Notices. Record of Decision (ROD)
23,034 words·~105 min read·
/register/2007/02/22/07-792A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings: Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD). SUMMARY: DOE has prepared an environmental impact statement
(EIS)(DOE/EIS-0385), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), to assess the environmental impacts associated with a proposal to expand the crude oil storage capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
(SPR)from 727 million barrels
(MMB)to 1 billion barrels, and to fill the Reserve to the full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. The proposal was to develop one new storage facility and expand the capacity of two or three existing SPR storage facilities. After careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, along with an evaluation of SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations, DOE has decided to develop a new 160 MMB SPR storage facility at Richton (Mississippi), expand the storage capacity at the existing Bayou Choctaw (Louisiana) SPR facility by 33 MMB, expand the storage capacity at the existing Big Hill (Texas) SPR facility by 80 MMB, and fill the Reserve to 1 billion barrels of oil as authorized by Congress. This ROD has been prepared in accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing NEPA and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The accompanying Floodplain Statement of Findings has been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR Part 1022). Because the decision differs somewhat from the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis
(SA)(DOE/EIS-0385-SA-1) to determine whether a supplement to the final EIS is required. DOE has determined that the minor modification to the Bayou Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB compared to 20 MMB as described in the final EIS, is not a substantial change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not needed. ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html* and on the project's Web site at *http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-eis.html,* and the ROD and SA will be available on both Web sites in the near future. Copies of the final EIS and this ROD and SA may be requested by contacting Donald Silawsky at the Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-47), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-1892, by facsimile at 202-586-4446, or by electronic mail at *donald.silawsky@hq.doe.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the site selection for the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, contact David Johnson at the Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-4733, by facsimile at 202-586-7919, or by electronic mail at *david.johnson@hq.doe.gov.* For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 800-472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Agency Action On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, Pub. L. 109-58). Section 303 of EPACT states that: “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a proceeding to select, from sites that the Secretary has previously studied, sites necessary to enable acquisition by the Secretary of the full authorized volume of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” EPACT Section 301(e) directs the Secretary to “* * * acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill * * *” the SPR to 1 billion barrels, the capacity of the SPR authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Thus, the purpose and need for agency action is to select and develop sites necessary to add 273 MMB of new storage capacity to the SPR, so that SPR capacity can be expanded from 727 MMB to 1 billion barrels. On January 23, 2007, the President proposed an expansion of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels. Any DOE proposal in this regard, however, is independent of the current expansion to 1 billion barrels and would be subject to a separate NEPA review process. NEPA Review DOE determined that the proposed SPR site selection and expansion constitute a major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment within the meaning of NEPA. For this reason, DOE prepared an EIS, Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0385). DOE published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on September 1, 2005 (70 FR 52088), and held four public scoping meetings. Copies of the comment letters received during the scoping period and complete public scoping meeting transcripts are available at *http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/spr/expansion-eis.html.* DOE filed the draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)on May 19, 2006. EPA published a Notice of Availability
(NOA)in the **Federal Register** on May 26, 2006 (71 FR 30400), starting the 45-day public comment period that ended on July 10, 2006. DOE considered all comments in preparing the final EIS, which was filed with EPA on December 8, 2006. Copies of the comment letters and oral testimony received during the public comment period are available at the Internet site listed above. The comments and DOE's responses are also set forth in the final EIS. The EPA published a NOA of the final EIS in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75540). As discussed further below, DOE prepared an SA, Supplement Analysis to the Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0385-SA-1), to address a minor modification to the Bayou Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB compared to 20 MMB discussed in the final EIS. DOE determined that a supplement to the final EIS is not required. Proposed Action DOE's proposed action is to develop one new site, expand capacity at two or three existing sites, and fill the SPR to its full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. Storage capacity would be developed by solution mining of underground storage caverns in salt domes and disposing of the resulting salt brine by ocean discharge or underground injection. New pipelines, marine terminal facilities, and other infrastructure would also be required. Proposed construction and operation activities include clearing and preparing sites; constructing pipelines and facilities for raw water intake, disposing of brine, and distributing crude oil; constructing transmission lines to provide electrical power to the sites; and constructing or augmenting support buildings and other facilities. Alternatives In developing the range of reasonable alternatives, DOE first considered expansions of three existing storage sites, which would capitalize on existing site infrastructure and operations and thereby minimize development time and construction costs. DOE, however, cannot reach its goal of 273 MMB of additional storage capacity by expanding only at existing sites. Therefore, the alternatives considered are a combination of one new site and two or three expansion sites, as shown in the table below. Alternatives Considered in Final EIS and SA New sites and capacity analyzed Epansion sites and added capacity Total new capacity* Bruinsburg, MS (160 MMB) Chacahoula, LA (160 MMB) *113 MMB* a Bayou Choctaw (33 MMB) Big Hill (80 MMB) OR 273 MMB or Richton, MS (160 MMB) *115 MMB* b Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB) Big Hill (80 MMB) West Hackberry (15 MMB) OR 275 MMB or Stratton Ridge, TX (160 MMB) *116 MMB* b Bayou Choctaw (20 MMB) Big Hill (96 MMB) 276 MMB. No-action alternative None None. * Based on the proposed action for this EIS, DOE would not fill the SPR beyond 1 billion barrels if it developed more than 273 MMB of new capacity. a Alternative considered in SA. b Alternative considered in final EIS. A brief description of each new site and expansion site is below: Potential New Sites and Associated Infrastructure As required by EPACT Section 303, DOE limited its review of potential new sites for expansion of the SPR to:
(1)sites that DOE addressed in a 1992 draft EIS for site expansion (DOE/EIS-0165-D); and
(2)sites proposed by a state in which DOE has previously studied a site. Five sites met those conditions and were considered in the draft EIS: Richton, MS, and Stratton Ridge, TX, which were addressed in the 1992 draft EIS; Chacahoula and Clovelly, LA, which the Governor of Louisiana requested that the Secretary of Energy consider; and Bruinsburg, MS, which the Governor of Mississippi requested that the Secretary of Energy consider. Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, DOE determined that development of a new SPR site at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port's
(LOOP)Clovelly facility was not feasible because of geotechnical issues and thus is not a reasonable alternative. LOOP's development on the salt dome and the small size of the dome required that DOE propose placing new SPR caverns below and in between Clovelly's existing caverns. DOE found that this configuration presented several risk factors to the integrity of the Clovelly caverns and infrastructure and overall operation of the proposed site. DOE therefore removed the site from detailed consideration in the final EIS. Sandia National Laboratories completed a Geological Technical Assessment (Sandia Assessment) of the Bruinsburg salt dome just before the final EIS was published that indicated that the salt dome may not be able to provide the needed storage capability; however, DOE retained it as a potential new site in the final EIS because DOE needed time to further analyze the results of the study. See below for additional information regarding the Bruinsburg site and the Sandia Assessment. Bruinsburg, MS The Bruinsburg salt dome is located in Claiborne County, MS, 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of the town of Port Gibson and 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of the City of Vicksburg. The proposed storage site of approximately 266 acres (108 hectares) encompasses a cypress swamp, cotton fields, forested areas, and a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River. The infrastructure associated with the Bruinsburg storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at Peetsville, MS, and Anchorage, LA. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Mississippi River. The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources. These data are from well and seismic studies and include data compiled by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology, as well as proprietary seismic data. In addition, Sandia contracted for two new seismic survey lines on the Bruinsburg salt dome in order to define the extent of the salt formation available for cavern development. DOE has analyzed the results of the Sandia Assessment and concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB capacity required. Chacahoula, LA The Chacahoula salt dome site is located 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of the Gulf of Mexico in northwestern Lafourche Parish, southwest of Thibodaux, LA. The proposed storage site of approximately 227 acres (92 hectares) lies largely underwater in wetlands. No new terminals would be required for this proposed new site since the terminal(s) already exist and the current distribution capacity is sufficient to handle the potential increase in oil storage and distribution associated with the Chacahoula site. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Richton, MS The Richton salt dome is located in northeastern Perry County, MS, 18 miles (29 kilometers) east of Hattiesburg, MS. The proposed storage site of approximately 238 acres (96 hectares) is comprised of an actively managed pine plantation with a small emergent wetland area. The infrastructure associated with the Richton storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at Liberty, MS, and Pascagoula, MS. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from both the Leaf River and the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula. Stratton Ridge, TX The Stratton Ridge salt dome is located in Brazoria County, TX, 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) east of Lake Jackson-Angleton, TX. The proposed storage site of approximately 269 acres (109 hectares) is currently used for cattle ranching and has some forested wetlands. The infrastructure associated with the Stratton Ridge storage site would include a new terminal with a tank farm in Texas City, TX. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Potential Expansion Sites and Associated Infrastructure Bayou Choctaw, LA The Bayou Choctaw storage site occupies a 356-acre (144-hectare) site in Iberville Parish, LA, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) southwest of Baton Rouge. The Mississippi River is located about 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) east of the salt dome, and the Intracoastal Waterway is about 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) to the west. The general area is swampy with an elevation ranging from less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) to more than 10 feet (3 meters) above mean sea level. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. In the final EIS, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 20 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 10 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility, a 0.6-mile (0.9-kilometer) brine disposal pipeline, and a 96-acre (39-hectare) brine injection field. In the SA, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 33 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 11.5 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility and use of an existing commercial cavern. The length of the brine disposal pipeline and the size of the brine disposal injection field would be the same if Bayou Choctaw is expanded to 20 MMB or 33 MMB. Expansion beyond 33 MMB is limited due to the size of the salt dome. Big Hill, TX The Big Hill SPR storage site is located in Jefferson County, TX, 17 miles (27 kilometers) southwest of Port Arthur. The existing site occupies approximately 250 acres (101 hectares). The surrounding area is predominantly rural with agricultural production as the primary land use. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. The Big Hill storage site has a current capacity of 170 MMB and could be expanded by acquiring land and developing several additional caverns. West Hackberry, LA The West Hackberry SPR storage site occupies a 565-acre (229-hectare) site in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern Louisiana. The site is located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of the city of Lake Charles and 16 miles (26 kilometers) north of the Gulf of Mexico. The area is predominantly disturbed grassland habitat. No new infrastructure would be needed for this site to be expanded. The West Hackberry storage site has a current capacity of 227 MMB and could also be expanded by acquiring land and developing or acquiring additional caverns. However, the West Hackberry site no longer has the offshore brine disposal system necessary to support a cavern development operation. There are three existing commercial caverns on the salt dome that could be acquired to increase the site capacity by 15 MMB, to a total capacity of 242 MMB, without developing new caverns. Therefore, DOE has considered a maximum potential expansion of 15 MMB at the West Hackberry site. Preferred Alternative The final EIS identifies the Richton alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry as the Preferred Alternative. The SA revised the Preferred Alternative to be the Richton alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill. Analysis of Environmental Impacts In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts that could occur from the construction and operation of a new SPR storage site and the expansion of two or three of the existing sites. The final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 10 resource areas. Of these 10 areas, the largest potential impacts are to land use, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. Although impacts occur in other resource areas, these impacts are smaller and of similar magnitude across all alternatives. Below is a brief summary of the impacts associated with these four resource areas for each alternative. For each alternative, there is a discussion of each new site and the expansion sites associated with each new site. Land Use *Bruinsburg Alternatives:* There is a potential land use conflict for the Bruinsburg site where the expansion of an existing pipeline route would cross the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail, Natchez Trace Parkway, and the proclamation boundary of the Homochitto National Forest. There are no potential land use conflicts at the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansions sites. At West Hackberry, there were no land use conflicts at the time that the final EIS was issued because there were no ongoing commercial operations in the caverns in the West Hackberry salt dome. Comments on the final EIS indicate that Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation plans to use the caverns for commercial operations. This potential conflict is discussed further below in the Comments Received on the Final EIS and Basis for Decision sections. *Chacahoula Alternatives:* There are no potential land use conflicts for the Chacahoula site. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. *Richton Alternatives:* For the Richton site, the terminal, tank farm, refurbished docks, and raw water intake structure at Pascagoula would be at the former Naval Station Pascagoula, a Base Realignment and Closure site for which future uses have not been determined. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. *Stratton Ridge Alternatives:* The proposed Stratton Ridge site would have potential land use conflicts with Dow Chemical Company's use of salt from the Stratton Ridge salt dome and where a corridor containing a raw water intake pipeline, brine disposal pipelines, and two power lines would cross the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge and privately owned land in the Refuge's proclamation area. In addition, the crude oil pipeline would cross the Refuge in an existing pipeline rights-of-way. Potential land use conflicts at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Water Resources *Bruinsburg Alternatives:* Construction and operation of the Bruinsburg site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 35 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Mississippi River, and would not have a significant impact on water resources. Construction and operation associated with the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry sites and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 12, 4, and 3 water bodies, respectively. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown at Bayou Choctaw would come from Cavern Lake, which is fed by the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown at Big Hill would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for maintenance and drawdown at West Hackberry would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. None of these uses of water would have a significant impact on water resources. Since DOE would acquire caverns at West Hackberry, construction of new caverns would not occur at this site. A small increase in the size of the security buffer around the site would be needed, but this would not have a significant impact on water resources. *Chacahoula Alternatives:* Construction and operation of the Chacahoula site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 18 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway, which would not have a significant impact on water resources. Impacts on water resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. *Richton Alternatives:* Construction and operation of the Richton site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 63 water bodies. The primary raw water source for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would be the Leaf River, which has a highly variable flow. A secondary raw water intake system, presented in the final EIS, would withdraw water from the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula and transport it to the Richton storage site for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown during low flow conditions in the Leaf River. If low flow conditions exist in the Leaf River during a drawdown event for a Presidentially declared national emergency, DOE would withdraw water from the Gulf of Mexico and from the Leaf River to reach the necessary distribution rate. DOE would not withdraw water below the minimum instream flow that is protective of aquatic resources, except for a drawdown for a Presidentially declared national emergency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would establish the minimum instream flow during DOE's consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MS NHP) would provide input during this consultation. Impacts on water resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. *Stratton Ridge Alternatives:* Construction and operation of the Stratton Ridge site and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 17 water bodies. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway, which would not have a significant impact on water resources. Impacts on water resources at the expansion sites are the same as described for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Biological Resources This summary of impacts to biological resources considers Federally threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat (EFH), and wetlands. Impacts to these resources at expansion sites are common to all alternatives and are described first, separately from the descriptions of impacts of the alternatives, which focus on impacts at the new sites. Expansion at existing sites would not affect any Federally threatened or endangered species. The Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry expansions would not affect EFH. The Big Hill expansion would cause a temporary impact to about five acres of EFH due to pipeline construction. The discussions below regarding total wetland acres affected for the new site alternatives include the wetland impacts associated with the expansion sites, in all cases including expansion at West Hackberry (without which five fewer acres of wetlands would be affected). *Expansion sites:* Construction and operation of the Bayou Choctaw expansion site would potentially affect 34 acres of wetlands. About 24 acres of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 3 acres of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. Construction and operation of the Big Hill expansion site would potentially affect 189 acres of wetlands. About 9 acres of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 1 acre of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. Expanding the West Hackberry site would convert 5 acres of palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands to emergent wetlands. *Bruinsburg Alternatives:* The Bruinsburg site and associated infrastructure may affect the fat pocketbook mussel and the pallid sturgeon, both of which are Federally endangered species. The site and associated infrastructure would not affect EFH. The Bruinsburg alternatives would potentially affect about 708 acres (287 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through filling of about 156 acres (63 hectares) and a permanent conversion to emergent wetlands of about 123 acres (50 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 118 acres (48 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way during construction. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above. *Chacahoula Alternatives:* The Chacahoula site and associated infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, a Federal threatened species that is proposed for de-listing, and the brown pelican, a Federal endangered species. Chacahoula would affect about 1,067 acres of EFH, for the most part a temporary impact due to pipeline construction. The Chacahoula alternatives would potentially affect 2,502 acres (1,013 hectares) of wetlands. About 182 acres (74 hectares) of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 699 acres (283 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. About 505 acres (204 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above. *Richton Alternatives:* The Richton site and associated infrastructure may affect two Federal listed species (the yellow-blotched map turtle and the Gulf sturgeon) and a Federal candidate species (the pearl darter, considered by DOE as a “listed species”). Based on comments from and consultation with USFWS and MS NHP, the withdrawal of water from the Leaf River may have an adverse effect on the yellow-blotched map turtle, Gulf sturgeon, and the pearl darter. The Leaf River and Mississippi Sound are designated critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. Development of the Richton site would temporarily affect about 183 acres of EFH due to construction, and fill an additional 43 acres of EFH for a new terminal and raw water intake structure at Pascagoula. Brine pipeline construction may affect submerged aquatic vegetation. The Richton alternatives would potentially affect 1,557 acres (630 hectares) of wetlands. The majority of the wetland areas affected (more than 1,400 acres [583 hectares]) by the Richton alternatives would be located in the long pipeline rights-of-way, which total over 200 miles and which pass through some forested and emergent wetlands. The Richton alternatives would permanently fill about 59 acres (24 hectares) of forested wetlands and about 295 acres (119 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 506 acres (205 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above. *Stratton Ridge Alternatives:* The Stratton Ridge site and associated infrastructure may affect the bald eagle, a Federal threatened species that is proposed for de-listing. Seventeen acres of EFH would be permanently affected due to the construction and operation of a raw water intake structure. The Stratton Ridge alternatives would potentially affect 841 acres (349 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through filling of 227 acres (92 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 70 acres (28 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 9 acres (4 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above in detail for the Bruinsburg alternatives. Cultural Resources The proposed action would have the potential to damage or destroy archeological sites, Native American cultural sites, or historic buildings or structures; or to change the characteristics of a property that would diminish qualities that contribute to its historic significance or cultural importance. Below are the potential impacts for each alternative: *Bruinsburg Alternatives:* SPR development at the Bruinsburg site could result in potential adverse effects on the historic setting of the Civil War landing of the Union Army in Mississippi and an associated route of troop movements in an area that could become eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a core study area. A portion of the Bruinsburg site is likely to contain archeological remains of troop presence, and remains of at least one of the ships that sank during the invasion is likely to lie northwest of the facility boundary. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. As described in the final EIS, these adverse effects could be mitigated through measures such as data recovery from an archaeological site, preparation of education materials for the public, or use of vegetation to screen project facilities from visitors in the historic properties. *Chacahoula Alternatives:* There would be likely adverse effects to Native American and historic sites along Chacahoula pipeline rights-of-way that could be mitigated. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These adverse effects could be mitigated. *Richton Alternatives:* There are likely adverse effects to Native American archaeological sites within the Richton storage site and along Richton pipeline rights-of-way that could be mitigated. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These effects could be mitigated. *Stratton Ridge Alternatives:* There are likely adverse effects to Native American archaeological sites within the Stratton Ridge storage site and along Stratton Ridge pipeline rights-of-way that could be mitigated. There would be possible effects to Native American sites at Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry. These effects could be mitigated. Comments Received on the Final EIS *DOE received eight comment letters on the final EIS:* three letters from elected officials, two from Federal agencies, two from private companies, and one from a property owner. Below is a brief summary of each comment letter and DOE's response. DOE received two comment letters regarding DOE's selection of Richton rather than Bruinsburg as its preferred new storage site. These comment letters were from U.S. Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, Second District, Mississippi, and Mr. Allen Burks of the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors. Congressman Thompson expressed some concerns with the selection of Richton and his belief that the Bruinsburg site is a more favorable site since it would have fewer environmental impacts and cost less than the Richton site. Mr. Burks requested the reconsideration of the Bruinsburg site because, in his view, it offers significant cost, environmental, operational, and distribution advantages over the Richton site. DOE did not select the Bruinsburg site for several reasons, as discussed below; however, the primary reason was the small size of the salt dome. As discussed above, based on the Sandia Assessment, DOE concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB capacity required. The Richton salt dome, on the other hand, is very large and can easily accommodate the planned capacity of 160 MMB. Congressman Thompson also expressed concerns regarding the risk from hurricanes and brine disposal impacts associated with the Richton site. The SPR's storage of oil in underground storage caverns in salt formations is the safest and most secure form of storage available. The depth of the storage caverns and the self-sealing characteristic of the salt formation make salt dome storage virtually immune to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, and would not create a safety hazard for the population of Mississippi. In addition, Richton's location over 80 miles from the Gulf coast provides a significant land mass buffer against potential damages from the hurricane effects to surface buildings and structures at the storage sites. Congressman Thompson also expressed concern about brine disposal in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on DOE's experience with the SPR, the disposal of brine in the Gulf of Mexico has been proven to be reliable and cost effective and has had no harmful impacts on the fish population. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour supported the selection of Richton as preferred, but added that he believes Bruinsburg remains an important site for future consideration. Governor Barbour submitted for the record an independent geological evaluation prepared by Mr. Karl Kaufman of Valioso Petroleum Company, Inc., that questions the completeness and accuracy of the geological interpretations presented in the Sandia Assessment. Mr. Kaufman stated that the Sandia Assessment grossly understates the true areal extent of the Bruinsburg salt dome because well control data have been ignored, spatial uncertainty has not been resolved and additional data have not been considered. A second comment letter from Charles Morrison Consulting Geophysicist, Inc., stated that the Sandia Assessment was highly flawed and possibly biased in regard to the geological and geophysical conclusions reached. DOE and the geotechnological staff at Sandia National Laboratories have reviewed the concerns expressed by these geological consultants and have confirmed their prior geological findings, as to the insufficient salt dome size. The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources, including both existing and new well and seismic data, as discussed above. Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation submitted a comment informing DOE of its recent purchase of the property adjacent to the existing West Hackberry site, formerly owned by Dominion Natural Gas Storage, Inc., which DOE discussed in the final EIS. Sempra stated that the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio, and is expected to be in service in April 2009. Sempra also stated its understanding that DOE would weigh the cost of land acquisition during its decisionmaking. DOE has not selected West Hackberry for expansion for the reasons stated below. A comment submitted by the owner of land that overlays a salt dome in Claiborne County inquired whether DOE will select other storage sites, in addition to the Richton site. DOE will only construct one new storage site in its planned expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels. The National Park Service's Natchez Trace Parkway stated its support for the selection of Richton as the preferred alternative because it would have no environmental effect on the Parkway. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service field office in Temple, TX, acknowledged and approved of the characterization of important farmlands for the Big Hill and Stratton Ridges sites in the final EIS. Environmentally Preferable Alternative The Chacahoula, Bruinsburg, Richton, and Stratton Ridge alternatives, which include the expansion of existing storage sites, all have the potential for adverse impacts on environmental resources. After considering the impacts to each resource, DOE has identified the Bruinsburg and Stratton Ridge alternatives as the environmentally preferable alternatives. The Chacahoula alternatives would affect hundreds more acres of ecologically important forested wetlands than any other alternative. The wetlands at the proposed Chacahoula site are also relatively contiguous and in a mostly undisturbed area in Louisiana, which adds to the ecological function and value of the wetlands. The Richton alternatives would affect several hundred acres of wetlands through more than 200 miles of pipeline and power line rights-of-way. Most of the wetland impacts associated with the Richton alternatives, however, would either be temporary or be a permanent conversion, meaning that some of the function of the wetlands would be retained. Nonetheless, total acreage of wetlands affected from rights-of-way for the Richton alternatives would be greater than from the Stratton Ridge or Bruinsburg alternatives. USFWS and MS NHP identified two Federally listed species and a Federal candidate species that may be adversely affected by the withdrawal of water from the Leaf River. The Richton alternatives are also the only alternatives that may affect designated critical habitat of a protected species. Floodplain Statement of Findings DOE included a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment as appendix B in the final EIS. The assessment and these findings have been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,” 10 CFR Part 1022. DOE has concluded that there are no practicable alternatives to construction within floodplains for the individual proposed new SPR sites or expansion sites. Site locations, the location of onsite facilities, and site access roads are dictated by the locations and configuration of the salt domes, which constitute a unique geologic setting. In addition, DOE needs a raw water source that is adequate for solution mining of storage caverns. Similarly, because the salt dome sites are largely located in lowland areas surrounded by wide expanses of floodplain, there are no practicable alternatives to the location of the pipelines running to and from these sites within floodplains. The raw water intake structures and associated pipeline rights-of-way also are water dependent because of their function and therefore cannot be located outside of the floodplain associated with the water source. Pipelines, power lines, and roads cannot avoid crossing waterways and the associated floodplains. DOE considered alternatives for minimizing the potential impacts of pipeline and power line rights-of-way in floodplains and wetlands. The primary approach that DOE employed was to select pipeline and power line rights-of-way along existing rights-of-way. The Gulf Coast consists of a large number of gas and oil fields and associated facilities, which offer a network of existing pipeline and power line rights-of-way. This network of utilities enabled DOE to minimize the potential impacts to floodplains and wetlands. Floodplain maps of all the alternatives considered in the EIS are available in appendix B of the final EIS. To comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and DOE's regulations, DOE will follow the U.S. Water Resources Council's
(1978)Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Unified National Program for Floodplain Management while planning its mitigation strategy for the selected SPR alternative. Those actions would include the following: the use of minimum grading requirements to save as much of the site from compaction as possible; returning the site and rights-of-way to original contours where feasible; preserving free natural drainage when designing and constructing roads, fills, and large built-up centers; maintaining wetland and floodplain vegetation buffers to reduce sedimentation and discharge of pollutants to nearby water bodies, where feasible; constructing stormwater management facilities (where appropriate) to minimize any alteration in natural drainage and flood storage capacity; directional drilling of larger wetland and stream crossings, where feasible; locating buildings above the base flood elevation or flood proofing; complying with the floodplain ordinance/regulations for the jurisdiction where the selected alternative is located; and performing a hydrological demonstration (using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling System or an approved floodplain model) to confirm that proposed fill and structures within the floodplain would not increase the base flood elevation. Any structures located within the floodplain would be designed in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP)requirements for nonresidential buildings and structures located in special flood hazard areas. The NFIP regulations require vulnerable structures to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or to be watertight. DOE would coordinate with and secure approval from the floodplain coordinator at the appropriate state agency or the local government, if it has adopted the NFIP, during the design stage/site plan process. Decision DOE has decided to: construct a new storage facility at Richton, MS, with a total capacity of 160 MMB of crude oil; expand the storage capacity of two existing SPR sites by a total of 113 MMB by developing 8 new 10-MMB caverns at Big Hill, TX, developing 2 new 11.5-MMB caverns at Bayou Choctaw, LA, and acquiring an existing privately-owned 10-MMB cavern that lies within the Bayou Choctaw site; and fill the SPR to 1 billion barrels, as authorized by Congress. Basis for Decision DOE's decision is based on careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives along with an evaluation of SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations. The Stratton Ridge alternatives were not selected based on the new storage site's location within the Seaway crude oil distribution complex and the site's potential impacts to existing commercial operations. The SPR currently has two large sites, Bryan Mound and Big Hill, which can adequately serve refiners in the Seaway distribution complex. Additional storage in this area would not enhance the SPR's distribution capabilities or address the SPR's need for increased oil storage in the Capline distribution complex, which serves the refiners on the lower Mississippi River and the Capline Interstate Pipeline system. In addition, Dow Chemical Company, which occupies the majority of the Stratton Ridge salt dome, relies on the salt for its petrochemical operations. Dow submitted comments on the draft EIS stating that the property is critical to its future salt needs and continuing operations of Dow Chemical in Freeport, TX. The primary reason for not selecting the Bruinsburg alternatives is the small size of the salt dome, which only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, as discussed above. Also, due to its location, development of the caverns at Bruinsburg would require disposing of large volumes of brine through underground disposal wells. DOE has extensive experience with underground brine disposal wells for smaller volumes. Injection wells can be difficult and expensive to operate, the geology must be appropriate for wells to be drilled, and the receiving aquifer must be hydrologically suited for injections. Disposing of large volumes of brine through underground injection at Bruinsburg presents significant development risks. The Chacahoula alternatives were not selected based on significant potential environmental impacts to the Louisiana wetlands. The entire site is located in an ecologically important bald cypress forested wetland area. The alternatives were estimated to potentially impact a total of 2,502 acres of wetlands, requiring extensive wetland mitigation. The Richton alternatives present significant benefits relative to the other alternatives by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System as well as refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome is large and undeveloped, which provides DOE with sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical risk. The Richton site is also located approximately 80 miles from the Gulf coast, providing a significant buffer to the potentially damaging effects of hurricanes on surface structures at the storage site. The decision announced by DOE in this ROD differs from the Preferred Alternative identified in the final EIS, which included expanding the storage capacity of 3 existing SPR facilities (West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw, LA, and Big Hill, TX) by a total of 115 MMB, and constructing a new 160-MMB SPR facility at Richton, MS. The ROD replaces the planned expansion of West Hackberry (by 15 MMB) with a larger expansion of storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw (by 33 MMB instead of 20 MMB). This decision was based on:
(a)The recent acquisition by a private company of the existing caverns at West Hackberry;
(b)the need for additional stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address refiner demands; and
(c)the need for an additional cavern at Bayou Choctaw to support the site's maximum drawdown operations. In comparing expansion options at Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry, DOE considered several factors. First, as discussed in the final EIS, the three commercial caverns that DOE had proposed to acquire at West Hackberry were purchased by Sempra Pipelines and Storage Corporation in August 2006 as part of its Liberty Gas Storage System and in conjunction with the Cameron Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG)terminal (currently under construction). As discussed above, Sempra has submitted comments on the final EIS stating that the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio and the West Hackberry storage facility is expected to be in service in April 2009. As a result, DOE may not be able to acquire the West Hackberry caverns at a reasonable cost. Second, DOE needs additional crude stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address the refiners' demands along the Mississippi River. The new 160-MMB facility at Richton, MS, will have the capability to distribute crude via pipeline to the Capline Pipeline System serving refiners in the Midwest, but not to refiners along the lower Mississippi River. The SPR facility at Bayou Choctaw has the capability to distribute oil by pipeline to a number of refiners along the Mississippi River, but is very limited in its current crude storage capabilities. As these refiners are highly dependent on foreign crude supplies, the expected demand during a supply interruption would far exceed the inventories currently available at Bayou Choctaw. This situation is expected to worsen in the future by the announced doubling of crude processing capacity of the Marathon refinery at Garyville, LA. Third, an additional storage cavern at Bayou Choctaw supports the site's maximum drawdown capabilities. Due to the location of one of the existing caverns at the edge of the salt dome, DOE has placed constraints on the cavern's capacity and operations. An additional cavern would be of significant benefit to achieving and maintaining the site's maximum drawdown rate in the event of a drawdown of the Reserve. For these reasons, DOE has concluded that increasing the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw to 33 MMB, in lieu of an expansion at West Hackberry, will provide greater benefits to the SPR in terms of enhanced oil import protection capability. This proposed increase in the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw is also considered superior to the option of increasing the capacity of the Big Hill site by 96 MMB, which would not satisfy the need for additional Capline system stocks and would increase the Big Hill site storage capacity to more than 250 MMB, creating the need for additional oil drawdown and distribution infrastructure. Based on the SA, DOE determined that the additional expansion at Bayou Choctaw is not a substantial change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not needed. In conclusion, the selection of a new site at Richton with expansion of the existing Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill sites offers DOE significant benefits by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System, refiners along the lower Mississippi River, as well as refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome provides DOE with sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical risk. Mitigation DOE has developed general mitigation measures to address potential impacts. Examples of general mitigation include programmatic agreements for dealing with impacts to cultural resources. Under the terms of programmatic agreements signed by DOE, the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in the three states where the Richton site and the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansion sites are located, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and tribes, as appropriate, DOE will identify and resolve adverse effects to historic properties in locations selected for expansion or new development. At those locations, DOE will conduct field reconnaissance and additional documentary research and consultations as appropriate to identify cultural resources including historic properties; that is, archaeological or historical sites, structures, districts, or landscapes that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For identified historic properties, DOE will assess potential project effects and resolve adverse effects in consultation with the SHPOs and the tribes that are concurring parties or signatories to the programmatic agreements. The wetlands permitting process provides other examples of general mitigation measures. DOE will prepare the appropriate application for a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 401 Water Quality Certificate from each relevant state agency. This permit process requires a comprehensive analysis of alternatives to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States, an analysis of measures taken to minimize impacts, and a compensation plan to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands. Avoidance and minimization strategies could include measures such as refinement or modification of facility footprints to avoid wetlands, minimization of slopes in fill areas, use of geotechnical fabric under wetland fills to minimize mudwave potential, and restoration of the disturbed wetlands outside the permanent footprint of the facility. The compensation plan will be developed by DOE and submitted with the permit application. The compensation plan, in addition to avoidance and minimization strategies during and after construction, will include provisions for compensation sites ( *e.g.* , conservation easements or similar mechanisms), restoration, and post restoration monitoring to evaluate the success of the mitigation. Additional detail on mitigation measures is included in section 3.7.2.1.3 of the final EIS, and on potential compensation sites in appendix O of the final EIS. Mitigation measures specific to the selected Richton alternative have not been adopted at this time because DOE and the regulatory agencies agreed that the substantial amount of resources needed to develop mitigation measures specific to each alternative during the preparation of the EIS would have been impracticable and inefficient in light of the large number of alternatives located across three states and crossing numerous agency jurisdictional boundaries. Instead, DOE will work with USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and other Federal, state, and local natural resource agencies to develop specific mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts to endangered species, EFH, wetlands, and other resources, as described in the final EIS. The mitigation plan for the alternative selected in this ROD will be developed during the permitting process, after wetland delineations and jurisdictional determinations and a functional assessment of affected wetlands is completed. DOE will also complete a formal consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries and prepare a Biological Assessment as mandated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for any endangered species that may be affected by the selected alternative. Through these activities, DOE will develop and adopt a detailed mitigation plan to take all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, as required by 40 CFR 1505.2(c). Dated: February 14, 2007. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy. [FR Doc. E7-3022 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration FY 2007-2009 Fish and Wildlife Project Implementation Decision AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD). SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the ROD for BPA's 2007-2009 Fish and Wildlife Project Implementation Decision. BPA has decided to implement certain new and ongoing fish and wildlife mitigation projects for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 that help meet the agency's responsibilities to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the Columbia River basin hydroelectric dams from which BPA markets power. This decision is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0312, April 2003) and the Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan ROD (October 31, 2003). ADDRESSES: Copies of this ROD may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. This ROD and the Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS and ROD are also available on our Web site, *www.efw.bpa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Shannon Stewart, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-282-3713; fax number 503-230-5699; or e-mail *scstewart@bpa.gov.* Issued in Portland, Oregon, February 9, 2007. Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2998 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8279-8] Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 * et seq.* ). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Auby
(202)566-1672, or e-mail at *auby.susan@epa.gov* and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request
(ICR)Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests OMB Approvals EPA ICR No. 1088.11; NSPS for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db); was approved 02/01/2007; OMB Number 2060-0072; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 1500.06; National Estuary Program (Renewal); in 40 CFR 35.9000—35.9070; was approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 2040-0138; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 2232.01; Community Water System Survey 2006; was approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 2040-0273; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 2072.03; NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA; was approved 01/30/2007; OMB Number 2060-0544; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1686.06; NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelter Industry (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X); was approved 01/30/2007; OMB Number 2060-0296; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1353.08; Land Disposal Restrictions No-Migration Variances (Renewal); in 40 CFR 268.6 and 268.40; was approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 2050-0062; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 2240.02; NESHAP for Area Sources: Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, and Beryllium (Final Rule); in 40 CFR, section 11149(d)-(g), 11150(a)-(b), 11162(g), 11163(c)-(g), 11164(a)-(b) and Table 1 to subpart GGGGG; was approved 01/24/2007; OMB Number 2060-0596; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1052.08; NSPS Subpart D, Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units; in 40 CFR part 60, subpart D; was approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 2060-0026; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1949.05; Information Collection Request for the EPA National Environmental Performance Track Program; was approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 2010-0032; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1093.08; NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT; was approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 2060-0162; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1128.08; NSPS for Secondary Lead Smelters (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart L; was approved 01/18/2007; OMB Number 2060-0080; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1084.08; NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing; in 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOO; was approved 01/18/2007; OMB Number 2060-0050; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1569.06; Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (CZARA Section 6217); was approved 01/12/2007; OMB Number 2040-0153; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 1893.04; Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG); was approved 01/12/2007; OMB Number 2060-0430; expires 01/31/2010. EPA ICR No. 2219.02; Tips and Complaints Regarding Environmental Violations (Renewal); was approved 02/07/2007; OMB Number 2020-0032; expires 02/28/2010. EPA ICR No. 2234.01; 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment; was approved 02/07/2007; OMB Number 2040-0274; expires 02/28/2010. Short Term Extensions EPA ICR No. 0234.09; Performance Evaluation Studies of Water and Waste Water Laboratories; OMB Number 2080-0021; on 01/19/2007 OMB extended the expiration date to 07/31/2007. Comment Filed EPA ICR No. 2243.02; Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions (Proposed Rule); OMB filed comment on 01/30/2007. Dated: February 13, 2007. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3000 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041; FRL-8279-9] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; RadNet (Previously Known as ERAMS) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0877.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0015 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041, to
(1)EPA online using *www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), by e-mail to *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles M. Petko, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL), 540 South Morris Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36115-2601. Tel: 334-270-3411; fax number: 334-270-3454; e-mail address: *petko.charles@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 14, 2006 (71 FR 54278), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is 202-566-1742. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *www.regulations.gov* , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* RadNet (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR No. 0877.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0015. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* RadNet is a national network of stations collecting sampling media that include air, precipitation, drinking water, and milk. Samples are sent to EPA National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama, where they are analyzed for radioactivity. RadNet provides emergency response/homeland security and ambient monitoring information on levels of environmental radiation across the nation. All stations, usually operated by state and local personnel, participate in RadNet voluntarily. Station operators complete information forms that accompany the samples. The forms request descriptive information pertaining to sample location, e.g., sample type, sample location, length of sampling period, and volume represented. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7 hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* All fifty states, primarily the State Public Health Departments (NAICS Code 92312), send samples along with one page sample collection forms to NAREL. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 275. *Frequency of Response:* Frequency varies according to medium being sampled: milk, quarterly; drinking water, quarterly; rain (precipitation), as events occur; and air, twice weekly. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 9,333. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $451,206. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 3,606 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the fact that the RadNet air monitoring network is being upgraded and expanded. By the end of the period of this ICR, the air network will have expanded from the 64 conventional stations reported in the previous ICR to 120 technologically updated stations, all of which will provide data in near real-time. Dated: February 15, 2007. Richard T. Westlund, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3002 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411; FRL-8280-1] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1157.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0073. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or *by mail to* : EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)*OMB at* : Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *Attention* : Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:
(919)541-0296; fax number:
(919)541-3207; e-mail address: *schaefer.john@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is
(202)566-1744 and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Title:* NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing. *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1157.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0073. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This Information Collection Request
(ICR)renewal is being submitted for the NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing (40 CFR part 60, subpart FFF), which were promulgated on June 29, 1984. These standards apply to the following facilities in subpart FFF: each rotogravure printing line used to print or coat flexible vinyl or urethane products, and for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after the proposed date of the rule. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart FFF. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 14 (rounded) hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing Operations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 20. *Frequency of Response:* Initially and semi-annually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 593. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $97,135, which is comprised of annualized capital/startup costs of $6,600, $54,000 of O&M costs and $36,535 in labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Dated: February 15, 2007. Richard T. Westlund, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3003 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412; FRL-8279-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1066.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0032 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov* , or *by mail to:* EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *Attention:* Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; *telephone number:*
(919)541-0296; *fax number:*
(919)541-3207; *e-mail address:* *schaefer.john@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is
(202)566-1744 and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1066.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0032. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This Information Collection Request
(ICR)renewal is being submitted for the NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP), which were promulgated on November 12, 1980. These standards apply to each ammonium sulfate dryer within an ammonium sulfate manufacturing plant in the caprolactam by-product, synthetic, and coke oven by-products sectors of the ammonium sulfate manufacturing industry for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after the date of the proposal. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart PP. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 61.5 hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Ammonium sulfate manufacturing plants. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2. *Frequency of Response:* Initially and semi-annually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 246. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $15,808, which includes $0 annualized capital start up costs, $0 annualized operating and maintenance costs (O&M) and $15,808 annualized labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Dated: February 13, 2007. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3004 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414; FRL-8279-4] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations, EPA ICR Number 0658.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0004 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)*OMB at:* Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *Attention:* Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; *telephone number:*
(919)541-0296; *fax number:*
(919)541-3207; e-mail address: *schaefer.john@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 *FR* 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is
(202)566-1744 and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 0658.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0004. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This Information Collection Request
(ICR)renewal is being submitted for the NSPS for Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart RR), which were promulgated on October 18, 1983. These regulations apply to each coating line used in the manufacture of pressure sensitive tape and label materials, and on which construction or reconstruction commenced after the proposal date. Facilities that input 45 megagrams of volatile organic compounds
(VOC)or less per 12 month period are not subject to the emission limit established by the subpart. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart RR. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25 (rounded) hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Pressure sensitive tape and label surface coating operations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 37. *Frequency of Response:* Initially and semi-annually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 3,353. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $263,323, which includes $7,000 annualized capital/start-up costs, $64,800 in annualized Operating & Maintenance (O&M) costs, and $191,523 in annualized Labor Costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 129 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to a correction. Dated: February 13, 2007. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3015 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0420; FRL-8279-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS and NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1160.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0114 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0420, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T , 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *Attention:* Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; *telephone number:*
(202)564-7021; *fax number:*
(202)564-0050; *e-mail* address: *marshall.robert@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0420, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov,* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NSPS and NESHAP for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1160.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0114. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* The New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP were proposed on February 7, 1984, and promulgated on February 25, 1985. These regulations apply to each rotary spin wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing line, which commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after February 2, 1984. The purpose of this NSPS is to control the emissions of particulate matter from each rotary spin wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing line. The standards limit particulate emissions to 5.5 kilograms per megagram (11.0 lb./ton) of molten glass used to manufacture the product. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN were proposed on March 31, 1997, and promulgated on June 14, 1999. These regulations apply to each glass melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing plant; each rotary spin
(RS)manufacturing line producing building insulation; each new and existing flame attenuation
(FA)manufacturing line that produces pipe products; and each new FA manufacturing line that produces heavy density products. Plants that manufacture mineral wool from rock or slag are not subject to the proposed rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP standard for mineral wool production. A facility that is determined to be an area source would not be subject to this NESHAP standard. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP and 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. In general, all NSPS and NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to both the NSPS and NESHAP. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports for both the NSPS and NESHAP are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)regional office. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 101 hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 61. *Frequency of Response:* Initially, on occasion and semiannually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 18,216. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $1,599,551, that is comprised of no capital costs, $489,000 in O&M costs and $1,110,551 in labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations. First, the regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years. Secondly, the growth rate for the industry is low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to industry. Dated: February 14, 2007. Richard T. Westlund, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3016 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0416; FRL-8279-6] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1064.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0034. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request
(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0416, to
(1)EPA online using *http://www.regulations.gov* (our preferred method), or by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov,* or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and
(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *Attention:* Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; *telephone number:*
(919)541-0296; *fax number:*
(919)541-3207; *e-mail address: schaefer.john@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0416, which is available for public viewing online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is
(202)566-1744 and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202)566-1927. Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov,* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (Renewal). *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 1064.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0034. *ICR Status:* This ICR is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2007. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* This Information Collection Request
(ICR)renewal is being submitted for the NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM), which were promulgated on December 24, 1980 (45 FR 85415). *These standards apply to the following automobile and light duty truck assembly plant lines:* each prime coat operation, guide coat operation, and top coat operation commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60 subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 745 hours per response. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Automobile and light duty truck surface coating operations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 54. *Frequency of Response:* Initially, semi-annually, and quarterly. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 156,362. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $9,733,981, which includes $1,700 annualized capital startup costs, $91,000 annualized operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, and $9,641,281 annualized labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is no change in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. Dated: February 14, 2007. Richard T. Westlund, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E7-3018 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0087; FRL-8114-6] Insect Repellent-Sunscreen Combination Products; Request for Information and Comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: EPA is seeking information to determine how insect repellent-sunscreen combination products should be regulated in order to complete the reregistration review which was described in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)document for the insect repellent DEET. This action would consider issues such as labeling, product performance and applicable safety standards for all currently (and any future) registered insect repellent-sunscreen combination products. The sunscreen components of these products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** is a companion notice in which the FDA is also requesting information and comments on these products and for which the FDA will be considering rulemaking. The decision on what if any change in the way these products are regulated will consider information and comments submitted in response to this Notice. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0087, by one of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0087. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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 docket 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Gebken, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)305-6701; fax number:
(703)308-0029; e-mail address: *gebken.richard@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those who currently have registered products or intend in the future to register any insect repellent-sunscreen combination products, as well as those individuals who use these products. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Submitting CBI* . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments* . When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date, and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? Currently, there are approximately 20 combination insect repellent/sunscreen products available for consumers. Each of these products contains an insect repellent component (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), oil of citronella or IR3535)) and a sunscreen component. Combination products are available in lotion, cream, and spray-on formulations. These products are currently marketed for use by the entire family. These products provide consumers with the convenience of using one product as opposed to the use of multiple products. In addition, it has been suggested that these products, containing both insect repellent and sunscreen components in one formulation, preserve the efficacy of both components better than if a consumer were to apply the insect repellent product and the sunscreen product sequentially. EPA is responsible for reevaluating previously registered pesticide products through a program called “reregistration.” In order to reregister a pesticide, EPA determines whether the product meets current scientific and statutory standards. Due to concerns about the potential conflict in labeling for the insect repellent and the sunscreen portions of the product, EPA postponed a reregistration eligibility decision
(RED)on whether to reregister the combination DEET/sunscreen products until additional information could be obtained. This document solicits opinion and comment from the public to assist in determining how best to regulate these products. These combination products are regulated by both EPA and FDA. EPA has regulatory authority over these products because of the insect repellent component and the sunscreen component is regulated by FDA. Both agencies are seeking comments to determine how these products should be regulated. (FDA's notice is located elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** .) EPA and FDA will work together to develop a coordinated approach to the regulation of combination products. 1. Regulatory status of the insect repellent ingredients. EPA provides information to the public regarding the use of insect repellent products at the following web site: *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/deet.htm* . Information detailed at that site provides the EPA-recommended precautions when using insect repellents, including (in part): • Read and follow all directions and precautions on the product label. • Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin. • Do not apply to hands or near eyes and mouth of young children. • Do not allow young children to apply repellent products. • Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing. • Do not use under clothing. • Avoid over-application. • After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water. • Wash treated clothing before wearing it again. • Use may cause skin reactions in rare cases. The following additional statements should appear on the labels of aerosol and pump spray formulation labels: • Do not spray in enclosed areas. • To apply to face, spray on hands first and then rub on face. Do not spray directly onto face. There are currently three
(3)insect repellent active ingredients used in combination with sunscreen (amounting to 20 currently registered combination products). These are: N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), oil of citronella and IR3535. Two other active ingredients are approved for use in insect repellent products, p-methane-3,8-diol and KBR 3023 (picaridin). Neither chemical, however, is currently available in a combination sunscreen formulation. Both DEET and oil of citronella have undergone reregistration which entailed an evaluation and analysis of the complete database for both chemicals. IR3535, picaridin, and p-methane-3,8-diol are newly registered chemicals which were evaluated during the registration process to ensure they met the statutory standard. In December 1998, EPA completed reregistration and issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)document for the pesticide DEET. DEET products, which are applied directly to skin and/or clothing, are available in numerous formulation types (e.g., aerosol sprays, non-aerosol sprays, creams, lotions, sticks, foams, and towelettes) and concentrations (products range from 4% active ingredient (a.i.) to 100% a.i.. DEET is an insect and mite repellent used in households/domestic dwellings, on the human body and on clothing, on cats, dogs and horses and in the living and sleeping quarters of pets. Based on pesticide usage information mainly for 1990 (DEET RED), an average annual estimate of the domestic usage of DEET is 4 million pounds (active ingredient). About 30% of the U.S. population uses DEET as an insect repellent at least once a year (about 27% of adult males, 31% of adult females and 34% of children). Approximately 21% of U.S. households use DEET annually. About 19% of households use DEET on household members, and about 4% of households that have cats and/or dogs use DEET on those pets (DEET RED). As EPA indicated in the DEET RED: “The Agency is concerned about consumer use of products that combine sunscreen and DEET, since the directions to reapply sunscreens generously and frequently may promote greater use of DEET than needed for pesticidal efficacy, and thus pose unnecessary exposure to DEET”. DEET labels currently recommend that products be used sparingly and not be reapplied too often. Sunscreen products, however, recommend frequent reapplication. No benefits attach to use of DEET more frequently than necessary to achieve its purpose. The Agency did not make a regulatory decision about whether to reregister these combination products at the time of the DEET RED because EPA believed that adequate information was not available. In February 1997, the EPA completed its Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)document for oil of citronella. This decision includes a comprehensive reassessment of the required target data and the use patterns of currently registered products. Oil of citronella is a biochemical pesticide. It is registered as an animal repellent and as an insect repellent/feeding depressant. Oil of citronella is the volatile oil obtained from the steam distillation of freshly cut or partially dried grasses ( *Cymbopogon nardus (Rendal)* and *Cymbopogon winterianus (Jowitt)* . Two varieties of the citronella oil exist commercially - “Ceylon type” (derived from *C. nardus* ) and “Java type” (derived from *C. winterianus* ). (Oil of Citronella RED, 02/97) Based on pesticide survey usage information for the years 1991 through 1992, annual citronella domestic usage ranged approximately from 33,000 to 48,000 pounds active ingredient for four sites (domestic dwelling; ornamentals; human face, skin, and clothing; and manufacturing). Oil of citronella is an insect repellent with its largest markets, in terms of total pounds active ingredient, allocated to human face, skin, and clothing (56% to 74%); domestic dwelling outdoor (22% to 41%); and ornamentals (1.5% to 2.0%). The balance is for manufacturing use. (Oil of Citronella RED) The third currently registered insect repellent used in combination with sunscreen is IR3535. In 1997, the Agency classified IR3535 as a biochemical, based on facts that: i. It is functionally identical to naturally occurring beta alanine; ii. Both repel insects; iii. The basic molecular structure is identical; iv. The end groups are not likely to contribute to toxicity; and v. It acts to control the target pest via a non-toxic mode of action. The active ingredient, IR3535 is a liquid synthetic biochemical pesticide which contains 98% 3 [N Butyl N acetyl] aminopropionic acid, ethyl ester as active ingredient and 2.00% inert ingredients. (Biopesticide Registration Eligibility Document) Two insect repellent active ingredients in registered pesticides are not currently utilized in a combination product. However, for the purposes of completeness, all currently registered insect repellents are discussed within this Notice. The first chemical is *p* -methane-3,8-diol, a biochemical pesticide which is chemically synthesized, although a natural oil comparable to *p* -methane-3,8-diol can be extracted from lemon eucalyptus leaves and twigs. It can be used in three types of consumer pesticide products: A spray, a lotion, and a towellette. *p* -methane-3,8-diol can be used to make products that are used for the purpose of repelling insects such as mosquitoes. (Biopesticide Registration Eligibility Document). The other insect repellent is KBR 3023, containing the active ingredient, picaridin. This chemical is currently formulated for use as a human skin applied insect repellent. Currently EPA-registered picaridin products include 15% pump spray, 10% aerosol spray, 7% cream, 7% pump spray, 5% cream, and 5% pump spray. 2. *Regulatory Status of the Sunscreen Ingredients* . In the **Federal Register** of May 21, 1999 (64 FR 27666), FDA issued a final monograph for over-the-counter
(OTC)sunscreen drug products in 21 CFR part 352, establishing conditions under which these products are generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded. The monograph includes 16 sunscreen active ingredients in § 352.10, provides for combinations of sunscreen active ingredients in § 353.20, specifies required labeling in §§ 352.50, 352.52 and 352.60, and sets forth required testing procedures in §§ 352.70 through 352.77. Historically, FDA has used its enforcement discretion to allow the marketing of appropriate insect repellent-sunscreen combination products. These types of products were marketed before the OTC drug review began in 1972, and FDA has not explicitly addressed them at any time in the rulemaking for OTC sunscreen drug products. Because they have always contained a pesticide, the combination insect repellent-sunscreen products have also historically been registered with and regulated by EPA. FDA has not objected to the marketing of the combination products pending the issuance of the final sunscreen monograph so long as the products contained sunscreen ingredients included in the FDA rulemaking and were registered with EPA. FDA is interested in determining whether it should amend that monograph to address these combination products before the monograph becomes effective. Any combination product containing an active drug ingredient that is not included in the final monograph after the effective date will be considered a new drug and need a new drug approval
(NDA)approval to be legally marketed, even if the product is also registered with EPA. III. Issues Related to Insect Repellent-Sunscreen Drug Products EPA and FDA have identified three broad issues areas in connection with the regulation of these combination products: A. Possible Manufacturing Conflicts Any insect repellent/sunscreen combination product would have to comply with EPA's data requirements in 40 CFR part 158 and with FDA's current good manufacturing practice for finished pharmaceuticals requirements in 21 CFR part 211. The Agencies are not aware of any specific manufacturing requirements that conflict and invite specific comment and information on this subject. B. Possible Formulation Conflicts The EPA has solicited information from registrants of combination insect repellent/sunscreen products regarding the possibility of formulation conflicts. The Agency is aware of some limited, conflicting information, which raises the question of whether combining a sunscreen and an insect repellent component in a single product diminishes the efficacy of either the sunscreen or the insect repellent. Specific comments and information are invited on this subject. C. Possible Labeling Conflicts Insect repellent/sunscreen products can have labeling requirements for their individual components that could theoretically conflict. The insect repellent component of the product must be labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part 156 and should comply with directions set out in its registration notice or the RED for the appropriate active ingredient. For each registered insect repellent, these requirements are listed in the registration or reregistration documents. The sunscreen component of the product must be labeled in accord with 21 CFR 201.66, 352.50, 352.52, and 352.60. The labeling format and some of the content requirements could vary between the EPA and FDA requirements. The Agency is looking at whether it is possible for products to comply with both sets of requirements and recommendations without confusing or misleading users. IV. Specific Topics for Comment The EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following topics: A. Safety Issues 1. *Application frequency* . The EPA is concerned that the combination products could contain conflicting use instructions on product labels which compromise safe use of these products. For example, the directions for some DEET products require a 6-hour interval between applications and state “use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing” and “avoid over-application of this product”. The directions for sunscreen drug products in § 352.52(d)(1) and (d)(2) state to “apply (select ‘liberally', ‘generously', ‘smoothly', or ‘evenly'), before sun exposure and as needed,” and “reapply as needed or after towel drying, swimming, or (select ‘sweating' or ‘perspiring')”. EPA is soliciting suggestions on how this potential concern can be alleviated. 2. *Application location* . The EPA has directed that insect repellents not be used for certain areas of the body (e.g., over cuts, applied by spray directly to the face, etc.), and apply sparingly around ears. Sunscreen use directions, however, encourage consumers to apply the products, on the face and ears, “liberally, generously, smoothly, or evenly” “before sun exposure and as needed,” and “reapply as needed or after towel drying, swimming, or (select ‘sweating' or ‘perspiring').” EPA is soliciting comment on how the safety concern of a potential misapplication of the insect repellent can be reconciled with the need to provide complete coverage of exposed skin for the sunscreen component. 3. *Federal Fungicide and Rodentide Act (FIFRA) registration* . Given the aforementioned safety concerns and potential conflicts, the Agency would like to solicit comments on whether these insect repellent-sunscreen combination products should be registered at all. B. Effectiveness Issues For some products, there are effectiveness concerns because of the interval of time required between applications of the product. EPA identifies reapplication times on product labels so consumers maintain protection against insect bites, while avoiding over-exposure. This reapplication time relates to the effectiveness of the insect repellent portion of the product, not to the sunscreen protection. The sunscreen reapplication time is under the purview of the FDA. For some of the insect repellent products currently registered, the recommended reapplication time to maintain the effectiveness of the insect repellent could potentially be longer than that recommended to ensure the protectiveness of the sunscreen portion of the product. EPA is soliciting comment on the following questions: 1. Is it possible to formulate these products such that the insect repellent protection time coincides with the sunscreen protection time? 2. Are there effective concentrations of the insect repellent ingredients that could be used to allow for liberal application and frequent reapplication of the insect repellent-sunscreen combination products, as directed by the sunscreen instructions, without causing unnecessary exposure of the consumer to the insect repellent component of the product? 3. Is information available to demonstrate that there are any chemical or physical incompatibilities between insect repellents and sunscreen active ingredients when used separately? If so, how does this vary by the insect repellent component or by the sunscreen component? Please submit and/or summarize any information that you reference. 4. Are there some product performance benefits derived from the purposeful combination of the insect repellent and the sunscreen ingredients (as opposed to the sequential application of these products separately). What information is available which would help frame the advantages or disadvantages of these formulation combinations? How does this vary by insect repellent? Please submit and/or summarize any information that you reference. C. Manufacturing, Registration and Testing Issues 1. Are manufacturers of the insect repellent/sunscreen combination products aware of any conflicts in the EPA and FDA manufacturing requirements? If yes, please identify and propose a way to resolve the conflict. 2. As it relates to potential future regulatory action taken with regard to these products, how should currently registered products be addressed? Should these products have to meet all of the requirements that result from the current EPA-FDA joint regulatory effort to retain their registrations? If not, what requirements should be retained, revised or eliminated? D. Labeling Issues 1. There are many differences between the labeling requirements required by FDA's OTC drug labeling requirements and EPA's pesticide labeling requirements. For example, the formats and the order in which information is presented are quite different. FDA allows the use of the word “warning” on labels; however it is only allowed as an indicator of toxicity level on pesticide labels. Various required section headings are different. Please comment on how such labeling differences can be reconciled. 2. FDA ingredient statements list the “inactive or inert” ingredients more often and in greater detail than do EPA approved labels. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not require the listing of the identities of inert ingredients on the label. Are there ways to provide the insect repellent inert ingredients information in the product's labeling to satisfy the drug requirements of the FFDCA? 3. Is it desirable for users of these products to have a single integrated label, or would an insect repellent
(EPA)and a sunscreen
(FDA)section in the product's labeling be preferable? 4. Should the insect repellent/sunscreen combination products be required to have a statement on the front panel of the label specifically identifying the product as containing an insect repellent (such as, This Product Contains An Insect Repellent)? Would this be useful to help consumers distinguish between sunscreen products that contain pesticides from the typical sunscreen drug products that contain no pesticides? List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Pesticides, Pests. Dated: February 13, 2007. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E7-3008 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket# EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0129; FRL-8279-3] Starmet CMI; Barnwell, Barnwell County, SC; Notice of Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of settlement. SUMMARY: Under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response costs with the Alaron Corporation concerning the Starmet CMI Superfund Site located in Barnwell, Barnwell County, South Carolina. DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until March 26, 2007. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0129 or Site name Starmet CMI Superfund Site by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail:* *Batchelor.Paula@epa.gov* • *Fax:* 404/562-8842/Attn Paula V. Batchelor *Mail:* Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA Region 4, WMD-SEIMB, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. “In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *Attn:* Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.” *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-2007-0129. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* *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 U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Batchelor at 404/562-8887. Dated: February 7, 2007. Rosalind H. Brown, Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E7-3014 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0079; FRL-OW-8280-2] Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Availability. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)announces the availability of the 2007 revised recommended aquatic life ambient freshwater quality criteria for copper. The Clean Water Act
(CWA)requires EPA to develop and publish, and from time to time revise, criteria for water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. These criteria provide EPA's recommendations to states and authorized tribes as they establish their water quality standards as state or tribal law or regulation. An EPA water quality criterion does not substitute for requirements of the CWA or EPA regulations, nor is an EPA criteria recommendation a regulation. It does not impose legally binding requirements on the EPA, states, authorized tribes or the regulated community. State and tribal decision makers have discretion to adopt approaches that differ from EPA's water quality criteria recommendations on a case-by-case basis. Today, the Agency is making a revised recommendation about water quality criteria for copper. ADDRESSES: Copies of the criteria document entitled, Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision (EPA-822-R-07-001) may be obtained from EPA's Water Resource Center by phone at
(202)566-1729, or by e-mail to *center.water.resource@epa.gov* or by conventional mail to: U.S. EPA Water Resource Center, 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You can also download the criteria document and the fact sheet from EPA's Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/index.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Luis Cruz, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
(202)566-1095; *cruz.luis@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Interested Entities Entities potentially interested in today's notice are those that produce, use, or regulate copper. Categories and entities interested in today's notice include: Category Examples of interested entities State/Local/Tribal Government States, Tribes and Municipalities. Industry Mining, fabricated metal products, electric equipment, leather products. This table is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be interested in this notice. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be interested. B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket EPA established an official public docket for the initial draft criteria document and scientific views received under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0079. The official public docket will also consist of the 2007 revised criteria document and scientific views received. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Water Docket is
(202)566-2426. To view these documents and materials, please call ahead to schedule an appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per day before incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page for each page over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of $25.00. 2. Electronic Access You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA's Internet listings under the **Federal Register** at: *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.* II. Background and Today's Notice of Availability A. What Are EPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria? An EPA recommended ambient water quality criterion is a description of the amount of a pollutant or other measurable substance in water that, when met, will protect aquatic life and/or human health. Water quality criteria are based on the factors specified in section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including the kind and extent of effects of the pollutant on human health and aquatic organisms. Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) requires EPA to develop and publish and, from time to time, revise, recommended ambient water quality criteria to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge. An EPA water criterion does not substitute for requirements of the CWA or EPA regulations, nor is an EPA criteria recommendation a regulation. It does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized tribes or the regulated community. State and tribal decision makers have discretion to adopt approaches that differ from EPA's water quality criteria recommendations on a case-by-case basis. Ambient water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) provide guidance to states and tribes in adopting water quality criteria into their water quality standards under section 303(c) of the CWA. Once adopted by a state or tribe, the water quality standards are then a basis for developing regulatory controls on the discharge or release of pollutants and other alterations of water quality. EPA's section 304(a) criteria also provide a scientific basis for EPA to develop any necessary federal water quality regulations under section 303(c) of the CWA. B. What Is the Relationship Between the Water Quality Criteria and Your State or Tribal Water Quality Standards? The revised recommended criteria in today's notice are based on the factors specified in section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including the kind and extent of effects of the pollutant on human health and aquatic organisms. EPA's recommended criteria are used by the states and tribes in developing their regulatory criteria under section 303(c) of the CWA. Under the Clean Water Act, regulatory water quality criteria must protect the designated use, independent of the economic and technical feasibility of meeting the criteria. Economic and technical feasibility factors are considered by states and tribes when they adopt designated uses into their water quality standards under section 303(c) of the Act and when states, tribes, and EPA consider variance requests. Moreover, states and tribes may also consider alternative scientifically defensible approaches to adopting criteria into their water quality standards. Section 303(c)(1) of the CWA requires states and authorized tribes to review and modify, if appropriate, their water quality standards at least once every three years. Water quality standards consist of designated uses, water quality criteria to protect those uses, a policy for antidegradation, and general policies for application and implementation. States and authorized tribes must adopt water quality criteria that protect designated uses. Protective criteria, based on a sound scientific rationale, contain appropriate factors to protect the designated uses. Criteria may be either narrative or numeric. States and authorized tribes have four options when adopting water quality criteria for parameters for which EPA has published section 304(a) criteria. They may:
(1)Establish numerical values based on recommended CWA section 304(a) criteria;
(2)Establish numerical values based on CWA section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions;
(3)Establish numerical values based on other scientifically defensible methods; or
(4)Establish narrative criteria or criteria based upon biomonitoring methods where numerical criteria cannot be determined or to supplement numerical criteria. See 40 CFR 131.11(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21, water quality criteria that states and authorized tribes adopted and submitted to EPA before May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes. The criteria remain in effect unless and until EPA promulgates federal regulations that supersede them or EPA approves a revised state criteria. See, e.g., the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131.36; Water Quality Standards for Idaho, 40 CFR 131.33. New or revised water quality criteria that states and authorized tribes adopted into law or regulation and submit to EPA on or after May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes only after EPA approves them. C. What Is the History of Today's Revised Criteria? EPA notified the public of its intentions to revise the recommended aquatic life criteria for copper in the **Federal Register** on October 29, 1999 (63 FR 58406). On December 31, 2003 EPA published a Federal Register Notice announcing the availability of the document Notice of Availability of Draft Aquatic Life Criteria Document for Copper and Request for Scientific Views (68 FR 75552). The initial draft criteria document contained recommendations for both freshwater and saltwater criteria derivations; however, EPA has since determined that the biotic ligand model requires further development before it is suitable for use to evaluate saltwater data. On March 9, 2004 EPA published a Federal Register Notice (69 FR 11012) announcing the reopening of the period to submit scientific views in response to requests from the public. Comments received were supportive of using the BLM for deriving freshwater criteria for copper. Issues related to criteria derivation process were answered, as well as corrections in matters of scientific relevance related to the applicability of the BLM. D. What Is Copper? Copper is an abundant trace element found in the earth's crust and is a naturally occurring element that is generally present in surface waters. Copper is a micronutrient at low concentrations and recognized as essential to virtually all plants and animals. Historically, elevated levels of copper have been linked to adverse effects on aquatic organisms and concerns have prompted its inclusion as a priority pollutant. Currently, there are 629 rivers and streams listed as impaired for copper and 5 for contaminated sediments due to copper. E. What Is New About the Revised Criteria? The aquatic life criteria document titled, “Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision” (EPA-822-R-07-001), contains revised recommendations for freshwater aquatic life criteria for copper. These revised criteria recommendations are based in part on new data that have become available since EPA's last comprehensive criteria updates for copper, “Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper—1984” (EPA-440/5-84-031). EPA derived the freshwater criteria recommendations presented in this draft document based on the principles set forth in EPA's 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Aquatic Life Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. In addition to incorporating new data, the freshwater criterion maximum concentration (CMC or ”acute criterion”) also relies on a new scientific model, the biotic ligand model (BLM), in the criteria derivation procedures. The freshwater criterion continuous concentration (CCC or “chronic criterion”) is based on a BLM derived acute value divided by a final acute-chronic ratio. Where used, the application of the BLM will replace the need for site-specific modifications, such as Water Effect Ratio, to account for site-specific chemistry influences on metal toxicity. F. How Do BLM-Derived Criteria Differ From Hardness-Dependent Criteria? The biotic ligand model is a metal bioavailability model based on recent information about the chemical behavior and physiological effects of metals in aquatic environments. Earlier freshwater aquatic life criteria for copper published by the Agency were based on empirical relationships of toxicity to water hardness. That is, a relationship was established linking the criteria concentrations with water hardness. These hardness-dependent criteria, however, represented combined effects of different water quality variables (such as pH and alkalinity) correlated with hardness. Unlike the empirically derived hardness-dependent criteria, the BLM explicitly accounts for individual water quality variables and addresses variables that EPA had not previously factored into the hardness relationship. Where the previous freshwater aquatic life criteria were hardness-dependent, these revised criteria are dependent on a number of water quality parameters (e.g., calcium, magnesium, dissolved organic carbon) described in the document. BLM-based criteria can be more stringent than the current hardness-based copper criteria and in certain cases the current hardness-based copper criteria may be overly stringent for particular water bodies. More information on the development and application of the biotic ligand model is available in the criteria document as well as in The Biotic Ligand Model: Technical Support Document for Its Application to the Evaluation of Water Quality Criteria for Copper (EPA 822-R-03-027) and Integrated Approach to Assessing the Bioavailability and Toxicity of Metals in Surface Waters and Sediments (EPA-822-E-99-001). G. What Are the New Revised Criteria for Copper? The available toxicity data, when evaluated using the procedures described in the “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses” indicate that freshwater aquatic life should be protected if the 24-hour average and four-day average concentrations do not respectively exceed the acute and chronic criteria concentrations calculated by the Biotic Ligand Model. A return interval of 3 years between exceedances of the criterion continues to be EPA's general recommendation. However, the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover differ greatly. Therefore, scientific derivation of alternative frequencies for exceeding criteria may be appropriate. Dated: February 15, 2007. Ephraim King, Director, Office of Science and Technology. [FR Doc. E7-3007 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Submission for OMB Review AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Final notice of submission for OMB review. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)hereby gives notice that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)a request for an extension of the existing collection requirements under 29 CFR 1602, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements under Title VII and the ADA. The Commission has requested an extension of an existing collection as listed below. DATES: Written comments on this final notice must be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: The Request for Clearance (SF 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from: Mona Papillon, General Attorney, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this final notice must be submitted to Brenda Aquilar, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to *baguilar@omb.eop.gov.* Comments should also be sent to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10th Floor, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commentators, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the FAX receiver is
(202)663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at
(202)663-4070 (voice) or
(202)663-4074 (TDD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel or Mona Papillon, General Attorney, at
(202)663-4660 or TDD
(202)663-4074. This notice is also available in the following formats: large print, braille, audio tape and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Publications Center at 1-800-669-3362. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2006, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received. Overview of This Information Collection *Type of Review:* Extension—No change. *Collection Title:* Recordkeeping and Reporting under Title VII and the ADA. *Form No.:* None. *Frequency of Report:* Other. *Type of Respondent:* Employers with 15 or more employees. *Description of Affected Public:* Employers with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII and the ADA. *Responses:* 627,000. *Reporting Hours:* One. *Federal Cost:* None. *Abstract:* Section 709 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e and section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12117 require the Commission to establish regulations pursuant to which employers subject to those Acts shall make and preserve certain records to assist the EEOC in assuring compliance with the Acts' nondiscrimination requirements in employment. This is a recordkeeping requirement. Any of the records maintained which are subsequently disclosed to the EEOC during an investigation are protected from public disclosure by the confidentiality provisions of section 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII, which are also incorporated into the ADA at section 107(a). *Burden Statement:* The estimated number of respondents is approximately 627,000 employers. The recordkeeping obligation does not require reports or the creation of new documents; it merely requires retention of documents that the employer has made or kept. Thus, the burden imposed by these regulations is minimal. The burden is estimated to be less than one hour per employer. Dated: February 6, 2007. For the Commission. Naomi C. Earp, Chair. [FR Doc. E7-2908 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress. TIME and Place: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571. Agenda: Agenda items include a short summary of the Bank's recent reauthorization, plus presentations from the Small Business Team and the Services Team of the 2007 Advisory Committee members. Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance process into the building, and you may contact Teri Stumpf to be placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to March 1, 2007, Teri Stumpf, Room 1209, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice:
(202)565-3502 or TDD
(202)565-3377. Further Information: For further information, contact Teri Stumpf, Room 1209, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571,
(202)565-3502. Kamil P. Cook, Deputy General Counsel. [FR Doc. 07-792 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 6
24 references not yet in our index
- 10 CFR 1021
- 10 CFR 1022
- 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)
- 10 CFR 1021.314(c)
- Pub. L. 109-58
- 40 CFR 1505.2(c)
- 40 CFR 9
- 40 CFR 60
- 40 CFR 63
- 40 CFR 268.6
- 40 CFR 62
- 5 CFR 1320.12
- 5 CFR 1320.8(d)
- 40 CFR 2
- 21 CFR 352
- 40 CFR 158
- 21 CFR 211
- 40 CFR 156
- 40 CFR 131.11(b)
- 40 CFR 131.21
- 40 CFR 131.36
- 40 CFR 131.33
- 29 CFR 1602
- Pub. L. 98-181
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Record of Decision (ROD)
Cite10 CFR 1021
Cite10 CFR 1022
Cite40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)
Cite10 CFR 1021.314(c)
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-58
Cites 30 · showing 11Cited by 0 across 0 sources