Proposed Rules. Proposed amendments

10,412 words·~47 min read·/register/2006/11/13/06-9176

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 1630 and 1631 Technical Amendment to the Flammability Standards for Carpets and Rugs AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Proposed amendments. SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to amend the flammability standards for carpets and rugs to remove the reference to Eli Lilly Company Product No. 1588 in Catalog No. 79, December 1, 1969, as the standard ignition source and provide a technical specification defining the ignition source. 1 The proposed specification for the standard ignition source is a timed burning tablet, consisting of essentially pure methenamine, with a nominal heat of combustion value of 7180 calories/gram, a mass of 150 mg +/−5 mg, flat, and a nominal diameter of 6 mm.

An immediate effective date is also recommended. 1 Commissioner Thomas H. Moore filed a statement which is available from the Office of the Secretary or on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov.* DATES: Written comments concerning the proposed amendments must be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than January, 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed by e-mail to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov,* and should be captioned “CARPET AND RUG TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.” Comments may also be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or delivered to the same address (telephone

(301)504-0800). Comments may also be filed by facsimile to

(301)504-0127. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia K. Adair, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone

(301)504-7536 or e-mail: *padair@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The standards for surface flammability of carpets and rugs appear at 16 CFR Parts 1630 and 1631. They were codified and published in 1975, 40 FR 59931 and 59935 (December 30, 1975). The standards were originally issued in 1970 by the Department of Commerce under the authority of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA). Subpart A of 16 CFR Parts 1630 and 1631 sets forth the standards. Subpart B contains the implementing regulations of the standards. Subpart C contains alternative washing procedures for hide carpets and rugs and wool flokati carpets and rugs. Subpart D of 16 CFR 1630 contains the staff interpretations and policies. 16 CFR Parts 1630 and 1631 establish minimum acceptance criteria for the surface flammability of carpets and rugs when exposed to a standard small source of ignition, a burning methenamine tablet, under prescribed conditions (the “pill test”). These standards reduce the risks of death, personal injury, and property damage associated with fires that result from the surface ignition of carpets and rugs. Both standards require a timed burning tablet as the standard ignition source for flammability performance testing. The standards define the ignition source at 16 CFR Part 1630.1(f) and 1631.1(f) as a methenamine tablet, weighing approximately 0.149 grams (2.30 grains), sold as Product No. 1588 in Catalog No. 79, December 1, 1969 by the Eli Lilly Company, or an equal tablet. In April 2002, Commission staff learned that the Eli Lilly Company was no longer producing the methenamine tablets specified in the carpet and rug standards. Although the standards allow for the use of “an equal” methenamine tablet and give parameters for chemical composition and weight of the tablet, they do not provide any guidance on determining whether tablets from alternative sources are “equal” to those manufactured by the Eli Lilly Company. In July 2003, CPSC staff met with representatives of the Carpet and Rug Institute

