Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31885

Coordinating Committee, who will

choose the members of the Work

Groups.

The Coordinating Committee will be

chartered under the FACA and will

serve the role of planning and

coordinating the regulatory

development process. The committee

will communicate with the Source Work

Groups to ensure general consistency

and thoroughness of data analyses and

preliminary regulatory

recommendations. The Coordinating

Committee will consider and discuss

the regulatory recommendations made

by the Source Work Groups and present

final recommendations to the EPA

management. The Source Work Groups

and Coordinating Committee will strive

for consensus, but if consensus is not

reached, the Coordinating Committee

will present majority and minority

recommendations to the EPA

management. The FACA requires that

the Coordinating Committee members

be chosen by the EPA Administrator.

Criteria for Work Group and

Coordinating Committee Membership

Source Work Group members should

meet the following criteria: represent an

affected party and, preferably, be able to

represent the interests of other affected

parties; commit to spending a

significant amount of their time

(perhaps 20 to 25 percent) over a

multiple year period; and possess

insight, understanding, and technical

knowledge of the source category. It is

preferable that Source Work Group

members also have regulatory process

experience. Source Work Groups should

include representatives of sources

affected by the rule, State/local

regulatory agencies, environmental

groups, and the EPA. Criteria for

membership in the testing and

monitoring protocol and economic

analyses work groups are similar, but

also require expertise in the named

technical areas.

Criteria for membership on the

Coordinating Committee includes the

ability to: represent an affected party; be

able to represent the interests of other

affected parties; communicate with

other affected parties; commit a

significant amount of their time

(perhaps 20 to 25 percent) over a multiyear period; and have substantive

experience with the EPA air programs

regulatory process (particularly NSPS or

NESHAP regulatory development). The

Coordinating Committee should be

made up of representatives of the

following: environmental, public health,

and environmental justice groups; State/

local regulatory agencies; affected

sources; manufacturers of combustion,

emission control, and emission

monitoring/testing equipment; fuel

producers and suppliers; labor; and the

EPA.

Nomination Process

Nominations are being solicited for

members of the Coordinating Committee

as well as members of the Work Groups.

The nominations must indicate whether

the nomination is for one of the Work

Groups or for the Coordinating

Committee. Each nomination must

discuss and explain how the nominee

meets or satisfies the membership

criteria discussed above. A brief resume

and several current references should be

included. The ICCR document includes

an example nomination form. It is

recommended that this form be used in

order to assure that the nomination

includes all of the necessary

information.

Before submitting a nomination,

individuals or organizations should

obtain and thoroughly read the ICCR

document. This document is available

on the TTN or may be obtained by

calling or writing the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center. See

Inspection of Documents section for

more details.

Public Information

The EPA plans to accomplish several

tasks at a public meeting to be held in

July. The ICCR project will be discussed

in general, and information will be

provided on how to follow the progress

of this rulemaking. The EPA also plans

to describe the roles and membership

criteria for the various Work Groups and

the Coordinating Committee, along with

an explanation of the nomination

process. The EPA will try to answer any

questions raised by the public on any of

these processes.

There will also be a satellite video

presentation to discuss the ICCR at 190

sites across the United States. This

video presentation will serve to educate

the public on the same topics to be

covered at the public meeting. Viewers

of the satellite presentation will also

have the opportunity to have their

questions answered by the EPA. This

video presentation will be shown at the

public meeting.

Dated: June 14, 1996.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator For Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 96–15880 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. 150, PR4–1, FRL–

5523–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of

revisions to the Puerto Rico Regulations

for the Control of Atmospheric

Pollution, submitted to EPA by the

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality

Board (EQB) on September 29, 1995.

This action proposes approval of

revisions to Rules 102, 105, 106, 107,

109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117, 121, 201,

203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 301, 401,

402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 410,

412, 413, 414, 417, and 501. EPA is not

incorporating new Rule 422 into the

federally approved Puerto Rico State

Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is also

announcing the withdrawal of Rules

411, 418, 419, 420 and 421 from the

Puerto Rico SIP at the request of the

EQB. However, although requested by

the EQB, EPA is not withdrawing Rule

404 from the SIP. A revision to Rule 423

was also submitted by the EQB on

September 29, 1995, however, EPA

determined the revision to Rule 423 to

be administratively incomplete and

returned it to EQB and it, therefore, is

not included in this rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: William S. Baker, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

Copies of the Commonwealth’s

submittal(s) are available at the

following addresses for inspection

during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Caribbean Field Office,

Centro Europa Building, Suite 417,

1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Stop 22,

Santurce, Puerto Rico 00909

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Environmental Quality Board, Banco

National Plaza, 8th Floor, 431 Ponce

De Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto

Rico, 00917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290
31886 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 29, 1995, the Puerto

Rico Environmental Quality Board

(EQB) submitted to EPA a request for

approval of revisions to the Puerto Rico

Regulations for the Control of

Atmospheric Pollution (the

Regulations). On February 5, 1996, EPA

sent a letter to Hector Russe Martinez,

Chairman of the EQB, announcing

EPA’s determination that the revisions

to the Regulations, excluding those to

Rule 423, are administratively complete.

Under the context of the Clean Air Act

(Act), the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

is regarded as a state. For the purposes

of discussing and analyzing Puerto

Rico’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submittal, EPA has broken it into the

following elements: I) revisions to the

general Regulations, II) regulations

needed to support the Title V of the Act

Operating Permits Program, III)

Revisions to the Puerto Rico PM10 SIP

for the Municipality of Guaynabo, and,

IV) a request that certain rules of the

Regulations which are currently

included as part of Puerto Rico’s

approved SIP be withdrawn from the

SIP, however, these regulations will

remain enforceable by Puerto Rico. Item

V) addresses regulations concerning

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) which

were approved pursuant to section

112(l) of the Act.

EPA is proposing approval of the

revisions to the general Regulations and

the request made by EQB that certain

rules be withdrawn from the SIP.

Generally the changes to the Regulations

involve administrative and grammatical

changes which improve the clarity of

the rules. They do not change the

emission limitations nor add significant

new requirements.

I. Revisions to the General Puerto Rico

Regulations

Several of the revisions in this section

consist of clarification type changes

such as revised dates, public law cites,

word changes (facility to source),

renumbering of rules, etc. A summary of

the various revisions are given below.

EPA generally feels that the revisions

improve the effectiveness of the

Regulations and will have no negative

effect on maintaining the national

health related standards.

A. Part I—General Provisions

1. Rule 102, ‘‘Definitions’’: There are

approximately 30 new or revised

definitions in the revised Rule 102. The

definitions are mainly for SIP purposes,

although, some clarify the Title V

Operating Permit Program contained in

Part VI of the Regulations and the

requirements under section 112 of the

Act.

2. Rule 106, ‘‘Test Methods’’ was

revised to reference the available EPA

approved alternative test methods, new

EPA test methods, or methods

previously not listed in the regulation

by oversight. The test methods specified

are those found in 40 CFR Part 51

Appendix M; 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix

A, B, and F; and 40 CFR Part 61

Appendix B, C, D and E.

3. Rule 112, ‘‘Compliance

Determination/Certification’’ was

revised to incorporate a range of

compliance and certification options

that are available to the ‘‘Board’’ to

ensure compliance with the provisions

of this regulation.

4. Other revisions to Part I of the

Regulations, which include revisions to

Rules 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 114, 117,

and 121, are clarification type changes

which bring these rules up to date. None

of the revisions involve changing the

stringency of these provisions.

EPA has thoroughly reviewed all of

the revisions contained in Part I of the

Regulations and has determined them to

meet EPA guidance and requirements;

therefore, EPA is proposing approval of

these revised rules.

B. Part II—Approval and Permit

1. Rule 203, ‘‘Permit to Construct a

Source’’ was revised by extending the

period for which a permit shall

automatically lapse or be revoked if no

construction has commenced or

construction has been suspended to

three years (after the date of its

issuance). This is approvable provided

EQB does not have Prevention of

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

(PSD) delegation. If EQB were to request

PSD delegation from EPA, the time for

which a permit shall automatically

lapse or be revoked if no construction

has commenced or construction has

been suspended should be reduced to

18 months.

2. Rule 206, ‘‘Exemptions’’ was

revised to create a list of insignificant

activities for Title V purposes, in

addition, these activities are also

exempt from Puerto Rico’s permitting

program. Rule 206 states that a location

approval, construction permit or

operating permit is not required for

sources listed in this rule as long as

potential emissions are below two tons

per year (tpy) of a criteria pollutant, five

tpy of a combination of criteria

pollutants, or two tpy or the emission

levels defined in Appendix E of the

Regulations for HAP emissions,

whichever is lower.

3. Rule 211, ‘‘Synthetic Minor Source

Emission Certification’’ is a new rule

added for Title V purposes which

provides sources with a federally

enforceable mechanism to limit the

potential to emit of criteria pollutants,

and to establish requirements for all

sources that maintain emissions below

the Title V major source thresholds.

Minor sources (emitting 75% or less of

major source threshold, excluding

sources subject to New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS),

National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS),

or Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT) standards) must

summarize in a monthly log, maintained

on site for five years, the following types

of information: all raw materials and

other substances used, description of

equipment design and specifications,

hours of operation, fuel type and use,

control effectiveness of equipment, etc.

The minor source must request coverage

under this rule within twelve months of

the effective date of Rule 211 or by the

application deadline under Puerto

Rico’s Title V program, whichever is

sooner. Such request must include a

sworn statement stating that emissions

do not exceed the minor source levels,

and must identify the methods used to

determine emissions (i.e., stack test,

monitoring). EQB may also request a

performance test to verify the emissions

are below 75% of major source

threshold. Upon receipt of a complete

request, the Board will issue a

notification for coverage for a fixed term

of five years. The minor source must

submit annual process statements,

including all information contained in

the monthly log. De minimis sources

(sources which emit two tpy or less of

a regulated air pollutant except HAPs or

five tpy or less of any combination of

regulated air pollutants excluding HAPs

or an amount equal to or less than the

emission thresholds for HAPs listed in

Appendix E) only need to maintain

records sufficient to determine actual

emissions on site for three years.

Intermediate sources (emissions are

below major source threshold) are

required to have a federally enforceable

operating permit by January 1997. The

limitations in the permit issued

pursuant to Rule 204 must specify at a

minimum: (a) technically accurate

limitations and the portions of the

source subject to the limitations; (b) the

time period applicable to the limitation;

(c) the method to determine compliance,

including appropriate monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting; (d)

permanent and quantifiable limitations,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31887

controls, and requirements; and (e) that

the emission limitations, controls, and

other requirements imposed in the

permit are at least as stringent as any

other applicable limitation contained in

the SIP or enforceable under the SIP.

Rule 211 states that permits issued

under Rule 204 that do not meet the

criteria for intermediate sources in Rule

211 are enforceable by EQB.

This rule also requires a 30 day public

comment period prior to the issuance of

permits to intermediate sources.

Because this rule meets the five criteria

outlined in the June 28, 1989 Federal

Register (54 FR 27281), EPA is

proposing approval of this mechanism

for EQB to issue federally enforceable

operating permits. In addition, because

EPA has determined that the

recordkeeping, reporting and

certification requirements for minor

sources are enforceable and that the rule

is consistent with the January 25, 1995

Guidance on Potential to Emit, EPA

finds the mechanism for limiting the

potential to emit for minor sources to be

approvable. Furthermore, Rule 211

states that violations of Rule 211 may

subject the source to major source

requirements and to enforcement

actions.

4. Other revisions to Part II of the

Regulations, which include revisions to

Rules 201, 204, 205, and 209, are

clarification type changes which bring

these rules up to date.

EPA has thoroughly reviewed all of

the revisions contained in Part II of the

Regulations and has determined them to

meet EPA guidance and requirements,

therefore, EPA is proposing approval of

these revised rules.

C. Part III—Variance

1. Rule 301, ‘‘Variance Authorized’’

was revised by combining two

paragraphs into a more clearly written

single paragraph. The paragraph relates

to the conditions which may be

imposed by EQB on preliminary

approval of variances. Since this minor

change does not deviate from EPA

guidance EPA is, therefore, proposing

approval of revised Rule 301.

D. Part IV—Prohibitions

1. Rule 405, ‘‘Incineration’’ was

revised to read more clearly and also to

bring the regulation up to date. The

revisions reflect minor changes to the

applicability, maintenance, and

compliance requirements.

2. Old Rule 422, ‘‘Air Pollution

Control Equipment,’’ the provisions of

old Rule 422 were incorporated into

Rule 108 ‘‘Air Pollution Control

Equipment’’ of the Regulations.

Therefore, old Rule 422 was removed

from the Regulations. The

Commonwealth used this number for a

new Rule 422, ‘‘Asbestos Containing

Material Management.’’ These

provisions of the new Rule 422 do not

relate to the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) emission

reduction strategies and they parallel

other Federal laws which already

regulate these matters. EPA has

determined that it is not appropriate for

Rule 422 to be incorporated into the

federally approved SIP. Accordingly,

the new Rule 422 is and will remain

enforceable by Puerto Rico only.

3. Other revisions to Part IV of the

Regulations, which include revisions to

Rules 401, 402, 403, 404, 406, 408, 409,

410, 412, 413, 414, and 417 are

clarification type changes which bring

these rules up to date.

EPA has thoroughly reviewed all of

the revisions contained in Part IV of the

Regulations and has determined them to

meet EPA guidance and requirements,

therefore, EPA is proposing approval of

these revised rules. However, EPA has

determined that it is not appropriate for

Rule 422 to be incorporated into the

federally approved SIP. In addition,

EPA cannot take action on the revisions

to Rule 423, ‘‘Limitations for the

Guaynabo PM10 Nonattainment Area’’,

in this rulemaking. Rule 423 is

discussed later in more detail under

section III—Revisions to the Puerto Rico

PM10 SIP for the Municipality of

Guaynabo.

E. Part V—Fees

1. Rule 501, ‘‘Permit Fees’’ was

revised based on clarification type

changes and merely to bring this rule up

to date. The revisions reflect changes to

the price, applicability, and validity of

permits issued by EQB.

EPA has thoroughly reviewed all of

the revisions contained in Part V of the

Regulations and has determined them to

meet EPA guidance and requirements,

therefore, EPA is proposing approval of

revised Rule 501.

II. Regulations Needed to Support the

Title V of the Clean Air Act Operating

Permits Program

Although revisions to Part VI,

‘‘Operating Permits Rules for Title V

Sources’’ of the Puerto Rico Regulations

were submitted to EPA as part of the

September 29, 1995 submittal, on

February 26, 1996, EPA fully approved

the Operating Permits Program

submitted by Puerto Rico (See 60 FR

7073). However, while EPA has

approved Puerto Rico’s program it is

EPA’s policy not to include it as part of

the federally approved SIP.

III. Revisions to the Puerto Rico PM10

SIP for the Municipality of Guaynabo

Also submitted as part of the

September 29, 1995 SIP revision

submittal were revisions to Rule 423

‘‘Limitations for the Guaynabo PM10

Nonattainment Area’’ of the Puerto Rico

Regulations. Although not identified by

Puerto Rico in the September 29, 1995

SIP submittal, EPA considers these

revisions as a SIP revision to the Puerto

Rico PM10 SIP for the Municipality of

Guaynabo. In a May 31, 1995 Federal

Register notice (60 FR 28333), EPA

approved Rule 423 as part of the Puerto

Rico PM10 SIP for the Municipality of

Guaynabo.

In a February 5, 1996 letter to Hector

Russe Martinez, Chairman of the EQB,

EPA determined that revised Rule 423 is

administratively incomplete and

returned it to the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico. Therefore, Rule 423 is not

included in this rulemaking.

In addition, included in Puerto Rico’s

September 29, 1995 SIP revision

submittal EQB requested that EPA

withdraw Rule 404 ‘‘Fugitive

Emissions’’ from the Puerto Rico SIP.

However, Rule 404 was submitted on

November 15, 1993 to EPA as part of the

Puerto Rico PM10 SIP for the

Municipality of Guaynabo and approved

by EPA on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28333).

EQB demonstrated in the PM10 SIP that

Rule 404 was needed to attain and

maintain the PM10 NAAQS. EQB’s

September 29, 1995 request to withdraw

Rule 404 did not include technical

support or a demonstration that Rule

404 is no longer needed to attain and

maintain the PM10 NAAQS. Therefore,

EPA is not withdrawing Rule 404 from

the SIP.

IV. Request that Certain Rules of the

Regulations be Withdrawn From the

Puerto Rico SIP

EQB requested in their September 29,

1995 SIP submittal, that certain rules

currently included in the federally

approved Puerto Rico SIP be withdrawn

from the SIP since these rules are not a

part of Puerto Rico’s strategy to achieve

and maintain compliance with the

NAAQS. The rules requested to be

withdrawn include Rule 404 ‘‘Fugitive

Emissions’’, Rule 411 ‘‘Hydrogen

Sulfide’’, Rule 418 ‘‘Waste Gas

Disposal’’, Rule 419 ‘‘Volatile Organic

Compounds’’, Rule 420 ‘‘Objectionable

Odors’’, and, Rule 421 ‘‘Increments Of

Progress.’’ Rule 424 ‘‘Roof Surface

Coating’’ is an entirely new regulation

which EQB provided for information

but is not to be part of the SIP. Rule 424

will be enforced by Puerto Rico. EPA

agrees that all the above rules except
31888 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Rule 404 should be withdrawn from the

SIP. None of these rules has a direct

impact on NAAQS pollutants and,

therefore, will not affect the attainment

or maintenance plans which have been

approved. It should also be noted that

it is EPA policy that no odor regulations

be included in SIPs because there is no

NAAQS specifically for odor. EPA is

proposing approval of Puerto Rico’s

request to withdraw Rules 411, 418,

419, 420, and 421 from the SIP. These

rules, however, will remain enforceable

by Puerto Rico.

V. Regulations Concerning HAPs which

were Approved Pursuant to Section

112(l) of the Clean Air Act

Section 112(l) of the Act enables

Puerto Rico to develop a program for the

implementation and enforcement of

HAP emissions standards. Approval by

EPA of such program would provide for

the delegation of the EPA

Administrator’s authorities and

responsibilities to implement and

enforce the HAP emissions standards to

Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has revised

Rule 211 of the Puerto Rico Regulations

pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act in

order to provide sources with a

mechanism to limit potential HAP

emissions.

EPA can only approve a program

under 112(l) if Puerto Rico meets the

following criteria: (1) adequate authority

to assure compliance with any section

112 standard or requirements; (2)

adequate resources; (3) the program

provides for an expeditious schedule for

assuring compliance with section 112

requirements; and (4) the program is

otherwise likely to satisfy the objectives

of the Act. EQB has already

demonstrated through Title V that it has

adequate authority to implement and

enforce all section 112 requirements for

both Title V and non-Title V sources.

EQB also demonstrated sufficient fees to

implement all section 112 requirements

in its Title V Fee Demonstration. While

EPA is approving Rule 211 as part of the

SIP, Rule 211 will also have the effect

of limiting HAP emissions pursuant to

its approval under section 112(l) of the

Act.

Conclusion

EPA is proposing approval the

revisions to the Regulations, which

include revisions to Rules 102, 105, 106,

107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117, 121,

201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 301,

401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409,

410, 412, 413, 414, 417, and 501. EPA

is not incorporating new Rule 422 into

the federally approved SIP. In addition,

EPA is proposing approval of the

withdrawal of Rules 411, 418, 419, 420

and 421 from the SIP, which contain the

federally approved regulations,

however, EPA is not approving the

withdrawal of Rule 404 from the SIP.

Nothing in this proposed rule should

be construed as permitting or allowing

or establishing a precedent for any

future request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the SIP shall be considered

separately in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v US EPA,

427 US 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to the private sector, or

to state, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate.

Through submission of this SIP or

plan revision, the state and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

section 112(l) and 110 of the Clean Air

Act. These rules may bind state, local

and tribal governments to perform

certain actions and also require the

private sector to perform certain duties.

To the extent that the rules being

approved by this action would impose

any mandate upon the state, local or

tribal governments either as the owner

or operator of a source or as a regulator,

or would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these regulations

under state law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this direct final action

does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15885 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018–AD78

Addition of Cossatot National Wildlife

Refuge to the List of Open Areas for

Hunting and Sport Fishing in Arkansas

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes to add

Cossatot National Wildlife Refuge to the

list of areas open for hunting and sport

fishing in Arkansas along with pertinent

refuge-specific regulations for such

activities. The Service has determined

that such use will be compatible with

the purposes for which the refuge was

established. The Service has further

determined that this action is in

accordance with the provisions of all

applicable laws, is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife

management, and is otherwise in the

public interest by providing additional

recreational opportunities at national

wildlife refuges.