Rules and Regulations. Final rule

9,572 words·~44 min read·/register/2007/01/18/07-179

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

BILLING CODE 4810-39-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 51 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0124; FRL-8270-6] RIN 2060-AN34 Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds—Exclusion of HFE-7300 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This action revises EPA's definition of volatile organic compounds

(VOC)for purposes of preparing State implementation plans

(SIPs)to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This revision would add 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane [also known as HFE-7300 or L-14787 or C 2 F 5 CF(OCH 3 )CF(CF 3 ) 2 ] to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that this compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. If you use or produce HFE-7300 and are subject to EPA regulations limiting the use of VOC in your product, limiting the VOC emissions from your facility, or otherwise controlling your use of VOC for purposes related to attaining the ozone NAAQS, then you will not count HFE-7300 as a VOC in determining whether you meet these regulatory obligations. This action may also affect whether HFE-7300 is considered as a VOC for State regulatory purposes, depending on whether the State relies on EPA's definition of VOC. As a result, if you are subject to certain Federal regulations limiting emissions of VOCs, your emissions of HFE-7300 may not be regulated for some purposes. DATES: This final rule is effective on January 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0124. All documents in the docket are listed on the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

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

(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sanders, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C539-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone

(919)541-3356; fax number

(919)541-0824; or by e-mail at *sanders.dave@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action applies to you if you are a State that regulates VOC emissions as precursors to ozone formation or if you produce or use HFE-7300 or other compounds for which HFE-7300 may substitute. HFE-7300 has a variety of potential uses including as a heat-transfer fluid and substitute for ozone depleting substances and substances with high global warming potentials, such as hydroflurocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and perfluoropolyethers. HFE-7300 may be used in azeotropic mixtures for use in coating deposition, cleaning, and lubricating applications. II. Background Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) react in the atmosphere. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and State governments limit the amount of VOC and NO X that can be released into the atmosphere. The VOC's are those compounds of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity—that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. It has been EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of reactivity need not be regulated to reduce ozone. The EPA determines whether a given organic compound has “negligible” reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to the reactivity of ethane. The EPA lists these compounds in its regulations (at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals on this list are often called “negligibly reactive” organic compounds. Since 1977 (42 FR 35314), EPA has used the reactivity of ethane as the threshold of negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive than or equally reactive to ethane may be deemed negligibly reactive. Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be considered reactive VOCs and subject to control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the 1977 policy. Since 1977, the primary method for comparing the reactivity of a specific compound to that of ethane has been to compare the k OH values for ethane and the specific compound of interest. The k OH value represents the molar rate constant for reactions between the subject compound (e.g., ethane) and the hydroxyl radical (i.e., OH). This reaction is very important since it is the primary pathway by which most organic compounds initially participate in atmospheric photochemical reaction processes. III. Petition for Exclusion of HFE-7300 On August 30, 2004, the Performance Chemicals and Fluid Division of the 3M Company submitted to EPA a petition requesting that the compound 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane [also know as HFE-7300 or L-14787 or C 2 F 5 CF(OCH 3 )CF(CF 3 ) 2 ] be added to the list of compounds which are considered to be negligibly reactive in the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). HFE-7300 has several potential uses. As a hydrofluoroether (HFE), this compound may be used as an alternative heat-transfer fluid to ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP)program (CAA 612; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G), EPA has identified some HFEs as acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds, although HFE-7300 has not been specifically identified. Because they do not contain chlorine or bromine, HFEs do not deplete the ozone layer. All HFEs have an ozone depletion potential

(ODP)of 0 although some HFEs have high global warming potential (GWP). In its petition, 3M points out that it has suggested HFE-7300 be used to reduce greenhouse gases resulting from emissions of compounds such as hydroflurocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and perfluoropolyethers in certain applications and, therefore, help reduce global warming potential. According to a U.S. patent application submitted by 3M Innovative Properties Company, HFE-7300 possesses the capacity to form a myriad of azeotrope mixtures with other organic compounds such as 1-bromopropane, hexamethyldisilazane, isobutyl acetate, methylisobutyl ketone, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, and trifluoromethylbenzene which may not be exempt from VOC regulation. The patent application indicated that the azeotrope mixtures can be formulated at compositions of HFE-7300 ranging from 1 to 100 percent, depending on the organic co-solvent and the desired properties of the azeotrope. This patent application lists a broad range of processes and applications where these azeotropes can be used. Some of these azeotrope uses include:

(1)Coating deposition applications, where the azeotrope functions as a carrier for a coating material,

(2)heat-transfer fluids in heat-transfer processes,

(3)to clean organic and/or inorganic substrates, and

(4)to formulate working fluids or lubricants for machinery operations and manufacturing processes. In support of their petition, 3M Company supplied information on the photochemical reactivity of HFE-7300. The 3M Company stated that, as a hydrofluoroether, this compound is very similar in structure, toxicity, and atmospheric properties to other compounds such as C 4 F 9 OCH 3 , (CH 3 ) 2 CFCF 2 OCH 3 , C 4 F 9 OC 2 H 5 , (CH 3 ) 2 CFCF 2 OC 2 H 5 , n-C 3 F 7 OCH 3 , and C 3 F 7 CF(OC 2 H 5 )CF(CF 3 ) 2 which are exempt from the VOC definition. Other information submitted by 3M Company consists mainly of a peer-reviewed article entitled “Atmospheric Chemistry of Some Fluoroethers,” Guschin, Molina, Molina: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 1998, which has been submitted to the docket. This article discusses a study in which the rate constant for the reaction of the subject compound with the OH radical (k OH value) is shown to be 1.5 × 10 −14 cm 3 /molecule/sec at 25 °C. This is less than the k OH value for ethane, 2.4 × 10 −13 cm 3 /molecule/sec at 25 °C, and slightly more than that for methane. The scientific information which the petitioner has submitted in support of the petition has been added to the docket for this rulemaking. This information includes references for the journal articles where the rate constant values are published. The EPA has included the 3M Company Material Safety Data Sheet for HFE-7300 indicating the compound as having low toxicity. This information has been placed in the docket. IV. EPA Response to the Petition The information provided by the petitioner demonstrates that HFE-7300 meets the criteria that the EPA has established for negligible reactivity based on a comparison of k OH values. Therefore, on February 9, 2006 (71 FR 6729), the EPA proposed adding 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (or HFE-7300) to the list of compounds appearing in 40 CFR 51.100(s). The final applies this compound only in its pure state and does not apply to any of its azeotrope mixtures or organic blends in which any of the other constituents are not VOC exempt compounds. The term “pure state” is taken to mean at a composition purity level of at least 99.96 percent by weight of 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl pentane [C 2 F 5 CF(OCH 3 )CF(CH 3 ) 2 ](cited in the patent application 10/739,231 published on June 23, 2005 titled “Azeotrope-like Compositions and Their Use,” Publication Number:US 2005/0137113 A1). For emissions from the use of azeotropic mixtures and organic blends that contain both VOC exempt and non-exempt compounds, the proposed exemption applies to the mass (or weight) fraction of the emissions that consists of VOC exempt compounds. The EPA received no comments on this proposal. V. Final Action This final action is based on EPA's review of the material in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0124. The EPA hereby will amend its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude HFE-7300 as VOC for ozone SIP and ozone control purposes. States are not obligated to exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. States may not take credit for controlling this compound in their ozone control strategy. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order

(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not contain any information collection requirements subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply, with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency does 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 control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:

(1)A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;

(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and

(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant *adverse* economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This final rule will revise EPA's definition of VOC for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS for ozone under title I of the CAA. This final rule revision adds 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane [also known as HFE-7300 or L-14787 or C 2 F 5 CF(OCH 3 )CF(CF 3 ) 2 ] to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that this compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Since this final rule is deregulatory in nature and does not impose a mandate upon any source, this rule is not estimated to result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million in any 1 year. Therefore, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 and 205 of the UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final action addressing the exemption of a chemical compound from the VOC definition does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any new mandates on State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA had specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule for this action from State and local officials, but the EPA received no comments. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.” This final rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not have any direct effects on Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this final rule from Tribal officials, but EPA received no comments. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, EPA has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what extent the chemical compound may affect children's health. EPA has placed the available data regarding the health effects of this chemical compound in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0124. In the proposed rule, the EPA invited the public to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assess results of early life exposure to the chemical compound HFE-7300. No such information was identified. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules:

(1)Rules of particular applicability;

(2)rules relating to agency management or personnel; and

(3)rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability to manufacturers and users of this specific exempt chemical compound. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this rule will be effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** . List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: January 11, 2007. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7641q. § 51.100 [Amended] 2. Section 51.100 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1) introductory text by removing the words “and methyl formate (HCOOCH 3 ), and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:” and adding in their place the words; “methyl formate (HCOOCH 3 ),

(1)1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethyl-pentane (HFE-7300) and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:” [FR Doc. E7-638 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0797; FRL-8269-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the Incorporation by Reference Section in a final rule pertaining to the May 17, 1999, approval of the State of Wisconsin's Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD)rules. That rulemaking erroneously incorporated by reference a section of the Wisconsin Administrative Code dealing with the state's hazardous pollutants rule. That section of the rule was not included in the state's request for SIP approval of its PSD rules. EPA, therefore, is removing this provision from the SIP. DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on January 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Siepkowski, Environmental Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)353-2654, *siepkowski.susan@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a document on May 27, 1999, (64 FR 28745) approving Wisconsin's PSD rules into the SIP. In this approval EPA erroneously incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52, subpart YY (§ 52.2570(c)(98)(i)), Section NR 445m of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. No provisions in Section NR 445 were requested for SIP approval in Wisconsin's November 6, 1996, SIP submittal for approval of its PSD program. Further, NR 445m is a typographical error, as NR 445m does not exist in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Therefore, the reference under § 52.2570(c)(98)(i) to NR 445m, as well as any implied reference to NR 445 is being removed. Correction In the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on May 27, 1999 (64 FR 28745), on page 28747 in the third column, last paragraph, “AM-9-95 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 30.03, 30.04, 400 Note, 400.02, 400.03, 401.04, 404.06, 405.01, 405.02, 405.04, 405.05, 405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 436, 438, 439, 445m, 447 * * *” is corrected to read: “AM-9-95 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 30.03, 30.04, 400 Note, 400.02, 400.03, 401.04, 404.06, 405.01, 405.02, 405.04, 405.05, 405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 436, 438, 439, 447 * * *”. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This technical correction action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of January 18, 2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This correction to 40 CFR part 52 for Wisconsin is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Dated: December 29, 2006. Gary Gulezian, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart YY—Wisconsin 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(98) to read as follows: § 52.2570 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(98)On November 6, 1996, the State of Wisconsin submitted rules pertaining to requirements under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. Wisconsin also submitted rule packages as revisions to the state implementation plans for particulate matter and revisions to the state implementation plans for clarification changes.

(i)*Incorporated by reference.* The following sections of the Wisconsin Administrative Code

(WAC)are incorporated by reference. Both rule packages, AM-27-94 and AM-9-95, were published in the (Wisconsin) Register in April 1995, No. 472, and became effective May 1, 1995. AM-27-94 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 400.02(39m), 404.05, 405.02, 405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 405.14, and 484.04 of the WAC. AM-9-95 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 30.03, 30.04, 400 Note, 400.02, 400.03, 401.04, 404.06, 405.01, 405.02, 405.04, 405.05, 405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 436, 438, 439, 447, 448, 449, 484, 485, 488, 493, and 499 of the WAC. [FR Doc. E7-521 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008; FRL-8268-6] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Berkley Products Company Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)Region III is publishing a direct final notice of deletion for Berkley Products Company Dump Superfund Site (Site), located in West Cocalico Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews, have been implemented to protect human health, welfare and the environment. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective March 19, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 20, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instruction for submitting comments. • Email: *schrock.roy@epa.gov.* • Fax: 215-814-3002 • Mail: Mr. Roy Schrock, Remedial Project Manager (3HS22), U.S. EPA, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. • Hand Delivery: 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008. 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 whose 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. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA's Region III, Regional Center for Environmental Information

(RCEI)2nd floor, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103-1029,

(215)814-5254 or

(800)553-2509, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding legal holidays and at the West Cocalico Township Municipal Building, 156B West Main, West Cocalico Township, Reinholds, Pennsylvania 17569,

(717)336-8720, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roy Schrock, Remedial Project Manager (3HS22), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029; telephone number: 1-800-553-2509 or

(215)814-3210; fax number: 215-814-3002; e-mail address: *schrock.roy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction EPA Region III is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of the Berkley Products Company Dump Superfund Site from the NPL. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant such action. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective March 19, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments on this document by February 20, 2007. If adverse comments on this document are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA, as appropriate, will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Berkley Products Company Dump Superfund Site and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period. II. NPL Deletion Criteria Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i)The responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or

(ii)All appropriate Fund-financed (Hazardous Substance Superfund Response Trust Fund) responses under CERCLA have been implemented and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii)The remedial investigation has shown that the site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate. Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, if hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the action remains protective of public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate such remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. III. Deletion Procedures The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this Site: 1. EPA consulted with PADEP on the deletion of the Site from the NPL prior to developing this direct final notice of deletion. 2. PADEP has concurred with the deletion of the Site from the NPL. 3. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of intent to delete published today in the “Proposed Rules” Section of the **Federal Register** is being published in a major local newspaper of general circulation at or near the Site and is being distributed to appropriate Federal, State, and local government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from the NPL. 4. EPA Region III has placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in the Site information repositories identified above. 5. If adverse comments on this notice or the companion notice of intent to delete also published in today's **Federal Register** are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions. IV. Basis for Site Deletion The following summary provides EPA's rationale for the deleting this Site from the NPL: Site Location The Berkley Products Company Dump Site

(Site)is located one and a half miles northeast of Denver, Pennsylvania, in West Cocalico Township, Lancaster County. Also known as Schoeneck Landfill, the Site is east of Wollups Hill Road, north of Swamp Bridge Road. The Site is approximately 1,000 feet west of Cocalico Creek. The headwaters of Cocalico Creek are in the valley south of South Mountain near Blue Lake. This valley is located a few miles north of the Site. Conestoga Creek, along with its tributaries, Muddy Creek, Little Conestoga Creek, and Cocalico Creek, drains the northeastern and north-central portion of Lancaster County and eventually enters the Susquehanna River. Seasonally, wet springs located immediately north of the Site discharge into Cocalico Creek to the north. On the southern side of the Site, a seep was located on the slope of the landfill material. The seep was related to rain events. The land use in the immediate vicinity of the Site is residential in nature. The Site is near dense woods and several single family homes. A few open areas have been converted into farm land by the local residents Site History The Site was used as a municipal waste dump from approximately 1930 until 1965. In 1965, the Lipton Paint Company (Lipton), a subsidiary of Berkley Products Company, purchased the property. The operation continued to receive household trash from neighboring communities as well as paint wastes from Berkley Products Company. The property was closed by Lipton due to a lack of available fill area, and was covered with soil. Then, in September 1970, the property was sold to private owners and has been used as a residence since that time. Prior to 1965, the dump received paper, wood, cardboard and other domestic trash from the northeastern corner of Lancaster County. The only commercial wastes identified during that period were from local shoe companies. Those wastes included leather scraps and empty glue and dye pails. During the period from 1965 to 1970, different sources estimate that the dump received a total of 650 to 40,000 gallons of paint wastes from Berkley Products Company. These wastes included primarily pigment sludges and wash solvents. EPA has learned that the solvents were sometimes used to burn the household trash and that the sludges were disposed of in five gallon pails. Information gathered about the final years of operation of the Site indicates that the municipal trash was dumped to the south of the access road, toward the hillside, while the paint wastes were deposited in the northern part of the dump. The Berkley Products Company produced paints and varnishes with solvents, ethyl cellulose resin and pigments with lead oxide and lead chromate. The solvents included toluene, xylene, aliphatic naphthas, mineral spirits, methyl ethyl ketones, methyl isobutyl ketones, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, glycol ether, butyl celasol, methyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol. This Site was originally investigated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) in 1984. In March of that year, PADER completed a Potential Hazardous Waste Site Identification form and the Site was included on EPA's CERCLIS, a list of potentially hazardous waste sites. A Preliminary Assessment

(PA)was also completed in 1984, by EPA, and the Site was scheduled for further investigation pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675. In July 1984, EPA collected field samples and the results were presented in a Site Investigation

(SI)report dated March 5, 1986. The information from the SI was used to score the Site using the Hazard Ranking System. The Site was nominated for the National Priorities List

(NPL)of Superfund sites in 1986 with a score of 30.00 and was finalized as an NPL site in March 1989. The regulations enacted pursuant to CERCLA generally require that a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) be conducted at each NPL site and subsequently, a remedial response action selected to address the problems identified. During the search for potentially responsible parties

(PRP)for the Site EPA conducted interviews with former owners, operators and employees of the Site. Company records were also obtained and deed information was researched. That information has been compiled and reviewed to determine liability and also to estimate types and quantities of wastes disposed at the Site and to determine disposal practices during operations. Based on the findings of the PRP search, EPA sent Notice Letters to two parties, Berkley Products Company and the landowner that had purchased the closed landfill. These Notice Letters identified the parties as PRPs, but waived the sixty day moratorium, established at CERCLA Sections 122(a) and 122(e), to negotiate a Consent Order to perform the RI/FS. These waivers were issued pursuant to CERCLA Section 122(a) because the Berkley Products Company did not have the financial assets to pay for the remedy, and the current landowners had purchased the property after landfill operations had ceased. EPA initiated the RI/FS in 1990 to identify the types, quantities and locations of contaminants, to evaluate the potential risks, and to develop and evaluate remedial action alternatives to address the contamination problems at this Site. A CERCLA removal action was completed at the Site in May 1992 to address some preliminary findings of the RI. During the field investigation of the RI, buried drums containing paint wastes were uncovered in the northeastern portion of the Site. This area was excavated, and 59 drums were overpacked and removed. An additional seven drums were overpacked and removed from the southern slope of the landfill. A 35-foot-long by 15-foot-deep exploration trench uncovered no additional drums. The wastes were classified as Polychlorinated Biphenyl

(PCB)flammable liquids, solids, and paint solvents. The field investigations, data analysis and evaluation of alternatives that comprise the RI/FS were completed in June 1996 for the Site. Record of Decision Findings The Remedial Investigation found the Site to be a landfill covering approximately 4 1/2 acres situated on the crest of a hill. The landfill materials were composed of primarily municipal trash and debris along with an area of buried steel drums and residues of apparent dumping of organic compounds as well as paint and organic solvents. The risks involved a direct contact threat and possible impacts on residential well water supplies in the area. The Site also showed the potential for ecological risks. Monitoring wells at the perimeter of the landfill contained organic compound and a variety of compounds were detected. Some of the compounds identified were lead, benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), polyaromatic

(PAHs)hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). On June 28, 1996, EPA issued a ROD for the Site which required the following components: • Pre-design investigations and activities. • Site preparation. • Consolidation of landfill wastes. • Site grading. • Cover system placement, with the following components as determined necessary for compliance with the relevant sections of Pennsylvania's Hazardous Waste Regulations: —Subgrade. —Gas vent system. —Barrier layers. —Drainage layer. —Top layer (vegetated). • Security fencing. • Removal actions as determined to be necessary during consolidation activities, and to be conducted in compliance with all state and local laws, to the extent not inconsistent with federal laws. • Erosion control measures. • Long-term monitoring to include groundwater, surface runoff, leachate spring and seep monitoring (annual), reside residential well monitoring (semi-annual) and monitoring wells (quarterly). • Institutional controls to restrict new well installation in the contaminated zone. • Long-term operation and maintenance of the remedy. • Five-year reviews. On August 20, 1999 an Explanation of Significant Differences was issued which revised the remedy. The ROD anticipated that the bulk of the consolidated wastes at the Site would be incorporated into the on-site landfill and capped in place. During the design of the cap, the volume of the waste to be consolidated was determined to exceed the capacity of the cap being designed for the designated landfill area. Therefore, the ESD required excavation, characterization, and offsite disposal of the excess waste materials. Then the on-site landfill could be capped as described in the ROD. Operation and Maintenance The first round of surface water and groundwater monitoring occurred in October 2002. After this sampling event, sampling the surface water and springs was discontinued because no contaminants were detected in the seeps and creek north of the landfill and upgradient from the Site. Sampling the leachate seep from the landfill was also discontinued because the cover eliminated the seep. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities were transferred to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADEP) after this sampling event since there was no responsible party capable of performing the work for the Site. URS Corporation