(CRI)to discuss evaluation of alternative methenamine tablets for use in 16 CFR Part 1630 and Part 1631. CRI members were experiencing differing test results using the old Eli Lilly tablets and currently available tablets. CRI members had begun to study the various characteristics of the current tablets. In one case, about 50% of one manufacturer's tablets were found broken in the bottle, with others breaking later. This problem was attributed to the tablets having a domed top. The problem has since been corrected with a flat tablet. CRI urged the Commission to specify clearly the characteristics of the “equal” tablets that should be used for determining compliance with the carpet and rug standards. In an effort to make such a determination, the Commission staff conducted a comparison study to evaluate the weight, chemical composition, and combustion characteristics of presently available brands of methenamine tablets relative to each other and those produced by the Eli Lilly Company. The outcome of the study indicated that tablets consisting of essentially pure methenamine, having a heat of combustion value of approximately 7180 calories/gram and weighing approximately 0.149 grams may be considered equivalent to the tablets produced by the Eli Lilly Company and referenced in the regulation. On July 29, 2004, the Commission's Office of Compliance issued a letter to industry in response to inquiries received by the CPSC staff regarding the equivalency of methenamine tablets formerly manufactured by the Eli Lilly Company and similar tablets currently produced by other manufacturers. The letter stated that the Commission staff determined that tablets consisting of essentially pure methenamine and weighing approximately 0.149 grams may be considered equivalent to the tablets formerly produced by the Eli Lilly Company. Therefore, tablets meeting these criteria may be used for purposes of determining conformance with the carpet and rug standards. B. Amending the Flammability Standards 1. Outcome of Commission Testing As mentioned above, the Eli Lilly Company is no longer producing the methenamine tablets specified in the carpet and rug standards. The standards allow for the use of “an equal” methenamine tablet and give parameters for chemical composition and weight of the tablet, but they do not provide any guidance on determining whether tablets from the alternative sources are “equal” to those manufactured by the Eli Lilly Company. The Commission staff conducted a comparison study to evaluate the weight, chemical composition, and combustion characteristics of presently available brands of methenamine tablets relative to each other and those produced by the Eli Lilly Company. The outcome of the Commission's comparative study indicated that tablets consisting of essentially pure methenamine, having a heat of combustion value of approximately 7180 calories/gram and weighing approximately 0.149 grams may be considered equivalent to the tablets formerly produced by the Eli Lilly Company and referenced in the regulation. 2. Review of Other Existing Standards The Commission staff is aware of one U.S. voluntary standard regarding the type of ignition source to be used in testing the flammability of carpets and rugs. This standard, ASTM D2859-04, “Standard Test Method for Ignition Characteristics of Finished Textile Floor Covering Materials,” describes the use of the Eli Lilly tablet as satisfactory. It also states that “normal variation in the weight of the different tablets will not affect the test results.” There is an existing international voluntary standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization in 1982 (ISO 6925), that describes a tablet test for the flammability of textile floor coverings. The prescribed tablets are of “hexamethylenetetramine, flat, having a mass of 150mg (plus or minus 5mg) and a diameter of 6mm.” The allowable variance is about 3.3%. The mass expressed in ISO 6925 is essentially equivalent to that specified in the U.S. Standards under the FFA. While the ISO standard did not identify the Eli Lilly tablet, it noted that the tablets were commercially available. Thus, the ISO-specified tablet is equivalent to the Eli Lilly tablet in its specifications. Canada's 1973 mandatory standard for carpets and textile floor coverings under the Hazardous Products Act, CGSB 4-GP-2, also specifies in its appendix the Eli Lilly tablet as the ignition source. It notes that “normal variation in weight * * * will not affect the test results.” 3. Proposed Amendments The carpet and rug flammability standards were issued under section 4 of the FFA (15 U.S.C.1193), which authorizes the issuance or amendment of flammability standards to protect the public against unreasonable risks of fire leading to death, personal injury, or significant property damage. As required by section 4(b) of the FFA, both standards are based on findings that they are needed to adequately protect the public against the unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death, personal injury, or significant property damage. That section further requires findings that a flammability standard issued under the FFA is “reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate.” The proposed change to the standards is needed to remove reference to a product that is no longer being produced and to reflect the parameters defining the timed burning tablet as the standard ignition source. Section 4(g) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193(g)) states that a proceeding “for the promulgation of a regulation under this section” shall be initiated by publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”), and sets forth requirements for the contents of the ANPR. However, these proposed amendments are necessary because the current standards refer to a product, the Eli Lilly tablet, that is no longer being produced or sold. The current standards do allow for the use of a tablet “equal” to the Eli Lilly tablet and give parameters for chemical composition and weight of the tablet. The Commission is simply proposing to substitute equivalent technical specifications for a specific product identification. Because the proposed amendments preserve the original intent and effect of the existing test method and the regulatory status quo, the Commission has determined that it is not required to commence this proceeding with an ANPR, nor is it necessary for the Commission to make the findings that sections 1193(g) and

