Notices. Notice of Receipt of Application; request for comments and information

11,781 words·~54 min read·/register/2006/09/28/06-8325·

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 062206A] Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Application; request for comments and information. SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy for an authorization under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA)to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active

(LFA)sonar from August 16, 2007 through August 15, 2012. In order to promulgate regulations and issue annual Letters of Authorization

(LOAs)to the Navy, NMFS must determine that these takings will have a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals, will not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and must prescribe the means of mitigating the potential impact to the lowest level practicable. NMFS invites comment on the application and suggestions on the content of any future regulations. DATES: Comments and information must be postmarked no later than October 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to: P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *PR1.062306A@noaa.gov* . Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. Please use only one method for commenting. A copy of the Navy's 2007 MMPA application and the current SURTASS LFA sonar monitoring report may be obtained by writing to the above address, by telephoning the contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , or at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Small_Take/smalltake_info.htm#applications* . A copy of the Navy's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) may be downloaded at the following URL: *http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/Impactstate05.htm* Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours at this address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, NMFS, at 301-713-2289, ext 128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. An authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s); will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses; if regulations are prescribed setting forth the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on affected species, stocks and its habitat; and, the requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

(i)any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or

(ii)any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B harassment]. Summary of Request On May 12, 2006, NMFS received an application from the U.S. Navy requesting an authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for the taking of marine mammals by harassment incidental to employment of the SURTASS LFA sonar system during training, testing, and routine military operations for a period of time not to exceed 5 years, beginning on August 16, 2007. The proposed action is the U.S. Navy's use of the SURTASS LFA sonar in ocean waters excluding any areas necessary to prevent 180-decibel

(dB)sound pressure level

(SPL)or greater within a specific geographic range from shore, in offshore biologically important areas during biologically important seasons, and in areas necessary to prevent greater than 145-dB SPL at known recreational and commercial dive sites. The SURTASS LFA sonar program will operate a maximum of 4 ship systems in those regions in which SURTASS LFA sonar could potentially operate. During employment of the SURTASS LFA sonar system, acoustic signals will be introduced into the water column that could potentially affect marine mammals. Because marine mammals may be harassed due to noise disturbance incidental to the employment of the SURTASS LFA sonar system during training, testing, and routine military operations, an authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA is warranted. A copy of the Navy's MMPA application is available for public review (see ADDRESSES ). Background On July 16, 2002, NMFS published a final rule (67 FR 46712) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to operations of SURTASS LFA sonar and, on August 16, 2002 issued an LOA to the *R/V Cory Chouest* . The preamble to the final rule provides a complete description of the Navy activity, NMFS' assessment of the marine mammals that potentially could be affected during SURTASS LFA sonar operations, and the mitigation, monitoring and research that the Navy has implemented to reduce impacts to the lowest level practicable. Please refer to that document for detailed information on this activity. On August 7, 2002, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Humane Society of the United States and four other environmental organizations filed suit against the Navy and NMFS over SURTASS LFA sonar use and permitting. Key litigation events are summarized in the Navy's Draft SEIS. The Court issued its Opinion and Order on the parties' motions for summary judgment in the SURTASS LFA sonar litigation on August 26, 2003. The Court found that deficiencies in the Navy and NMFS compliance with the MMPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)warranted issuing a tailored permanent injunction; however, a complete ban on the use of SURTASS LFA sonar was not warranted. Specifically, the Court found that a total ban on the employment of SURTASS LFA sonar would interfere with the Navy's ability to ensure military readiness and to protect those serving in the military against the threat posed by hostile submarines. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer on the scope of a tailored permanent injunction, which would allow for continued operation of the system with additional mitigation measures. This mediation session occurred on September 25, 2003 in San Francisco. In June 2003, the second-year (of the five years for which the NMFS Final Rule is valid) LOAs were requested from NMFS for the operations of SURTASS LFA sonar from both *R/V Cory Chouest* and *USNS IMPECCABLE* (T-AGOS 23) for the period between August 16, 2003 and August 15, 2004. For the second year LOAs, the Navy requested operational areas authorized under the preliminary injunction. NMFS issued the second year LOAs, effective on August 16, 2003. The second year LOAs authorized the taking of marine mammals in stipulated portions of the Northwest Pacific/Philippine Sea, Sea of Japan, East China Sea, and South China Sea with certain year-round and seasonal restrictions. On July 7, 2005, the Court amended the permanent injunction to expand the potential areas of operation based on real world contingencies, as shown in Figure 1-1 in the Navy's MMPA application. Annual LOAs were issued to the *R/V Cory Chouest* and *USNS IMPECCABLE* on August 16, 2004 (69 FR 51996, August 24, 2004), August 16, 2005 (70 FR 49914, August 25, 2005) and August 16, 2006 (71 FR 48537, August 21, 2006). Description of the Activity Existing operational LFA systems are currently installed on two SURTASS vessels: *R/V Cory Chouest* and *USNS IMPECCABLE* . In addition, the Navy plans for the development and introduction of a compact active sonar system to be deployed from existing, smaller SURTASS Swath-P ships. This smaller system, known as Compact LFA, or CLFA, consists of smaller, lighter-weight source elements than the current LFA system, and will be compact enough to be installed on the existing SURTASS VICTORIOUS Class (T-AGOS 19, 21, and 22) platforms. The operational characteristics of the compact system are comparable to the existing LFA systems as presented in the Final OEIS/EIS and Draft SEIS. Therefore, the potential impacts from CLFA are expected to be similar to the effects from the existing SURTASS LFA systems. Three additional CLFA systems are planned for the T-AGOS 19, 21, and 22. Figure 1-2 of the Navy's MMPA application shows the projected availability of these systems. With the planned *R/V Cory Chouest* retiring in FY 2008, only two or three systems will be operational through FY 2010. Early in FY 2011, the potential exists for four vessels to be operational. At no point during the 5-year LOA authorization period are there expected to be more than four systems in use, and thus this application considers the employment of up to four systems. The Navy states that because of uncertainties in the world's political climate, a detailed account of future operating locations and conditions cannot be predicted. However, in order to assess impacts to marine mammal populations, the Navy has developed a nominal annual deployment schedule and operational concept based on current LFA operations since January 2003 and projected Fleet requirements. As illustrated in Table 1-2 of the Navy's MMPA application, SURTASS LFA sonar deployment schedule for a single vessel could involve up to 294 days per year at sea (underway). A nominal at-sea mission will occur over a 49-day period, with 40 days of operations and 9 days of transit. Based on a 7.5 percent duty cycle (from historical LFA operating parameters), an LFA system will actually be transmitting for a maximum of 72 hours per 49-day mission and 432 hours per year for each SURTASS LFA sonar system in operation. The SURTASS LFA sonar vessel will operate independent of, or in conjunction with, other naval air, surface or submarine assets. Annually, each vessel will be expected to spend approximately 54 days in transit and 240 days performing active operations. An estimated 71 days will be spent in port for upkeep and repair and crew morale. National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA)On November 24, 2003, the NDAA for Fiscal Year

(FY)2004 (Public Law 108-136) became law. Included in this law were amendments to Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA that apply where a “military readiness activity” is concerned. The term “military readiness activity” is defined in Public Law 107-314 (16 U.S.C. § 703 note) to include all training and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat; and the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use. NMFS and the Navy have determined that the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar testing and training operations that are the subject of NMFS's July 16, 2002, Final Rule constitute a military readiness activity because those activities constitute “training and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat” and constitute “adequate and realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use.” The provisions of NDAA FY04 that relate to SURTASS LFA sonar are summarized here:

(1)Amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to military readiness activities (as stated previously here);

(2)NMFS's determination of “least practicable adverse impact on species or stock” must include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity; and,

(3)Eliminated the “small numbers” and “specified geographic region” requirements from the incidental take permitting process for military readiness activities. Affected Marine Mammal Species The Navy has provided detailed descriptions of the marine mammal species and stocks that may potentially be affected by operation of SURTASS LFA sonar in several documents. These include the Navy's 2007 MMPA application, the Draft SEIS, and the Final OEIS/EIS. These documents are publically available for viewing and downloading (see ADDRESSES ). Additional information on marine mammals along the U.S. and territorial waters can be found at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm* . Please refer to these documents for information on these species. Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals The Navy has provided detailed analyses on the potential impacts on whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions in both its MMPA application and its Draft SEIS. Potential impacts that are analyzed include: non-auditory injury, permanent loss of hearing, temporary loss of hearing, behavioral change, and masking. As a result of its analysis, the Navy believes that impacts to affected marine mammal stocks will be limited to Level B (behavioral) harassment and that no serious injury or mortality is likely. For a complete description of this analysis please refer to the Navy's MMPA application. Proposed Modifications to the Existing Regulations The Navy has proposed two modifications to the current regulations governing the incidental take of marine mammals during SURTASS LFA sonar operations. These are:

(1)Establishment of Additional Offshore Biologically Important Areas (wherein 180 dB (and higher) sound pressure levels

(SPLs)will not enter-see Table 6.2 in the Navy's MMPA application); and,

(2)Increase the authorized transmission frequency from 330 Hz to 500 Hz (the frequency requirements for CLFA are somewhat higher, but still below 500 Hz). Mitigation and Monitoring The Navy proposes to continue to implement the currently required mitigation and monitoring requirements under the current regulations (50 CFR Part 216 Subpart Q). Table 1 provides an illustration of the proposed measures. Detailed information can be found in the Navy's MMPA application. Table 1. Summary of Mitigation Mitigation Criteria Actions Geographic Restrictions 22 km (12 nm) from coastline and offshore biologically important areas during biologically important seasons outside of 22 km (12 nm) Sound field below 180 dB RL, based on SPL modeling. Delay/suspend SURTASS LFA sonar operations. Recreational and commercial dive sites (known) Sound field not to exceed 145 dB RL, based on SPL modeling. Delay/suspend SURTASS LFA sonar operations. Monitoring to Prevent Injury to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Visual Monitoring Potentially affected species near the vessel but outside of the LFA mitigation and buffer zones. Notify OIC. Potentially affected species sighted within the LFA mitigation and buffer zones. Delay/suspend SURTASS LFA sonar operations. Passive Acoustic Monitoring Potentially affected species detected. Notify OIC, OIC alerts marine mammal observers. Active Acoustic Monitoring Contact detected and determined to have a track that would pass within the LFA mitigation and buffer zones. Notify OIC, OIC alerts marine mammal observers. Potentially affected species detected inside of the LFA mitigation and buffer zones. Delay/suspend SURTASS LFA sonar operations. LFA mitigation and buffer zones free of marine mammals. Begin ramp-up of Active Acoustic Monitor Source. Reporting As is currently required, the Navy proposes to submit quarterly, classified mission reports to NMFS no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter beginning on August 16, 2007. Each quarterly, classified mission report will include all active-mode missions that have been completed during the quarter. Specifically, these reports will include dates/times of exercises, location of vessel, LOA province, location of the safety and buffer zones in relation to the LFA sonar array, marine mammal observations, and records of any delays or suspensions of operations. Marine mammal observations will include animal type and/or species, number of animals sighted, date and time of observations, type of marine mammal detection (visual, passive and/or active sonar), bearing and range from the vessel, abnormal behavior (if any), and remarks/narrative (as necessary). The report will include the Navy's assessment of whether any taking occurred within the SURTASS LFA sonar safety and buffer zones and estimates of the percentage of marine mammals stocks affected by SURTASS LFA sonar operations (both within and outside the safety and buffer zones), using predictive modeling based on operating locations, dates/times of operations, system characteristics, oceanographic environmental conditions, and animal demographics. The Navy will also submit an annual, unclassified report to NMFS. This report will provide NMFS (and the public) with an unclassified summary of the year's quarterly reports and will include the Navy's assessment of whether any taking occurred within the SURTASS LFA sonar mitigation and buffer zones and estimates of the percentage of marine mammal stocks affected by SURTASS LFA sonar operations (both within and outside the safety and buffer zones), using predictive modeling based on operating locations, dates/times of operations, system characteristics, oceanographic environmental conditions, and animal demographics. The annual report will also include an analysis of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures with recommendations for improvements where applicable, an assessment of any long-term effects from SURTASS LFA sonar operations, and any discernible or estimated cumulative impacts from SURTASS LFA sonar operations. NEPA The Navy completed and released its Draft SEIS to the public for review on October 28, 2005 (70 FR 62102). That document was available to the public for review until December 28, 2005, but was extended until February 10, 2006. NMFS is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Draft SEIS and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of regulations and LOAs for this activity. Information Solicited As this document is being published in conformance with NMFS regulations implementing the incidental take program (50 CFR part 216, subpart I), NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning the request and the possible structure and content of the regulations to allow the taking. As provided by 50 CFR 216.105, NMFS will consider this information in developing any proposed regulations to authorize the taking. Because this notice contains only a summarization of the proposed Navy action, NMFS requests commenters read the Navy MMPA application and Draft OEIS/EIS on this action prior to submitting comments, as those documents contain information necessary to respond appropriately to this action. If NMFS proposes regulations to allow this take, interested parties will be provided with a 45-day comment period within which to submit comments on the proposed rule. Dated: September 22, 2006 James H. Lecky, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-15936 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 092206C] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public committee meeting. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) will meet in Anchorage, AK. DATES: The meetings will be held on October 16-18, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Hawthorne Suites, 1110 West 8th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Wilson, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The issues to be discussed: Minutes of last meeting; review comments on proposal ranking tool from Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC); refine proposal ranking tool as appropriate, receive report on Board of Fisheries meeting of October 14-15; receive presentations on proposals from submitters; discuss proposals; discuss Adaptive Management Subcommittee Report. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,

(907)271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 25, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-15918 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 092206B] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public committee meeting. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) will meet in Seattle, WA. DATES: The meetings will be held on October 30, 2006 through November 1, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., each day. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Building 4, Seattle, WA. Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Wilson, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The issues to be discussed: Minutes of last meeting; continue refining and finalize Proposal Ranking Tool (PRT); run proposals through PRT; evaluate proposals in light of PRT scores and additional information; prepare proposal package for Council Review. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen,

(CPS)advisory bodies will hold meetings, which are open to the public, on October 17-19, 2006. The primary purpose of the meetings is to review the current Pacific sardine Stock Assessment and draft terms of reference for the CPS stock assessment review process. DATES: The meetings will be held on October 17, 2006 through October 19, 2006. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held in the Large Conference Room at the office of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone:

(503)820-2280. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Burner, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(503)820-2280. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) and the Scientific and Statistical Committee's

(SSC)CPS Subcommittee will meet in a joint session on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, from 8 a.m. until business for the day is completed and again on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 until noon. The CPSMT will hold a work session on Wednesday, October 18, 2006, from 1 p.m. until business for the day is completed. The Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) will meet Thursday, October 19, 2006, from 8 a.m. until business for the day is completed. The CPSMT, the SSC CPS Subcommittee, and the CPSAS will review the current Pacific sardine stock assessment, the terms of reference for CPS stock assessment reviews, and recent research on market squid. The CPSMT and the CPSAS will also develop harvest guideline and management measure recommendations for the 2007 Pacific sardine fishery. The CPSMT and CPSAS will develop recommendations for Council consideration at the November 12-17, 2006, meeting in Del Mar, CA, and address other issues relating to CPS management, including marine protected areas and research and data needs. No management actions will be decided by the CPSMT, the SSC CPS Subcommittee, or the CPSAS. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Advisory body action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at

(503)820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 25, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-15917 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8224-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Reformulated Gasoline Commingling Provisions; EPA ICR No. 2228.02; OMB Control No. 2060-0566 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This request is to renew an emergency ICR that is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2006. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0745, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* • *Mail:* Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Fax or Hand Delivery:* EPA's Public Reading Room was temporarily closed due to flooding and has reopened in the EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room 3334), in the EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. In order to ensure to arrange for proper fax or hand delivery of materials at this time, please call the Air Docket at 202-566-1742. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0745. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *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 *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 information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geanetta Heard, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Mail Code 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(202)343-9017; fax number:

(202)343-2801; e-mail address: *heard.geanetta@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0745. The docket is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov,* and for in-person viewing at EPA's Public Reading Room. The Public Reading Room was temporarily closed due to flooding and reopened in the EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room 3334), in the EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

(EST)in its new location, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air Docket is 202-566-1742. Use *www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)

(A)of the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv)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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are gasoline retailers, wholesale purchaser-consumers, gasoline stations, gasoline stations with convenience stores and gasoline stations without convenience stores. *Title:* Reformulated Gasoline Commingling Provisions. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 2228.02, OMB Control No. 2060-0566. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2006. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in Title 40 Part 9 of the CFR after being approved. The control numbers are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9. *Abstract:* With this information collection request (ICR), we are seeking permission to accept notifications from gasoline retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers related to commingling of ethanol blended and non-ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline

(RFG)under section 1513 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and 40 CFR 80.78(a)(8)(ii)(B); and to provide for a compliance option whereby a retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer may demonstrate compliance via test results under § 80.78(a)(8)(iii)(A). These provisions are designed to grant compliance flexibility. An emergency ICR has been put in place and expires December 31, 2006. We are requesting that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)renew this ICR and request that it be effective three years after approval. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours (fifteen minutes) per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by a person to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to (or for) a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; to process and maintain information; to disclose and provide information; to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 56,700. *Frequency of response:* Occasional. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 2. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 27,675 hours. *Estimated total annual costs:* $1,964,925. This includes an estimated burden cost of $1,964,925 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the emergency ICR that expires December 31, 2006. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: September 22, 2006. Margo Tsirigotis Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. [FR Doc. E6-15976 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [IN 168-1; FRL-8224-1] Approval of the Clean Air Act Section 112(l) Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing; Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces that, upon signature of this notice, EPA approved a request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM)for delegation of authority to implement and enforce National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Boat Manufacturing through a state rule which adjusts the maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)standard for boat manufacturing. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and the NESHAP provisions, states may seek approval of state rules which make pre-approved adjustments to a MACT standard if the state rule is unambiguously no less stringent than the Federal rule. On June 20, 2005, IDEM requested approval to adjust the NESHAP for boat manufacturing. EPA reviewed this request and found that it satisfied the requirements for approval under the Federal provision which allows for delegation of an adjusted NESHAP, “Approval of State requirements that adjust a section 112 rule.” Therefore, upon the signature of this notice, EPA delegated to IDEM the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP for boat manufacturing, through IDEM's rule for boat manufacturing. ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-3189 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-3189, *portanova.sam@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 Action Is EPA Taking? II. Under What Authority Is EPA Approving This Delegation? III. How Does 326 IAC 20-48 Meet the Requirements for Delegation? IV. What Is the Effect of This Delegation? I. What Action Is EPA Taking? Pursuant to section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 63.92, EPA approved IDEM's request that EPA delegate the authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, NESHAP for boat manufacturing, through Indiana rule 326 IAC 20-48, which adjusts the Federal boat manufacturing MACT. This approval makes the Indiana rule, which is unambiguously no less stringent than the Federal MACT, federally enforceable in Indiana. EPA also approved the delegation of the applicable Category I authorities for this MACT standard as set forth at 40 CFR 63.91(g). II. Under What Authority Is EPA Approving This Delegation? Pursuant to CAA section 112(l), a state may develop and submit to EPA for approval a program for the partial or complete delegation of section 112 rules. EPA may approve state rules or programs which either:

(1)Implement and enforce section 112 rules as promulgated by EPA (“straight delegation”);

(2)implement and enforce state rules which adjust section 112 rules;

(3)implement and enforce state rules which substitute for section 112 rules. The Federal regulations governing EPA's approval of state rules or programs under section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. Currently, IDEM has an EPA-approved program for the straight delegation of MACT standards. EPA approved IDEM's program of delegation for part 70 sources on November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57118). EPA approved IDEM's expansion of its program of delegation to non-part 70 sources on July 8, 1997 (62 FR 36460). Pursuant to the approved straight delegation program, EPA has approved the straight delegation of numerous MACT standards to IDEM (see 62 FR 36460 (7/8/1997), 65 FR 17264 (3/31/2000), 69 FR 22508 (4/26/2004), and 71 FR 2225 (1/13/2006)). By letter dated June 20, 2005, IDEM requested approval of delegation of authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, the boat manufacturing MACT, through a State rule which adjusts the MACT standard. The criteria for EPA's approval of state rules which adjust section 112 rules are set forth at 40 CFR 63.92. In general, adjustments to section 112 MACT standards must be unambiguously no less stringent than the Federal rule and be limited to certain pre-approved matters. More specifically, Section 63.92(b) requires that the state demonstrate the following:

(1)The State program meets the criteria of section 63.91, which provides for the straight delegation of section 112 rules;

(2)the public has had adequate notice and opportunity to submit written comment on the state requirements which adjust the section 112 rule;

(3)the adjustment to the section 112 rule results in requirements that are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal rule with respect to:

(a)Applicability;

(b)level of control for each affected source and emission point;

(c)compliance and enforcement measures;

(d)dates of compliance. Further, Section 63.92(b)(3) only allows certain pre-approved adjustments, including the following:

(1)Lowering a required emission rate;

(2)adding a design, work practice, operational standard;

(3)increasing a required control efficiency;

(4)increasing the frequency of required reporting, testing, sampling or monitoring. If the above criteria are met, EPA will approve the delegation of a MACT standard through a state rule which adjusts the standard. Because EPA has previously noticed and provided opportunity for comment on the adjustment procedure, including the list of allowable adjustments, no further notice or opportunity for comment is required. See 58 FR 62262 (November 26, 1993). The delegation is effective upon the signature of the **Federal Register** notice. CAA section 63.92(a)(3). See 65 FR 55837 (September 14, 2000) III. How Does 326 IAC 20-48 Meet the Requirements for Delegation? IDEM's boat manufacturing rule incorporates by reference the majority of the provisions of the Federal boat manufacturing NESHAP. However, IDEM's rule adjusts certain provisions of the Federal boat manufacturing NESHAP. As shown below, IDEM has demonstrated that its adjustments are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal MACT provisions. The adjustments meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 63.92(b) for state rules which adjust a MACT standard. A. The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP The boat manufacturing MACT, which IDEM seeks to adjust, was proposed in the **Federal Register** on July 14, 2000 (65 FR 43841) and promulgated on August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44232). EPA published a correction to this notice on October 3, 2001 (66 FR 50504). In general, the NESHAP for boat manufacturing facilities establishes emission standards for new and existing boat manufacturing facilities with resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive operations, or aluminum recreational boat surface coating operations. B. How Does the State Program Meet the Requirements of 40 CFR 63.91? 40 CFR 63.92(b) provides that a state which seeks delegation of the authority to implement and enforce a Section 112 rule through a state rule which adjusts the Federal rule must first meet the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). 40 CFR 63.91(d) sets forth the “up-front” approval requirements for the “straight” delegation of Federal MACT standards as promulgated. Once approved, a state need only reference the earlier approval of the criteria. Based on prior program submittals and approvals for IDEM's Title V air permit and Section 112 delegation program, IDEM has met the requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.91(d). C. How Does the State Demonstrate That the Public Has Had Adequate Notice and Opportunity To Submit Written Comments on the State Requirements? 40 CFR 63.92(b)(1) requires that a state seeking delegation under this section demonstrate that the public has had adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the state requirements. Title 13 of the Indiana Code

(IC)contains statutory requirements for the environmental rulemaking process. IC 13-14-9 specifies requirements for providing opportunities for public comment during this process. Opportunities for comment were made available through two published notices for comment and two public hearings. Therefore, IDEM has met the requirements of 40 CFR 63.92(b)(1). D. How Does the State Demonstrate That the Adjustments Pertain to Certain Pre-Approved Matters and Are Unequivocally No Less Stringent Than the Federal Rule? 40 CFR 63.92(b)(2) requires that each state adjustment to a Federal Section 112 rule be unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal rule with respect to: Applicability; level of control for each affected source and emission point; compliance and enforcement measures; and compliance dates. Further, 40 CFR 63.92(b)(3) identifies those limited areas in which Federal Section 112 rules can be adjusted. Those limited adjustments include: Lowering a required emission rate; adding a design, work practice, operational standard, emission rate or other such requirement; increasing the frequency of required reporting, testing, sampling or monitoring. IDEM incorporated by reference the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, as promulgated, except for certain limited provisions which are allowable adjustments under 40 CFR 63.92(b)(3). As described below, IDEM has demonstrated that those provisions that were adjusted meet the criteria of 63.92(b)(2) and (3). 1. How are the State emission limit adjustments unequivocally no less stringent than the MACT standard? Table 2 of subpart VVVV includes the following limits: For this operation— And this application method— You must not exceed this weighted-average organic HAP content (weight percent) requirement— Pigmented gel coat operations Any method 33 Clear gel coat operations Any method 48 Tooling gel coat operations Any method 40 326 IAC 20-48-2 adjusts these limits as follows: For this operation— And this application method— You must not exceed this weighted-average organic HAP content (weight percent) requirement— Pigmented gel coat operations Atomized (spray) 33 Clear gel coat operations Atomized (spray) 48 Tooling gel coat operations Atomized (spray) 40 Pigmented gel coat operations Nonatomized (nonspray) 40 Clear gel coat operations Nonatomized (nonspray) 55 Tooling gel coat operations Nonatomized (nonspray) 54 When EPA developed the boat manufacturing NESHAP, it was not possible to apply gel coat using a nonatomized application method. Since the rule was promulgated, such technology has been developed. Nonatomized application has shown significant emissions reductions from atomized application methods. The Indiana rule provides an incentive for the usage of nonatomized application technology by providing a higher allowable HAP content in gel coats. Despite the higher allowable HAP content, the requirement to use nonatomized application technology will result in a lower level of HAP emissions. This is demonstrated in the following table: Atomized limit (percent) Emission factor (lbs/ton) 1 Nonatomized limit (percent) Emission factor (lb/ton) 1 Pigmented 33 294 40 259 Clear 48 605 55 395 Tooling 40 439 54 386 1 Calculated using the Unified Emission Factors for Open Molding Composites. Therefore, Indiana's emission limit adjustments are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal rule. In addition to the emission limit adjustments, the Indiana rule (326 IAC 20-48-1(d)) lists the following references or methods to estimate emissions:

(1)“Unified Emission Factors for Open Molding Composites,” July 2001 (except use of controlled spray emission factors must be approved by the IDEM commissioner and U.S. EPA);

(2)“Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors AP-42,” as defined in 326 IAC 1-2-20.5 (except emissions from hand layup and spray layup operations must be calculated using emission factors referenced in

(1)above or site-specific values using information in

(3)below);

(3)Site-specific values or other means of quantification provided the site-specific values and the emission factors are acceptable to the IDEM commission and U.S. EPA. This rule adjustment does not create a credible evidence issue because it includes language to allow “other means of quantification” if necessary. Therefore, this adjustment is unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal rule. 2. How are the State adjustments which add work practice standards and operator training requirements unequivocally no less stringent than the MACT standard? The Indiana rule (326 IAC 20-48-3) adds work practice standards that are not included in the Federal NESHAP. The work practice standards in the Indiana rule address nonatomized spray equipment, solvents sprayed during clean up and resin changes, routine flushing of application equipment, and use of closed containers. All provisions listed in 326 IAC 20-48-3 are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal NESHAP. The Indiana rule (326 IAC 20-48-4) adds operator training requirements that are not included in the Federal NESHAP. The training requirements apply to personnel involved in resin and gel coat spraying and applications that could result in excess emissions if performed improperly. This section also requires the maintenance of training records on site. All provisions in 326 IAC 20-48-4 are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal NESHAP. IV. What Is the Effect of This Delegation? On September 19, 2006, EPA approved IDEM's request to delegate the authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, through 326 IAC 20-48, which adjusts the boat manufacturing MACT. EPA also approved the delegation of the applicable Category I authorities as set forth at 40 CFR section 63.91(g). All notifications, reports and other correspondence required under 40 CFR, part 63, subpart VVVV, as adjusted by 326 IAC 20-48, should be sent to the State of Indiana, rather than to the EPA, Region 5, in Chicago. Affected sources should send this information to: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Management, 100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015. Pursuant to Section 112(l)(7) of the CAA, nothing in this delegation prohibits EPA from enforcing any applicable emission standard or requirement. The boat manufacturing MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, as adjusted by 326 IAC 20-48 is federally enforceable. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: September 19, 2006. Gary Gulezian, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-15937 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [IN 169-1; FRL-8224-2] Approval of the Clean Air Act Section 112(l) Delegation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production; Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces that, upon signature of this notice, EPA approved a request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM)for delegation of authority to implement and enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reinforced plastic composites production through a State rule which adjusts the maximum achievable control technology

(MACT)standard for reinforced plastic composites production. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

(CAA)and the NESHAP provisions, states may seek approval of State rules which make pre-approved adjustments to a MACT standard if the State rule is unambiguously no less stringent than the Federal rule. On June 20, 2005, IDEM requested approval to adjust the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites production. EPA reviewed this request and found that it satisfied the requirements for approval under the Federal provision which allows for delegation of an adjusted NESHAP, “Approval of State requirements that adjust a section 112 rule.” Therefore, upon the signature of this notice, EPA delegated to IDEM the authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites production, through IDEM's rule for reinforced plastic composites production. ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at

(312)886-3189, *portanova.sam@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 Action Is EPA Taking? II. Under What Authority Is EPA Approving This Delegation? III. How Does 326 IAC 20-56 Meet the Requirements for Delegation? IV. What Is the Effect of This Delegation? I. What Action Is EPA Taking? Pursuant to section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 63.92, EPA approved IDEM's request that EPA delegate the authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites production, through Indiana rule 326 IAC 20-56, which adjusts the Federal reinforced plastic composites production MACT. This approval makes the Indiana rule, which is unambiguously no less stringent than the Federal MACT, federally enforceable in Indiana. EPA also approved the delegation of the applicable Category I authorities for this MACT standard as set forth at 40 CFR 63.91(g). II. Under What Authority Is EPA Approving This Delegation? Pursuant to CAA section 112(l), a State may develop and submit to EPA for approval a program for the partial or complete delegation of section 112 rules. EPA may approve State rules or programs which either:

(1)Implement and enforce section 112 rules as promulgated by EPA (“straight delegation”);

(2)implement and enforce State rules which adjust section 112 rules;

(3)implement and enforce State rules which substitute for section 112 rules. The Federal regulations governing EPA's approval of State rules or programs under section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. Currently, IDEM has an EPA-approved program for the straight delegation of MACT standards. EPA approved IDEM's program of delegation for part 70 sources on November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57118). EPA approved IDEM's expansion of its program of delegation to non-part 70 sources on July 8, 1997 (62 FR 36460). Pursuant to the approved straight delegation program, EPA has approved the straight delegation of numerous MACT standards to IDEM (see 62 FR 36460 (7/8/1997), 65 FR 17264 (3/31/2000), 69 FR 22508 (4/26/2004), and 71 FR 2225 (1/13/2006)). By letter dated June 20, 2005, IDEM requested approval of delegation of authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, the reinforced plastic composites production MACT, through a State rule which adjusts the MACT standard. The criteria for EPA's approval of State rules which adjust section 112 rules are set forth at 40 CFR 63.92. In general, adjustments to section 112 MACT standards must be unambiguously no less stringent than the Federal rule and be limited to certain pre-approved matters. More specifically, Section 63.92(b) requires that the State demonstrate the following:

(1)The State program meets the criteria of section 63.91, which provides for the straight delegation of section 112 rules;

(2)the public has had adequate notice and opportunity to submit written comment on the State requirements which adjust the section 112 rule;

(3)the adjustment to the section 112 rule results in requirements that are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal rule with respect to:

(a)Applicability;

(b)level of control for each affected source and emission point;

(c)compliance and enforcement measures;

(d)dates of compliance. Further, Section 63.92(b)(3) only allows certain pre-approved adjustments, including the following:

(1)Lowering a required emission rate;

(2)adding a design, work practice, operational standard;

(3)increasing a required control efficiency;

(4)increasing the frequency of required reporting, testing, sampling or monitoring. If the above criteria are met, EPA will approve the delegation of a MACT standard through a State rule which adjusts the standard. Because EPA has previously noticed and provided opportunity for comment on the adjustment procedure, including the list of allowable adjustments, no further notice or opportunity for comment is required. See 58 FR 62262 (November 26, 1993). The delegation is effective upon the signature of the **Federal Register** notice. CAA section 63.92(a)(3). See 65 FR 55837 (September 14, 2000). III. How Does 326 IAC 20-56 Meet the Requirements for Delegation? IDEM's reinforced plastic composites production rule incorporates by reference the provisions of the Federal reinforced plastic composites production NESHAP. However, IDEM's rule adjusts the standard by adding certain provisions that are not included in the Federal reinforced plastic composites production NESHAP. As shown below, IDEM has demonstrated that its adjustments are unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal MACT provisions. The adjustments meet the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 63.92(b) for State rules which adjust a MACT standard. A. The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP The reinforced plastic composites production MACT, which IDEM seeks to adjust, was proposed in the **Federal Register** on August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40323) and promulgated on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375). EPA published a rule amendment to this NESHAP on August 25, 2005 (70 FR 50117). In general, the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites production facilities regulates production and ancillary processes used to manufacture products with thermoset resins and gel coats. B. How Does the State Program Meet the Requirements of 40 CFR 63.91? 40 CFR 63.92(b) provides that a State which seeks delegation of the authority to implement and enforce a Section 112 rule through a State rule which adjusts the Federal rule must first meet the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). 40 CFR 63.91(d) sets forth the “up-front” approval requirements for the “straight” delegation of Federal MACT standards as promulgated. Once approved, a State need only reference the earlier approval of the criteria. Based on prior program submittals and approvals for IDEM's Title V air permit and Section 112 delegation program, IDEM has met the requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.91(d). C. How Does the State Demonstrate that the Public Has Had Adequate Notice and Opportunity to Submit Written Comments on the State Requirements? 40 CFR 63.92(b)(1) requires that a State seeking delegation under this section demonstrate that the public has had adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the State requirements. Title 13 of the Indiana Code

(IC)contains statutory requirements for the environmental rulemaking process. IC 13-14-9 specifies requirements for providing opportunities for public comment during this process. Opportunities for comment were made available through two published notices for comment and two public hearings. Therefore, IDEM has met the requirements of 40 CFR 63.92(b)(1). D. How Does the State Demonstrate that the Adjustments Pertain to Certain Pre-Approved Matters and are Unequivocally No Less Stringent than the Federal Rule? 40 CFR 63.92(b)(2) requires that each State adjustment to a Federal Section 112 rule be unequivocally no less stringent than the Federal rule with respect to: Applicability; level of control for each affected source and emission point; compliance and enforcement measures; and compliance dates. Further, 40 CFR 63.92(b)(3) identifies those limited areas in which Federal Section 112 rules can be adjusted. Those limited adjustments include: Lowering a required emission rate; adding a design, work practice, operational standard, emission rate or other such requirement; increasing the frequency of required reporting, testing, sampling or monitoring. IDEM incorporated by reference the provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW, as promulgated, except to add certain limited provisions which are allowable adjustments under 40 CFR 63.92(b)(3). As described below, IDEM has demonstrated that those provisions that were adjusted meet the criteria of 63.92(b)(2) and (3). 326 IAC 20-56-1 incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. 326 IAC 20-56-2 adds operator training requirements that are not included in the Federal NESHAP for sources subject to subpart WWWW. The training requirements apply to personnel involved in resin and gel coat spraying and applications that could result in excess emissions if performed improperly. This section also requires the maintenance of training records on site. These training requirements are the only rule adjustments to the Federal NESHAP. The provisions in 326 IAC 20-56-2 are more stringent than the Federal NESHAP and are acceptable as a rule adjustment. IV. What Is the Effect of This Delegation? On September 19, 2006, EPA approved IDEM's request to delegate the authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, through 326 IAC 20-56, which adjusts the reinforced plastic composites production MACT. EPA also approved the delegation of the applicable Category I authorities as set forth at 40 CFR section 63.91(g). All notifications, reports and other correspondence required under 40 CFR, part 63, subpart WWWW, as adjusted by 326 IAC 20-56, should be sent to the State of Indiana, rather than to the EPA, Region 5, in Chicago. Affected sources should send this information to: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Management, 100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015. Pursuant to Section 112(l)(7) of the CAA, nothing in this delegation prohibits EPA from enforcing any applicable emission standard or requirement. The reinforced plastic composites production MACT, 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, as adjusted by 326 IAC 20-56, is federally enforceable. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Date: September 19, 2006. Gary Gulezian, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-15934 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8224-8] Notice of Proposed Administrative Cashout Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(H)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; in Re: Calumet Containers Superfund Site, Hammond, Indiana AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA concerning the Calumet Containers Superfund Site (“Site”) in Hammond, Indiana. Subject to review and comment by the public pursuant to this Notice, the settlement has been approved by the United States Department of Justice. The settlement resolves an Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)claim under Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA and Section 7003 of RCRA, against 51 parties who have executed binding certifications of their consent to the settlement, as listed below in the Supplemental Information Section. The settlement requires the settling parties to pay a total of $1,664,967 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund, Calumet Containers Superfund Site, Special Account. Each settling party is required to pay an amount specified for that party in the settlement based upon the volume of waste that party contributed to the Site. Payments received shall be applied, retained or used to finance the response actions taken or to be taken at or in connection with the Site. For thirty

(30)days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA, Region 5, 7th Floor File Room, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the EPA, Region 5, 7th Floor File Room, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. In addition, a copy of the proposed settlement also may be obtained from Richard M. Murawski, Assistant Regional Counsel (C-14J), Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, or by calling

(312)886-6721. Comments should reference the Calumet Containers Superfund Site, Hammond, Indiana and EPA Docket No. V-W-06-C-854 and should be addressed to Richard M. Murawski, Assistant Regional Counsel (C-14J), Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The parties listed below have executed binding certifications of their consent to participate in the settlement. *Settling Parties:* Alden & Ott Printing Ink Co.; American Can Company; American Steel Foundries; Ashland Chemical; Bee Chemical Company (aka Universal Color Dispersions), a Rohm and Haas Company; Bretford Manufacturing, Inc.; Caterpillar Inc.; Central Ink Corporation; Davies Imperial Coatings, Inc.; MediaNews Group, Inc., for its subsidiary, The Denver Post Corporation; Dober Chemical Corp.; R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, including Moore Wallace Hillside Printing, Wallace Press; Wyeth, on behalf of Dupli-Color Products Company; E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; Edwards & Deutsch Lithographing Co., Inc.; Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company; Flint Ink Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Georgia-Pacific Corporation/Will County Press; The Glidden Company (formerly Glidden Coatings & Resins, division of SCM Corporation) and including successor to the liability, MHC Inc., a subsidiary of Millennium Chemicals, Inc.; City of Hammond, Indiana; Lee Enterprises, Inc. f/d/b/a The Hammond Times; Harris-Hub Company, a division of Dresher, Inc.; Illinois Bronze Paint Company; Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company; International Truck and Engine Corp. (f/k/a International Harvester); BASF Corporation (International Print Ink Corp); Keil Chemical, Division of Ferro Corporation; Kohl & Madden Division of Sun Chemical Corporation; The Lehigh Press, Inc. (Lehigh Cadillac); The Dow Chemical Company on behalf of Mortell; National Can Company (Rexam Beverage); Tomkins Industries, Inc. (fka Philips Industries, Inc.); Poole Bros./Primerica Corp./American Can Company; Rand McNally & Company; Service Web Offset Corporation; Sheffield Estates, LLC/Zeman Manufactured Home Communities; The Sherwin-Williams Company; Honeywell International, Inc., on behalf of Sinclair & Valentine; Sequa Corporation (fka Sun Chemical); Brenntag Great Lakes, LLC, successor to Tab Chemicals; Thermark (Avery); Thrall Car Mfg.; Union Tank Car Company; United States Steel Corporation; The Valspar Corporation on behalf of itself and Roto Ink; W.C. Richards Company; Quebecor World KRI Inc., f/k/a Krueger Ringier, Inc., f/k/a W. F. Hall Printing Company, on behalf of itself and Chicago Rotoprint Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of W.F. Hall Printing Company; Chevron Environmental Management Company for itself and on behalf of Union Oil Company; and Moen Incorporated (Western Cold Drawn Steel). *Settling Federal Agency:* United States Defense Logistics Agency. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard M. Murawski, Assistant Regional Counsel (C-14J), Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, or call

(312)886-6721. Authority: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, as amended, 415 ILCS Section 5/22.2a. Dated: September 19, 2006. Thomas Short, Acting Director, Superfund Division, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-15942 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 8223-7] Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement; Denova Environmental Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Denova Environmental Site in Rialto, San Bernardino County, California with twenty-two settling parties. The settlement is entered into pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h) and it requires the settling parties to pay approximately $220,000 to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty

(30)days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Lewis Maldonado, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, ORC-3, San Francisco, CA 94105, telephone number 415-972-3926. Comments should reference the Denova Environmental Superfund Site, Rialto, California and EPA Docket No. 2005-23 and should be addressed to Lewis Maldonado at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis Maldonado, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone:

(415)972-3926; fax:

(415)947-3570; e-mail: *maldonado.lewis@epa.gov.* Dated: July 19, 2008. Daniel Meer, Acting Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX. [FR Doc. E6-15913 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8222-4] South Bay Asbestos Superfund Site; Proposed Notice of Administrative Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9600 *et seq.* , notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative cost recovery settlement concerning the South Bay Asbestos Area Superfund Site in San Jose, California was executed by the Agency on September 5, 2006. The proposed administrative settlement would resolve, pursuant to CERCLA section 122(h), the liability of the City of San Jose (“City”) for past response costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) with respect to CERCLA response actions taken by EPA at the Environmental Education Center (“EEC”), South Bay Asbestos Area Superfund Site. In 2003, EPA conducted a removal action at the EEC and successfully excavated and transported asbestos-containing soil material to an appropriate disposal site. Under the terms of the agreement, the City would pay EPA approximately $245,000 plus interest for the removal action. For thirty

(30)calendar days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement. If requested prior to the expiration of this public comment period, EPA will provide an opportunity for a public meeting in the effected area. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2006. *Availability:* The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Bethany Dreyfus, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Comments should reference “Environmental Education Center, South Bay Asbestos Area Superfund Site,” and “Docket No. R9-2006-14”. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Dreyfus, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; e-mail: *dreyfus.bethany@epa.gov;* phone:

(415)972-3886. Dated: September 5, 2006. E. Adams, Acting Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX. [FR Doc. E6-15977 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice 91] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the 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. Our customers will be able to submit this form electronically. The proposed forms may be viewed on our Web site at *http://www.exim.gov/pub/ins/pdf/eib92-31_prop.pdf* , *http://www.exim.gov/pub/ins/pdf/eib92-32_prop.pdf* , *http://www.exim.gov/pub/ins/pdf/eib92-53_prop.pdf* , *http://www.exim.gov/pub/ins/pdf/eib99-17_prop.pdf* . DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 30, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct 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: Titles and Form Numbers EIB 92-31 Notification by Insured of Amounts Payable Under Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy. EIB 92-32 Notification by Insured of Amounts Payable Under Single-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy. EIB 92-53 Small Business Multi-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy (ENB/ENV) Enhanced Assignment of Policy Proceeds. EIB 99-17 Single Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy (ESS/ESSP) Enhanced Assignment of Policy Proceeds. *OMB Numbers:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Need and Use:* The information requested allows for the assignment of the proceeds of an insurance policy to a financial institution. *Affected Public:* The form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services. *Estimated Annual Respondents:* 170 (new estimate). *Estimated Responses:* 680 (4 originals per respondent). *Estimated time per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Estimate Annual Burden:* 113.33 hours (new estimate). *Frequency of Reporting or Use:* annually for an enhanced assignment and once for the life of a policy for the standard assignment. Dated: September 22, 2006. Solomon Bush, Agency Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06-8325 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code