(URS)was contracted in June 2003 by the PADEP to complete the post-closure operations and maintenance. Quarterly site inspections and monitoring were initiated in 2003. A number of monitoring wells are located at the Site and between the landfill and the residential wells. There are approximately 14 residential wells that are also monitored under the O&M plan. Groundwater monitoring and sampling was conducted during the spring of 2004, the fall of 2004, the spring of 2005 and the spring of 2006. Activities performed by URS also include inspections of both sediment basins. Mowing the vegetation on the cap is conducted under a separate contract issued by PADEP on a yearly basis. Five Year Review CERCLA requires a five-year review of all sites where hazardous substances remain above health-based levels which prevents unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The first five-year review for the Site was completed in August 2005. The five-year review found that the objectives of the ROD and ESD were met by the implemented remedy. Periodic monitoring conducted by EPA and PADEP indicate that the selected remedies have been effective in eliminating the environmental threats posed by the landfill to the surrounding environment and human populations. Five-year reviews will continue to be conducted. Institutional Controls The institutional controls to restrict new well installation in the contaminated zone were established on June 8, 2001 by an Access Order issued during the construction phase of the remedial action and are still in effect. The Access Order required that the property owner shall not interfere with the operation, alter or disturb the integrity, of any structures or devices now or hereinafter built, installed or otherwise placed by EPA and/or its Representatives on the Site or Property. This effectively prevents any well installation through the cap, which covers the contaminated zone. Maintenance of the institutional control is part of the O&M activities conducted by PADEP pursuant to the State Superfund Contract (SSC). Community Involvement Public participation activities have been satisfied as required by CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. Documents upon which EPA relied to make this recommendation to delete the Site from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories. V. Deletion Action EPA, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and that no further response action, other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of intent to delete. This action will be effective March 19, 2007 unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 20, 2007. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will also prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relation, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: November 16, 2006. Donald Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 21777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p/351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. Appendix B—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended under Pennsylvania (“PA”) by removing the entry for “Berkley Products Co. Dump”. [FR Doc. E7-537 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 060216045-6045-01; I.D. 011107A] Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel Lottery in Areas 542 and 543 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notification of fishery assignments. SUMMARY: NMFS is notifying the owners and operators of registered vessels of their assignments for the 2007 A season Atka mackerel fishery in harvest limit area

(HLA)542 and/or 543 of the Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the harvest of the 2007 A season HLA limits established for area 542 and area 543 pursuant to the 2006 and 2007 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 12, 2007, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., April 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area

(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. In accordance with § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(A), owners and operators of vessels using trawl gear for directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the HLA are required to register with NMFS. Four vessels have registered with NMFS to fish in the A season HLA fisheries in areas 542 and/or 543. In order to reduce the amount of daily catch in the HLA by about half and to disperse the fishery over time and in accordance with § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has randomly assigned each vessel to the HLA directed fishery for Atka mackerel for which they have registered and is now notifying each vessel of its assignment. Vessels authorized to participate in the first HLA directed fishery in area 542 and/or in the second HLA directed fishery in area 543 in accordance with § 679.20(a)(8)(iii) are as follows: Federal Fishery Permit number

(FFP)3400 Alaska Ranger and FFP 2443 Alaska Juris. Vessels authorized to participate in the first HLA directed fishery in area 543 and/or the second HLA directed fishery in area 542 in accordance with § 679.20(a)(8)(iii) are as follows: FFP 3835 Seafisher and FFP 3423 Alaska Warrior. Classification The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is unnecessary. This notice merely advises the owners of these vessels of the results of a random assignment required by regulation. The notice needs to occur immediately to notify the owner of each vessel of its assignment to allow these vessel owners to plan for participation in the A season HLA fisheries in area 542 and area 543. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: January 11, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 07-179 Filed 1-12-07; 2:18 pm]

Connectionstraces to 22