are not 

necessary for future attainment in any of 

Maine’s ozone nonattainment areas or 

any other ozone nonattainment area in 

the Ozone Transport Region]. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
5794 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 

The NTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. 

This waiver of certain control 

requirements does not require the 

public to perform activities to which to 

the use of VCS would be relevant. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective March 6, 2006. 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 4, 2006. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 27, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart U—Maine 

■ 2. Section 52.1023 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1023 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(d) Approval. EPA is approving an 

exemption request from the NOX

requirements contained in Section 

182(f) of the Clean Air Act for northern 

Maine. The exemption request was 

submitted by the Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection on March 24, 

2005, and supplemented on April 19 

and June 28, 2005. This approval 

exempts major sources of nitrogen 

oxides in Aroostook, Franklin, Oxford, 

Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, 

Washington, and portions of Hancock 

and Waldo Counties from the 

requirements to implement controls 

meeting reasonably available control 

technology under the Clean Air Act, and 

nonattainment area new source review 

(NSR) for new sources and 

modifications. In Waldo County, this 

area includes only the following towns: 

Belfast, Belmont, Brooks, Burnham, 

Frankfort, Freedom, Jackson, Knox, 

Liberty, Lincolnville, Monroe, 

Montville, Morrill, Northport, Palermo, 

Prospect, Searsmont, Searsport, 

Stockton Springs, Swanville, Thorndike, 

Troy, Unity, Waldo, and Winterport. In 

Hancock County, this area includes only 

the following towns and townships: 

Amherst, Aurora, Bucksport, Castine, 

Dedham, Eastbrook, Ellsworth, Franklin, 

Great Pond, Mariaville, Orland, Osborn, 

Otis, Penobscot, Verona, Waltham, 

Oqiton Township (T4 ND), T3 ND, T39 

MD, T40 MD, T41 MD, T32 MD, T34 

MD, T35 MD, T28 MD, T22 MD, T16 

MD, T8 SD, T9 SD, T10 SD, and T7 SD. 

[FR Doc. 06–984 Filed 2–2–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

45 CFR Part 1631 

Expenditure of Grant Funds 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule deletes in its 

entirety the Legal Services Corporation’s 

regulation at 45 CFR part 1631, 

Expenditure of Grant Funds. The 

deletion is warranted because the 

statutory authority for part 1631 is no 

longer the prevailing rule of law. 

DATES: This final rule becomes effective 

March 6, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mattie C. Condray, Senior Assistant 

General Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, 

Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007; 

202–295–1624 (ph); 202–337–6519 (fax); 

mcondray@lsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 1631 

provides that LSC grant recipients may 

not expend LSC funds except as in 

accordance with the restrictions and 

provisions contained in the 

Corporation’s Fiscal Year 1986 

appropriations measure (Pub. L. 99–180, 

99 Stat. 1136), unless such funds are 

expended pursuant to a waiver from the 

Corporation. Part 1631 was promulgated 

in 1986 in response to Congressional 

concerns that some pre-1982 funds were 

being held by recipients and spent on 

activities which were not prohibited at 

the time the funds were appropriated, 

but which were later prohibited (and on 

which recipients could not spend 

currently appropriated funds). 51 FR 

24826 (July 9, 1986). 

In 2005, there is no longer any 

concern that recipients have any pre1982 funds to spend. In addition, in 

1996, Congress adopted new restrictions 

and provisions applicable to recipients 

of LSC funds which supersede the 

restrictions in Public Law 99–180. 

Public Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321. 

These restrictions have been 

incorporated by reference in each 

subsequent appropriation, including the 

current appropriation. Public Law 108–

447, 118 Stat. 2809. These restrictions 

have been separately incorporated into 

LSC’s regulations and removal of part 

1631 will have no effect on the later 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES