48300 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Summary 

This final rule eliminates the option 

to open a new EMCA using a local trust 

account funded by cash and/or check 

deposits and requires all new EMCA 

customers to fund their accounts using 

one of the following payment methods: 

a. Use a personal or business credit 

card. 

b. Authorize the USPS to originate an 

ACH debit from a specified bank 

account. 

c. Participate in the Centralized 

Account Processing System (CAPS) 

debit only if combined with other 

PostalOne! accounts such as permit 

imprint, Periodicals, and Business 

Reply Mail. 

This final rule also adds provisions to 

close an EMCA that apply as a result of 

the addition of ACH debit payments. 

Implementation 

The addition of the ACH debit 

payment method, the elimination of 

cash and check deposits to open new 

local trust accounts, and the updated 

provisions to close an account are 

effective October 1, 2008. 

Existing EMCA customers who 

deposit cash and checks in local trust 

accounts will be transitioned to 

electronic payment methods. Details of 

this process will be directly 

communicated to affected EMCA 

customers. 

The Postal Service adopts the 

following changes to Mailing Standards 

of the United States Postal Service, 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), which is 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

■ Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), as follows: 

* * * * * 

400 Commercial Parcels 

* * * * * 

410 Express Mail 

* * * * * 

414 Postage Payment Methods 

* * * * * 

2.0 Corporate Accounts 

* * * * * 

[Revise the heading and text in 2.4 as 

follows:] 

2.4 Payment Method 

For opening and maintaining an 

account, the mailer may do any of the 

following: 

a. Use a personal or business credit 

card. 

b. Authorize the USPS to originate an 

Automated Clearing House (ACH) debit 

from a specified bank account. 

c. Participate in the Centralized 

Account Processing System (CAPS) 

debit only if combined with other 

PostalOne! accounts such as permit 

imprint, Periodicals, and Business 

Reply Mail. 

d. Existing EMCA customers who 

deposit cash and checks in local trust 

accounts must maintain a minimum 

balance in the account equal to an 

average week’s postage and fees, or 

$100, whichever is higher. 

* * * * * 

2.6 Closing Account 

[Revise the text in 2.6 as follows:] 

The USPS may close an account with 

10 days’ written advance notice to the 

account holder (and reserves the right to 

refer closed corporate accounts with 

negative balances or unpaid mailings to 

a collection agency), for any of the 

following reasons: 

a. The ending balance on the mailing 

activity statement is below the 

minimum balance required for two 

consecutive months. 

b. The account remains inactive for 

three consecutive months, unless 

circumstances warrant otherwise (e.g., a 

seasonal mailer, positive balance, etc.). 

c. For any unpaid mailings. 

d. There are repetitive unpaid 

mailings due to rejection of payment by 

the account holders’ credit card 

company or ACH institution. The 

closing of an account due to repetitive 

unpaid mailings caused by the rejection 

of the payment by the banking 

institution is subject to review by the 

manager, Business Mail Entry. 

* * * * * 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E8–18886 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0495; FRL–8706–7] 

Withdrawal of the Federal Water 

Quality Standards Use Designations 

for Soda Creek and Portions of Canyon 

Creek, South Fork Coeur d’Alene 

River, and Blackfoot River in Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to withdraw the Federal water 

quality standards designating cold water 

biota uses for Soda Creek and portions 

of Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River, and Blackfoot River in 

Idaho. In July 1997, EPA promulgated a 

Federal rule designating uses for water 

bodies in the State of Idaho, including 

the designation of cold water biota for 

Soda Creek, and portions of Canyon 

Creek, South Fork Coeur d’Alene River, 

and Blackfoot River, with the exception 

of any portion in Indian country. These 

Federal water quality standards 

designating cold water biota uses are no 

longer necessary since EPA approved 

Idaho’s adopted uses that result in 

protection for cold water biota. EPA is 

also withdrawing the water quality 

standards variance provision applicable 

to these uses, because this provision is 

no longer necessary with the 

withdrawal of the Federal water quality 

standards designating these uses. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 17, 2008 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by September 18, 2008. If EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OW–2008–0495, by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail to either: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 or 

Lisa Macchio, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 

Mailcode: OWW–131, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–

HQ–OW–2008–0495. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 48301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004 or Lisa Macchio, U.S. EPA, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–

0495. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–

0495. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

two docket facilities. The OW Docket 

Center is open from 8:30 until 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The OW Docket Center 

telephone number is (202) 566–2426, 

and the Docket address is OW Docket, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. The 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

also available in hard copy at U.S. EPA, 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. Docket 

materials can be accessed from 9 a.m. 

until 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number is (206) 553–1834. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wendy Drake, U.S. EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water, Mailcode: 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–564–2926; fax number: 

202–566–0409; e-mail address: 

drake.wendy@epa.gov or Lisa Macchio, 

U.S. EPA, Region 10, Mailcode: OWW–

131, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, Washington 98101; telephone 

number: 206–553–1834; fax number: 

206–553–0165; e-mail address: 

macchio.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July 

1997, EPA promulgated a Federal rule 

designating uses for water bodies in the 

State of Idaho, including the designation 

of cold water biota for Soda Creek, and 

portions of Canyon Creek, South Fork 

Coeur d’Alene River, and Blackfoot 

River, with the exception of any portion 

in Indian country (62 FR 41183, July 31, 

1997). In March 2000, Idaho adopted a 

revised use for a segment of Blackfoot 

River, which changed from ‘‘Protected 

for Future Use’’ to undesignated. In 

Idaho, undesignated waters are 

protected for all recreational use in and 

on the water and for the propagation of 

fish, shellfish, and wildlife (IDAPA 

58.01.02.101.01). In March 2002, Idaho 

adopted a use designation of cold water 

biota for segments of Canyon Creek and 

South Fork Coeur d’Alene River. In 

March 2006, Idaho adopted a revised 

use for Soda Creek, which changed from 

‘‘NONE’’ to undesignated. As described 

in the undesignated surface waters 

provision of Idaho’s Water Quality 

Standards (IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01a), 

the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) applies cold water 

aquatic life criteria to undesignated 

waters because it is presumed that most 

waters in the State will support cold 

water aquatic life. Thus, cold water 

aquatic life criteria now apply to Soda 

Creek and the segment of the Blackfoot 

River. EPA approved Idaho’s revised 

water quality standards for segments of 

Canyon Creek and South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River on June 24, 2005, and for 

Soda Creek on August 15, 2006. EPA 

approved Idaho’s revised water quality 

standards for the segment of the 

Blackfoot River, except for any portion 

in Indian country, on August 22, 2006. 

Thus, the Federal water quality 

standards designating Soda Creek and 

portions of Canyon Creek, South Fork 

Coeur d’Alene River, and Blackfoot 

River for cold water biota use (40 CFR 

131.33(b)) is no longer necessary, and 

EPA is withdrawing it with this action. 

EPA is also withdrawing the water 

quality standards variance provision 

applicable to these uses (40 CFR 

131.33(d)), because this provision is no 

longer necessary with the withdrawal of 

the Federal water quality standards 

designating these uses. 

I. Why EPA Is Using a Direct Final Rule 

EPA is publishing this rule without a 

prior proposed rule because we view 

this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment because 

this action withdraws the Federal water 

quality standards designating cold water 

biota uses that are no longer necessary 

since EPA approved Idaho’s adopted 

uses that result in protection for cold 

water biota. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, we are publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the 

proposed rule to withdraw the Federal 

water quality standards for these uses if 

adverse comments are received on this 

direct final rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. We would address all public 

comments in any subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. 

II. What Entities May Be Affected by 

This Action? 

Citizens concerned with water quality 

in Idaho may be interested in this 

rulemaking. Entities discharging 

pollutants to Soda Creek, Canyon Creek, 

South Fork Coeur d’Alene, and 

Blackfoot River in Idaho could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because water quality standards are 

used in determining National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit limits. Because this action 

withdraws the Federal water quality 

standards designating cold water biota 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
48302 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

uses that are no longer necessary since 

EPA approved Idaho’s adopted uses that 

result in protection for cold water biota, 

the effect of this rulemaking may only 

occur when entities seek variances to 

water quality standards. Entities seeking 

variances from use designations on 

these waters will now apply to the state, 

and EPA will act on the state’s decision 

to grant the variance. 

Categories and entities that may 

ultimately be affected include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ...................... Industries discharging pollutants to Soda Creek, Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur d’Alene River, and Blackfoot River in 

Idaho. 

Municipalities ............. Publicly owned treatment works discharging pollutants to Soda Creek, Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur d’Alene River, 

and Blackfoot River in Idaho. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding NPDES regulated 

entities likely to be affected by this 

action. This table lists the types of 

entities that EPA is now aware could 

potentially be affected by this action. 

III. What To Consider in Preparing 

Comments for EPA 

A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

IV. Background 

On July 31, 1997, pursuant to section 

303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

EPA promulgated water quality 

standards for Idaho, which designated 

several water body segments for cold 

water biota use. These segments 

included: A segment of the Blackfoot 

River, then identified as USB 360—

Equalizing Dam to mouth (with the 

exception of any portion in Indian 

country); a segment of Canyon Creek 

(segment PB 121)—below mining 

impact; a segment of South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River (segment PB 140S)—

Daisy Gulch to mouth; and Soda Creek 

(segment BB 310)—source to mouth. 

A. Blackfoot River: In March 2000, the 

Idaho Legislature adopted revised water 

quality standards, providing an 

undesignated use for the segment of the 

Blackfoot River that the Federal rule 

addressed (IDAPA 58.01.02.150.09). In 

Idaho, undesignated waters are 

protected for all recreational use in and 

on the water and for the propagation of 

fish, shellfish, and wildlife (IDAPA 

58.01.02.101.01). Given the flow 

limitations on the Blackfoot River 

segment, IDEQ removed the aquatic life 

use designation of ‘‘Protected for Future 

Use’’ from the Blackfoot River segment 

and left the use undesignated so that a 

more appropriate aquatic use 

designation may be described and 

added to Idaho water quality standards 

in the future. As described in the 

undesignated surface waters provision 

(IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01a), IDEQ applies 

cold water aquatic life criteria to 

undesignated waters because it is 

presumed that most waters in the State 

will support cold water aquatic life. As 

EPA stated in its approval letter of 

August 22, 2006, EPA considers Idaho’s 

revision to provide a default cold water 

aquatic life use designation for the 

Blackfoot River segment, except for any 

portion in Indian country. EPA would 

consider any change in the level of 

protection afforded to the Blackfoot 

River segment to be a revision to Idaho’s 

water quality standards, subject to EPA 

review pursuant to 40 CFR part 131. The 

water quality standards revision also 

included a reformatting and 

renumbering of the Water Body/Basin 

Designation Tables and the segment of 

the Blackfoot River previously 

identified as USB 360 (Equalizing Dam 

to mouth) was renumbered to U.S.–1 

(Fort Hall Main Canal diversion to 

mouth), which is within the Blackfoot 

Subbasin of the Upper Snake Basin. 

Thus, cold water aquatic life criteria 

now apply to the U.S.–1 segment of the 

Blackfoot River, which was formerly 

identified as USB 360. EPA approved 

Idaho’s revision, except for any portion 

in Indian country, on August 22, 2006. 

The 1997 promulgation establishing the 

Federal water quality standards 

designating uses for Blackfoot River did 

not apply to waters in Indian country; 

likewise, EPA’s approval of the state’s 

designated use for Blackfoot River 

excludes waters in Indian country. 

B. Canyon Creek and South Fork 

Coeur d’Alene River: On March 15, 

2002, the Idaho Legislature adopted 

revised water quality standards, 

including the cold water biota 

designated use for Canyon Creek, which 

was previously identified as PB 121 

(below mining impact) and is now 

renumbered and renamed segment P–14 

(from and including Gorge Gulch to 

mouth); and South Fork Coeur d’Alene 

River, which was previously identified 

as segment PB 140S and is now 

renumbered and includes two segments: 

segment P–1 (Canyon Creek to mouth) 

and segment P–11 (from and including 

Daisy Gulch to Canyon Creek) (IDAPA 

58.01.02.110.09). Canyon Creek and the 

South Fork Coeur d’Alene River are 

within the South Fork Coeur d’Alene 

River Subbasin of the Panhandle Basin. 

Canyon Creek in its entirety, including 

segments P–14 (from and including 

Gorge Gulch to mouth) and P–15 (source 

to Gorge Gulch), is designated for cold 

water biota. The South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River is also designated for cold 

water biota use in its entirety; the South 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 48303 

Fork Coeur d’Alene River upstream of 

Daisy Gulch (segment P–13 source to 

Daisy Gulch) was already designated as 

a cold water biota use. When the State 

first established its water quality 

standards, it included the phrase 

‘‘below mining impact’’ to identify a 

number of stream segments in order to 

account for the lingering adverse 

environmental effects of numerous 

abandoned mines in the State. EPA 

recognized the concerns of the State and 

used the same terminology in its 

promulgation of Federal standards on 

July 31, 1997. EPA approved Idaho’s 

revisions on June 24, 2005. 

C. Soda Creek: In March 2006, the 

Idaho Legislature adopted revised water 

quality standards, removing the use 

designation of ‘‘NONE’’ and providing 

an undesignated use for Soda Creek. In 

Idaho, undesignated waters are 

protected for all recreational use in and 

on the water and for the propagation of 

fish, shellfish, and wildlife (IDAPA 

58.01.02.101.01). Soda Creek had been 

identified as segment BB 310 (source to 

mouth) and is now renumbered and 

includes three segments: segments B–23 

(Soda Creek Reservoir Dam to 

Alexander Reservoir), B–24 (Soda Creek 

Reservoir), and B–25 (source to Soda 

Creek Reservoir) in the South Fork 

Clearwater Subbasin of the Clearwater 

Basin (IDAPA 58.01.02.160.02). IDEQ 

initially proposed that Soda Creek be 

designated for coldwater aquatic life 

use. However, due to a lack of data, 

particularly water temperature records, 

showing that cold water aquatic life 

criteria were met, Soda Creek was left 

undesignated. As described in the 

undesignated surface waters provision 

(IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01a), IDEQ applies 

cold water aquatic life criteria to 

undesignated waters because it is 

presumed that most waters in the State 

will support cold water aquatic life. 

Thus, cold water aquatic life criteria 

now apply to Soda Creek. EPA approved 

Idaho’s revision on August 15, 2006. As 

EPA stated in this approval letter, EPA 

considers Idaho’s revision to provide a 

default cold water aquatic life use 

designation for Soda Creek. EPA would 

consider any change in the level of 

protection afforded to Soda Creek to be 

a revision to Idaho’s water quality 

standards, subject to EPA review 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 131. 

D. EPA-approved Use Designations 

and Criteria: For Blackfoot River (US–1) 

and Soda Creek (B–23, B–24, and B–25), 

the State now applies an undesignated 

use that is practically equivalent to the 

aquatic life use established by EPA in its 

July 31, 1997, rulemaking because cold 

water biota criteria apply. Specifically, 

Idaho’s undesignated surface waters 

provision states (IDAPA 58.01.02.101): 

‘‘Surface waters not designated in Sections 

110 through 160 shall be designated 

according to Section 39–3604, Idaho Code, 

taking into consideration the use of the 

surface water and such physical, geological, 

chemical, and biological measures as may 

affect the surface water. Prior to designation, 

undesignated waters shall be protected for 

beneficial uses, which includes all 

recreational use in and on the water and the 

protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, 

and wildlife, wherever attainable. 

a. Because [IDEQ] presumes most waters in 

the state will support cold water aquatic life 

and primary or secondary contact recreation 

beneficial uses, [IDEQ] will apply cold water 

aquatic life and primary or secondary contact 

recreation criteria to undesignated waters 

unless Sections 101.01.b and 101.01c. are 

followed. 

b. During the review of any new or existing 

activity on an undesignated water, [IDEQ] 

may examine all relevant data or may require 

the gathering of relevant data on beneficial 

uses; pending determination in Section 

101.01.c. existing activities will be allowed to 

continue. 

c. If, after review and public notice of 

relevant data, it is determined that beneficial 

uses in addition to or other than cold water 

aquatic life and primary or secondary contact 

recreation are appropriate, then [IDEQ] will: 

i. Complete the review and compliance 

determination of the activity in context with 

the new information on beneficial uses, and 

ii. Initiate rulemaking necessary to 

designate the undesignated water, including 

providing all necessary data and information 

to support the proposed designation.’’

For Canyon Creek (P–14) and South 

Fork Coeur d’Alene River (P–1 and P–

11), the State now applies an aquatic life 

use designation that is the same as the 

one established by EPA in its July 31, 

1997 rulemaking (‘‘cold water biota’’). 

Therefore, withdrawing the Federal 

water quality standards designating 

these uses will not result in a change in 

the level of protection afforded to Soda 

Creek, Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River, or Blackfoot River. 

EPA’s action to remove the federal 

water quality standards that designated 

uses for Soda Creek and portions of 

Canyon Creek, South Fork Coeur 

d’Alene River, and Blackfoot River does 

not change the water quality criteria that 

apply to these water bodies. Idaho’s 

water quality criteria that provide 

protection for the cold water aquatic life 

use are found in several sections of 

Idaho’s water quality standards. 

Specifically, the general surface water 

criteria applicable to all surface waters 

in Idaho are provided in IDAPA 

58.01.02.200, and numeric criteria for 

toxic substances for waters designated 

for aquatic life use apply per IDAPA 

58.01.02.210a. IDAPA 58.01.02.250 

provides additional aquatic life criteria 

applicable to the segments from which 

the federal water quality standards are 

being withdrawn, including general 

criteria for pH and dissolved gas that 

apply to all aquatic life use designations 

(IDAPA 58.01.02.250.01), as well as cold 

water criteria for dissolved oxygen, 

temperature, ammonia (acute and 

chronic), and turbidity that apply to 

waters designated for cold water aquatic 

life (IDAPA 58.01.02.250.02). 

E. Water Quality Standards Variance: 

In promulgating Federal water quality 

standards designating uses for Idaho 

waters, EPA also included a water 

quality standards variance provision (40 

CFR 131.33(d)) authorizing the EPA 

Region 10 Regional Administrator to 

grant variances from the Federal water 

quality standards that designated the 

cold water biota uses. Because today’s 

rule removes the Federal water quality 

standards designating these uses, 

provision 40 CFR 131.33(d) is no longer 

necessary and is also withdrawn with 

this action. Idaho has adopted its own 

water quality standards variance 

provision (IDAPA 58.01.02.260), which 

was approved by EPA on June 25, 1996. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This action withdraws Federal 

requirements applicable to Idaho and 

imposes no regulatory requirements on 

any person or entity, does not interfere 

with the action or planned action of 

another agency, and does not have any 

budgetary impacts or raise novel legal or 

policy issues. The action imposes no 

additional cost on the regulated 

community because it will not change 

the level of environmental protection 

already achieved. The rule imposes only 

minimal additional effort on the State of 

Idaho as the regulator, because entities 

seeking variances from use designations 

will now apply to the state instead of to 

EPA. Thus, it has been determined that 

this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under the Executive Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), because it 

is administratively withdrawing Federal 

requirements that no longer need to 

apply to Idaho. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
48304 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally requires 

an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of a rule that is 

subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this action 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. 