(h)of the FFA would otherwise require for promulgation of a new mandatory standard. 4. Effective Date Section 4(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193(b)) provides that an amendment of a flammability standard shall become effective one year from the date it is promulgated, unless the Commission finds for good cause that an earlier or later effective date is in the public interest, and publishes that finding. Because manufacturers are already using “equal” methenamine tablets as allowed by the current standards, the Commission believes an immediate effective date upon publication of the amendments is appropriate. The Commission invites comments on the proposed effective date and factual information relating to that issue. C. Other Issues 1. Impact on Small Businesses In accordance with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission hereby preliminarily certifies that these amendments to the carpet and rug flammability standards proposed below will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including small businesses, if issued as proposed. The proposed amendments keep current industry practices and procedures in place, and no additional actions would be required of small entities. Based on available information, there would be little or no effect on small producers of carpets and rugs, since the standards already require that all carpets and rugs meet the criteria of the tests, and, given the equivalence of the test tablets, the results of the tests should be the same. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the amendments proposed below will have no economic consequences to any manufacturers, large or small, of carpets and rugs. 2. Environmental Considerations The amendments proposed below fall within the categories of Commission actions described at 16 CFR 1021.5(c) that have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. The amendments are not expected to have a significant effect on production processes or on the types or amounts of materials used for the manufacture of carpets and rugs. The amendments will not render existing inventories unsalable, or require destruction of existing goods. The Commission has no information indicating any special circumstances in which these amendments may affect the human environment. For that reason, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. 3. Executive Orders Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996) requires agencies to state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to any new regulation. The amendments proposed below, if issued on a final basis, would modify two flammability standards issued under the FFA. With certain exceptions which are not applicable here, no State or political subdivision of a State may enact or continue in effect “a flammability standard or other regulation” applicable to the same fabric or product as an FFA standard if the State or local flammability standard or regulation is “designed to protect against the same risk of the occurrence of fire” unless the State or local flammability standard or regulation “is identical” to the FFA standard. See section 16 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1203). Consequently, if issued as proposed, the amendments proposed below would preempt nonidentical State or local flammability standards or regulations that are intended to address the unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire associated with ignition of carpets and rugs. In accordance with Executive Order 12612 (October 26, 1987), the Commission certifies that the proposed amendments do not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant a Federalism Assessment. Conclusion Therefore, pursuant to the authority of section 30(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2079(b)) and sections 4 and 5 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1193, 1194), the Commission hereby proposes to amend title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Subchapter D, Parts 1630 and 1631 to read as follows below. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Parts 1630 and 1631 Carpets, Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Floor coverings, Labeling, Records, Rugs, Textiles, Warranties. PART 1630—STANDARD FOR THE SURFACE FLAMMABILITY OF CARPETS AND RUGS 1. The authority for subpart A of part 1630 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 4, 67 Stat. 112, as amended, 81 Stat. 569-570; 15 U.S.C. 1193. 2. Section 1630.1(f) is revised to read as follows: § 1630.1 Definitions.

(f)*Timed Burning Tablet*

(pill)means a methenamine tablet, flat, with a nominal heat of combustion value of 7180 calories/gram, a mass of 150 mg ± 5 mg and a nominal diameter of 6 mm. 3. Section 1630.4(a)(3) is amended by revising the first sentence to read as follows: § 1630.4 Test Procedure.

(a)* * *

(3)*Standard igniting source* . A methenamine tablet, flat, with a nominal heat of combustion value of 7180 calories/gram, a mass of 150 mg ±5 mg and a nominal diameter of 6mm. * * * PART 1631—STANDARD FOR THE SURFACE FLAMMABILITY OF SMALL CARPETS AND RUGS 1. The authority for subpart A of part 1631 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 4, 67 Stat. 112, as amended, 81 Stat. 569-570; 15 U.S.C. 1193. 2. Section 1631.1(f) is revised to read as follows: § 1631.1 Definitions.

(f)*Timed Burning Tablet*

(pill)means a methenamine tablet, flat, with a nominal heat of combustion value of 7180 calories/gram, a mass of 150 mg ± 5 mg and a nominal diameter of 6 mm. 3. Section 1631.4(a)(3) is amended by revising the first sentence to read as follows: § 1631.4 Test Procedure.

(a)* * *

(3)*Standard igniting source.* A methenamine tablet, flat, with a nominal heat of combustion value of 7180 calories/gram, a mass of 150 mg ± 5 mg and a nominal diameter of 6mm. * * * Dated: November 7, 2006. Alberta E. Mills, Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. List of Relevant Documents 1. Briefing Memorandum from Patricia K. Adair, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, to the Commission, “Technical Amendment to the Flammability Standards for Carpets and Rugs; 16 CFR Part 1630 and 16 CFR Part 1631. 2. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, Division of Electrical and Flammability Engineering, “Evaluation of Methenamine Tablets,” July 25, 2005. 3. Memorandum from Linda Fansler, Division of Electrical and Flammability Engineering, “Methenamine Tablet Thickness,” September 12, 2005. 4. Memorandum from Shing Bong Chen, Ph.D. and Bhawanji K. Jain, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, Division of Chemistry, “Chemical Composition of the Methenamine Tablets,” April 13, 2003. 5. Memorandum from Terrance R. Karels, Directorate for Economic Analysis, “Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: Amendment to Flammable Fabrics Act; Standards for Carpets and Rugs,” September 23, 2005. 6. Letter from Alan H. Schoem, Office of Compliance, “Equivalency of Methenamine Tablets, Standard for Flammability of Carpets and Rugs, 16 CFR Parts 1630 and 1631,” July 29, 2004. [FR Doc. E6-19095 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Parts 502 and 546 Class II Definitions and Game Classification AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of two analytical reports commissioned by the National Indian Gaming Commission

(NIGC)to analyze the economic impact of proposed class II game classification regulations as well as sets a deadline for comments on these reports. These two reports may be viewed and downloaded by visiting the NIGC Web site *http://www.nigc.gov* . Those individuals who are unable to view or download this Web site may contact Shawn Pensoneau at

(202)632-7003 to obtain a copy of the reports. DATES: The deadline for comments on the economic impact reports is December 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Penny Coleman, Michael Gross or John Hay at 202/632-7003; fax 202/632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701 *et seq.* )

(IGRA)to regulate gaming on Indian lands. On May 25, 2006, proposed Class II definitions and game classification standards were published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 30232, 71 FR 30238). Dated: November 6, 2006. Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission. [FR Doc. E6-19065 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 914 [Docket No. IN-157-FOR] Indiana Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Indiana proposes revisions to its rules to allow commercial forestry (trees) to be planted on reclaimed prime farmland provided all remaining reclamation requirements for prime farmland are met. Indiana also proposes to restructure several of its provisions and make some minor language changes. Indiana intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency. This document gives the times and locations that the Indiana program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., e.t., December 13, 2006. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on December 8, 2006. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., e.t. on November 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. IN-157-FOR, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.* Include Docket No. IN-157-FOR in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. • *Fax:*

(317)226-6182. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to review copies of the Indiana program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Indianapolis Area Office. Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone:

(317)226-6700, E-mail: *IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.* In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, R. R. 2, Box 129, Jasonville, Indiana 47438-9517, Telephone:

(812)665-2207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office. Telephone:

(317)226-6700. E-mail: *IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Indiana Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Indiana Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) conditionally approved the Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. You can find background information on the Indiana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Indiana program in the July 26, 1982, **Federal Register** (47 FR 32071). You can also find later actions concerning the Indiana program and program amendments at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated October 23, 2006 (Administrative Record No. IND-1738), Indiana sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Indiana sent the amendment at its own initiative. Below is a summary of the changes proposed by Indiana. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . A. 312 Indiana Administrative Code

(IAC)25-4-102 Special Categories of Mining; Prime Farmland 1. Indiana proposes to restructure the following provisions with minor changes to the existing language: 312 IAC 25-4-102(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) and (B); (b); (d)(4) and (6); (e)(3); and (f)(5). 2. At 312 IAC 25-4-102, Indiana proposes to add new subdivision (d)(8) to read as follows: (d)(8) If the applicant proposes to establish commercial forest resources on the prime farmland, the plan must also include the following:

(A)A commercial forest planting plan that shall include the following:

(i)A stocking rate.

(ii)A plan for replanting as needed.

(B)A commercial forest management plan.

(C)Documentation of landowner consent. B. 312 IAC 25-6-143 Prime Farmland; Special Performance Standards; Revegetation and Restoration of Soil Productivity 1. Indiana proposes to restructure the following provisions: 312 IAC 25-6-143(b)(3) and (b)(8). 2. At 312 IAC 25-6-143, Indiana proposes to add new subsection

(c)to read as follows:

(c)Commercial forest resources may be established on reclaimed prime farmland provided that productivity is demonstrated by subsection

(b)and as follows:

(1)The director has approved a forest planting plan and forest management plan in consultation with the division of forestry.

(2)Landowner consent has been obtained.

(3)Forest compatible, permanent ground cover sufficient to control erosion is established and all erosion areas must be repaired or otherwise stabilized.

(4)The required soil replacement depth is verified and approved before trees are planted.

(5)Soil productivity shall be demonstrated under subsection (b). III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: Docket No. IN-157-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office at

(317)226-6700. Availability of Comments We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., e.t. on November 28, 2006. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that this rulemaking has no takings implications. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections

(a)and

(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. This determination is based on the fact that the Indiana program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana program has no effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)Considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that a portion of the provisions in this 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.* ) because they are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this part of the rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of the Interior also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are not based upon counterpart Federal regulations 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.* ). This determination is based upon the fact that the provisions are voluntary and as such are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;

(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and

(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are voluntary and as such are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are voluntary and as such are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: October 27, 2006. Charles E. Sandberg, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. [FR Doc. E6-19085 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 943 [Docket No. TX-056-FOR] Texas Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan (Texas plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The Railroad Commission of Texas, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division (RCT or commission) proposes to assume responsibility of the abandoned mine land reclamation

(AMLR)emergency program in Texas. The RCT also proposes to revise its AMLR plan to reflect current practices and to update information regarding procedures for rights of entry, staffing, and emergency purchases. Texas intends to revise the Texas plan to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and to improve operational efficiency. This document gives the times and locations that the Texas plan and the amendment to that plan are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that will be followed for the public hearing, if one is requested. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., c.t., December 13, 2006. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on December 8, 2006. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., c.t. on November 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. TX-056-FOR, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: mwolfrom@osmre.gov.* Include “Docket No. TX-056-FOR” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128. • *Fax:*

(918)581-6419. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to review copies of the Texas program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Tulsa Field Office. Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128, telephone:

(918)581-6430, e-mail: *mwolfrom@osmre.gov. * In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Surface Mining and Reclamation Division, Railroad Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78711-2967, telephone:

(512)463-6900. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone:

(918)581-6430. E-mail: *mwolfrom@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Texas Plan II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Texas Plan The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and indian tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary approved the Texas plan on June 23, 1980. You can find background information on the Texas plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the plan in the June 23, 1980, **Federal Register** (45 FR 41937). You can find later actions concerning the Texas plan and amendments to the plan at 30 CFR 943.25. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated October 11, 2006 (Administrative Record No. TAML-661), Texas sent us a proposed amendment to its plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Texas sent the amendment at its own initiative. Texas proposes to assume the AMLR emergency program. Below is a summary of the changes proposed by Texas. The full text of the amendment is available for your inspection at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . Texas' Proposed AMLR Plan Revisions Section 410 of SMCRA authorizes the Secretary to use funds under the AMLR program to abate or control emergency situations in which adverse effects of past coal mining pose an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or general welfare. On September 29, 1982 (47 FR 42729), we invited states to amend their AMLR plans for the purpose of undertaking emergency reclamation programs on our behalf. States would have to demonstrate that they have the statutory authority to undertake emergencies, the technical capability to design and supervise the emergency work, and the administrative mechanisms to quickly respond to emergencies either directly or through contractors. The RCT submitted documentation to demonstrate the statutory authority, the technical capability, and the administrative mechanisms to quickly respond to emergencies either directly or through contractors to meet our requirements. Texas proposes changes to its AMLR plan narrative at 884.13(c)(6), rights of entry; 884.13(d)(2), staffing; and 884.13(d)(3), purchasing and procurement. Texas also proposes to add a new section at 884.13(d)(3) for emergency purchases. 1. In the first paragraph of 884.13(c)(6), Texas proposes to update the references to its old regulations at Texas Coal Mining Regulations

(TCMR)sections 806, 807, and 807(b) to its recodified regulations at 16 Texas Administrative Code

(TAC)sections 12.813, 12.814, and 12.814(c). In the second paragraph of 884.13(c)(6), Texas proposes to remove the phrase, “[i]f requested by OSM to perform as its agent or contractor.” The revised paragraph reads as follows: The Commission will enter upon any land where an emergency exists and on any other land to have access to the land where the emergency exists to restore, reclaim, abate, control or prevent the adverse effects of coal mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare. 2. Texas proposes to change its AMLR plan narrative at 884.13(d)(2) regarding “staffing” to demonstrate Texas” technical capability to design and supervise the emergency work. Texas also proposes to include an organizational chart. The proposed narrative for this section reads as follows: The Surface Mining and Reclamation Division's Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program staff has demonstrated experience in developing and managing AML projects. Areas of expertise include realty (rights of entry, appraisal and liens), environmental assessment, engineering design, construction and contract management and revegetation and erosion control. The Division's Administration and Records Section also provides administrative support. The Commission's Finance and Accounting Division provides purchasing and contracting support and legal support is provided by the Commission's Office of General Counsel. 3. Texas proposes to update its purchasing and procurement procedures at 884.13(d)(3) and to include a new section, emergency purchases. a. Texas proposes a new introductory paragraph for its general purchasing and procurement procedures as follows: The Railroad Commission adheres to purchasing and procurement procedures and regulations established by the Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC). Purchasing and procurement authority has been delegated to the Railroad Commission by TBPC. The appropriate bidding processes are established by TBPC for various purchase amounts (Texas Administrative Code, Title 1, Part 5, Chapter 113, Subchapter A, Section 113.11(e)(4)(C)). The Railroad Commission has correspondingly established purchase authority levels associated with those purchase amount thresholds. b. Texas also proposes to add a new section regarding emergency purchases.

(1)The new introductory paragraph reads as follows: The Texas Building and Procurement Commission authorizes state agencies to make emergency purchases and has established procedures for doing so (Texas Government Code, Title 10, Subtitle D, Section 2155.137, and Title 1, Texas Administrative Code, Title 1, Part 5, Chapter 113, Subchapter A, Section 113.11(e)(4)(C)). Section 2.18 of the State of Texas Procurement Manual reads as follows:

(2)The paragraph on “agency responsibility” states that Texas Building and Procurement Commission

(TBPC)has delegated to all State agencies the authority to make emergency purchases with the proviso that emergency procurements are subject to TBPC's rules and procedures.

(3)The paragraph on “solicitation procedures” allows State agencies to make emergency purchases of at least $25,000 without posting them in the Electronic State Business Daily.

(4)The paragraph on “justification requirements” requires State agencies to send a letter of justification to TBPC documenting the emergency.

(5)The paragraph on “audit requirements” states that emergency purchases of goods and services over $25,000 are subject to pre-payment audits by TBPC. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 884.15(a), we are requesting comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable State reclamation plan approval criteria of 30 CFR 884.14. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Texas plan and Texas will be eligible to receive funding to conduct the AMLR Emergency Program in Texas. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Tulsa Field Office may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: TX-056-FOR “ and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Tulsa Field Office at

(918)581-6430. Availability of Comments We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., c.t. on November 28, 2006. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent required by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections

(a)and

(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State and tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State or tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments submitted by a State or tribe are based solely on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and 30 CFR part 884 of the Federal regulations. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of abandoned mine land reclamation programs. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 405(d) of SMCRA requires State abandoned mine land reclamation programs to be in compliance with the procedures, guidelines, and requirements established under SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. This determination is based on the fact that the Texas plan does not provide for reclamation and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past coal mining on indian lands. Therefore, the Texas plan has no effect on federally-recognized indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is

(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because agency decisions on proposed State and tribal abandoned mine land reclamation plans and plan amendments are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 13.5B(29)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this 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.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;

(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and

(SIP)revision to the Low Enhanced Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Program for the State of Louisiana. This revision addresses the exemption of the two newest model year gasoline-fueled passenger cars and gasoline-fueled trucks from On-Board Diagnostic

(OBD)testing. We are taking this action in accordance to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202,

(214)665-7367, e-mail address *rennie.sandra@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: October 23, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-19018 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R06--RCRA-2006-0914; FRL-8241-4] Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The of State Louisiana has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the State of Louisiana. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time. DATES: Send your written comments by December 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the State of Louisiana during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA Region 6,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number

(214)665-6444; or Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number

(225)219-3559. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the immediate final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson,

(214)665-8533. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations”section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: September 26, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-19090 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [I.D. 091106B] RIN 0648-AU84 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Commercial Shark Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for an October 5, 2006, proposed rule regarding the first 2007 fishing season for Atlantic sharks to November 17, 2006. This extension is due to late dealer reports that significantly changed landings estimates of large and small coastal sharks during the first trimester of 2006. This action releases the revised landings estimates. DATES: The deadline for written comments on the October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58778), proposed rule has been extended from November 13 to no later than 5 p.m. on November 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management Division via: • *E-mail: SF1.091106B@noaa.gov. * • *Mail:* 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark on the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed Rule for 2007 1st Trimester Season Lengths and Quotas”. • *Fax:* 301-713-1917. • *Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Include in the subject line the following identifier: “I.D. 091106B”. Copies of the associated draft Environmental Assessment

