Notices. Proposed rule

6,318 words·~29 min read·/register/2005/12/29/05-24574·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2004-MI-0001; FRL-8016-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Michigan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove revisions to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were submitted to the EPA by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ)on April 3, 2003, May 28, 2003, September 17, 2004, October 25, 2004 and June 8, 2005. The following sections of Michigan's rules are affected: Part 3: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter; Part 4: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur-bearing Compounds; Part 6: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; Part 7: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—New Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; Part 9: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous; Part 10: Intermittent Testing and Sampling; and Part 11: Continuous Emission Monitoring. The revisions are primarily administrative changes and minor corrections. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-MI-0001, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *mooney.john@epa.gov* . • *Fax* :

(312)886-5824. • *Mail:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • *Hand Delivery:* John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-MI-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-1767, *dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. What Has Michigan Submitted? III. Did Michigan Hold a Public Hearing? IV. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the State Submittal? V. What Actions Is EPA Taking? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? A. Submitting CBI Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What Has Michigan Submitted? On April 3, 2003, May 28, 2003, September 17, 2004, October 25, 2004, and June 8, 2005 the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ)submitted revisions to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). These submissions revise the following sections of Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules: R 336.1301, R 336.1303, R 336.1330, R 336.1331 except item C8 of Table 31, R 336.1358, R 336.1361, R 336.1362, R 336.1363, R 336.1371, R 336.1372, R 336.1374, R 336.1401, R 336.1403, R 336.1601, R 336.1602, R 336.1604 to R 336.1608, R 336.1615 to R 336.1619, R 336.1622, R 336.1623, R 336.1625, R 336.1627 to R 336.1631, R 336.1702, R 336.1705, R 336.1906, R 336.1911, R 336.1930, R 336.2001 to R 336.2005, R 336.2007, R 336.2011 to R 336.2014, R 336.2021, R 336.2040 except subrules

(9)and (10), R 336.2041, R 336.2101, R 336.2150, R 336.2155, R 336.2159, R 336.2170, R 336.2175, R 336.2189, and R 336.2190. The revisions are primarily administrative changes and minor corrections. III. Did Michigan Hold a Public Hearing? Michigan held public hearings on February 2, 2000, October 17, 2001 and December 2, 2004. No negative comments were submitted on the rule revisions. IV. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the State Submittal? The following is a brief summary of the revisions and EPA's evaluation of them. Part 3: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Particulate Matter R 336.1301, 1303, 1330, 1331 except C8 of Table 31, 1371, 1372, and 1374—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.1358, R 336.1361, R 336.1362, R 336.1363—The MDEQ corrected a subsection reference in each of these rules. Reference test method 9 was said to be described in R 336.2004(1)(h) when the correct section was R 336.2004(1)(l). R 336.2004(h) describes test method 4. The corrections are approvable. Part 4: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Sulfur-bearing Compounds R 336.1401 and 1403—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. Part 6: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions R 336.1601—The MDEQ changed terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revision is approvable. R 336.1602—Section 336.1602(2) requires department approvals of equivalent emission rates, alternate emission rates, and compliance methods reverenced in the section to be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. The MDEQ changed references to rule R 336.1610 contained in this section to make them consistent with the version of rule R 336.1610 currently applicable at the state level. The revisions to R 336.1610 have not been approved into the SIP and are not currently before EPA for review. 1 Therefore, by revising the references to rule R 336.1610, the references applicable to the SIP approved version of rule R 336.1610 would be eliminated. Approval of the revision to R 336.1602 would relax RACT in the current SIP approved version of R 336.1610 by eliminating the reference requiring alternate methods to be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. This would effectively allow the State to alter the SIP without EPA review and approval (director's discretion). This is inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and with RACT requirements as set forth in EPA policy guidance documents, including “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 **Federal Register** Notice” dated May 25, 1988. The revisions to this rule are not approvable. 1 It should be noted that the revisions would not be approvable because they would relax the Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT)level of controls on Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). See Sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2). R 336.1604 to 1608 and 1615 to 1618—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.1619 and 1622—The MDEQ made minor administrative changes, e.g., updating the date of the CFR reference, updating the cost of ordering printed materials. The revisions are approvable. R 336.1623 and 1627—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.1625—The MDEQ revised the rule to read as follows: “A person who is responsible for the operation of a synthesized pharmaceutical process subject to the provisions of this rule shall obtain current information and maintain records that are necessary for a determination of compliance with the provisions of this rule.” This language is consistent with RACT requirements for synthesized pharmaceutical manufacturing contained in the control technology guideline and expressed in EPA's model VOC RACT rules. See Memorandum dated June 24, 1992, from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, entitled “Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC)Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT).” The MDEQ added the requirement to keep “continuous records of the gas temperature of each condenser or of a parameter that insures proper operation of an equivalent control device used pursuant to subrule (2)(B) of this rule.” The MDEQ also made minor administrative changes, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.1628—The MDEQ made minor administrative changes, e.g., updating the date of the CFR reference, updating the cost of ordering printed materials. The revisions are approvable. R 336.1629—The MDEQ made minor administrative changes, e.g., noting where in Michigan's rules American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)methods are adopted by reference. The revisions are approvable. R 336.1630—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.1631—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions; e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department” and updating the name of a regulated company. The revisions are approvable. Part 7: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—New Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions R 336.1702 and 1705—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. Part 9: Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous R 336.1906, 1911 and 1930—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. Part 10: Intermittent Testing and Sampling R 336.2001 to 2003—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2004—The MDEQ made minor administrative changes, e.g., updating the date of the CFR reference, updating the cost of ordering printed materials. The revisions are approvable. R 336.2005—The MDEQ changed terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revision is approvable. R 336.2007—The MDEQ included two schematic figures that were inadvertently omitted in earlier versions of the rule. The revisions are approvable. R 336.2011—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The State also corrected an error in the nomenclature for the calculations. Specifically, the equation defining C <sup>S</sup> was corrected to read “ C <sup>S</sup> = Concentration of particulate matter in stack gas, pounds per 1,000 pounds of actual stack gas.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2012 to 2014—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2021—The MDEQ removed figures 101 and 105. Rule 336.2010, the only rule referring to these figures, was rescinded by the state and removed from the SIP. These revisions are approvable. R 336.2040—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2041—There are multiple problems with this rule. The MDEQ added language to subrule

(1)that allows the State to alter the SIP without submitting these changes to EPA for approval. This is inconsistent with the CAA and with RACT requirements as set forth in EPA policy guidance documents, including “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 **Federal Register** Notice” dated May 25, 1988. The MDEQ also changed references to rule R 336.1610 to reflect revisions to that rule. However, as discussed above, the revisions to R 336.1610 have not been approved into the SIP and are not approvable because they would relax RACT requirements. Also, the rewording of several subparts is confusing. This rule is not approvable. Part 11: Continuous Emission Monitoring R 336.2101—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2150—The MDEQ updated CFR citations from 1983 to 2000 and made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “department of natural resources” to “department of environmental quality.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2155—The MDEQ changed terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revision is approvable. R 336.2159—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2170—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2175—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2189—The MDEQ made minor administrative revisions, e.g., changing terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revisions are approvable. R 336.2190—The MDEQ changed terminology from “commission” to “department.” The revision is approvable. V. What Actions Is EPA Taking? To determine the approvability of a rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA, EPA regulations and the EPA's interpretation of these requirements as expressed in EPA policy guidance documents. Rules R 336.1602 and R 336.2041 are inconsistent with the CAA and the applicable policies by which EPA must evaluate submittals, including, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 **Federal Register** Notice” dated May 25, 1988. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove rules R 336.1602 and R 336.2041. EPA is proposing to approve the remainder of the rules. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132 Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211 Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: December 9, 2005. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E5-8036 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [OAR-2003-0138, FRL-8017-4] RIN 2060-AM77 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: On November 14, 2005, at 70 FR 69210, EPA proposed amendments to the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)” and provided a 45-day public comment period. Written comments on the proposed rule amendments were to be submitted to the EPA on or before December 29, 2005. We have received requests asking for an extension of the public comment period. In consideration of these concerns, the EPA is extending the comment period by 21 days (until January 19, 2006). DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Email: *a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.* • Fax:

(202)566-1741. • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two

(2)copies. The EPA requests that a separate copy be sent to the contact person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(202)566-1742. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is

(202)566-1742. *Submitting CBI:* Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Martha Smith, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (C439-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number

(919)541-2421, fax number

(919)541-0246, email address: *smith.martha@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Organic Liquids Distribution rule was issued on February 3, 2004 (69 FR 5038). On November 14, 2005, at 70 FR 69210, EPA proposed amendments to the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline)” and provided a 45-day public comment period. Written comments on the proposed rule amendments were to be submitted to the EPA on or before December 29, 2005 (a 45-day public comment period). Requests have been received asking for an extension of the public comment period beyond the 45 days originally provided. These requests have been made by businesses that will be affected by the proposed rule amendments. Their request for this extension is based on the fact that Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays occur during the comment period which would cause hardship on their ability to provide timely and useful comments. In consideration of these concerns, the EPA is extending the comment period by 21 days (until January 19, 2006) in order to give all interested persons the opportunity to comment fully. Dated: December 22, 2005. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E5-8039 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 70 249 Thursday, December 29, 2005 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), approved a petition for trade adjustment assistance

(TAA)that was filed on November 16, 2005, by a group of avocado producers in Florida. The certification date is December 29, 2005. Beginning on January 2, 2006, Florida avocado producers will be eligible to apply for fiscal year 2006 benefits during an application period ending April 3, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that increased imports of avocados contributed importantly to a decline in producer prices of avocados in Florida by 36.1 percent during June 2004 through May 2005, when compared with the previous 5-year average. Eligible producers must apply to the Farm Service Agency for benefits. After submitting completed applications, producers shall receive technical assistance provided by the Extension Service at no cost and may receive an adjustment assistance payment, if certain program criteria are satisfied. Applicants must obtain the technical assistance from the Extension Service by September 29, 2005, in order to be eligible for financial payments. Producers of raw agricultural commodities wishing to learn more about TAA and how they may apply should contact the Department of Agriculture at the addresses provided below for General Information. *Producers Certified as Eligible for TAA, Contact:* Farm Service Agency service centers in Florida. *For General Information about TAA, Contact:* Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA,

(202)720-2916, e-mail: *trade.adjustment@fas.usda.gov.* Dated: December 16, 2005. W. Kirk Miller, Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. [FR Doc. E5-8004 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Caribou County, ID, Smoky Canyon Mine Panels F and G Project AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Revision of the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Smoky Canyon Mine, Panels F and G Project, as published in the **Federal Register** page 53998 to 53999 on September 15, 2003 (Vol. 68, No. 178). This revision includes a change of project schedule. SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service, DOI, Bureau of Land Management and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to document the analysis and disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed Smoky Canyon Mine, Panels F and G Project, a phosphate mine expansion. This revised Notice of Intent is to document some changes in the schedule. In the original NOI, the tentative date for filing the Draft EIS was March of 2005 and the Final EIS was scheduled for September, 2005. Due to scheduling changes, the Draft EIS is now expected to be available for review in December, 2005. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in July, 2006. Plans have been developed and submitted for agency review for an extension of open pit mining operations at the J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot) Smoky Canyon Phosphate Mine in Canyon County, Idaho, located approximately 20 miles west of Afton, Wyoming. Simplot has operated existing Smoky Canyon Mine since 1983 and within a few years will complete mining of currently permitted reserves. *Agency Decisions:* The BLM Idaho State Director or delegated official will make a decision regarding approval of the proposed mine and reclamation plan and appropriate land use authorizations (including a proposed 520 acre modification to I-27512 and up to a 100 acre modification to I-01441) on leased lands. Decisions will be based on the EIS and any recommendations the FS may have regarding surface management of leased National Forest System lands. The Caribou-Targhee National Forest Supervisor makes recommendations to the BLM concerning surface management and mitigation on leased lands within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and makes decisions on mine-related activities which occur off-lease. The Army Corps of Engineers may also make decisions related to permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. DATES: A draft EIS is expected to be completed by the end of December 2005. A final EIS is expected in July of 2006. Scoping Procedure: The scoping procedure used for this EIS involved: Notification in **Federal Register** ; a mailing to interested and potentially affected individuals, groups, Federal, State and local government entities eliciting comments, issues and concerns; local news releases or newspaper legal notices; and public scoping meetings. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Smoky Canyon Mine DEIS, c/o The Shipley Group, PO Box 2000, Bountiful, UT 84011-2000. E-mail: *scm_deis@contentanalysisgroup.com* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Stout, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello Field Office, 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, Idaho 83204, phone

(208)478-6340; or Scott Gerwe, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Soda Springs Ranger District, 410 E. Hooper Ave., Soda Springs, Idaho 83276, phone

(208)547-4356, Information is also available at *http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/state_info/planning.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed new extension of mining operations in Panels F and G lie within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest on lands administered by the FS and Federal mineral leases administered by the BLM. Mining as proposed would take place on Panels F and G, including lease modifications (enlargement) of leases I-27512 and I-01441. These existing Federal mineral leases are adjacent to the southwest portion of the existing mine and were previously issued to Simplot by competitive bid in January of 2001 and October of 1950 respectively. Environmental impacts of the proposed mining operations and reasonable alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be formulated. The proposed mining activities consist of two open pits—Panel F on Federal phosphate lease I-27512 (sometimes referred to as the Manning Creek lease) and Panel G on Federal phosphate lease I-01441 (sometimes referred to as the Deer Creek lease), topsoil stockpiles, mine equipment parking and service areas, access and haul roads, a power line extension from the existing Smoky Canyon loop, permanent external overburden storage areas, and runoff/sediment control facilities. A new haul/access road to transport ore to the existing Smoky Canyon mill is proposed to be constructed from the south end of the existing Panel E approximately 2.5 miles to the proposed Panel F. As operations move south to Panel G, another haul road is proposed to transport ore 7.8 miles from Panel G north to Panel F. Much of these activities are proposed to occur within the FS Sage Creek inventoried roadless area. As proposed, the existing Smoky Canyon Mine, maintenance, administrative, and milling facilities would continue to be used. However, because G panel lies several miles south of the currently existing maintenance and fuel facilities, Simplot's plans propose mine support facilities at the new panels including: Equipment ready lines, electrical substations, warehouse and storage areas, lunch rooms, repair shops, restrooms, fuel and lubricant storage and dispensing facilities and blasting supplies. Ore from the new panels would be hauled in trucks over new and existing haul/access roads to the existing Smoky Canyon mill facilities to be concentrated. Ore concentrate from the mill would be transported to the Simplot fertilizer plant in Pocatello, Idaho via the existing slurry pipeline system. Mill tailings would continue to be deposited in the currently approved and permitted tailings disposal facilities located on Simplot property east of the mill. Initially, overburden generated from Panel F would be trucked to the existing Panel E open pit and used as backfill. Excess waste rock is proposed to be permanently placed in a 35-acre pit overfill on-lease. Remaining overburden from Panel F would then be placed as backfill in Panel F as soon as practical. Overburden generated from mining Panel G would be permanently placed in 138 acres of external overburden fills on-lease at Panel G as well as backfill in the Panel G open pit. Disturbed lands directly resulting from the proposed activities total about 1,340 acres. New pits would disturb approximately 763 acres of which approximately 796 acres would be backfilled and reclaimed. Forty-six acres of highwall and pit bottoms would remain after reclamation is complete. The remaining 23 acres of the Panel E (currently approved and active) open pit would also be backfilled with overburden from Panel F. This pit is currently permitted to be left open. The rest of the disturbed acreage would consist of approximately 284 acres of roads, 176 acres of overburden disposal areas, and 117 acres of runoff management facilities, water monitoring facilities, and topsoil piles. Each would be reclaimed. The FS Sage Creek inventoried roadless area overlaps large portions of the proposed mine and haul road disturbance areas. Potential impacts to surface resources and water quality include erosion, sediment, and dissolved contaminants such as selenium. Simplot has proposed to implement practices designed to reduce, eliminate, or mitigate these impacts. Suitable topsoil would be salvaged from disturbed areas for use in reclamation. Reclamation of mining disturbances include: removal of facilities and equipment, backfilling pits, regrading slopes, restoring drainages, spreading topsoil, stabilizing surfaces, revegetation, testing and treatment for remaining hydrocarbon contaminants and environmental monitoring. Simplot has applied for two lease modifications to expand Federal Phosphate Lease I-27512 for the Panel F operations. They are a smaller 120-acre lease modification on the northern edge of the lease and a larger 400-acre modification on the southern edge of the lease. The proposed northern lease modifications would be included in all action alternatives. The issuance and mining of a southern lease modification would be evaluated as a separate alternative. Simplot will likely apply for another lease modification to enlarge lease I-01441 to accommodate 18 acres of off-lease external overburden fill. Environmental impacts of mining operations within the lease modifications will be analyzed in this EIS. Issues initially identified for the proposed mining of F and G panels include potential effects on: ground water and surface water quantity and quality, wildlife and their habitats; livestock grazing, wetlands and riparian habitat, socio-economics, FS inventoried roadless areas, visual resources, and cumulative effects. At this early stage, the BLM and FS believe that it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal to be meaningful and alert an agency to reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 518,553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel,* 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris,* 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Due to these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 60-day comment period for the draft EIS. This is necessary so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the BLM and FS at a time when they can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS. Possible Alternatives The EIS will analyze the Proposed Action with and without issuing a lease modification on the southern margin of Panel F operations, alternative access/haul road alignment to access the Panel G operations and the No Action Alternative. Other alternatives may include: Additional access and haul road designs, use of conveyors to transport ore to the existing mill, revising the layout or sequencing of the proposed mining facilities, different methods for reducing impacts from overburden handling, and other alternatives that could provide mitigation for impacts. Tentative EIS Project Schedule The tentative project schedule is as follows: • Estimated date for Draft EIS: December 2005. • Public Comment Period on Draft EIS: 60 days from when the Notice of Availability is published in the **Federal Register** . • Final EIS Publication: July 2006. • Decision: August 2006. Public Scoping Meetings At least three public meetings will be held. Each will be the open house type. The open houses will include displays explaining the project and provide a forum for commenting on the project. Meetings are currently planned for Pocatello and Soda Springs, Idaho and Afton, Wyoming. The dates, times, and locations of the public scoping meetings will be announced in mailings and public notices issued by the BLM or may be obtained from Bill Stout, Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello Field Office, 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, Idaho 83204, or *http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/state_info/planning.htm* , phone

(208)478-6367. Public Input Requested The BLM and FS are seeking information and written comments from Federal, State and local agencies as well as individuals and organizations interested in, or affected by, the Proposed Action or Alternatives. To assist the BLM and FS in identifying issues and concerns related to the Proposed Action or Alternatives, comments for the Draft EIS, should be as specific as possible. Dated: December 21, 2005. Sheryl Bainbridge, Acting Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest. [FR Doc. 05-24574 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents