This rule makes corrections to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as described below.

Previously, the International Chemical Control Unit and the International Drug Unit of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) oversaw the import and export of listed chemicals used in the production of controlled substances. However, those units of the DEA have merged to form the Office of Diversion Control, Import-Export Unit. As such, the contact information for the DEA is updated in Supplement No. 3 to part 730. This rule removes the contact information for the International Chemical Control Unit and the International Drug Unit of the DEA and replaces them with the contact information for the “Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Import-Export Unit”. Moreover, the telephone number, fax number, and the URL for the homepage of said office of the DEA are included by inserting “Tel. (202) 307-4916, Fax: (202) 307-4702, Internet: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/imp_exp/index.html ” for “Chemicals” and “Tel. (202) 307-7182 or (202) 307-7181, Fax: (202) 307-7503, Internet: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/imp_exp/index.html .” for “Controlled Substances”.

The August 31, 2006, final rule (71 FR 51714) implemented the rescission of Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. To reflect that change, this rule removes remaining associations between Libya and the group of terrorist supporting countries that were inadvertently not removed in the August 31, 2006, final rule. In Supplement No. 2 to Part 742, “Libya” is removed from the title of “Anti-Terrorism Controls: Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Sudan Contract Sanctity Dates and Related Policies”. Moreover, “Libya” is removed from the introductory text to paragraph (27) of Supplement No. 2 to Part 742, which previously stated: “For Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, or Libya a license is required for all such equipment described in ECCNs 3B001 and 3B991.”.

In regard to the November 20, 2006, final rule (71 FR 67034) imposing foreign policy controls on surreptitious communications intercepting devices, this rule corrects the heading to the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 5A980 for surreptitious listening devices. The heading of ECCN 5A980, which previously read as “Communications intercepting devices; and parts and accessories therefor.”, is removed and replaced with “Devices primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications; and parts and accessories therefor.”.

This rule corrects punctuation, wording, and a mislabeled citation, as well as specific ECCNs, with respect to the January 26, 2007, final rule (72 FR 3722) imposing restrictions on exports and reexports of luxury goods to North Korea. First, in § 732.3, the phrase “Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Rwanda” is amended in the first sentence of the introductory text of paragraph (i) to change the “and” to an “or”. Also, the introductory text to section 746.4(a) is corrected by adding a parenthesis to the end of the sentence. Moreover, the introductory text to Supplement No. 1 to part 746 is rephrased to clarify the wording and correct the citation. Thus, it reads “The following further amplifies the illustrative list of goods set forth in § 746.4(b)(1):” rather than “The following further amplifies the illustrative of list luxury goods set forth in § 746.4(c):”.

Additionally, the January 26, 2007, final rule on North Korea further omitted necessary changes to exports or reexports of machetes under ECCN 0A988 and to certain microprocessors in ECCN 3A991. This rule corrects ECCN 0A988 by including North Korea in the license requirement for machetes. As such, the third sentence under “Control(s)”, which distinguishes machete controls from conventional military steel helmet controls is deleted, and the second sentence is revised to read: “A license is required for conventional military steel helmets as described by 0A018.d.1 and for machetes to Iraq, North Korea, and Rwanda.”.

For ECCN 3A991, the first of two License Requirements Notes provided for a No License Required designation for certain microprocessors with a “Composite Theoretical Performance * * * below 550 MTOPS” that are exported or reexported to North Korea. This rule corrects that oversight by removing the first License Requirements Note.

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR 44551 (August 7, 2006), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has previously been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088 (Multi-Purpose Application), which carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748. This rule is not expected to result in any change for collection purposes.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Steven Emme, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044.

Form BD requires an applicant or registrant to indicate the SRO and governmental jurisdiction with which it is registering or registered. For a “partial withdrawal,”  1 Form BDW requires the applicant to specify the SRO and governmental jurisdiction from which it is withdrawing. 2 The Commission is making technical amendments to Item 2 of Form BD and Item 3 of Form BDW to update the list of governmental jurisdictions to include the United States Virgin Islands, and to update the list of SROs to include The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and the International Securities Exchange, LLC, as well as to reflect the name change of The Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc. to National Stock Exchange, Inc. 3 and the name change of the Pacific Exchange, Inc. to NYSE Arca, Inc. 4 In addition, we are making conforming changes to the definition of “jurisdiction” to include the United States Virgin Islands. “Jurisdiction” will be defined as: “A state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or any subdivision or regulatory body thereof.”

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when the agency, for good cause, finds “that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  5 The Commission is making technical amendments to Item 2 of Form BD and Item 3 of Form BDW in light of the formation of or name changes to SROs and in light of new requirements for broker-dealer registration in the United States Virgin Islands. 6 The Commission is also making conforming amendments to the definition of “jurisdiction” to include the United States Virgin Islands. These technical amendments will update the currently out-of-date list of SROs and government jurisdictions contained in Form BD and Form BDW, as well as provide related changes to the definition of “jurisdiction” in the forms. The Commission, therefore, finds that publishing the amendments for comment is unnecessary. 7

Publication of a substantive rule not less than 30 days before its effective date is required by the APA except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. 8 For the same reasons described above with respect to notice and opportunity for comment, the Commission finds that there is good cause for making these technical amendments effective on April 23, 2007.

Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act, 9 provides that whenever the Commission is engaged in rulemaking and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, the Commission shall consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. In addition, Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires the Commission, in adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the anticompetitive effects of such rules, if any, and to refrain from adopting a rule that would impose a burden on competition not necessarily or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. 10

Because the amendments are limited to technical amendments, we do not anticipate that any competitive advantages or disadvantages would be created. We do not expect the amendments, as technical amendments, to have a significant effect on efficiency, or on capital formation or the capital markets resulting from any obligations imposed by the Commission. As previously noted, however, there will be some increased efficiency in the administration of the United States Virgin Islands regulations because adding the United States Virgin Islands to the list of jurisdictions will facilitate the use of these forms by broker-dealers doing business in that jurisdiction and will eliminate the need for separate paper filings of registration forms by these broker-dealers.

We are adopting the technical amendments to Forms BD and BDW under the authority set forth in the Exchange Act and, in particular, Sections 15(a), 15(b), 17(a), and 23(a) therein. 11

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the amendments), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless the device is classified or reclassified into class I or class II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of FDA's regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device type. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing such classification (section 513(f)(2) of the act).

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued an order on October 5, 2006, classifying the Computerized Labor Monitoring System in class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device that was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. Barnev Ltd. submitted a petition dated October 15, 2006, requesting classification of the Computerized Labor Monitoring System under section 513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are to be classified into class II if general controls, by themselves, are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the petition, FDA determined that computerized labor monitoring systems can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes that these special controls, in addition to general controls, are adequate to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

The device is assigned the generic name “Computerized Labor Monitoring System.” It is identified as a system intended to continuously measure cervical dilation and fetal head descent and provide a display that indicates the progress of labor. The computerized labor monitoring system includes a monitor and ultrasound transducers. Ultrasound transducers are placed on the maternal abdomen and cervix and on the fetal scalp to provide the matrix of measurements used to produce the display.

FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device as—

A. Patient Injury—tissue injury or bleeding to baby or mother

B. Electrical Hazards—electrical shock

C. Acoustical (ultrasound) Tissue Damage—acoustical heating of tissue due to ultrasound

D. Electromagnetic Interference and Electrostatic Discharge Hazards—electromagnetic emissions interfering with other medical devices or electromagnetic susceptibility causing the device to function improperly due to emissions of other devices

E. Mismanagement of Patient—unattended birth or improper clinical decisions based on device output information

F. Adverse Tissue Reaction—adverse tissue reaction to bio-incompatible materials

G. Infection - bacterial, viral, or fungal infection of baby or mother

FDA believes that the class II special controls guidance document will aid in mitigating the potential risks to health as described in table 1 of this document.

Following the effective date of the final classification rule, manufacturers will need to address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. However, the manufacturer need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.

Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirement under 510(k) of the act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device and, therefore, the type of device is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the computerized labor monitoring system they intend to market.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Thus, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Executive order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because classification of this device into class II will relieve manufacturers of the cost of complying with the premarket approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by lowering their costs, the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $122 million, using the most current (2005) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies 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. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Why is EPA 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. This direct final rule amends provisions in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP to clarify the interaction between the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP and the Plastic Parts NESHAP, to clarify the meaning of certain regulatory provisions, and to correct certain errors identified in the regulatory text. The direct final rule also amends the Plastic Parts NESHAP to clarify that screen printing is not subject to that rule.

However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule or a public hearing is requested, and the direct final rule is, therefore, withdrawn. We will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this direct final rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If EPA receives adverse comment or a public hearing is requested, 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.

If we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out above, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision.

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 on 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.

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria of the rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's direct final action will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ . The TTN at EPA's Web site provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the direct final rule amendments is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 25, 2007. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the direct final rule amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

On April 26, 2004, we issued the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (69 FR 22602). The final NESHAP established standards to control organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from new and existing automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. This action amends the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP to clarify the interaction between that rule and the Plastic Parts NESHAP, to clarify the meaning of certain regulatory provisions, and to correct certain errors in the regulatory text. On April 19, 2004, we issued the final Plastic Parts NESHAP (69 FR 20968). The final NESHAP established standards to control organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from new and existing plastic parts coating operations. Today's action amends the Plastic Parts NESHAP to clarify that screen printing is not subject to that rule. None of the amendments will have any effect on the stringency of the rules.

All of the amendments discussed below are amendments to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII), except for one amendment to the Plastic Parts NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) which is discussed at the end of section II.A. “ Applicability .”

Plastic or composite body parts are used in many automobiles and light-duty trucks. These parts are typically fabricated (molded, stamped, formed, etc.) and prime coated at plastic or composites molding facilities, and then sent to automobile or light-duty truck assembly facilities where they receive an additional prime coat and topcoat. The coating activities at plastic or composites molding facilities were considered in the development of the Plastic Parts NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) and are subject to that regulation. The coating activities at automobile or light-duty truck assembly facilities were considered in the development of the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP and are subject to that regulation.

The application of “topcoat to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks” is used as an applicability criterion in 40 CFR 63.3081(b) of the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP. The intent of this applicability criterion was to keep the coating of plastic or composite body parts at plastic or composites molding facilities, which is subject to the Plastic Parts NESHAP, from being subject to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP. The structure of this applicability criterion was based on our knowledge, at the time, of the application of prime coat to plastic or composite body parts at plastic or composites molding facilities. Specifically, at the time we developed the applicability criterion, we were unaware of any application of topcoat to plastic or composite body parts occurring at plastic or composites molding facilities.

We have since learned that there is some application of topcoat to plastic or composite body parts at plastic or composites molding facilities. The applicability criterion in 40 CFR 63.3081(b) of the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP, therefore, could have the unintended consequence of making coating at plastic and composite molding facilities subject to Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP. We have amended 40 CFR 63.3081(b) and added a definition of “plastic or composites molding facility” to clarify that the application of topcoat to plastic or composite body parts at a plastic or composites molding facility does not trigger applicability of this subpart as long as all of the body parts topcoated at the plastic or composites molding facility for use in new automobiles or new light-duty trucks were fabricated (molded, stamped, formed, etc.) at that facility or at another plastic or composites molding facility with the same owner or operator, none of the new vehicles in which these body parts are used are assembled at the plastic or composites molding facility, and the plastic or composites molding facility does not topcoat all of the body parts for any single new automobile or new light-duty truck.

We are also amending the Plastic Parts NESHAP because there has been some confusion as to whether that NESHAP regulates screen printing. Specifically, the definition of the term “coating” in the Plastic Parts NESHAP includes the word “ink.” Some screen printing is done on plastic. Screen printing on plastic, however, is part of the printing and publishing source category. The printing and publishing source category is addressed in the National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK). We are, therefore, amending 40 CFR 63.4481 of the Plastic Parts NESHAP to clarify that screen printing is not subject to the Plastic Parts NESHAP.

After publication of the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP, a question was raised about the types of records required to be kept under 40 CFR 63.3130(o). The question was whether these records were limited to operating instructions, or whether other records, such as construction blueprints, also needed to be maintained. We have amended 40 CFR 63.3130(o) to clarify that the operating instructions for each add-on control device and each continuous parameter monitoring system must be kept on-site for the life of the equipment in a location readily available to plant operators and inspectors.

An electrodeposition primer tank or system typically contains tens of thousands of gallons of material. As a result, monthly material usage for electrodeposition primer is typically determined by tracking additions to the tank or system over the month. This contrasts to other coating operations, such as topcoat or primer-surfacer, where monthly usage of each material is typically determined by tracking additions to a small ( e.g. , 500 gallon) day tank over the month and the change in the amount of material in the day tank from the beginning of the month to the end of the month.

After publication of the final rule, we were asked if we could clarify that material usage and other parameters relevant to electrodeposition primer are determined based upon additions to the tank or system over the month. We have amended 40 CFR 63.3161(e) to clarify that for electrodeposition primer the mass fraction of organic HAP, density and volume of each material used is to be determined for each material added to the tank or system during the month. We have amended 40 CFR 63.3161(f) to clarify that for electrodeposition primer the volume fraction of coating solids is to be determined for each material added to the tank or system during the month.

The determination of capture efficiency is discussed in 40 CFR 63.3165 of the final rule. The introductory text to 40 CFR 63.3165 of the final rule states that a bake oven air seal is not considered a natural draft opening to a permanent total enclosure or a temporary total enclosure provided the direction of air movement across the interface between the bake oven air seal and the bake oven is into the bake oven. This includes electrodeposition bake oven air seals. Capture of emissions from electrodeposition bake ovens is also discussed in 40 CFR 63.3171(f) of the final rule. After publication of the final rule, we were asked if we could clarify that electrodeposition bake oven air seals were intended to be considered in the same manner under 40 CFR 63.3171(f) as they are considered in 40 CFR 63.3165 introductory text. We have amended 40 CFR 63.3171(f) to clarify that an electrodeposition bake oven air seal is not considered a natural draft opening provided the direction of air movement across the interface between the bake oven air seal and the bake oven is into the bake oven.

The final rule requires that transfer efficiency be determined for many coatings used in automobile or light-duty truck coating operations. The final rule states that transfer efficiency may be determined using ASTM Method D5066-91 (Reapproved 2001), Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints-Weight Basis (incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14), or the guidelines presented in Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations, EPA-450/3-88-018 (Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0093 and Docket ID No. A-2001-22). The final rule provides default transfer efficiency values for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding primers, glass bonding adhesives, and final repair coatings. The guidelines provide default transfer efficiency values for certain specialty or low-use coatings such as blackout and interior color.

After publication of the final rule, a question was raised about whether the default transfer efficiency values in the guidelines could be used for chip resistant edge primer, lower body anti-chip coating and underbody anti-chip coating. These types of coatings are not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines, because the guidelines do not discuss primer-surfacer operations in detail. We believe it is appropriate to apply the default transfer efficiency values in the guidelines to these types of coatings and are amending the rule accordingly. Similar to blackout, lower-body anti-chip coating and chip resistant edge primer are applied to relatively small areas of the vehicle. Underbody anti-chip coatings are typically applied with efficient airless applicators. Specifically, we have amended 40 CFR 63.3161(g) to provide default transfer efficiency values for these types of coatings. We have also added definitions of “chip resistant edge primer,” “lower body anti-chip coating,” and “underbody anti-chip coating,” and revised the definitions of “anti-chip coating,” “deadener,” and “primer-surfacer” to better identify the types of coatings for which default transfer efficiency values can be used.

We have corrected Equation 5 in 40 CFR 63.3161(l) by removing “/100” from the end of the equation. This division by 100 is incorrect because the transfer efficiency (TE) is expressed as a decimal value rather than as a percentage.

We have revised Equation 4 in § 63.3165(e) by changing the symbol “Pi” to “Pv,i” to emphasize that the panel test result in this equation is expressed in mass (kg) of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per volume (liter) of coating solids deposited. This helps distinguish this equation from Equation 7 in 40 CFR 63.3165(e) where the symbol “Pm,i” is used to emphasize that the panel test result in that equation is expressed in mass (kg) of VOC per mass (kg) of coating solids deposited.

We have revised the description of the symbol “Wvoc c,i ” in Equations 6 and 7 in 40 CFR 63.3165(e) to specify that the guidelines for combining analytical VOC content and formulation solvent content are in Section 9 of the Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Coating Operations (Protocol). The description of the symbol “Wvoc c,i ” in Equations 6 and 7 in 40 CFR 63.3165(e) of the final rule provided only a general reference to the Protocol.

We have corrected Equation 7 in 40 CFR 63.3165(e) by adding a multiplier of “100” to the numerator of the equation. This multiplier is needed in order for the result of the equation to be expressed as a percentage.

The temperature operating limits for thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers and condensers are identified as “3-hour” operating limits in Table 1 of the final rule. The “3-hour” specification was inadvertently omitted from 40 CFR 63.3167(a)(2), (b)(2), and (d)(2) of the final rule. We have revised 40 CFR 63.3167(a)(2), (b)(2), and (d)(2) to clarify that these operating limits are 3-hour averages.

Catalyst activity testing and internal inspection of the catalyst are specified in 40 CFR 63.3167(b)(6) of the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks rule. Similar specifications are provided in 40 CFR 63.4567(b)(4) of the Plastic Parts NESHAP. The specifications in the Plastic Parts NESHAP include an explanation of how to proceed if problems are found during annual catalyst activity testing or annual internal inspection of the catalyst. This explanation was inadvertently omitted from the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks rule. We have revised 40 CFR 63.3167(b)(6) to explain how to proceed if problems are found during annual catalyst activity testing or annual internal inspection of the catalyst.

The exceptions provided in 40 CFR 63.3167(f), for capture devices that are part of a PTE or that capture emissions from a downdraft spray booth or from a flashoff area or bake oven associated with a downdraft spray booth, were inadvertently omitted from the entry for “Emission capture system that is not a PTE” in Table 1 of the final rule. We have revised Table 1 of the final rule to make the entry for “Emission capture system that is not a PTE” consistent with 40 CFR 63.3167(f) of the final rule and to correct a typographical error.

Some facilities have capture systems or add-on control devices installed and operated to control VOC emissions which they do not need to take into account in order to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations for organic hazardous air pollutants in the final rule. After publication of the final rule, we were asked whether testing and monitoring requirements apply to capture systems or add-on control devices that are not taken into account in demonstrating compliance with the emission limitations for organic hazardous air pollutants in the final rule. Other surface coating NESHAP have separate compliance demonstration provisions for “emission rate without add-on control” and “emission rate with add-on control”. We intended to provide the same flexibility in the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP. We, therefore, have added new sections 40 CFR 63.3169 and 40 CFR 63.3174 and added a definition of “controlled coating operation” to clarify that the requirements for capture system or add-on control device reporting, recordkeeping, performance tests, monitoring, operating parameters, capture efficiency, add-on control device efficiency, destruction efficiency, or removal efficiency do not apply to capture systems or add-on control devices which the owner or operator chooses not to take into account when demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limitations. If, at a later date, the owner or operator decides to take any such capture system or add-on control device into account when demonstrating compliance with the emission limitations, then, at that time, the owner or operator must comply with the reporting, recordkeeping, performance tests, monitoring, operating parameters, capture efficiency, add-on control device efficiency, destruction efficiency, or removal efficiency for that capture system or add-on control device.

In addition to the definition changes described above, we have made several other changes to the definitions in the final rule. After publication of the final rule, we were asked if we could clarify that “bake oven air seals” may be present both on bake ovens associated with spray booths and on bake ovens associated with electrodeposition primer operations. We have revised the definition of “bake oven air seal” to clarify that both bake ovens associated with spray booth and electrodeposition primer bake ovens may have bake oven air seals. We have also revised the definition of “spray booth air seal” to make it consistent with the definition of “bake oven air seal.” The definition of “bake oven air seal” referred to “entry or entry vestibule to or an exit or exit vestibule” whereas the definition of “spray booth air seal” inadvertently referred only to “entry vestibule or exit vestibule.” We have revised the definition of “touchup bottle” to allow the container size to be up to 0.25 liters and to clarify that the applicator may be a brush or other non-atomizing applicator.

This action 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.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. , and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0550, EPA ICR No. 2045.03. A copy of the Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Ms. Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at auby.susan@epa.gov , or by calling (202) 566-1672.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 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 a 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 today's direct final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business Administration size standards for companies identified by NAICS codes 336111 (automobile manufacturing) and 336112 (light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing) with 1,000 or fewer employees or by NAICS code 323113 (commercial screen printing) with 500 or fewer employees; (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. Based on the above definition, there are no small entities presently engaged in automobile and light-duty truck surface coating. While there are small entities presently engaged in commercial screen printing, today's direct final rule amendments would not impose any requirements on commercial screen printers.

After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded and hereby certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This is based on the observation that this action affects no small entities since none are engaged in the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks, and no requirements are imposed on commercial screen printers.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under 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 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that the direct final rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The direct final rule amendments add no additional burden on sources. Thus, the direct final rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

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.”

The direct final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They 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. No facilities subject to the direct final rule amendments are owned by State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments will not have any direct compliance costs resulting from the direct final rule amendments. Furthermore, the direct final rule amendments do not require these governments to take on any new responsibilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.

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.” The direct final rule amendments do not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will 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, because we are not aware of any Indian tribal governments or communities affected by the direct final rule amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based solely on technology performance.

The direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The direct final rule amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

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 the direct final rule amendments and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the direct final rule amendments in the Federal Register . A “major rule” cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . The direct final rule amendments are not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The direct final rule amendments will be effective on June 25, 2007.

Under section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (Act), the Administrator of EPA must require the sale of reformulated gasoline in an ozone nonattainment area classified as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe upon the application of the governor of the state in which the nonattainment area is located. This final action extends the prohibition set forth in section 211(k)(5) against the sale of conventional ( i.e. , non-reformulated) gasoline to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri moderate ozone nonattainment area. For all persons other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers ( i.e. , refiners, importers,and distributors), this rule establishes the implementation date of the prohibition in Section 211(k)(5) as June 1, 2007. For retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, this rule establishes the implementation date of the prohibition in section 211(k)(5) on July 1, 2007. As of the implementation date for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area will be a covered area for all purposes in the Federal RFG program.

The final preamble and regulatory language are also available electronically from the Federal Register Web site or via the docket at the http://www.regulations.gov site listed above.

This action may affect you if you produce, distribute, or sell gasoline for use in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area.

The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples, you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Regulated entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which produce, supply or distribute motor gasoline. Regulated categories and entities include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your business is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the list of areas covered by the reformulated gasoline program in § 80.70 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The remainder of this final rulemaking is organized in the following sections:

As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress added a new subsection (k) to section 211 of the Act. Subsection (k) prohibits the sale of conventional gasoline ( i.e. , gasoline that EPA has not certified as reformulated) in certain ozone nonattainment areas beginning January 1, 1995. Section 211(k)(10)(D) defines the areas covered by the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program as the nine ozone nonattainment areas having a 1980 population in excess of 250,000 and having the highest ozone design values during the period 1987 through 1989. 1 In addition, under section 211(k)(10)(D), any area reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area under section 181(b) is also included in the RFG program. EPA first published final regulations for the RFG program on February 16, 1994. See 59 FR 7716.

Certain other ozone nonattainment areas may be included in the program at the request of the Governor of the State in which the area is located. Section 211(k)(6)(A) provides that upon the application of a Governor, EPA shall apply the prohibition against selling conventional gasoline in “any area in the State classified under subpart 2 of Part D of Title I as a marginal, moderate, serious or severe” ozone nonattainment area. Subparagraph 211(k)(6)(A) further provides that EPA is to apply the prohibition as of the date the Administrator “deems appropriate, not later than January 1, 1995, or 1 year after such application is received, whichever is later.” In some cases the effective date may be extended for such an area as provided in section 211(k)(6)(B) based on a determination by EPA that there is “insufficient domestic capacity to produce” RFG. EPA is to publish a Governor's application in the Federal Register .

EPA received an application July 10, 2006 from the Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of the State of Illinois, for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to be included in the reformulated gasoline program. The State indicated that the RFG program would provide the area with needed reductions in ozone-forming emissions and air toxics. The Governor requested a January 1, 2007 implementation date. EPA published the Governor's letter in the Federal Register , as required by section 211(k)(6). On December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77690) EPA proposed to extend the RFG program to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area by setting two implementation dates. EPA requested comment on start dates and proposed an effective date of May 1, 2007 for refiners, importers, and distributors and June 1, 2007 for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers.

Today EPA is taking final action on that NPRM and establishing effective dates for opt in of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to the RFG program. For all persons other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers (i.e., refiners, importers, and distributors), this rule establishes the implementation date of the prohibition in section 211(k)(5) as June 1, 2007. For retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, this rule establishes the implementation date of the prohibition in Section 211(k)(5) as July 1, 2007. As of the implementation date for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area will be a covered area for all purposes in the Federal RFG program.

After publication of the NPRM, EPA received a request for a public hearing. EPA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that a public hearing would be held on February 21, 2007, in Chicago, Illinois, and extending the comment period until March 23, 2007 (30 days after the hearing). The transcript of the public hearing has been placed in the docket for this action.

The Federal RFG program includes seasonal requirements. Summertime RFG must meet certain VOC control requirements to reduce emissions of VOCs, an ozone precursor. Under the RFG program, there are two compliance dates for VOC-controlled RFG. At the refinery level, and all other points in the distribution system other than the retail level, compliance with RFG VOC-control requirements is required from May 1 to September 15. At the retail level (service stations and wholesale purchaser-consumers), compliance is required from June 1 to September 15. See 40 CFR 80.78 (a)(1)(v). Pipeline requirements and demands for RFG from the supply industry drive refineries to establish their own internal compliance date earlier than May so that they can then assure that terminals are capable of meeting the RFG VOC-control requirements by May 1.

EPA regulations specify that the RFG covered areas of certain states that are in “VOC control Region 1”, while those of other states are in “VOC control Region 2.” VOC requirements for the RFG sold in these Regions differ somewhat. EPA regulations also provide that RFG in covered areas which are partially in VOC control Region 1 and partially in VOC control Region 2 are included in VOC control Region 1, except in the case of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton CMSA which shall be included in VOC control Region 2 (see 40 CFR 80.71(c)). Since the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area is partially in VOC control Region 2 and partially in VOC control Region 1, the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri nonattainment area opting into the program under this action shall be included in VOC control Region 1. This means that RFG in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area must comply with the emission standards for VOC control for Region 1 which are slightly more stringent than those for Region 2 (see 40 CFR 80.41).

Based on our evaluation of the appropriate lead time and start date(s) and pursuant to the Governor's letter and the provisions of section 211(k)(6), EPA is today adopting regulations that apply the prohibitions of subsection 211(k)(5) to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area for all persons other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers as of June 1, 2007. This date applies to the refinery level and all other points in the distribution system other than the retail level. For retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, EPA is adopting regulations that apply the prohibitions of subsection 211(k)(5) to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area on July 1, 2007. As of the implementation date for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, this area will be treated as a covered area for all purposes of the Federal RFG program.

The application of the prohibition of section 211(k)(5) to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area could take effect no later than July 10, 2007, under section 211(k)(6)(A), which stipulates that the effective program date must be no “later than January 1, 1995 or 1 year after [the Governor's] application is received, whichever is later.” The Governor of Illinois's request was dated July 10, 2006.

EPA believes the implementation dates adopted today achieve a reasonable balance between requiring the earliest possible start dates to achieve air quality benefits for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area and providing adequate lead time for industry to prepare for program implementation. These dates will provide environmental benefits by allowing the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to achieve VOC reduction benefits for most of the 2007 VOC control season. As in other fuel rules, EPA believes it is appropriate to apply new requirements to refiners and distributors thirty days prior to the date that they are applicable to retailers and wholesale purchasers-consumers. This allows the retailers and wholesale purchasers-consumers time to empty their tanks of the older product they may have purchased immediately before the implementation date for refiners and distributors.

EPA has concluded, based on its analysis of available information, that the refining and distribution industry's capacity to supply Federal RFG to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area this summer exceeds the estimated demand. EPA has also concluded that the implementation dates adopted today provide adequate lead time to industry to set up storage and sales agreements to ensure supply of RFG to the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.

Several parties including the State of Illinois, the State of Missouri, BP, and the Illinois Petroleum Council submitted comments supporting the proposed effective dates. Four parties, an association representing the interests of Independent gasoline marketers, and three retail marketing companies, submitted adverse comments on the proposed rulemaking. The adverse comments also addressed issues that were outside the scope of the proposal ( e.g. , whether or not RFG should even be implemented). EPA is responding to relevant portions of the adverse comments in this section.

First, the commenters expressed concern that gasoline shortages in the St. Louis area could result from EPA's granting of the opt-in request, due to the need to supply additional reformulated gasoline to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri nonattainment area (the Missouri portion already uses RFG). The commenters indicated that difficulties already exist in obtaining RFG for the Missouri portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, and that these difficulties would get worse with additional demand for RFG if EPA finalized its proposed opt-in for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area. Some of the commenters surmised that supply in the area benefits from two supply options: supplies of RFG being available on the Missouri side and low RVP fuel being available on the Illinois side, both of which can be supplied to East St. Louis.

Section 211(k)(6)(A) provides the Administrator broad discretion to establish an appropriate effective date for opt-in areas. The effective date shall be no later than one year after the governor's request to opt in is received, which in this case would be July 10, 2007, unless EPA determines that there is insufficient domestic capacity. Factors EPA generally considers in setting effective dates include, but are not limited to, supply logistics, the number of current and potential suppliers for that market, whether such suppliers have experience producing RFG or the capability to produce RFG, intent of suppliers to withdraw from the market, availability of adequate gasoline volumes, and the amount of lead time needed by suppliers and the distribution industry to set up storage and sales agreements to ensure supply. By evaluating these factors, EPA can make a determination as to whether industry's capacity to supply RFG for an opt-in area meets or exceeds the demand.

Under section 211(k)(6)(B) the Administrator may determine, after consultation with the Secretary of Energy, that there is “insufficient domestic capacity” to produce RFG. Despite the comments received by marketers and retailers, described above, EPA is not making such a determination in this case. EPA has consulted with the Department of Energy (DOE) and with refiners supplying gasoline to the area of concern, and has concluded that there is adequate domestic capability to produce RFG to meet the current demand nationwide as well as the addition of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri nonattainment area in the summer of 2007.

EPA notes that no comments were received from refiners or bulk terminal operators concerned about storage capacity or supply. We note in the docket that EPA has spoken with the major suppliers to the area and none have expressed supply concerns. To the contrary, the Illinois Petroleum Council submitted written comment in support of the proposal. The elimination of the need to supply an additional grade of fuel ( i.e. 7.2 RVP fuel now required in East St. Louis) will not adversely impact supply as it is our understanding from consultation with these refiners that the capacity which is currently used to produce the 7.2 psi blend will be converted to produce additional RFG supplies for the Region.

The commenters also expressed concern that the price differential between reformulated gasoline sold in the Illinois side of the St. Louis covered area and that sold on the Missouri side would impact marketers. They also point to a vehicle owner's ability to refuel in either conventional gas areas or the Missouri RFG area where they may expect a lower price. EPA notes that, in this action, it is simply setting an effective date for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area, and does not have the discretion under Section 211(k)(6) to deny the governor's request to opt in. Therefore, even if a price differential would result in some drivers choosing to refuel in the Missouri portion of the nonattainment area, or a non-covered area, versus the Illinois side, that result would not provide a basis for EPA's denial of the governor's request. Moreover, EPA is setting the effective date for the opt in close to one year from receipt of the governor's request. Additional significant delay is not permitted under the Clean Air Act absent a finding of inadequate supply. As discussed above, EPA has determined that there will not be any RFG supply issues for the opt in area covered by today's rule. In addition, postponing the effective date would likely not affect, in the long-term, any price differential that may exist, and would result in the loss of important and needed emissions reductions for the summer of 2007.

The Federal RFG program typically results in reductions in ozone-forming emissions and air toxics. Reductions in ozone precursors are environmentally significant because they lead to reductions in ozone formation, with the associated improvements in human health and welfare. Exposure to ground-level ozone (or smog) can cause respiratory problems, chest pain, and coughing and may worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Animal studies suggest that long-term exposure (months to years) to ozone can damage lung tissue and may lead to chronic respiratory illness. Reductions in emissions of toxic air pollutants are environmentally important because they carry significant benefits for human health and welfare primarily by reducing the number of cancer cases each year.

Illinois EPA analyzed the emissions benefits which could be achieved by switching from 7.2 RVP fuel to RFG. Using the U.S. EPA's MOBILE6a model, Illinois projected that year 2010 motor vehicle VOC emissions could be reduced by 5.4 percent and carbon monoxide by 2.2 percent. The use of RFG in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri nonattainment area would also decrease benzene emissions by 75 tons per year, which equates to a 44 percent reduction from motor vehicles. On a total toxic emissions basis, the use of RFG would reduce emissions of the five primary motor vehicle related air toxics by 63 tons per year in 2010, a total percentage reduction of 23.5 percent.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. EPA notes that the economic impacts of the RFG program were assessed in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG rules. See 59 FR 7810-7811 (February 16, 1994). In that analysis the production cost of RFG was estimated to be 4 to 8 cents more per gallon than conventional gasoline. Since conventional gas regulations have evolved since that time to be more like RFG and since the State has a low RVP requirement that also more closely resembles RFG, EPA expects the costs of RFG in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to be at the low end or lower than this range. Nonetheless, using the 4 to 8 cent per gallon estimate, the cost of the program to the area would be significantly lower than the trigger for a significant regulatory action.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Refiners are currently subject to the information collection requirements for Federal reformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline. Today's rule adds an additional ozone nonattainment area as a Federal RFG covered area; the rule does not change the information collection requirements already associated with Federal RFG. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (see 59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994), under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1951.21). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 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 a 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 today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not more than 1,500 employees (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.

In promulgating the RFG and the related anti-dumping regulations for conventional gasoline, the Agency analyzed the impact of the regulations on small businesses. The Agency concluded that the regulations may possibly have some economic effect on a substantial number of small refiners, but that the regulations may not significantly affect other small entities, such as gasoline blenders, terminal operators, service stations and ethanol blenders. See 59 FR 7810-7811 (February 16, 1994). As stated in the preamble to the final RFG/anti-dumping rule, exempting small refiners from the RFG regulations would result in the failure of meeting CAA standards. 59 FR 7810. However, since most small refiners are located in the mountain states or in California, which has its own RFG program, the vast majority of small refiners are unaffected by the Federal RFG requirements (although all refiners of conventional gasoline are subject to the anti-dumping requirements). Moreover, all businesses, large and small, maintain the option to produce conventional gasoline to be sold in areas not obligated by the Act to receive RFG or those areas which have not chosen to opt into the RFG program. A complete analysis of the effect of the RFG/anti-dumping regulations on small businesses is contained in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which was prepared for the RFG and anti-dumping rulemaking, and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking. The docket number is: EPA Air Docket A-92-12.

Today's action will affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area, and gasoline distributors and retail stations in those areas. As discussed above, EPA determined that, because of their location, the vast majority of small refiners would be unaffected by the RFG requirements. For the same reason, most small refiners will be unaffected by today's action. Other small entities, such as gasoline distributors and retail stations located in the area that will become a covered area as a result of today's action, will be subject to the same requirements as those small entities which are located in current RFG covered areas. The Agency did not find the RFG regulations to significantly affect these entities. Based on this, EPA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under 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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Although EPA does not believe that UMRA imposes requirements for this rulemaking, EPA notes that the environmental and economic impacts of the RFG program were assessed in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG rules.

EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule would only impose requirements on certain refiners and other entities in the gasoline distribution system, and not small governments. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by the Federal government at the national level. Thus, a small government agency plan did not need to be developed under section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

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. The rule would only impose requirements on certain refiners and other entities in the gasoline distribution system, and not on States. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by the Federal government at the national level. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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 direct final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's direct final rule will affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, and gasoline distributors and retail stations in those areas. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to the EO because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless it 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) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

The Statutory authority for the action finalized today is granted to EPA by sections 211(c) and (k) and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k) and 7601.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective April 20, 2007.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFEs determinations are available for inspection.

The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of FEMA has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-27761), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this rule in view of them.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time, click on “Simple Search,” enter the last five digits of the docket number for this rulemaking, and click on “Search.” You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

Public Meeting: We do not currently plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

Title 46 U.S.C. 8103 generally requires that unlicensed seamen on documented vessels must be of the following status: (a) Citizens of the United States; (b) lawful permanent residents; or (c) foreign nationals enrolled in the United States Merchant Marine Academy. No more than 25 percent of such unlicensed seamen may be lawful permanent residents.

On October 17, 2006, Congress enacted the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Warner Act), Public Law 109-364, sec. 3509, 120 Stat. 2518. Section 3509 of the Warner Act (46 U.S.C. 8103(k)) amends 46 U.S.C. 8103 to permit large passenger vessels to also employ non-resident aliens who are authorized to work in the United States. The statute maintains a cap so that no more than twenty-five percent of the unlicensed seamen on any large passenger vessel are aliens, whether admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents or otherwise allowed to be employed in the United States as nonresident aliens. “Large passenger vessel” is defined under the Warner Act to mean “a vessel of more than 70,000 gross tons, as measured under section 14302 of this title, with capacity for at least 2,000 passengers and documented with a coastwise endorsement under chapter 121 of this title.”

The Warner Act also contains the following qualifications and restrictions on non-resident aliens serving as unlicensed seamen on large passenger vessels:

1. Non-resident aliens may not perform watchstanding, engine room duty watch, or vessel navigation functions;

2. Non-resident aliens must be aliens employable in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ) (INA), including an alien crewman described in § 101(a)(15)(D)(i) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(D)(i));

3. Non-resident aliens must have been employed, for a period of at least one year, on a passenger vessel, including a foreign flag passenger vessel, under the same common ownership or control as the U.S.-flag vessel they will be working on, as certified by the owner or managing operator of such vessel;

4. Non-resident aliens must have no record of material disciplinary actions during such employment as verified in writing by the owner or managing operator of such vessel;

5. Non-resident aliens must have successfully completed a United States Government security check of the relevant domestic and international databases, as appropriate, or any other national security-related information or database (which is required for a MMD or Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC));

6. Non-resident aliens must have successfully undergone an employer background check for which the owner or managing operator provides a signed report that describes the background checks undertaken. The background check must consist of a search of all information that is reasonably and legally available to the owner or managing operator in the seaman's country of citizenship and any other country in which the seaman receives employment referrals, or resides. The report must be kept on the vessel and available for inspection, and the information derived from the background check must be made available upon request;