(EA)and other relevant documents are available on the Highly Migratory Species Management Division's Web site at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms* or by contacting Michael Clark (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Clark or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-713-2347 or by fax: 301-713-1917. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS recently finalized a Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) that consolidated and replaced previous FMPs for Atlantic Billfish and Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (October 2, 2006; 71 FR 58058). The HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. On October 5, 2006, NMFS published a proposed rule (71 FR 58778) that requested comments on the draft EA and scheduled three public hearings throughout October 2006 to receive comments from fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the first 2007 fishing season for Atlantic sharks. On October 20, 2006, NMFS was notified that the Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) had not received all of the dealer reports for the 2006 first trimester, and that some landings had not been accounted for in the proposed rule or in previously released landing updates. Based on late dealer reports that had the potential to change landings estimates of large and small coastal sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic during the first trimester of 2006, NMFS notified the public (71 FR 64213; November 1, 2006) that NMFS was receiving late landing reports and extended the comment period from November 1, 2006, to 5 p.m. on November 13, 2006. Since October 20, NMFS has been working to ensure that revised estimates are accurate; however, some dealers still have not reported. Due to the additional landing reports received by SEFSC, total landings of LSC and small coastal sharks

(SCS)in the GOM and South Atlantic have increased. Revised landings from reports received as of November 6, 2006, are summarized in Table 1. A side-by-side comparison of the landings published in the proposed rule (71 FR 58778; October 5, 2006) and the revised estimates received from NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) on November 6, 2006 are presented in Table 2. Table 1.—Revised Landing Estimates for the 2006 First Trimester Season From the Pelagic Dealer Compliance

(PDC)and the Automated Landings Reporting System

(ALS)Species groups Region Season closure date 2006 1st Season quota (mt dw) Estimated landings (mt dw) Percent quota taken Gulf of Mexico CLOSED April 15 222.8 336.6 151.1 Large Coastal Sharks South Atlantic CLOSED March 15 141.3 393.1 278.2 North Atlantic CLOSED April 30 5.3 0.2 3.8 Gulf of Mexico 14.8 78.0 527 Small Coastal Sharks South Atlantic CLOSED April 30 284.6 44.5 15.6 North Atlantic 18.7 0.0 0 Blue Sharks 91.0 0.04 0 Porbeagle Sharks No Regional Quotas CLOSED April 30 30.7 0.5 1.5 Other Pelagics 162.7 19.9 12.2 Table 2.—A Comparison of LCS and SCS Landings Published in the October 5, 2006 Proposed Rule and the Revised Landings Estimates Received November 6, 2006 Species groups Region 2006 1st Season quota (mt dw) Landings in proposed rule (mt dw) Revised landings as of 11/6/06 (mt dw) Under (+) and over (−) harvest in proposed rule (mt dw) Revised under (+) and over (−) harvest as of 11/6/06 (mt dw) Large Coastal Sharks

(LCS)Gulf of Mexico 222.8 103.1 336.6 119.7 −113.8 South Atlantic 141.3 326.1 393.1 −184.3 −251.8 North Atlantic 5.3 0.3 0.2 5.0 5.1 Small Coastal Sharks

(SCS)Gulf of Mexico 14.8 5.0 78.0 9.8 −63.2 South Atlantic 284.6 42.1 44.5 242.5 240.1 North Atlantic 18.7 0.1 0.0 18.6 18.7 NMFS is currently considering options to address the overharvest of LCS and SCS in the GOM, and is reviewing options for the South Atlantic as outlined in the proposed rule (71 FR 58778). In order to provide opportunity for public constituents to review the revised landings and provide comment, NMFS is extending the public comment period on the proposed rule and draft EA to 5 p.m., November 17, 2006. Authority: 16 U.S.C. *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: November 7, 2006. James Burgess, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-9176 Filed 11-7-06; 2:23 pm]

Connectionstraces to 28

Traces to 28 documents

CFR