        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0656; FRL-9972-67-Region 8]

        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Wyoming; Sheridan PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to fully approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP), submitted by the State of Wyoming to the EPA on June 2, 2017, for the Sheridan moderate PM10 nonattainment area (Sheridan NAA) and concurrently redesignate the Sheridan NAA to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). In order to approve the LMP and redesignation, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA has attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 µg/m3. This determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014-2016. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to approve the Sheridan LMP as meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93, subpart A.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 28, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0656 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full the EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          James Hou, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6210, hou.james@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 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.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number);
        • Follow directions and organize your comments;
        • 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; and,
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. Background of the Sheridan PM10 Nonattainment Area (Sheridan NAA)
        A. Description of the Sheridan Nonattainment Area

        The Sheridan NAA encompasses the City of Sheridan, Wyoming, and was designated nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B), following enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a moderate nonattainment area State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was practicable to attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
        The State of Wyoming submitted an initial PM10 SIP to the EPA on August 28, 1989, and subsequently submitted eight additional submittals between 1989 and 1991. The State of Wyoming's SIP for the Sheridan moderate nonattainment area included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in Sheridan by December 31, 1994; Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
        III. Requirements for Redesignation
        A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas

        Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for redesignation. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These criteria are further clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.” 1
           The criteria for redesignation are:

            1 The “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for redesignation. The Calcagni memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.

        (1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS;
        (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
        (3) The state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
        (4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions; and
        (5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
        B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

        On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled “Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas,” (hereafter the LMP Option memo)).2 The LMP Option memo contains a statistical demonstration that areas meeting certain air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability, maintain the standard 10 years into the future. Thus, the EPA has already provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the criteria outlined in the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year emission inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer necessary.

        To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, the average annual PM10 design value for the area, based upon the most recent five years of air quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at or below 40 µg/m3, and the 24-hour design value should be at or below 98 µg/m3. The annual PM10 standard was effectively revoked on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and as such will not be discussed as a requirement for qualifying for the LMP option. In addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) and should have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. The LMP Option memo also identifies core provisions that must be included in the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.
        C. Conformity Under the LMP Option
        The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating that a federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.

        While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period; and therefore, a regional emissions analysis would not be required. Similarly, federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the “budget test” specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered not limited.
        IV. Review of the Wyoming State Submittal Addressing the Requirements for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans
        A. Has the Sheridan NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

        States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10 concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA has attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data from calendar years 2014-2016. The 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days with levels above 150 µg/m3 (averaged over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one. 40 CFR 50.6(a). Three consecutive years of air quality data are generally necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for PM10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days.

        The Sheridan NAA has two State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) monitors operated by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). Table 1 summarizes the PM10 data collected from 2012-2016. The EPA deems the data collected from these monitors valid, and the data has been submitted by the WDEQ to be included in AQS.

          Table 1—Summary of Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentrations µg/m
            3 for Sheridan 2012-2016
          [Based on data from Sheridan Police Station, AQS Identification Number 56-033-0002]

            Year
            Maximumconcentration
              (µg/m3)

            2nd Maximumconcentration
              (µg/m3)

            Number ofexceedances

            Monitoring site

            2012
            75
            73
            0
            Police Station.

            2013
            57
            52
            0
            Police Station.

            2014
            47
            45
            0
            Police Station.

            2015
            73
            73
            0
            Police Station.

            2016
            54
            48
            0
            Police Station.

        The PM10 concentrations reported at the Sheridan monitoring sites showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, and as such, the EPA proposes to determine that the Sheridan Moderate NAA has attained the standard for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
        B. Does the Sheridan NAA have a fully approved SIP under CAA section 110(k)?
        In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be fully approved under CAA section 110(k), and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the area. Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA contains requirements and milestones for all initial moderate nonattainment area SIPs including: (1) Provisions to assure that RACM (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of Reasonably Available Control Technology—RACT) shall be implemented no later than December 10, 1993; (2) A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable by no later than December 31, 1994, or, where the state is seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 1994, is impracticable and that the plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A)); (3) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994, (CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)); and (4) Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to make RFP or attain by its attainment deadline. These contingency measures are to take effect without further action by the State or the EPA. (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
        As stated above, on June 23, 1994, the EPA approved Sheridan's moderate area plan including RACM, an attainment demonstration, emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and control and contingency measure requirements. As such, the area has a fully approved nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.
        C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA?
        Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA for an area to be redesignated to attainment. The EPA interprets this to mean that the state must meet all requirements that applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the submission of a complete redesignation request. The following is a summary of how Wyoming meets these requirements.
        (1) CAA Section 110 Requirements

        Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit program; provisions for Part C—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Part D—New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting, provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
        For purposes of redesignation, the EPA's review of the Wyoming SIP shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.2622, the EPA has approved Wyoming's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national standards under section 110.
        (2) Part D Requirements

        Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10 nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, “Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.” The following paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the Sheridan NAA.
        (3) Subpart 1, Section 172(c)

        Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). CAA section 172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part (part D of title I) or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” Wyoming submitted their first quantitative milestone report on March 29, 1995. Since the EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA is in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, we believe that no further showing of RFP or quantitative milestones is necessary.
        (4) Section 172(c)(3)—Emissions Inventory Section

        Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment area. Wyoming included an emissions inventory for the calendar year 2014 with its DATE? submittal of the LMP for the Sheridan NAA. Based on the inventory preparation plan for the PM10 2014 base year emissions inventory, which includes windblown dust sources, the 2014 base year emissions inventory is current, accurate and comprehensive; and therefore, meets the requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
        (5) Section 172(c)(5)—NSR
        The 1990 CAA Amendments contained revisions to the NSR program requirements for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. The CAA requires states to amend their SIPS to reflect these revisions, but does not require submittal of this element along with the other SIP elements. The CAA established June 30, 1992, as the submittal date for the revised NSR programs (Section 189 of the CAA). In lieu of instituting NSR regulations for construction in the Sheridan NAA, the State of Wyoming chose to institute a construction ban on major sources for the Sheridan NAA, which was deemed to have satisfied the NSR requirements, and was approved into the Wyoming SIP on November 29, 1994 (59 FR 60931).
        (6) Section 172(c)(7)—Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air Quality Monitoring Requirements

        Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an appropriate air monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR part 58 to verify attainment status of the area. The State of Wyoming and the City of Sheridan operate two PM10 SLAMS in the Sheridan NAA. Both monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and siting requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. The Police Station monitor has been in continuous operation since 1985, while the second monitoring station has been moved several times since 1998, but is currently sited at the Meadowlark Elementary School. In Section 6.6 of the LMP that we are proposing to approve, the State commits to continued operation of the monitoring network.
        (7) Section 172(c)(9)—Contingency Measures

        The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Since the Sheridan NAA attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994, contingency measures are no longer required under Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, contingency provisions are required for maintenance plans under Section 175(a)(d). We describe the contingency provisions Wyoming provided in the Sheridan LMP below.
        (8) Part D Subpart 4

        Part D Subpart 4, Section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment. These requirements include: (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was implemented by December 10, 1993; (b) Either a demonstration that the plan provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by that date was impracticable; (c) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every three years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994; and (d) Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator determined that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon the EPA's approval of the PM10 moderate area plan for the Sheridan NAA on June 23, 1994 (See 59 FR 32370), and the EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration, based on the maintenance demonstration submitted with the LMP, in this action.
        D. Has the state demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions?

        The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making this showing, the state must demonstrate that air quality improvements are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other related information. The analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent and enforceable control measures in the Sheridan NAA SIP include RACM. Emission sources in the Sheridan NAA have been implementing RACM for at least 10 years. In the EPA's approval of the Sheridan attainment plan on June 23, 1994, the EPA acknowledged that the primary source category contributing to the PM10 nonattainment problem in Sheridan was fugitive road dust. The State demonstrated that, by applying the control measure, the ”Sanding Winter Maintenance Plan” (SWMP), to designated streets during the Winter season, Sheridan would effectively control fugitive road dust; and thus, be in attainment by December 31, 1994. The State has noted that there have been updates to the SWMP, that are congruent with the original SWMP. However, in the intervening years since the approval of the Sheridan NAA attainment plan, many of the roads which were unpaved, have now been paved, allowing for plowing of the roads as opposed to frequent sanding. In the instances where sanding is still applied, it is applied consistent with the 1994 SWMP, as noted in section 3.3 of the Sheridan LMP.
        Areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS, even under worst case meteorological conditions. Under the LMP option, the maintenance demonstration is presumed to be satisfied if an area meets the qualifying criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the LMP, Wyoming has demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Sheridan area are the result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of either economic trends or meteorology. A description of the LMP qualifying criteria and how the Sheridan area meets these criteria is provided in the following section.
        E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA?
        In this action, we are proposing to approve the Limited Maintenance Plan in accordance with the principles outlined in the LMP Option.
        F. Has the state demonstrated that the Sheridan NAA qualifies for the LMP Option?

        The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS. As stated above in Section IV.A., the EPA has determined that the Sheridan NAA is attaining the PM10 NAAQS, based upon 2014-2016 data, and has had no exceedances between the years 2008-2016.

        Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past five years of monitoring data (2012-2016) must be at or below the critical design value (CDV). The CDV is a margin of safety value and is the value at which an area has been determined to have a 1 in 10 probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two methods for review of monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for the LMP option. The first method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV of 98 µg/m3 for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second method that applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-specific CDV with the ADV for the past five years of monitoring data. Table 2 outlines the design values for the years 2012-2016, and presents the ADV.

          Table 2—Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values (µg/m
            3) for Sheridan 2012-2016
          [Based on data from Sheridan Police Station and Meadowlark Elementary, AQS Identification Number 56-033-0002 and 56-033-1003]

            Design value years
            Design value (µg/m3)

            Monitoring site

            2012-2014
            60
            Police Station.

            2013-2015
            57
            Police Station.

            2014-2016
            72
            Police Station.

            2012-2014
            (*)
            Meadowlark Elementary.

            2013-2015
            72
            Meadowlark Elementary.

            2014-2016
            72
            Meadowlark Elementary.

            Average DV based on highest DVs
            68 µg/m3.

          * The Meadowlark School monitor was installed on July 2012, and therefore missing the first two quarters in 2012. The 2012-2014 DV from the Police Station monitor was used to calculate the ADV for the NAA.

        The ADV for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for Sheridan, based on data from the collocated SLAMS monitors for the years 2012-2016, is 68 µg/m3. This value falls below the presumptive 24-hour CDV of 98 µg/m3. Therefore, Sheridan meets the design value criteria outlined in the LMP Option memo. For the 2012-2016 ADV calculations for PM10 in Sheridan, please see the supporting documents in the docket.3

            3 See memo to file dated November 17, 2017 titled “PM10 24-hour Design Concentration for Sheridan Wyoming.”

        Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test in attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the methodology outlined in the memo, based on monitoring data for the period 2014-2016, the EPA has determined that the Sheridan NAA passes the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. For the calculations used to determine that Sheridan has passed the motor vehicle regional analysis test, see the supporting documents in the docket.4

            4 See memo to file dated December 4, 2017, title “Sheridan Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis.”

        The monitoring data for the period 2014-2016 shows that Sheridan has attained the NAAQS for PM10, the 24-hour ADV for Sheridan is less than the 24-hour PM10 CDV. Finally, the area has met the regional vehicle emissions analysis test. Thus, the Sheridan NAA qualifies for the LMP Option described in the LMP Option memo. The LMP Option memo also indicates that once a state selects the LMP Option and it is in effect, the state will be expected to determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP criteria are still being met. If the state determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough to requalify for the LMP. One possible approach the state could take is to implement contingency measures. Please see Section 6.3. for a description of contingency provisions submitted as part of the State's submittal.
        G. Does the state have an approved attainment emissions inventory which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

        The state's approved attainment plan should include an emissions inventory (attainment inventory) which can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability requirements of the LMP Option. The state should review its inventory every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the attainment inventory if necessary. In this instance, Wyoming completed an attainment year inventory for the attainment year 2014. The EPA has reviewed the 2014 emissions inventory and determined that it is current, accurate and complete. The EPA has also reviewed monitoring data for the years 2012-2016, and determined that the 2014 emissions inventory is representative of the attainment year inventory since the NAAQS was not violated during 2014. In addition, the emissions inventory submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2014 is representative of the level of emissions during the time period used to calculate the average design value since 2014 is included in the five-year period used to calculate the design value (2012-2016). As stated above in Section IV.C.4., the 2014 emissions inventory meets the requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, and the requirements for emissions inventory in Table 3.1 of the EPA document entitled PM10 Emission Inventory Requirements, Final Report.
        H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58?
        A PM10 monitoring network was established in the Sheridan NAA in 1984. Since that time, the Police Station monitor has been in continuous operation, while the neighborhood monitor has been moved several times since 1998. The neighborhood monitor is currently sited at the Meadowlark Elementary School. The monitoring network was developed and has been maintained in accordance with federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, Appendices D and E and in consultation with EPA Region 8. Currently, there are two PM10/PM2.5 SLAMS/National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) monitors in the Sheridan NAA. In Section 6.6 of the Sheridan LMP, Wyoming states that it will continue to operate its monitoring network to meet EPA requirements.
        I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions for maintenance plans?

        Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo, these contingency measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. As noted above, CAA section 175A requirements are distinct from CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. Section 6.3 of the Sheridan Limited Maintenance Plan describes a process and timeline to identify and evaluate appropriate contingency measures in the event of a quality assured violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Upon notification of a PM10 exceedance, the AQD and local government staff in the Sheridan area will develop appropriate contingency measure(s) intended to prevent or correct a violation of the PM10 standard. Information about historical exceedances of the standard, the meteorological conditions related to the recent exceedance(s), and the most recent estimates of growth and emissions will be reviewed. The possibility that an exceptional event occurred will also be evaluated. The AQD will notify the EPA Region 8 within 45 days of any exceedance. Usually, upon notification to the Region, the AQD will indicate whether it believes that the event could be exceptional. If the event is considered eligible for data exclusion by the AQD, the AQD then provides official notification per the CFR (40 CFR 50.14) by flagging the affected data and providing a description with the quarterly data uploaded to AQS (90 days after the end of the quarter in which the event took place). Additionally, under the 2016 revisions to the Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events Rule (81 FR 68216), the AQD would confer with EPA Region 8 regarding whether the flagged event would meet the criteria of a regulatory decision, and if so, a determination would be made on whether to move forward with producing a demonstration. This process will be completed within six months of the exceedance notification. If a violation of the PM10 NAAQS has occurred, a public hearing process at the State and local level will begin. Contingency measures will be adopted and fully implemented within one year of a PM10 NAAQS violation. Any State-enforceable measures will become part of the next revised maintenance plan, submitted to the EPA for approval.
        Potential contingency provisions identified in the Sheridan LMP include the following:
        • Re-implementing the voluntary wood burning curtailment program.
        • Re-implementing the wood burning public information campaign.
        • Mandatory wood burning curtailment.
        • Bans on all wood burning.
        • Implementing nonattainment new source review regulations for the City of Sheridan.
        • Re-establishing the construction ban on major stationary sources that had been removed from Wyoming's State Implementation Plan.
        • Paving the remaining unpaved roads within the City of Sheridan.

        • Other restrictions/regulations/action plans involving stationary sources based on the consideration of cost-effectiveness, PM10 emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that the State deems appropriate.
        • Coordination with the Wyoming Department of Transportation/local transit agency regarding roadwork and transportation control measures.
        The current and proposed contingency provisions in Sheridan's LMP meet the requirements for contingency provisions as outlined in the LMP Option memo.
        J. Has the state met transportation conformity requirements?
        (1) Transportation Conformity
        Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan, if applicable, and the Transportation Improvement Program are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). The EPA notes that a MVEB is typically defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.5
           MVEBs are, however, treated differently with respect to LMP areas.

            5 Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).

        We note that under our LMP Option memorandum, MVEBs are not required to be identified in the maintenance plan. While the EPA's LMP Option memo does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate transportation conformity without identifying and submitting a MVEB. The basis for this provision in the LMP Option memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for transportation conformity purposes, the EPA has concluded that mobile source emissions in LMP areas need not be capped, with respect to a MVEB, for the maintenance period and a regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for transportation conformity purposes, is also not required.

        However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of the EPA's transportation conformity rule will continue to be required for transportation projects located within the Sheridan PM10 maintenance area. Specifically, for conformity determinations, projects will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation and timely implementation (as applicable) of Transportation Control Measures (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects located within the Sheridan PM10 LMP area will be required to be evaluated for potential PM10 hot-spot issues in order to satisfy the “project level” conformity determination requirements. As appropriate, a project may then need to address the applicable criteria for a PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123.
        Finally, our proposed approval of the Sheridan PM10 LMP affects future PM10 project-level transportation conformity determinations as prepared by the Wyoming Department of Transportation in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. See 40 CFR 93.100. As such, the EPA is proposing to approve the Sheridan LMP as meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
        (2) General Conformity
        Federal actions, other than transportation conformity, that meet specific criteria need to be evaluated with respect to the requirements of Wyoming's general conformity rule.6

           Wyoming's general conformity rule requirements are designed to ensure that emissions from a federal action will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS, exacerbate current violations, or delay timely attainment. However, as noted in our LMP Option memorandum, and similar to the above discussed transportation conformity provisions, federal actions subject to Wyoming's general conformity rule would be considered to satisfy the “budget test,” as specified in WAQSR Chapter 8, Section 3(c)(vii)(C) of the rule. As discussed above, the basis for this provision in the LMP Option memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for purposes of general conformity, a general conformity PM10 emissions budget does not need to be identified in the maintenance plan, nor submitted, and the emissions from federal agency actions are essentially considered to not be limited.

            6 Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR), Chapter 8, Section 3, General Conformity (as approved by the EPA; 78 FR 49685, August 15, 2013.)

        V. The EPA's Proposed Action

        For the reasons explained in Section IV, we are proposing to approve the LMP for the Sheridan NAA and the State's request to redesignate the Sheridan NAA from nonattainment to attainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA has attained the NAAQS for PM10. This determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014-2016. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to approve the Sheridan LMP as meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);

        • Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866; Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

          January 22, 2018.
          Douglas H. Benevento,
          Regional Administrator, Region 8.

      [FR Doc. 2018-01493 Filed 1-26-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 517 and 552
        [GSAR Case 2007-G500; Docket 2008-0007; Sequence 3]
        RIN 3090-AI51
        General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Rewrite of GSAR Part 517, Special Contracting Methods

          AGENCY:
          Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-Wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise requirements for special contracting methods and updates eliminating out of date references and reorganizes the text to align with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This second proposed rule incorporates many of the changes of the proposed rule and makes additional modifications to the text.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat on or before August 14, 2015 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by GSAR case 2007-G500 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “GSAR Case 2007-G500”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “GSAR Case 2007-G500.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2007-G500” on your attached document.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite GSAR Case 2007-G500, in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For clarification about content, contact Ms. Janet Fry at 703-605-3167 or janet.fry@gsa.gov. For information pertaining to the status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2007-G500.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to revise sections of GSAR part 517 that provide requirements for special contracting methods.
        GSA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 73 FR 32274 on June 6, 2008 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-06/pdf/E8-12613.pdf as part of the General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) Rewrite initiative undertaken by GSA to update the GSAM to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The GSAM incorporates the GSAR as well as internal agency acquisition policy. No comments were received in response to the Federal Register Notice for the proposed rule.
        The case is being issued as a second proposed rule due to the additional edits made to GSAR part 517 and the length of time since the proposed rule was published in 2008.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        A. Summary of Significant Changes
        The second proposed rule:
        • Updates the statutes cited in GSAR 517.109.
        • Deletes GSAR 517.200(b), GSAR 517.202(iv), GSAR 517.202(v), and GSAR 517.207(a) and makes conforming changes.
        • Replaces the content of GSAR 517.203 with new text, cross referencing the requirements in FAR 22.407 when using option provisions that extend the term of a construction contract.
        • Adds a new paragraph at GSAR 517.207(b) that reminds contracting officers to seek new wage determinations when exercising options that extend the term of the contract.
        • Addresses other administrative and typographical updates.

          Note:
          The following proposed changes were not retained in the second proposed rule:
          • 517.202(c) was not retained as FAR 7.105 already requires contracting officers to address options in acquisition plans.
          • 517.203(c) was not retained as availability of funds is part of the FAR 17.207 determination.

        B. Analysis of Public Comments
        No comments on the proposed rule were received from the public by the August 5, 2008 closing date.
        III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The General Services Administration does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the revisions are administrative in nature. The changes merely update and reorganize existing GSAR coverage. Therefore, the agency did not perform an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
        GSA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the subparts affected by the rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, GSAR case 2007-G500, in correspondence.
        V. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply as the rule does not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 517 and 552
          Government procurement.

          Dated: June 5, 2015.
          Jeffrey A. Koses,
          Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration.

        Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 517 and 552 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 517 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          PART 517—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

            517.109
             [Amended]

        2. Amend section 517.109 by removing from the introductory text “40 U.S.C. 490(a)(14)” and “40 U.S.C. 481(a)(3)” and adding “40 U.S.C. 581(c)(6)” and “40 U.S.C. 501(b)(1)(B)” in their places, respectively.
        3. Revise section 517.200 to read as follows:

          517.200
          Scope of subpart.
          This subpart applies to all GSA contracts for supplies and services, including:
          (a) Services involving construction, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, bridges, roads, or other kinds of real property.
          (b) Architect-engineer services.

        4. Amend section 517.202 by—
        a. Removing from the introductory paragraph of (a)(1) “You should use options” and adding “Options should be used” in its place;
        b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2)(i) “You anticipate a” and adding “There is an anticipated” in its place;
        c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
        d. Removing paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(2)(v); and
        e. Removing from paragraph (a)(3) “Do not use an option” and adding “An option may not be used” in its place.
        The revision reads as follows:

          517.202
          Use of options.
          (a) * * *
          (2) * * *
          (ii) The use of multiyear contracting authority is inappropriate and the contracting officer anticipates a need for additional supplies or services beyond the basic contract term.

        5. Revise section 517.203 to read as follows:

          517.203
          Solicitations.
          Construction solicitations and contracts which contain options that extend the term of the contract must include one of the three clauses described at FAR 22.407(e), (f) or (g).

        6. Revise section 517.207 to read as follows:

          517.207
          Exercise of options.
          In addition to the requirements of FAR 17.207, the contracting officer must also:
          (a) Determine that the contractor's performance under the contract met or exceeded the Government's expectation for quality performance, unless another circumstance justifies an extended contractual relationship; and
          (b) Obtain a new wage determination if the Service Contract Act (FAR 22.1007) or the Davis-Bacon Act (FAR 22.404-12) applies.
          (c) Determine that the option price is fair and reasonable.

          517.208
          [Amended]

        7. Amend section 517.208 by removing from the introductory paragraph (a) “FSS's” and adding “FAS'” in its place.

          PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        8. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 552 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c).

        9. Amend section 552.217-70 by revising the date of the provision; and removing from paragraph (a), in the second sentence “standard);” and adding “standard),” in its place.
        The revision reads as follows:

          552.217-70
          Evaluation of options.

          Evaluation of Options (Date)

      [FR Doc. 2015-14198 Filed 6-12-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 120999B]
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Public Hearing

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Change in public hearing date.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS published a public hearing announcement and request for comments on May 24, 2000, to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding proposed regulations to establish North Atlantic swordfish quotas for the 2000-2002 fishing years and to change trade restrictions for Atlantic bluefin tuna and swordfish. NMFS herewith announces a change in the date of the public hearing to be held in Pompano Beach, FL from June 8, 2000, to July 11, 2000.
          To accommodate people unable to attend a hearing or wishing to provide written comments, NMFS also solicits written comments on the proposed rule.

          DATES:
          The new hearing is scheduled as follows:
          1. Tuesday, July 11, 2000, 7 to 9:30 p.m., Pompano Beach, FL.

          Written comments on the proposed rule or the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on July 18, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          The location for this hearing is as follows:
          1. Pompano Beach Civic Center, 1801 NE 6th Street, Pompano Beach, FL 33060.
          Written comments on the proposed rule or EA/RIR/IRFA should be sent to Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet. For copies of the proposed rules or EA/RIR/IRFA contact Rachel Husted at 301-713-2347, or write to Rebecca Lent.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Husted at 301-713-2347, fax 301-713-1917, e-mail rachel.husted@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The proposed regulations that are the subject of the hearings are necessary to address requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for the conservation and management of highly migratory species.
        A complete description of the measures, the purpose and need for the proposed actions, and information on other hearing locations is contained in the proposed rules, published Wednesday May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33517 and 65 FR 33519), and is not repeated here.
        Persons submitting written comments on the proposed rule or the EA/RIR/IRFA should include their name, address and, if possible, phone number; the title of the document on which comments are being submitted; and specific factors or comments along with supporting reasons that NMFS should consider in reaching a decision.
        Special Accommodations

        The hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Rachel Husted (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days prior to the hearing or meeting.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et
            seq., and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
            seq.

          Dated: May 31, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-14037 Filed 5-31-00; 4:33 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 192
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788; FRL-9965-50-OAR]
        RIN 2060-AP43
        Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a reopening of the public comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting public comment and information on revisions to the EPA's “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.”

          DATES:
          The comment period for the NPRM, published January 19, 2017 (82 FR 4408), is reopened. Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9286, rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The EPA published the NPRM on January 19, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR 7400), which included a request for comments on or before July 18, 2017. The purpose of this document is to reopen that comment period.
        A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
        1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number, subject heading, Federal Register date and page 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 it to be reproduced.
        • Illustrate your concerns with specific examples 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.
        B. How can I get copies of this document, the proposed rule and other related information?

        The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the NPRM at: https://www.epa.gov/radiation/40-cfr-part-192-proposed-rulemaking-and-background-documents. Please refer to the original Federal Register NPRM for detailed information on accessing information related to the document.
        In response to requests for an extension, we are reopening the public comment period for this NPRM through October 16, 2017. This action will provide the public additional time to provide comment on updating this standard.

          Dated: July 26, 2017.
          Jonathan D. Edwards,
          Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.

      [FR Doc. 2017-16170 Filed 8-1-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-0AR-2005-NC-0002-200538(b); FRL-8049-3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in final form on March 23, 2005. The SIP revision provides the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Areas, which are composed of the following four counties: Mecklenburg (Charlotte Area); Durham and Wake (Raleigh-Durham Area); and Forsyth (Winston-Salem Area). The second 10-year maintenance plan includes new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for carbon monoxide for the year 2015. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision, including the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide, because it satisfies the requirement of the Clean Air Act for the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas.
          In addition, in this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs for the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year carbon monoxide maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. EPA determined that the 2015 MVEBs are adequate through a previous action.
          In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no significant, material, and adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 24, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-0AR-2005-NC-0002, by one of the following methods:
          1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. E-mail: wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
          3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
          4. Mail: “EPA-R04-0AR-2005-NC-0002”, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

          Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Amanetta Wood's telephone number is (404) 562-9025. Ms. Wood can also be reached via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: March 14, 2006.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 06-2869 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AU93
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for 11 Species of Picture-wing Flies From the Hawaiian Islands

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposal to designate critical habitat for 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies (Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia) and the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for these species. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. We estimate costs related to conservation activities for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies under sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act to be approximately $933,270 to $6,742,520 over 20 years, or $46,664 to $337,126 annually in undiscounted 2006 dollars. We estimate costs to range from $749,600 to $5,139,460 over 20 years, or $50,385 to $345,454 annually using a three percent discount rate. We estimate costs using a seven percent discount rate to range from $597,940 to $3,794,230 over 20 years, or $56,441 to $358,149 annually.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments until January 19, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment on the proposed rule or draft economic analysis, you may submit your comments and materials identified by RIN 1018-AU93, by any of the following methods:
          (1) Mail or hand delivery: You may submit written comments and information to Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850.
          (2) Fax: You may fax your comments to 808/792-9581.
          (3) E-mail: You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw1pie_pwfchp@fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
          (4) Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions found there for submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 808/792-9400; fax 808/792-9581). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited

        We are soliciting comments on the proposed critical habitat designation that was published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46994) and on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. Copies of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat and the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands or from our Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office at the address and contact numbers above. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period, and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.
        We are particularly interested in comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat. We have not proposed critical habitat for a twelfth species, D. neoclavisetae, because the physical and biological features essential to its conservation in the Puu Kukui Watershed Management Area are not in need of special management considerations or protection;
        (2) Specific data on those specific areas that should be included in the designations that were identified as occupied at the time of listing that contain the features essential for the conservation of the species; and those specific areas that were not occupied by the species at the time it was listed but which have subsequently been identified as occupied and those unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of the species and should be included in the designations and why such areas are essential;
        (3) Data on land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
        (4) Data on any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
        (5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments;
        (6) Whether the economic analysis adequately addresses the likely effects and resulting costs arising from State laws as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation;
        (7) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that could arise from the designation of critical habitat for these species;
        (8) Whether the designation of critical habitat will result in disproportionate economic or other impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation;
        (9) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation of critical habitat for these species;
        (10) Whether the benefits of exclusion in any particular area outweighs the benefits of inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; and
        (11) Whether critical habitat should be proposed in the Puu KuKui Watershed and why.
        Our final designation of critical habitat will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received, including all previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period.

        Please include “RIN 1018-AU93” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please contact us directly (see ADDRESSES section). Please note that the e-mail address fw1pie_pwfchp@fws.gov will be unavailable after the public comment period terminates.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Background
        On August 15, 2006, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (71 FR 46994) to designate critical habitat for 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies. In accordance with an amended settlement agreement approved by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii on August 31, 2005 (CBD v. Allen, CV-05-274-HA), the Service must submit, for publication in the Federal Register, a final critical habitat determination by April 17, 2007.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. We have not proposed critical habitat for a twelfth species, D. neoclavisetae, because the specific areas and physical and biological features essential to its conservation in the Puu Kukui Watershed Management Area are not in need of special management considerations or protection.
        The draft economic analysis addresses the impacts of conservation efforts for these 11 species on activities occurring on lands proposed for designation as well as those proposed for exclusion. The analysis measures lost economic efficiency associated with a commercial timber operation, commercial cattle grazing, management of public and private conservation lands, and residential development, and administrative costs related to the consultation process under section 7 of the Act.

        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for these 11 species in the areas proposed as critical habitat. The analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The study also analyzes whether a particular group or economic sector bears an undue proportion of the impacts, with specific analysis of the impacts to small entities and potential impacts on energy availability. Finally, this analysis estimates economic impacts to activities from 2006 (the year of the final listing for the 11 species) to 2026 (20 years from the year of proposed designation of critical habitat). Forecasts of economic conditions and other factors beyond the next 20 years would be speculative.
        We solicit data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the proposal to designate critical habitat. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from the final designation of critical habitat if the Secretary determines that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
        We estimate costs related to conservation activities for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies under sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act to be approximately $933,270 to $6,742,520 over 20 years, or $46,664 to $337,126 annually in undiscounted 2006 dollars. We estimate costs to range from $749,600 to $5,139,460 over 20 years, or $50,385 to $345,454 annually using a three percent discount rate. We estimate costs using a seven percent discount rate to range from $597,940 to $3,794,230 over 20 years, or $56,441 to $358,149 annually.
        We estimate costs related to conservation activities for the units proposed for exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies under sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act to be approximately $221,600 to $1,754,590 over 20 years, or $11,080 to $87,730 annually in undiscounted 2006 dollars. We estimate costs to range from $178,270 to $1,324,930 over 20 years, or $11,983 to $89,056 annually using a three percent discount rate. We estimate costs using a seven percent discount rate to range from $142,050 to $966,480 over 20 years, or $13,409 to $91,229 annually.
        Required Determinations—Amended
        In our August 15, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 46994), we indicated that we would be deferring our determination of compliance with several statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order 13132 and Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork Reduction Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; and the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951). Based on the information made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13211, Executive Order 12630, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule because it may raise legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft economic analysis, the designation of critical habitat for these species is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the proposed rule.
        Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency will then need to consider alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, we must then evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
        In developing our proposed designation of critical habitat, we consider economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.
        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies would affect a substantial number of small entities, we evaluated the entities potentially impacted within particular types of economic activities (e.g., management of public and private conservation lands, residential development, forestry, and agriculture). We considered each industry or category individually to determine the impacts. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.
        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
        Our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of these 11 species and proposed designation of critical habitat. We determined from our analysis that no small business entities will be affected because none of the potentially impacted entities meet the definition of small business entities. Based on these data, we have determined that this proposed designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and policy issues, but it is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:
        (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. (At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.) “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.
        (b) A small Government Agency Plan is not required because none of the potentially impacted entities is considered to be a “small entity” under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
        Takings

        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for the 11 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author
        The author of this document is the staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: December 21, 2006.
          David Verhey,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. E6-22538 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P