This rule imposes no regulatory 

requirements or costs on any small 

entity. Therefore, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104–4 

establishes requirements for Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, Tribal, and 

local governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. 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 the least costly, most costeffective 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 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. 

Today’s rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, Tribal, or local governments or 

the private sector because it imposes no 

enforceable duty on any of these 

entities. Thus, today’s rule is not subject 

to the requirements of UMRA sections 

202 and 205. Similarly, EPA has 

determined that this rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments and is therefore not subject 

to UMRA section 203. 

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. It 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. This rule 

imposes no regulatory requirements on 

any State, Tribal, or local government. 

The rule imposes only minimal 

additional effort on the State of Idaho as 

the regulator, because entities seeking 

variances from use designations will 

now apply to the state instead of to EPA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It imposes no 

regulatory requirements or costs on any 

Tribal government. It does not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and EPA has no 

reason to believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

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. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), 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 (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 48305 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involved 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations) 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this direct 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations, 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

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) and will be 

effective on November 17, 2008. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131 

Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Water 

pollution control, Water quality 

standards. 

Dated: August 13, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 131 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 131—WATER QUALITY 

STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 131 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

§ 131.33 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 131.33 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b) 

and by removing paragraph (d). 

[FR Doc. E8–19201 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 27 

[WT Docket Nos. 03–66; RM–10586; 03–67; 

02–68; IB Docket No. 02–364; ET Docket 

No. 00–258; DA 08–1879] 

Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and 

Mobile Broadband Access, 

Educational and Other Advanced 

Services in the 2150–2162 and 2500–

2690 MHz Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; extension of time for 

filing replies to oppositions to petition 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission extends the deadline for 

filing replies to oppositions to petition 

for reconsideration. This action is taken 

in order to allow the Educational 

Broadband Service (EBS) and 

Broadband Radio Service (BRS) 

communities to discuss the complex 

issues at stake and develop consensus 

approaches where possible. 

DATES: Replies to oppositions are due on 

or before September 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. You may submit 

replies to oppositions to petition for 

reconsideration, identified by WT 

Docket No. 03–66, RM–10586, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting replies to oppositions to 

petition for reconsideration and 

additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Schauble, Deputy Chief, Broadband 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418–

0797 or via the Internet to 

John.Schauble@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of an Order, DA 08–1879 

adopted and released by the FCC on 

August 8, 2008 in WT Docket No. 03–

66, RM–10586. The full text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text may be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. 

(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

(202) 488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–

5563, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com. 

The complete text is also available on 

the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

wireless.fcc.gov/edocspublic/ 

attachment/DA–08–1879A1doc. This 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html. 

Alternative formats (computer diskette, 

large print, audio cassette, and Braille) 

are available by contacting Brian Millin 

at (202) 418–7426, TTY (202) 418–7365, 

or via e-mail to bmillin@fcc.gov. 

Summary of the Order 

1. On March 20, 2008, the 

Commission released a Fourth 

Memorandum Opinion and Order (73 

FR 26032, May 8, 2008) in the abovecaptioned proceeding. Petitions for 

reconsideration of the Fourth 

Memorandum Opinion and Order were 

due on June 9, 2008, oppositions to 

petitions for reconsideration were due 

on July 29, 2008, and replies to 

oppositions were due on August 13, 

2008. 

2. On June 9, 2008, the Wireless 

Communications Association 

International, Inc. (WCA) timely filed a 

Petition for Reconsideration of the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with RULES