Notices. Notice of final action

5,878 words·~27 min read·/register/2006/04/07/06-3282·

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

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP04-366-003 and CP04-425-001] Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application March 31, 2006. Take notice that on March 23, 2006, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 20 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket Nos. CP04-366-003 and CP04-425-001, an application to amend and clarify the limited-term certificate issued on November 9, 2004, in Docket No.

CP04-425-000, to make it a permanent certificate, and contingent upon an order granting the amendment, vacate the permanent certificate issued on March 24, 2005, in Docket No. CP04-366-000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link.

Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. Any initial questions regarding this application should be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Director of Certificates, by mail to: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, 20 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77046; by telephone:

(713)544-7309; by fax:

(713)544-3540; or by e-mail: *kyle.stephens@gulfsouthpl.com.* There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. Comment Date: April 21, 2006. Magalie Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5097 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. PH06-32-000, et al.] Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings March 31, 2006. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 1. Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.; McBryde Sugar Company, Limited [Docket No. PH06-32-000] Take notice that on March 20, 2006, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and McBryde Sugar Company, Limited filed a Petition for Waiver of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(c)(1) and 366.4(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations on the basis that it is a single state holding company. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 10, 2006. 2. LMB Capital, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-33-000] Take notice that on March 27, 2006, LMB Capital, Inc. filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a) 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 17, 2006. 3. Hawkeye Funding, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-34-000] Take notice that on March 27, 2006, Hawkeye Funding, Inc. filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(b) 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 17, 2006. 4. Juniper Capital GP, LLC [Docket No. PH06-35-000] Take notice that on March 27, 2006, Juniper Capital GP, LLC filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(b) 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 17, 2006. 5. JMG Capital, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-36-000] Take notice that on March 27, 2006, JMG Capital, Inc. filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(b) 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 17, 2006. 6. Wygen Capital, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-37-000] Take notice that on March 27, 2006, Wygen Capital, Inc. filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a) and 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 17, 2006. 7. LIC Capital, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-38-000] Take notice that on March 27, 2006, LIC Capital, Inc. filed a Petition for Exemption of the Requirements of The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a) 366.4(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. eastern time on April 17, 2006. Standard Paragraph Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5093 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IS06-191-000] Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Technical Conference March 31, 2006. Take notice that a technical conference will be convened on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 10 a.m. (EDT), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. If necessary, the technical conference will convene again on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at the same time and place. The technical conference will deal with issues related to Colonial Pipeline Company's (Colonial) tariff supplements proposing changes relating to the shipment of reformulated gasoline products containing methyl tertiary butyl ether on Colonial's pipeline system, as discussed in the March 16, 2006 order in this docket ( *Colonial Pipeline Co.* , 114 FERC ¶ 61,276 (2006)). FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an e-mail to *accessibility@ferc.gov* or call toll free

(866)208-3372 (voice) or

(202)502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to

(202)208-2106 with the required accommodations. All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend. However, participation in the conference is limited to Staff and Parties, as that term is defined in 18 CFR 385.102(c)(1) (2005). For further information, please contact Joe Athey at

(202)502-8138 or e-mail *joseph.athey@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5095 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at a Meeting of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. March 31, 2006. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. The attendance by staff is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. Regional Planning Process Working Group (RPPWG), April 5, 2006, 10 a.m.-3 p.m. (EDT), Spencer Hotel, 700 King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. The discussion may address matters at issue in the following proceedings: Docket Nos. ER05-1410 and EL05-148, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.* Docket No. ER06-456, *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.* Docket No. EL06-50, *American Electric Power Service Corporation* . The meeting is open to the public. For additional information, contact Morris Margolis, Office of Energy Markets and Reliability at 202-502-8611 or by e-mail at *morris.margolis@ferc.gov.* Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5096 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice March 31, 2006. This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications. Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication. Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010. Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v). The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at

(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact

(202)502-8659. Exempt: Docket No. Date received Presenter or requester 1. IS06-191-000 3-10-06 Hon. David B. Albo. 2. IS06-191-000 3-10-06 Hon. William J. Howell. 3. IS06-191-000 3-13-06 Hon. Tim Hugo. 4. IS06-191-000 3-13-06 Hon. Mark D. Sickles. 5. IS06-191-000 3-14-06 Hon. Charles R. Hawkins. 6. IS06-191-000 3-20-06 Hon. Harris B. McDowell, III. 7. IS06-191-000 3-20-06 Hon. Bill Owens. 8. IS06-191-000 3-20-06 Hon. Richard Y. Stevens. 9. IS06-191-000 3-21-06 Hon. Rick Santorum, Hon. Arlen Specter. 10. IS06-191-000 3-22-06 Hon. John M. Perzel. 11. IS06-191-000 3-24-06 Hon. Bobby Moak. 12. IS06-191-000 3-24-06 Hon. Victor R. Ramirez. 13. IS06-191-000 3-24-06 Hon. Stephen M. Sweeney. 14. P-459-128 3-20-06 Hon. Christopher S. Bond. 15. P-1971-079 3-29-06 Ellen Hall/Alan Mitchnick. 16. P-2539-000, P-12522-000 3-24-06 Hon. Robert D. Carlson. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5094 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8056-1] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Colorado Interstate Gas Company, Latigo Station AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has responded to a citizen petition asking EPA to object to an operating permit issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Specifically, the Administrator has partially granted and partially denied the petition submitted by Jeremy Nichols to object to the operating permit issued to Colorado Interstate Gas Company—Latigo Station. Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act), Petitioners may seek judicial review of those portions of the petitions which EPA denied in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** , pursuant to section 307 of the Act. ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 8 Office, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the copies of the final order, the petition, and other supporting information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before visiting day. Additionally, the final order for the Latigo Station is available electronically at: *http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/cig_latigo_decision2005.pdf.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hans Buenning, Air & Radiation Program, EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, 303-312-6438, *buenning.hans@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. On July 5, 2005, the EPA received a petition from Jeremy Nichols requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to the Colorado Interstate Gas Company—Latigo Station (Latigo). Mr. Nichols asserts that the permit:

(1)Fails to ensure compliance with volatile organic compound and hazardous air pollutant emission standards for the glycol dehydrator;

(2)fails to require opacity monitoring; and

(3)fails to appropriately control volatile organic compound emissions from internal combustion engines. On February 17, 2006, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the CDPHE must revise the permit to refine the fuel restrictions and recordkeeping provisions to adequately assure compliance with the State Implementation Plan opacity condition of 20%. The order also explains the reasons for denying Mr. Nichols' remaining claims. Dated: March 27, 2006. Kerrigan G. Clough, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. E6-5111 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8055-9] Notice of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Final Determination for Wanapa Energy Center AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). ACTION: Notice of final action. SUMMARY: This document announces that on February 9, 2006, the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) of EPA denied review of a petition for review of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permit (“Permit”) that EPA Region 10 issued to Diamond Wanapa I, L.P. (“Diamond”) for construction and operation of the Wanapa Energy Center (“Facility”), a natural gas-fired combined cycle electric generating facility. The Permit was issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21. DATES: The effective date of the EAB's decision was February 9, 2006. Judicial review of this permit decision, to the extent it is available pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days of April 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to the above action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT-107), Seattle, Washington 98101. To arrange viewing of these documents, call Dan Meyer at

(206)553-4150. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Meyer, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT-107), Seattle, Washington 98101. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized as follows: A. What Action Is EPA Taking? B. What Is the Background Information? C. What Did the EAB Decide? A. What Action Is EPA Taking? We are notifying the public of a final decision by the EAB on the Permit issued by EPA Region 10 pursuant to the PSD regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21. B. What Is the Background Information? The Facility will be a 1200-megawatt natural gas-fired, combined cycle electric generating facility located near Umatilla, Oregon on land held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The Facility will combust natural gas and will employ selective catalytic reduction

(SCR)and an oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions. On November 23, 2004, EPA Region 10 issued the draft PSD permit for public review and comment. On August 8, 2005, after providing an opportunity for public comment and a public hearing, EPA Region 10 approved the Permit. On September 9, 2005, Mr. K.E. Thompson (“Petitioner”) petitioned the EAB for review of the Permit. C. What Did the EAB Decide? Petitioner, acting *pro se* , raised the following issues on appeal:

(1)EPA Region 10 failed to address the human health or environmental effects of the proposed facility on “both majority and minority populations”;

(2)EPA Region 10 improperly treated emission from nonroad heavy duty diesel engines differently than emission from power plants such as the Facility;

(3)Region 10 failed to perform a cumulative impact analysis;

(4)EPA Region 10 improperly considered meteorological data from Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington;

(5)EPA Region 10 should have treated the airshed around the proposed Facility in the same manner as a Class I or Class II wilderness or scenic area;

(6)EPA Region 10 did not consider a Bonneville Power Administration

(BPA)study of regional air quality;

(7)EPA Region 10 erred in establishing the Permit's volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions limitation; and

(8)EPA Region 10 erred by failing to include permit conditions addressing emissions from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines that will be used during construction of the proposed Facility. The EAB denied review of the following four issues because these issues were not raised during the public comment period on the draft Permit or during the public hearing on the draft Permit:

(1)EPA Region 10 failed to address the human health or environmental effects of the proposed facility on “both majority and minority populations”;

(2)EPA Region 10 did not consider a BPA study of regional air quality;

(3)EPA Region 10 erred in establishing the Permit's VOC emissions limitation; and

(4)EPA Region 10 erred by failing to include permit conditions addressing emissions from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines that will be used during construction of the proposed Facility. Moreover, the EAB found that, even if these four issues had been preserved for review, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that EPA Region 10's permit determination was clearly erroneous or otherwise warranted review. The EAB denied review of the following four remaining issues because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate why the Region's response to public comments was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review:

(1)EPA Region 10 improperly treated emission from nonroad heavy duty diesel engines differently than emission from power plants such as the Facility;

(2)Region 10 failed to perform a cumulative impact analysis;

(3)EPA Region 10 improperly considered meteorological data from Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington; and

(4)EPA Region 10 should have treated the airshed around the proposed Facility in the same manner as a Class I or Class II wilderness or scenic area. For these reasons, the EAB denied review of the petition for review in its entirety. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for purposes of judicial review, final agency action occurs when a final PSD permit is issued and agency review procedures are exhausted. This notice is being published pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of any final agency action regarding a PSD permit to be published in the **Federal Register.** This notice constitutes notice of the final agency action denying review of the PSD Permit and, consequently, notice of the EPA Region 10's issuance of PSD Permit No. R10PSD-OR-05-01 to Diamond. If available, judicial review of these determinations under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA may be sought only by the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 60 days from the date on which this notice is published in the **Federal Register.** Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, this determination shall not be subject to later judicial review in any civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. Dated: March 1, 2006. L. Michael Bogert, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. E6-5109 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6674-1] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments repared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. Summary of Rating Definitions Environmental Impact of the Action LO—Lack of Objections The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. EC—Environmental Concerns The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EO—Environmental Objections The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EU—Environmentally Unsatisfactory The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. Adequacy of the Impact Statement Category 1—Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Category 2—Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3—Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. Draft EISs EIS No. 20050530, ERP No. D-FHW-L40229-ID, ID-75 Timmerman to Ketchum—US-20 to Saddle Road, Increase Roadway and Transportation Safety, Cities of Bellevue, Hailey, Ketchum and the City of Sun Valley, Blaine County, ID *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about the aquatic resources, ecological connectivity, habitat permeability for wildlife, and air toxic, and is also concerned about the limited range of alternatives analyzed and the secondary effects of induced travel demand and land use change. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050544, ERP No. D-FHW-E40805-KY, Newtown Pike Extension Project, Road Connection from West Main Street to South Limestone Street in Lexington, Fayette County, KY *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about the air quality impacts, noise impacts, and the adequacy of mitigation for environmental justice issues. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060011, ERP No. D-BLM-J02050-UT, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area Natural Gas Development, Drilling and Production Operations of Natural Gas Wells and Associated Access Road, and Pipelines, Uintah County, UT *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to riparian areas along the White River and wildlife habitat in specific locations of the project area, and recommended that the final EIS should include analysis and comparison of the full range of alternatives considered. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060032, ERP No. D-AFS-L65502-AK, Kuiu Timber Sale Area, Proposes to Harvest Timer and Build Associated Temporary Roads, US. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, North Kuiu Island, Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, AK *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about sediment loading to streams from timber harvesting, and recommended Alternative 2 because it would minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. Rating EC1. EIS No. 20060036, ERP No. D-BLM-L65503-OR, North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project, To Reduce Juniper-Related Fuels and Restore Various Plant Communities, Implementation, Andrews Resource Area, Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), Harney County, OR *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to air quality, water quality and riparian areas, and requested that the above impacts be avoided and/or mitigated. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060038, ERP No. D-BLM-J02051-UT, Greater Deadman Bench Oil and Gas Producing Region, Proposes to Develop Oil and Gas Resources, Right-of-Way Grants and Applications for Permit to Drill, Vernal, Uintah County, UT *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential impacts to riparian areas and wildlife habitat, and recommended that the final EIS provide a detailed management plan, including mitigation and monitoring for the duration of the proposed action. Rating EC2. Final EISs EIS No. 20060039, ERP No. F-FAA-K51042-AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), Construction and Operation of a Terminal, Airfield and Surface Transportation, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed project but continues to recommend additional voluntary mitigation measures for construction-related air emissions. EIS No. 20060049, ERP No. F-FHW-L40217-AK, South Extension of the Coastal Trail Project, Extending the existing Tony Knowles Coastal Trail from Kincaid Park through the Project Area to the Potter Weigh Station, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, AK *Summary:* EPA does not object to the preferred alternative. Dated: April 4, 2006. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6-5113 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6673-9] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information

(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/* . Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed March 27, 2006 Through March 31, 2006 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20060108, Revised Final EIS, AFS, CO* , Gold Camp Road Plan, Develop a Feasible Plan to Manage the Operation of Tunnel #3 and the 8.5 mile Road Segment, Pike National Forest, Pikes Peak Ranger District, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, CO, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Frank Landis 719-477-4203. *EIS No. 20060109, Draft EIS, NPS, KY* , Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, General Management Plan, Implementation, LaRue County, KY, Comment Period Ends: June 5, 2006, Contact: Matthew Safford 303-969-2898. *EIS No. 20060110, Draft EIS, AFS, MT* , Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Management, Develop Site-Specific Travel Management Plan, Jefferson and Butte Ranger Districts, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Jefferson and Silver Bow Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: May 22, 2006, Contact: Cheryl Martin 406-287-3223 Ext 107. *EIS No. 20060111, Final Supplement, COE, MO* , St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway Project, Channel Enlargement and Improvement, Revised Information to Clarify and Address Issues of Concern, Flood Control National Economic Development (NED), New Madrid, Mississippi and Scott Counties, MO, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Daniel D. Ward 901-544-0709. *EIS No. 20060112, Final EIS, OSM, PA* , Adoption—Dents Run Watershed Ecosystem Restoration, Construction and Operation of Six Acid Mine Drainage Abatement Projects, Implementation, Benezette Township, Susquehana River Basin, Elk County, PA, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Fred Sherfy 717-782-4931 Ext 19. OSM has adopted the Corps of Engineer's, FEIS #20020021 filed January 11, 2002. OSM was not a Cooperating Agency on the FEIS. Under Section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ Regulation, the FEIS must be Recirculated for a 30-day Wait Period. *EIS No. 20060113, Draft EIS, FHW, MO* , Interstate 29/35 Paseo Bridge Corridor, Reconstruct and Widen I-29/35, Missouri River, North Kansas City and Kansas City, Clay and Jackson Counties, MO, Comment Period Ends: May 22, 2006, Contact: Peggy Casey 573-636-7104. *EIS No. 20060114, Final EIS, EPA, CA* , Regional Non-Potable Water Distribution System Project, Funding, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Riverside and San Bernardino County, CA, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Elizabeth Borowiec 415-972-3419. *EIS No. 20060115, Draft EIS, AFS, UT* , Upper Strawberry Allotments Grazing, Authorize Liverstock Grazing, Heber Ranger District, Uinta National Forest, Wasatch County, UT, Comment Period Ends: May 22, 2006, Contact: Jim Percy 435-654-0470. *EIS No. 20060116, Final EIS, NPS, OH* , First Ladies National Historic Site General Management Plan, Implementation, Canton, OH, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Carol J. Spears 440-974-2993. *EIS No. 20060117, Draft EIS, FHW, LA* , I-49 South Wax Lake Outlet to Berwick Route US-90, Transportation Improvements, Funding and Right-of-Way Acquisition, St. Mary Parish, LA, Comment Period Ends: 05/31/2006, Contact: William C. Farr 225-757-7615. *EIS No. 20060118, Final EIS, AFS, OR* , Drew Creek Diamond Rock and Divide Cattle Allotments, Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative, Issuance of Term Grazing Permits on Livestock Allotments on Tiller Ranger District, Implementation, Umpqua National Forest, Douglas and Jackson Counties, OR, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Wes Yamamoto 541-825-3100. *EIS No. 20060119, Draft EIS, FHW, VA* , Harrisonburg Southeast Connector Location Study, Transportation Improvements from U.S. Route 11 to U.S. Route 33, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit, City of Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, VA, Comment Period Ends: May 26, 2006, Contact: John Simkins 804-775-3342. *EIS No. 20060120, Final Supplement, FTA, WA* , Central Link Light Rail Transit Project (Sound Transit) Construction and Operation of the North Link Light Rail Extension, from Downtown Seattle and Northgate, Updated Information on Refined Design Concepts, Funding, Right-of-Way and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permits, King County, WA, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: James Irish 206-398-5000. *EIS No. 20060121, Final EIS, CGD, 00* , Compass Port and Deepwater Port License Application, To Construct a Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG)Receiving, Storage and Regasification Facility, Proposed Offshore Pipeline and Fabrication Site, NPDES Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Mobile County, AL and San Patricio and Nueces County, TX, Wait Period Ends: May 22, 2006, Contact: M.A. Prescott 202-267-0225. Dated: April 4, 2006. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6-5090 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice 83] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of U.S. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank, as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The form will be used by Banks to apply for comprehensive or political insurance coverage on foreign banks for letter of credit transactions. Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or electronically. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 8, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Address all comments to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB, Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503,

(202)395-3897. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Time and Form Number:* Export-Import Bank of the United States Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit

(IBCL)Under Bank Letter of Credit Policy, EIB 92-36. *OMB Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Need and Use:* The information requested enables the applicant to provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to process credit risk applications involving foreign letter of credit issuing banks. *Affected Public:* The form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services. *Estimated Annual Respondents:* 60. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 20 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 240 hours. *Frequency of Reporting or Use:* 1 to 12 times per year depending on the particular respondent's need/risk portfolio. Dated: March 31, 2006. Solomon Bush, Agency Clearance Officer. BILLING CODE 6690-01-M EN07AP06.017 EN07AP06.018 EN07AP06.019 [FR Doc. 06-3282 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR