Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

11,859 words·~54 min read·/register/2006/08/15/06-6938

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

BILLING CODE 4310-84-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547; FRL-8210-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Control of Gasoline Volatility AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Michigan on May 26, 2006 and July 14, 2006, establishing a lower Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP)fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in the Southeast Michigan area which includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. Michigan has developed these fuel requirements to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's fuel requirements into the Michigan SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for Southeast Michigan to achieve the 8-hr ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547, 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, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0547. 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 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 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental Protection Specialist, at

(312)886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6061, *acevedo.francisco@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. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action A. What Is the Background for This Action? B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure? C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements? D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)? E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? III. Proposed Action IV. 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 *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: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Description of the SIP Revision and EPA's Action A. What Is the Background for This Action? On April 1995, the Detroit-Ann Arbor consolidated metropolitan statistical area

(CMSA)made up of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, St. Clair, and Monroe counties was redesignated as an attainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. At the time the area was redesignated to attainment, EPA approved, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, contingency measures including a 7.8 psi low-RVP fuels program. During the summer of 1995 monitors in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA recorded violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On January 6, 1996, Michigan Governor John Engler sent a letter to EPA selecting the 7.8 psi low-RVP fuels program as one of the contingency measures to be implemented in the Detroit area to address the recent NAAQS violation. On May 16, 1996, the State submitted the low-RVP portion of their fuels program to EPA for approval. The program required gasoline sold in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA meet a standard of 7.8 psi from June 1 to September 15. On May 5, 1997, EPA approved the State's SIP revision to establish a low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA. As detailed in the final approval at 62 FR 24341, EPA found the State's demonstration sufficient to satisfy the necessity requirement of Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA. Additionally, EPA found that the State's description of the program and associated enforcement procedures were sufficient for approval. On June 15, 2004, the EPA designated eight counties in Southeast Michigan as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard (Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA—Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties). These counties were initially classified under the CAA as Moderate, but EPA later reclassified them as Marginal on September 22, 2004. See 69 FR 56697 (September 22, 2004) for further details. As part of this reclassification, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ)and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) committed to a schedule to identify and implement controls that will help the area attain by the Marginal attainment date of June 15, 2007. To bring this area into attainment, the State is adopting and implementing a broad range of ozone control measures including control of emissions from cement manufacturing, control of emissions from the use of consumer/commercial products, and the implementation of a 7.0 psi low-RVP fuels program. The State's legislative amendments changed the RVP of a compliant fuel and became effective on April 6, 2006. The legislative authority, as amended, requires that, beginning June 1, 2007 through September 15, 2007, and for that period of time each subsequent year, no gasoline may be sold with an RVP greater that 7.0 psi in Wayne, Macomb, Washtenaw, Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair and Lenawee counties. The State's low-RVP requirements can be found in the Motor Fuels Quality Act (1984 PA 44) as amended by 2006 PA 104 (Act 104) on April 2, 2006. The MDEQ submitted this amended low-RVP legislation to EPA as a revision to the SIP on May 26, 2006. MDEQ also submitted a letter dated July 14, 2006 requesting that two provisions of the amended Motor Fuels Quality Act, Sections 9(k) and 9(l), not be incorporated into the Michigan SIP. In addition, Michigan submitted additional technical support for the SIP revision, including materials supporting the State's request to waive the CAA preemption of State fuel controls pursuant to section 211(c)(4) of the CAA. By this low-RVP legislation, Michigan is ensuring that these emission reductions are critical to Michigan's attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Southeast Michigan area. B. What Is Reid Vapor Pressure? Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP, is a measure of a gasoline's volatility at a certain temperature and is a measurement of the rate at which gasoline evaporates and emits VOCs; the lower the RVP, the lower the rate of evaporation. The RVP of gasoline can be lowered by reducing the amount of its more volatile components, such as butane. Lowering RVP in the summer months can offset the effect of high summer temperatures upon the volatility of gasoline, which, in turn, lowers emissions of VOC. Because VOC is a necessary component in the production of ground level ozone in hot summer months, reduction of RVP will help areas achieve the NAAQS for ozone and thereby produce benefits for human health and the environment. The primary emission reduction benefits from low-RVP gasoline used in motor vehicles comes from reductions in VOC evaporative emissions; exhaust emission reductions are much smaller. Because oxides of nitrogen (NO <sup>X</sup> ) are a product of combustion from motor vehicles, they will not be found in evaporative emissions, and low-RVP gasoline will have little or no effect on NO <sup>X</sup> . C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements? In determining the approvability of a SIP revision, EPA must evaluate the proposed revision for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans). For SIP revisions approving certain state fuel measures, an additional statutory requirement applies. CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits state regulations respecting a fuel characteristic or component for which EPA has adopted a control or prohibition under section 211(c)(1), unless the state control is identical to the Federal control. Section 211(c)(4)(C) provides an exception to this preemption if EPA approves the state requirements in a SIP. Section 211(c)(4)(C) states that the Administrator may approve an otherwise preempted state fuel standards in a SIP: only if he finds that the State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard which the plan implements. The Administrator may find that a State control or prohibition is necessary to achieve that standard if no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist, or if other measures exist and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable. EPA's August, 1997 “Guidance on Use of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP Requirements in Ozone SIPs” gives further guidance on what EPA is likely to consider in making a finding of necessity. Specifically, the guidance recommends breaking down the necessity demonstration into four steps:

(1)Identify the quantity of reductions needed to reach attainment;

(2)identify other possible control measures and the quantity of reductions each measure would achieve;

(3)explain in detail which of those identified control measures are considered unreasonable or impracticable; and

(4)show that, even with the implementation of all reasonable and practicable measures, the state would need additional emission reductions for timely attainment, and that the state fuel measure would supply some or all of such additional reductions. EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP revision and has determined that it is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, EPA regulations, and conforms to EPA's completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. Further, EPA has looked at Michigan's demonstration that the low-RVP fuel control is necessary in accordance with Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA and agrees with the State's conclusion that a fuel measure is needed to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The SIP submittal contains:

(1)7.0 low vapor pressure gasoline waiver request for southeast Michigan;

(2)Motor Fuels Quality Act, 1984 PA 44, as amended by the Michigan Legislature and approved by the Governor on April 2, 2006;

(3)Southeast Michigan Ozone control measure evaluation matrix;

(4)Ozone attainment strategy for southeast Michigan dated June 30, 2005; and

(5)the public hearing record dated May 19, 2006. D. How Has the State Met the Test Under Section 211(c)(4)(C)? CAA section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts certain state fuel regulations by prohibiting a State from prescribing or attempting to enforce any control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel additive for the purposes of motor vehicle emission control if the Administrator has prescribed under section 211(c)(1) a control or prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component of the fuel or fuel additive, unless the state prohibition is identical to the prohibition or control prescribed by the Administrator. EPA has adopted Federal RVP controls under sections 211(c) and 211(h). See 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991). These regulations are found in 40 CFR 80.27. The State of Michigan is generally required under the Federal rule to meet a 9.0 psi RVP standard. See 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). However, EPA approved a SIP revision establishing a 7.8 psi low-RVP program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor CMSA on May 5, 1997. See 62 FR 24341. As stated previously, a State may prescribe and enforce an otherwise preempted low-RVP requirement only if the EPA approves the control into the State's SIP. In order to approve a preempted state fuel control into a SIP, EPA must find that the state control is necessary to achieve a NAAQS because no other measures that would bring about timely attainment exist or that such measures exist but are either not reasonable or practicable. Thus, to determine whether Michigan's low-RVP rule is necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS, EPA must consider whether there are other reasonable and practicable measures available to produce the emission reductions needed to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Photochemical modeling results submitted by the State in the document titled “Ozone Attainment Strategy for Southeast Michigan” shows that the southeast Michigan area will not attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007 with emission reductions from national controls alone. The MDEQ and SEMCOG concluded that additional reductions should be obtained. MDEQ used a weight-of-evidence approach that considered such factors as modeling, monitoring, emission changes, and historical experience in developing the area's attainment strategy and to estimate the amount of emission reduction needed for attainment. Based on this weight-of-evidence, MDEQ projected that a reduction of 13 to 15 tons of VOC per day will be needed to reach attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. With this estimate of the VOC reductions necessary to achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the State evaluated an extensive list of non-fuel alternative controls to determine if reasonable and practicable controls could be adopted and used to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007, the required attainment date for Marginal ozone nonattainment areas. The State evaluated a wide range of control measures, considering the following factors: VOC emission reduction potential; ability to implement the control measure expeditiously; time to secure the emission reduction and contribute to expeditious attainment; enforceability; potential impact on other air quality issues; cost; degree of confidence in achieving the reduction and improving air quality; ease of implementation; and experience in other states. Michigan summarized the results of this evaluation in a document entitled “Southeast Michigan Ozone control measure evaluation matrix,” and provided a more detailed discussion on each measure in the Ozone attainment strategy for southeast Michigan dated June 30, 2005 (See May 26, 2006 submittal from the State of Michigan, which is in the docket for this rulemaking). After evaluating a wide range of other controls for their reasonableness and practicability, three measures did rise to the top: the reduction of VOC emission from cement manufacturing, the adoption of Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC)rules for consumer and commercial products, and the lowering of gasoline vapor pressure from 7.8 psi to 7.0 psi during the summer months. Michigan determined that the rest of the control measures would not bring about timely attainment, were technically impossible to implement, and were either unreasonable or impracticable. In the case of cement manufacturing, there is a single, very large VOC source in Monroe County. The State's analysis indicates that the application of controls at this single facility could yield emission reductions comparable to those from other source categories in the range of 5-7 tpd, in a time period compatible with the State's commitment to attain the 8-hour NAAQS as expeditiously as possible. Michigan's evaluation also showed that sizable VOC reductions in the range of 8 tpd could be achieved through the adoption of OTC rules for consumer and commercial products. The State concluded, however, that, although some of those reductions could come early, the majority of the benefits of such a requirement would not be achieved until after the 2007 attainment date. While the State's analysis showed that controls on cement manufacturing and consumer/commercial products would result in significant VOC reductions, these reductions would not sufficient to ensure compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. The State's analysis identified that adoption of all measures determined to be reasonable and practicable would result in approximately 13 to 15 tpd of emission reductions, but not in the timeframe needed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007. Thus, even with implementation of all reasonable and practicable non-fuel control measures, additional VOC reductions are necessary. Michigan's 7.0 psi low-RVP fuels requirement is calculated to achieve approximately 5.6 to 7.1 tpd of VOC reductions beginning the summer of 2007. EPA believes these emission reductions are necessary to achieve the ozone NAAQS in Southeast Michigan. EPA is basing today's action on the information available to us at this time, which indicates that adequate reasonable and practicable non-fuel measures that would achieve these needed emission reductions, and protect Michigan's air quality in a timely manner are not available to the State. Hence, EPA finds that the RVP standards are necessary for attainment of the applicable ozone NAAQS, and is proposing to approve them as a revision to the Michigan SIP. Finally, the proposed rule changes for Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP fuel program are not within the scope of the earlier May 5, 1997, “necessity” demonstration, under section 211(c)(4)(C), for Michigan's 7.8 psi RVP program. Under Michigan's 7.8 psi RVP fuel program, a smaller geographic area was covered than for the proposed 7.0 psi RVP program, because the Detroit-Ann Arbor 8-hour ozone nonattainment area includes one more county than the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area did. This change to the covered geographic area, therefore, affects our finding made at the time of the original SIP approval for 7.8 psi RVP, regarding the availability of non-fuel measures to bring about timely attainment. E. What Are the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) amends the CAA by requiring EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE), to determine the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1, 2004, and to publish a list that identifies these fuels, the States and Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts

(PADD)in which they are used. It also places three additional restrictions on EPA's authority to waive preemption by approving a State fuel program into the SIP. These restrictions are as follows: • First, EPA may not approve a State fuel program into the SIP if it would cause an increase in the “total number of fuels” approved into SIPs as of September 1, 2004. • Second, in cases where EPA approval would not increase the total number of fuels on the list because the total number of fuels in SIPs at that point is below the number of fuels as of the September 1, 2004, then EPA approval requires a finding, after consultation with DOE, that the new fuel will not cause supply or distribution problems or have significant adverse impacts on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. • Third, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP, EPA may not approve a state fuel unless that fuel is already approved in at least one SIP in the applicable PADD. F. How Has the State Met the Relevant Energy Policy Act Requirements? In a **Federal Register** notice published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532), we proposed an interpretation of the EPAct provisions which is based on a fuel type interpretation. We also determined and published a draft list of the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, as of September 1, 2004. Under the proposed interpretation, we will approve a 7.0 psi RVP state fuel program even if we have not previously approved 7.0 psi RVP into a SIP in the applicable PADD as of September 1, 2004. (71 FR 32534). Our approval of a 7.0 psi RVP program, however, is subject to the other EPAct restrictions, described earlier above. More specifically, our approval of a 7.0 psi RVP program must not cause an increase to the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004. Also, if our approval will not increase the total number of fuels on the list, because the total number of fuels in SIPs is below the number of fuels we approved as of the September 1, 2004, we must make a finding, after consultation with DOE, that the 7.0 psi RVP program will not cause supply or distribution problems or have significant adverse impacts on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. Under our proposed interpretation, Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP requirement for Southeast Michigan is not a “new fuel type.” EPA's approval of Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP will not increase the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs, as of September 1, 2004, because 7.0 psi RVP is on the draft list of fuels. 1 Further, because the total number of fuels approved into all SIPs at this time is not below the number of fuels on the draft list of fuels, which we have just published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532), we do not believe that we need to make a finding on the effect of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel requirement in Southeast Michigan on fuel supply and distribution in either Southeast Michigan or the contiguous areas. Nevertheless, EPA notes that an April 15, 2005 study prepared for the American Petroleum Institute titled “Potential Effects of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard on Gasoline Supply, Demand and Production Costs” concluded that the petroleum industry was capable of supplying 7.0 psi summertime gasoline to Southeast Michigan without fuel supply or distribution disruptions. 1 The draft list of fuels includes 7.0 psi RVP programs, which have been approved into the Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas SIPs. In today's action, we are proposing approval of Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP program as consistent with the provisions of EPAct, and assuming that we will finalize our interpretation of the EPAct provisions, as proposed. Accordingly, in our final action approving Michigan's 7.0 psi RVP program, we will address the issue of whether our approval of Michigan's program is consistent with the final adopted interpretation of EPAct. G. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision at the request of the MDEQ. To ensure that it secures the needed approval under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, Michigan submitted this action for EPA approval to make it part of the SIP. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Michigan on May 26, 2006 and July 14, 2006, establishing a 7.0 psi RVP fuel requirement for gasoline distributed in Southeast Michigan which includes Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. EPA is proposing this approval on the condition that the Agency's final interpretation of the EPAct provisions and our determination of the total number of fuels approved under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA as of September 1, 2004, based on this interpretation, and the resulting draft list of these fuels does not change from what we proposed on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32532). EPA is proposing to approve Michigan's fuel requirements into the SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are necessary for Southeast Michigan to achieve the NAAQS for ozone. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 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 regulatory 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 (NTTAA), 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 impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP 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 Clean Air 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, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 3, 2006. Jo-Lynn Traub, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-13345 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 107 [Docket No. PHMSA-2006-25589 (HM-208F)] RIN 2137-AE11 Hazardous Materials Transportation; Registration and Fee Assessment Program AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the statutorily mandated registration and fee assessment program for persons who transport or offer for transportation certain categories and quantities of hazardous materials. For those registrants not qualifying as a small business or not-for-profit organization, we are proposing to increase the fee to $1,975 (plus a $25 administrative fee) for registration year 2007-2008 and increase the fee to $2,975 (plus a $25 administrative fee) for registration year 2008-2009 and following years. The fee increase is necessary to fund the national Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness

(HMEP)grants program at approximately $28,000,000 in accordance with the Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal to Congress. PHMSA is also proposing to eliminate the expedited telephonic registration option. The number of telephonic registrations has steadily decreased with the addition of the internet registration option, therefore, we believe that this registration option is no longer necessary. DATES: Submit comments by October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by any of the following methods: — *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. — *Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. — *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. — *Mail:* Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. — *Hand Delivery:* To the Docket Management System; 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. *Instructions:* You must include the agency name (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) and docket number (PHMSA-xx-xxxx (HM-208F)) or the Regulatory Identification Number

(RIN)for this notice at the beginning of your comment. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive confirmation we received your comments, you should include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act section of this document. *Docket:* You may view the public docket through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* or in person at the Docket Management System office at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Donaldson, Office of Hazardous Materials Planning and Analysis, PHMSA,

(202)366-4484, or Ms. Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, PHMSA,

(202)366-8553. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Since 1992, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has conducted a national registration program under the mandate in 49 U.S.C. 5108 for persons who offer for transportation or transport certain hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce. The purposes of the registration program are to gather information about the transportation of hazardous materials, and fund the Hazardous Materials and Emergency Preparedness

(HMEP)grants program. The HMEP grants program supports hazardous materials emergency response planning and training activities by States, local governments, and Indian tribes. *See* 49 U.S.C. 5108(b), 5116. PHMSA has discretion to require additional persons to register, beyond those offerors and transporters of the categories and quantities of hazardous materials listed in 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(1), and to set the annual registration fee between the statutorily mandated minimum and maximum amounts. *See* 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2), 5108(g)(2)(A). To meet Congressionally authorized funding of $14.3 million for the HMEP grants program, in 2000, we expanded the base of registrants and adopted a two-tier fee schedule under which the registration fee was set at $275 for persons qualifying as small businesses under Small Business Administration

(SBA)criteria, and $1,975 for other persons (plus a $25 processing fee in all cases). (69 FR 7297) Due to a surplus, in 2003, we temporarily adjusted the registration fee to $125 (plus a $25 processing fee) for small businesses and not-for-profit organizations and $275 (plus a $25 processing fee) for all other registrants. (68 FR 1342) In 2006, the fees increased to $250 (plus a $25 processing fee) for small businesses and not-for-profit organizations and $975 (plus a $25 processing fee) for all other registrants. Congress reauthorized the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* ) in 2005 through the “Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005” (Title VII of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), P.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005). The Act makes available approximately $28,000,000 for the HMEP grants program and lowers the maximum registration fee from $5,000 to $3,000. Consistent with SAFETEA-LU, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal to Congress requests $28,000,000 in support of HMEP activity. II. HMEP Grants Program A. Purpose and Achievements of the HMEP Grants Program The HMEP grants program, as mandated by 49 U.S.C. 5116, provides Federal financial and technical assistance to States and Indian tribes to “develop, improve, and carry out emergency plans” within the National Response System and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (Title III), 42 U.S.C. 11001 *et seq.* The grants are used to develop, improve, and implement emergency plans; to train public sector hazardous materials emergency response employees to respond to accidents and incidents involving hazardous materials; to determine flow patterns of hazardous materials within a State and between States; and to determine the need within a State for regional hazardous materials emergency response teams. The HMEP grants program encourages the growth of the hazardous materials planning and training programs of State, local, and tribal governments by limiting the Federal funding to 80 percent of the cost a State or Indian tribe incurs to carry out the activity for which the grant is made. *See* 49 U.S.C. 5116(e). HMEP grants supplement the amount already being provided by the State or Indian tribe. By accepting an HMEP grant, the State or tribe makes a commitment to not only maintain its previous level of support, but also to increase the previous level by an amount representing 20 percent of the funds expended on grant-supported activities each year. *See* 49 U.S.C. 5116(a)(2)(A), 5116(b)(2)(A) and 5116(e). Since 1993, PHMSA has awarded all States and territories and 45 Native American tribes planning and training grants totaling $125 million. These grants helped to: • Train 1,843,000 hazardous materials responders; • Conduct 7,545 commodity flow studies; • Write or update more than 41,344 emergency plans; • Conduct 9,452 emergency response exercises; and • Assist 18,907 local emergency planning committees (LEPCs). Since the beginning of the program, HMEP grantees have used program funds to support the following related activities in the total amounts indicated: • $3.2 million for the development and periodic updating of a national curriculum used to train public sector emergency response and preparedness teams. The curriculum guidelines, developed by a committee of Federal, State, and local experts, include criteria for establishing training programs for emergency responders at five progressively more skilled levels:

(1)First responder awareness,

(2)first responder operations,

(3)hazardous materials technician,

(4)hazardous materials specialist, and

(5)on-scene commander. • $2.5 million to monitor public sector emergency response planning and training for hazardous materials incidents, and to provide technical assistance to State or Indian tribe emergency response training and planning for hazardous materials incidents. • $6 million for periodic updating and distribution of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook. This guidebook provides immediate information on initial response to hazardous materials incidents, and is distributed free of charge to the response community. • $2 million for the International Association of Fire Fighters

(IAFF)to train instructors to conduct hazardous materials response training programs. B. Increased Funding of the HMEP Grants Program An estimated 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials make their way through the national transportation system each day. It is impossible to predict when and where a hazardous materials incident may occur or what the nature of the incident may be. This potential threat requires state and local agencies to develop emergency plans and train emergency responders on the broadest possible scale. The HMEP training grants are essential for providing adequate training of persons throughout the nation who are responsible for responding to emergencies involving the release of hazardous materials. There are over 2 million emergency responders requiring initial training or periodic recertification training, including 250,000 paid firefighters, 850,000 volunteer firefighters, 725,000 law enforcement officers, and 500,000 emergency medical services

(EMS)providers. Due to the high turnover rates of emergency response personnel, there is a continuing need to train a considerable number of recently recruited responders at the most basic level. In addition, training at more advanced levels is essential to ensure emergency response personnel are capable of effectively and safely responding to serious releases of hazardous materials. The availability of increased funding for the HMEP grants program will encourage State, tribal, and local agencies to provide more advanced training. The increased funding for HMEP grants will enable PHMSA to help meet previously unmet needs of State, local and tribal governments by providing for the following activities authorized by law: • $21,800,000 for training and planning grants, an increase of $9 million; • A new $4,000,000 grant program for non-profit hazmat employee organizations to train hazmat instructors who will train hazmat employees; • $1,000,000 for grants to support certain national organizations to train instructors to conduct hazardous materials response training programs, an increase of $750,000; • $625,000 for revising, publishing, and distributing the North American Emergency Response Guidebook, an increase of $125,000; • $200,000 for continuing development of a national training curriculum; and • $150,000 for monitoring and technical assistance. III. Summary of Proposal to Increase HMEP Funding A registration fee system should:

(1)Be simple, straightforward, and easily implemented and enforced;

(2)employ an equity factor reflecting the differences in level of risk to the public and the financial impact associated with the business activities of large and small businesses; and

(3)ensure adequate funding for the HMEP grants program. Under Federal hazmat law, we have the discretion to increase registration fees for both small and large businesses. We considered several alternatives for increasing the funds available for the HMEP grants program. One option was to increase the fee for all businesses offering for transportation or transporting the covered hazardous materials. Another option was to maintain the fee for small businesses and not-for-profit organizations while adjusting the fee for larger businesses. Due to a surplus, in 2003, we temporarily adjusted the registration fee to $125 (plus a $25 processing fee) for small businesses and not-for-profit organizations and $275 (plus a $25 processing fee) for all other registrants. (68 FR 1342) This reduction has reduced the current surplus to approximately $8.5 million. To achieve the statutorily mandated goal of funding the HMEP grants program activities at approximately $28,000,000, we are proposing to adjust registration fees for persons other than small businesses to $1,975 (plus $25 processing fee) for registration year 2007-2008 and to $2,975 (plus $25 processing fee) for registration year 2008-2009 and following. We believe adjusting the fee solely for larger, for-profit businesses is the best approach to meet the objectives listed above. Although there are exceptions, small businesses and not-for-profit organizations generally offer for transportation or transport fewer and smaller hazardous materials shipments as compared to larger companies. Raising the registration fee only for other-than-small businesses rather than for all businesses correlates the fee structure to the level of risk associated with shipments offered for transportation and transported by larger companies. Even at the fee levels proposed for registration year 2008-2009, the two fee levels will only differ by a factor of 10. Moreover, increasing the registration fees only for other-than-small businesses will affect significantly fewer entities and will affect entities that can more easily absorb the increase. Since 2000, PHMSA has received approximately 41,500 registrations for each registration year. Small businesses or not-for-profit organizations make up 84%, or 34,775, of the registrants, while large businesses make up 16%, or 6,725, of the registrants. We are also considering raising the current baseline penalty assessment of $1,000, for failing to register as an offeror or carrier of hazardous materials, for other-than-small businesses who fail to register and pay a registration fee. We would adjust the baseline penalty assessment to keep it proportional to the increased registration fee. We request comments on raising this baseline penalty assessment for other-than-small businesses. IV. Expedited Registration Process Since the beginning of the registration program in 1992, we have provided a 24 hour, seven days-a-week expedited telephonic registration option. Person utilizing this option are provided a temporary registration number and must pay an additional $50 expedited processing fee. With the addition of the internet registration option, the number of registrants utilizing the expedited registration option has steadily decreased to a low of less than 100 persons since January 2006. Therefore, we are proposing to eliminate the expedited registration option. V. Multi-Year Registrations We allow a person to register for up to three years in one registration statement (49 CFR 107.612(c)). We have received approximately 300 advance registrations for the 2007-2008 registration year and one advance registration for the 2008-2009 registration year from other-than-small businesses that have paid the fee previously established for those years. We apply fees according to the fee structure ultimately established by regulation for the registration year rather than according to the fee set at the time of payment. Thus, if we adopt the increase in registration fees proposed in this NPRM, additional fees would be required for registrations paid in advance at the lower levels in effect at the time of payment. When we lowered the fees for all registrants in 2003, we provided over 7,100 refunds amounting to over $2.3 million within the first year to registrants who had overpaid the newly established fees. If we adopt this proposal, we will notify each registrant who will be required to pay additional fees for the 2007-2008 and following registration years. VI. Indian Tribes Exception The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005 amends § 5108(i)(2)(b) of the Federal hazmat law to add Indian tribes to the list of governmental agencies specifically excepted from the registration requirements. As a matter of policy, we have not been enforcing the registration requirements against Indian tribes, which were specifically included among the grant recipients. We are proposing to incorporate this specific exception into the HMR. VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* , as amended by P.L. 109-59) and 49 U.S.C. 44701. Section 5108 of the Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a registration program to collect fees to fund HMEP grants. The HMEP grants program, as mandated by 49 U.S.C. 5116, authorizes Federal financial and technical assistance to States and Indian tribes to “develop, improve, and carry out emergency plans” within the National Response System and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (Title III), 42 U.S.C. 11001 *et seq.* Congress reauthorized the Federal hazmat law in 2005 through the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005. This Act makes available funding for the HMEP grants program at approximately $28,000,000, an increase of nearly $14 million. In addition, the Act lowers the maximum fee to $3,000. B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not subject to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is considered non-significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). The cost to industry of increasing registration fees will be $14 million per year. The increased funding for the HMEP grants program will provide essential training of persons throughout the Nation who are responsible for responding to emergencies involving the release of hazardous materials. In addition, training at more advanced levels is essential to assure emergency response personnel are capable of effectively and safely responding to serious releases of hazardous materials. The increased funding for the HMEP grants will enable us to help meet previously unmet needs of State, local and tribal governments by providing funding for activities such as:

(1)Planning and training grants for local emergency planning committees;

(2)a new program for non profit hazmat employee organizations to train hazmat instructors that will train hazmat employees;

(3)support to certain national organizations to train instructors to conduct hazardous materials response training programs;

(4)revising, publishing, and distributing the North American Emergency Response Guidebook;

(5)continuing development of a national training curriculum; and

(6)monitoring and technical assistance. While the safety benefits resulting from improved emergency response programs are difficult to quantify, we believe these benefits significantly outweigh the annual cost of funding the grants program. The importance of planning and training cannot be overemphasized. To a great extent, we are a nation of small towns and rural communities served by largely volunteer fire departments. In many instances, communities' response resources already are overextended in their efforts to meet routine emergency response needs. The planning and training programs funded by the HMEP grants program enable state and local emergency responders to respond quickly and appropriately to hazardous materials transportation accidents, thereby mitigating potential loss of life and property and environmental damage. The regulatory evaluation to the final rule issued under Docket HM-208 (57 FR 30620) showed that the benefits to the public and to the industry from the emergency response grant program would at least equal, and likely exceed, the annual cost of funding the grant program. Based on estimates of annual damages and losses resulting from hazardous materials transportation accidents, the analysis concluded that the HMEP program would be cost-beneficial if it were only 3% effective in reducing either the frequency or severity of the consequences of hazardous materials transportation accidents. Achieving this level of effectiveness is well within the success rates of training and planning programs to reduce errors and increase the proficiency and productivity of response personnel. A regulatory evaluation for this proposed rule is available for review in the public docket. C. Executive Order 13132 This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This proposed rule preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements, but does not propose any regulation having substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. D. Executive Order 13175 This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule does not have adverse tribal implications and does not impose direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-611) requires each agency to analyze regulations and assess their impact on small businesses and other small entities to determine whether the rule is expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The provisions of this rule apply specifically to businesses not falling within the small entities category. Therefore, PHMSA certifies this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $120.7 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State, local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector. G. Paperwork Reduction Act Under 49 U.S.C. 5108(i), the information management requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) do not apply to this proposed rule. H. Regulation Identifier Number

(RIN)A regulation identifier number

(RIN)is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document may be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda. I. Environmental Assessment The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule. PHMSA is proposing in this rule changes to the requirements in the HMR on the registration and fee assessment program for persons who transport or offer for transportation certain categories and quantities of hazardous materials. The proposed increase in registration fees will provide additional funding for the HMEP program to help mitigate the safety and environmental consequences of hazardous materials transportation accidents. J. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 107 Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials transportation, Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR part 107 as follows: PART 107—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 44701; Sec 212-213, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.53. 2. In § 107.606, redesignate paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) as (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) respectively, and add a new paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: § 107.606 Exceptions.

(a)* * *

(4)An Indian tribe. 3. In § 107.612, revise paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: § 107.612 Amount of fee.

(d)* * *

(3)*Other than a small business or not-for-profit organization.* Each person that does not meet the criteria specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section must pay an annual registration fee of:

(i)For registration year 2006-2007, $975 and the processing fee required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section;

(ii)For registration year 2007-2008, $1,975 and the processing fee required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section;

(iii)For registration year 2008-2009 and following, $2,975 and the processing fee required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section. § 107.616 [Amended] 4. In § 107.616, paragraph

(a)is amended by, in the first sentence, eliminating the phrase “Except as provided in paragraph

(d)of this section,” and paragraph

(d)is removed. Issued in Washington, DC on August 9, 2006, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106. Robert McGuire, Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety. [FR Doc. E6-13312 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration 49 CFR Part 389 [Docket No. MARAD-2005-22050] RIN 2133-AB67 Determination of Availability of Coastwise-Qualified Launch Barges AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of opening of reply comment period. SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration is establishing regulations governing administrative determinations of availability of coastwise-qualified launch barges to be used in the transportation and launching of offshore oil drilling or production platform jackets in specified projects. This rulemaking implements provisions of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, which, among other things, requires the Secretary of Transportation (acting through the Maritime Administrator) to adopt procedures to determine if coastwise-qualified vessels are available for platform jacket transport and launching, and, if not, to allow the use of non-coastwise qualified foreign built vessels. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action was published in the **Federal Register** on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 47771) with comments due by October 14, 2005. The opening comment period was extended on October 19, 2005 (70 FR 60770) and closed on December 13, 2005. The Maritime Administration is hereby giving notice that we received and have granted a request by a commenting party to open a reply comment period for this rulemaking. Reply comments are responses to comments that were filed during the previous comment periods for this rulemaking. DATES: Reply comments are due October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit reply comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number MARAD 2005-22050] by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number

(RIN)for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Privacy Act Anyone is able to 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* By order of the Maritime Administrator. Dated: August 9, 2006. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-13391 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P 71 157 Tuesday, August 15, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 10, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Food and Nutrition Service *Title:* The Pennsylvania Rural Eligibility Pilot Evaluation. *OMB Control Number:* 0584-NEW. *Summary of Collection:* The Pennsylvania Rural Eligibility Pilot is a pilot of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). Congress created the SFSP in 1968 as the Special Food Service Program for Children. In 1975, separate Child Care Food Program and a Summer Food Service Program were authorized. SFSP was authorized to provide free and reduced price meals to children in residential Summer camps and sites serving areas of poor economic conditions, where at least one-third of the children qualify and are eligible to participate. The Pennsylvania Rural Area Eligibility Pilot will address the concern that some poor rural children may not be reached by the SFSP, Public Law 108-265 established a pilot for the SFSP in rural areas of Pennsylvania for Calendar 2005 and 2006. *Need and Use of the Information:* The information collected from the pilot will be used by managers and administrators of the USDA, in particular the Child Nutrition Program of the Food and Nutrition Service and the Pennsylvania Department of Education Food and Nutrition Division, for the purpose of planning, organizing, and delivering SFSP services. The information collected from the pilot will include the number of sponsors offering meals through SFSP; the number of sites offering meals through SFSP; the geographic location of the sites; and services provided to eligible children. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 306. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 77. Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-13360 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0022] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, are sponsoring a public meeting on September 6, 2006. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the 28th Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Beijing, China from September 18-22, 2006. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties with the opportunity to obtain background information on the 28th Session of the CCFFP and to address items on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 2006 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in room 3B-047, of the Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, Maryland 20740. Documents related to the 28th Session of the CCFFP will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS)invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. FSIS prefers to receive comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select the FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2006-0022 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. *Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand- or courier-delivered items:* Send to Docket Clerk, USDA, FSIS, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700. *Electronic mail:* *fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.* All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2006-0022. All comments submitted in response to this notice, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be posted to the regulations.gov Web site. The background information and comments also will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, the U.S. Delegate to the CCFFP, Mr. Philip Spiller of FDA, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address: *melissa.ellwanger@fda.hhs.gov.* *Pre-Registration:* To gain admittance to this meeting, individuals must present a photo ID for identification and also *are required to pre-register.* In addition, no cameras or videotaping equipment will be permitted in the meeting room. To pre-register, please send the following information to this e-mail address— *melissa.ellwanger@fda.hhs.gov* by *September 5, 2006:* —Your Name, —Organization, —Mailing Address, —Phone number, —E-mail address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE 28th SESSION OF THE CCFFP CONTACT: Melissa Ellwanger, Assistant to the U.S. Delegate to the CCFFP, FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835; Phone:

(301)436-1401; Fax:

(301)436-2549. E-mail: *melissa.ellwanger@fda.hhs.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC MEETING CONTACT: Amjad Ali, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, FSIS, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; Phone:

(202)205-7760; Fax:

(202)720-3157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in trade. The Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products was established to elaborate codes, standards and related texts for fish and fishery products. The Committee is hosted by Norway. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the Agenda for the 28th Session of the Committee will be discussed during the public meeting: • Matters referred to the Committee from the other Codex bodies. • Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Canned Sardine and Sardine Type Products: *Clupea bentincki.* • Draft Standard for Sturgeon Caviar. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (sections 2 Definitions, 7 Live and [Raw] Bivalve Molluscs, 10 Quick Frozen Fish and Fishery Products (sections on Molluscan Shellfish and Coated Shrimp only), 11 Processing of Salted Fish, 12 Processing of Smoked Fish, 13 Processing of Lobsters & Crabs). • Proposed Draft Standard for Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs. • Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat. • Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish. • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for the Processing of Scallop Meat. • Discussion Paper on the Procedure for the Inclusion of Additional Species in Standards for Fish and Fishery Products. • Discussion Paper on an Amendment to the Labeling Section in the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products. Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Norwegian Secretariat prior to the public meeting on September 6. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents at *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* Public Meeting At the September 6th public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 28th Session of the CCFFP, Mr. Philip Spiller, at *melissa.ellwanger@fda.hhs.gov.* Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 28th Session of the CCFFP. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web Page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index* . FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC on: August 10, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E6-13361 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: USDA Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service (Agency). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the Agency invites comments on the following information collections for which Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard C. Annan, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5818, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone:

(202)720-0784. Fax:

(202)720-8435. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies information collections that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy o9f the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Richard C. Annan, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development Utilities Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Fax:

(202)720-0784. *Title:* CFR Part 1794, Environmental policies and Procedures. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0117. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The information collection contained in this rule are requirements prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346), the Council on environmental Quality

(CEQ)Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Executive Orders. USDA Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service (Agency). Agency applicants provide environmental documentation, as prescribed by the rule, to assure that policy contained in NEPA is followed. The burden varies depending on the type, size, and location of each project, which then prescribes the type of information collection involved. The collection of information is only that information that is essential for the Agency to provide environmental safeguards and to comply with NEPA as implemented by the CEQ regulations. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 240 hours per response. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit and non-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 600. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 3. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 450,200 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development Utilities Programs, at

(202)720-7853. FAX:

(202)720-7853. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request from OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: August 9, 2006. Curtis M. Anderson, Deputy Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. 06-6938 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents