Notices. Notice of Intent

11,041 words·~50 min read·/register/2007/03/28/07-1499

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

BILLING CODE 4001-01-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the Savannah River Site AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)intends to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS)to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of plutonium disposition capabilities that would be constructed and operated at the Savannah River Site

(SRS)near Aiken, South Carolina. DOE completed the *Surplus Plutonium Disposition

(SPD)EIS* (DOE/EIS-0283) in November 1999, and on January 11, 2000, published a Record of Decision

(ROD)in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 1608). DOE decided to dispose of approximately 17 metric tons of plutonium surplus to the nation's defense needs using an immobilization process and up to 33 metric tons by using the surplus plutonium as feedstock in the fabrication of mixed oxide

(MOX)fuel to be irradiated in commercial reactors. DOE selected the SRS as the site for all surplus plutonium disposition facilities. Subsequently, DOE cancelled the immobilization portion of its disposition strategy due to budgetary constraints (ROD, 67 FR 19432, April 19, 2002). The selection of the SRS as the location for disposition facilities for up to 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium remains unchanged. Site preparation for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the SRS began in November 2005. The 2002 decision left DOE with about 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium that does not have a defined path to disposition (about 4 metric tons of the 17 metric tons originally considered for immobilization has been designated for programmatic use). DOE has been investigating alternative disposition technologies and will now prepare an *SEIS for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the SRS* (DOE/EIS-0283-S2) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of those alternatives. DOE's preferred alternative is to construct and operate a vitrification facility within an existing building at the SRS. This facility would immobilize plutonium within a lanthanide borosilicate glass inside stainless steel cans. The cans then would be placed within larger canisters to be filled with vitrified high-level radioactive waste in the Defense Waste Processing Facility

(DWPF)at the SRS. The canisters would be suitable for disposal in a geologic repository. DOE also would prepare some of the surplus plutonium for disposal by processing it in the H-Canyon at the SRS, then sending it to the high-level waste tanks and DWPF. DOE seeks to take this action to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation worldwide by disposing of surplus plutonium in the United States in a safe and environmentally sound manner. The preferred vitrification technology, along with processing in H-Canyon, would fulfill this need for disposition of surplus plutonium materials that are not planned for disposition via fabrication into MOX fuel. DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, state and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the public to submit comments to assist in identifying environmental issues and in determining the appropriate scope of the SEIS. The public scoping period starts with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** and will continue until May 29, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent practicable. Also, DOE requests Federal, State, and local agencies that desire to be designated as cooperating agencies on the SEIS to contact the NEPA Document Manager at the addresses listed under ADDRESSES by the end of the scoping period. DOE will hold two public scoping meetings: • April 17, 2007 (5:30 p.m.-10 p.m.) at Newberry Hall, 117 Newberry Street, SW., Aiken, SC. • April 19, 2007 (5:30 p.m.-10 p.m.) at the Columbia Marriott Hotel, 1200 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC. DOE officials will be available to answer questions about plutonium disposition and the proposed alternatives at both locations beginning at 5:30 p.m. DOE will provide a brief presentation on the SEIS, then, beginning about 6:30 p.m., accept public comments on the scope of the SEIS. ADDRESSES: Comments or questions regarding the scoping process, requests to be placed on the SEIS distribution list, and comments on the scope of the SEIS should be addressed to Mr. Andrew R. Grainger, NEPA Document Manager, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box B, Aiken, SC 29802; toll-free telephone 1-800-881-7292; fax 803-952-7065; or e-mail *drew.grainger@srs.gov* . For general information concerning 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 20585-0103; telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756; fax 202-586-7031; or send an e-mail to *askNEPA@eh.doe.gov* . This NOI will be available on the Internet at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background After the end of the Cold War, the United States declared 50 metric tons of plutonium surplus to the defense needs of the nation. At that time, plutonium materials were in various forms and various stages of the material manufacturing and weapons fabrication processes and were located at several weapons complex sites that DOE had operated in the preceding decades. DOE began the process of placing these materials in safe, stable configurations for storage until disposition strategies could be developed and implemented. In the *Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic EIS* (Storage and Disposition PEIS, DOE/EIS-0229, December 1996), DOE evaluated six candidate sites for siting plutonium disposition facilities and three categories of disposition technologies that would convert surplus plutonium into a form that would meet the Spent Fuel Standard. 1 The three categories were: Deep Borehole Category (two options); Immobilization Category (three options: vitrification, ceramic immobilization, electrometallurgical treatment); and Reactor Category (four options). DOE also analyzed a No Action Alternative. DOE selected a dual-path strategy for disposition involving immobilization of surplus plutonium in glass or ceramic material for disposal in a geologic repository, and burning other surplus plutonium as MOX fuel in existing domestic commercial reactor(s) with subsequent disposal of the spent fuel in a geologic repository (ROD, 62 FR 3014, January 21, 1997). DOE also decided that an immobilization facility would be located at Hanford in Washington or at the SRS. 1 Under that standard, the surplus weapons-usable plutonium should be made as inaccessible and unattractive for weapons use as the much larger and growing quantity of plutonium that exists in spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors. In November 1999, DOE issued the *Surplus Plutonium Disposition EIS.* The SPD EIS tiered from the Storage and Disposition PEIS and included an analysis of alternative technologies and sites to implement the dual-path plutonium disposition strategy. In January 2000, DOE decided to construct and operate a MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the SRS to use up to 33 metric tons of surplus plutonium to fabricate MOX fuel and to construct and operate a new immobilization facility at the SRS (referred to as the Plutonium Immobilization Plant) using the ceramic can-in-canister technology allowing for the immobilization of approximately 17 metric tons of surplus plutonium (ROD, 65 FR 1608, January 11, 2000). Using this technology, DOE would immobilize plutonium in a ceramic form, seal it in cans, and place the cans in canisters filled with borosilicate glass containing intensely radioactive high-level waste at the existing DWPF. DOE stated that the can-in-canister approach would complement existing site missions, take advantage of existing infrastructure and staff expertise, and enable DOE to use an existing facility, DWPF. In 2002, DOE cancelled the immobilization portion of the plutonium disposition strategy (ROD, 67 FR 19432, April 19, 2002). The selection of the SRS as the location for disposition facilities for up to 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium remains unchanged. In November 2005, DOE began site preparation at SRS for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. For purposes of this NEPA analysis, DOE will assume that the surplus plutonium to be disposed of will include some of the plutonium already stored at the SRS and some that DOE could move to the SRS from other sites (e.g., Hanford in Washington, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California). DOE previously evaluated the transfer and storage of surplus plutonium from other sites in the Storage and Disposition PEIS and the SPD EIS. In addition, DOE will analyze the potential environmental impacts of these proposed shipments to, and subsequent storage in, the K-Area at the SRS in a supplement analysis (pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.314(c)). Upon completion of the supplement analysis, DOE will determine whether to issue an Amended ROD or conduct additional NEPA review, as appropriate. As explained in a prior ROD, “in addition to achieving the ultimate goal of permanent disposition of surplus plutonium materials, DOE independently needs to improve the configuration of the storage system for these materials, pending disposition” (67 FR 19433, April 19, 2002). In addition to completing appropriate environmental reviews in compliance with NEPA, prior to shipping surplus weapons-usable plutonium to the SRS that would have been disposed of in the Plutonium Immobilization Plant, DOE must comply with Section 3155, Disposition of Defense Plutonium at the Savannah River Site, of Public Law 107-107, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. Section 3155(d) of this law requires that DOE prepare a plan that identifies a disposition path for such surplus plutonium. Purpose and Need for Action DOE's purpose and need for proposing this immobilization process has not changed since the SPD EIS was prepared. DOE needs to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation worldwide by disposing of surplus plutonium in the United States in a safe and environmentally sound manner. As stated in the ROD for the SPD EIS, DOE needs to ensure that plutonium produced for nuclear weapons and declared surplus to national security needs, now and in the future, is never again used for nuclear weapons. In addition, because of the cancellation of the immobilization portion of the disposition strategy in 2002, DOE is responsible for approximately 13 metric tons of declared surplus plutonium that does not have a defined disposition path. This situation needs to be addressed in light of DOE's ongoing responsibility to ensure the safe disposition of surplus plutonium. Potential Range of Alternatives In September 2005, DOE approved the Mission Need for a Plutonium Disposition Project at the SRS to address up to approximately 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium without an identified disposition path. The Mission Need is the first step in DOE's project management process, in accordance with DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets. DOE completed a technical review of alternative technologies in May 2006, which identified four potentially viable alternatives for completing the disposition of surplus plutonium. Three of these four alternatives will be evaluated in the SEIS. • A glass can-in-canister approach installed in K-Area at the SRS. Plutonium would be vitrified within small cans, which would be placed in a rack inside a DWPF canister and surrounded with vitrified high-level waste. This alternative is similar to one evaluated in the SPD EIS, except that the capability would be installed in an existing rather than a new facility. Also, the currently proposed facility would be designed to immobilize approximately 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium rather than 17 metric tons as evaluated in the SPD EIS. (This is DOE's Preferred Alternative.) • A ceramic can-in-canister approach installed in K-Area at the SRS. Plutonium would be incorporated in a ceramic material and placed in small cans, which would be placed in a rack inside a DWPF canister and surrounded with vitrified high-level waste. This alternative is similar to that initially selected by DOE following analysis in the SPD EIS. As with the glass can-in-canister approach, the two primary differences are that the SEIS will evaluate installing the capability in an existing rather than a new facility, and the SEIS will assume the disposition of approximately 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium, rather than 17 metric tons. • Disposition using the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. This alternative would rely on facilities to be constructed at the SRS for disposition by using the surplus plutonium as feedstock in the fabrication of MOX fuel to be irradiated in commercial reactors. DOE anticipates that less than a third of the 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium that are the subject of this SEIS would meet the specifications for use as MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility feedstock. Under each of the three alternatives, DOE would process some surplus plutonium for disposal using the H-Canyon. Plutonium materials would be dissolved, and the resulting plutonium-bearing solutions would be sent to the SRS liquid radioactive waste tanks then to DWPF for vitrification. DOE is evaluating the continued use of H-Canyon for uranium processing in a separate NEPA document—a supplement analysis scheduled for completion in 2007. Decisions regarding future operations of H-Canyon have a bearing on the availability of the facility to process surplus plutonium (i.e., processing for plutonium disposition would occur while H-Canyon is operating primarily for uranium processing). The SEIS also will evaluate a No Action alternative of continued storage of the surplus plutonium. DOE has determined that the fourth alternative identified in the May 2006 technical review is not reasonable, and thus, it will not be evaluated in detail in the SEIS. This alternative involved disposing of the entire 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium through H-Canyon and DWPF. Disposing of the entire 13 metric tons of surplus plutonium by using the H-Canyon facilities would result in extending operation of those facilities many years beyond the estimated 2019 date for completion of its currently approved mission of preparing spent nuclear fuel and highly-enriched uranium materials for disposition, and would also extend the planned operation of DWPF and the high-level waste system. Furthermore, implementation of this alternative would require security upgrades to make H-Canyon a Category I nuclear facility, which is inconsistent with the Department's plans to enhance security and reduce costs throughout the complex by reducing the number of such facilities. The additional cost of these security upgrades and extended operations are estimated to be several billion dollars. Invitation to Comment DOE invites Federal agencies, state and local governments, Native American tribes, industry, other organizations, and members of the public to provide comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and environmental issues to be analyzed in the *Supplemental EIS for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the SRS.* DOE will consider all such comments and other relevant information in defining the scope and analyses for the SEIS. Comments should be submitted as described under DATES and ADDRESSES above. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis DOE has tentatively identified the following environmental issues for analysis in the *Supplemental EIS for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the SRS.* The list is presented to facilitate comment on the scope of the SEIS and is not intended to be comprehensive nor to predetermine the alternatives to be analyzed or their potential impacts. • Impacts to the general population and workers from radiological and nonradiological releases. • Worker health and safety, including impacts from the use of chemicals. • Long-term health and environmental impacts. • Impacts of emissions on air and water quality. • Impacts on ecological systems and threatened and endangered species. • Impacts from waste management activities. • Impacts from the transportation of radioactive materials and waste. • Impacts of postulated accidents and from terrorist actions and sabotage. • Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income and minority populations (environmental justice). • Short-term and long-term land use impacts. NEPA Process Following the scoping period announced in this Notice of Intent, and after consideration of comments received during scoping, DOE will prepare a Draft *SEIS for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the SRS.* DOE will announce the availability of the Draft SEIS in the **Federal Register** and local media outlets. DOE plans to issue the Draft SEIS by January 2008. Comments received on the Draft SEIS will be considered and addressed in the Final SEIS, which DOE anticipates issuing by July 2008. DOE will issue a ROD no sooner than 30 days after publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of a Notice of Availability of the Final SEIS. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2007. Eric J. Fygi, Acting General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-5591 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [AMS-FRL-8292-8] California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Authorization of Marine Outboard, Personal Watercraft and Tier One Inboard/Sterndrive Engine Standards, Notice of Decision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Decision for Authorization of California Marine Outboard, Personal Watercraft and Tier One Inboard/Sterndrive Engine Emission Standards. SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e), is granting California its requests for authorization of its Marine Spark-Ignition Engines regulations for outboard and personal watercraft engines in their entirety, and for the first tier of regulations affecting inboard and sterndrive engines. EPA is deferring an authorization decision on the second tier of inboard and sterndrive standards pending the completion of testing currently underway to evaluate the technological feasibility of both the California inboard and sterndrive standards and Federal inboard and sterndrive standards which are expected to be proposed regulations in 2007. ADDRESSES: The Agency's Decision Document, containing an explanation of the Assistant Administrator's decision, as well as all documents relied upon in making that decision, including those submitted to EPA by California, are available for public inspection in EPA Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket). Materials relevant to this decision are contained in Docket OAR-2004-0403 at the following location: EPA Air Docket, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. The Air Docket telephone number is

(202)566-1742, and the facsimile number is

(202)566-1741. You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Doyle, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 (U.S. mail), 1310 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005 (courier mail). *Telephone:*

(202)343-9258, *Fax:*

(202)343-2804, *E-Mail: doyle.robert@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents EPA makes available an electronic copy of this Notice on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality

(OTAQ)homepage ( *http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ* ). Users can find this document by accessing the OTAQ homepage and looking at the path entitled **“Federal Register Notices”** . This service is free of charge, except any cost you already incur for Internet connectivity. Users can also get the official **Federal Register** version of the Notice on the day of publication on the primary Web site: ( *http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/* ) Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur. Additionally, an electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may access EPA dockets at *http://www.regulations.gov* . After opening the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site, select “Environmental Protection Agency” from the pull-down Agency list, then scroll to Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0403 to view documents in the record of this Marine Authorization Request docket. 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. II. Background

(A)Nonroad Authorizations Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses the permanent preemption of any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. 1 Section 209(e)(2) of the Act allows the Administrator to grant California authorization to enforce state standards for new nonroad engines or vehicles which are not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a regulation that sets forth, among other things, the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), by which EPA must consider any California authorization requests for new nonroad engines or vehicle emission standards (section 209(e) rules). 2 1 Section 209(e)(1) of the Act provides: No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions from either of the following new nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles subject to regulation under this Act—

(A)New engines which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower.

(B)New locomotives or new engines used in locomotives. Subsection

(b)shall not apply for purposes of this paragraph. 2 *See* 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994), and regulations set forth therein, 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, §§ 85.1601-85.1606. Section 209(e)(2) requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to enforce standards and other requirements relating to emissions control of new engines not listed under section 209(e)(1). 3 The section 209(e) rule and its codified regulations 4 formally set forth the criteria, located in section 209(e)(2) of the Act, by which EPA must grant California authorization to enforce its new nonroad emission standards: 3 As discussed above, states are permanently preempted from adopting or enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new engines listed in section 209(e)(1). 4 *See* 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, § 85.1605. 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q, § 85.1605 provides:

(a)The Administrator shall grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.

(b)The authorization shall not be granted if the Administrator finds that:

(1)The determination of California is arbitrary and capricious;

(2)California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or

(3)California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209. As stated in the preamble to the section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted the requirement that EPA cannot find “California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209” to mean that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C), as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the context of motor vehicle waivers. 5 In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Secondly, California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(e)(1), which identifies the categories permanently preempted from state regulation. 6 California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures would be considered inconsistent with section 209 if they applied to the categories of engines or vehicles identified and preempted from State regulation in section 209(e)(1). 5 *See* 59 FR 36969, 36983 (July 20, 1994). 6 Section 209(e)(1) of the Act has been implemented, *See* 40 CFR part 85, Subpart Q §§ 85.1602, 85.1603. § 85.1603 provides in applicable part:

(a)For equipment that is used in applications in addition to farming or construction activities, if the equipment is primarily used as farm and/or construction equipment or vehicles, as defined in this subpart, it is considered farm or construction equipment or vehicles.

(b)States are preempted from adopting or enforcing standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new engines smaller than 175 horsepower, that are primarily used in farm or construction equipment or vehicles, as defined in this subpart. § 85.1602 provides definitions of terms used in § 85.1603 and states in applicable part: *Construction equipment or vehicle* means any internal combustion engine-powered machine primarily used in construction and located on commercial construction sites. *Farm Equipment or Vehicle* means any internal combustion engine-powered machine primarily used in the commercial production and/or commercial harvesting of food, fiber, wood, or commercial organic products or for the processing of such products for further use on the farm. *primarily used* means used 51 percent or more. Finally, because California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA will review nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if he finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers of Federal preemption for motor vehicles have stated that State standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time period or if the Federal and State test procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements. 7 7 To be consistent, the California certification procedures need not be identical to the Federal certification procedures. California procedures would be inconsistent, however, if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the state and the Federal requirement with the same test vehicle in the course of the same test. *See* , *e.g.* , 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978). With regard to enforcement procedures accompanying standards, EPA must grant the requested authorization unless it finds that these procedures may cause the California standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than the applicable Federal standards promulgated pursuant to section 213(a), or unless the Federal and California certification test procedures are inconsistent. 8 8 *See* , *e.g.* , *Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc* . v. *EPA* , 627 F.2d 1095, 1111-14 (D.C. Cir. 1979), *cert. denied* , 446 U.S. 952

(1980)( *MEMA I* ); 43 FR 25729 (June 14, 1978). While inconsistency with section 202(a) includes technological feasibility, lead time, and cost, these aspects are typically relevant only with regard to standards. The aspect of consistency with 202(a) which is of primary applicability to enforcement procedures (especially test procedures) is test procedure consistency. Once California has received an authorization for its standards and enforcement procedures for a certain group or class of nonroad equipment engines or vehicles, it may adopt other conditions precedent to the initial retail sale, titling or registration of these engines or vehicles without the necessity of receiving an additional authorization. 9 9 *See* 43 FR 36679, 36680 (August 18, 1978). If California acts to amend a previously authorized standard or accompanying enforcement procedure, the amendment may be considered within the scope of a previously granted authorization provided that it does not undermine California's determination that its standards in the aggregate are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards, does not affect the consistency with section 209 of the Act, and raises no new issues affecting EPA's previous authorization determination. 10 10 Decision Document for California Nonroad Engine Regulations Amendments, Dockets A-2000-05 to 08, entry V-B, p. 28.

(B)Summary of Background Requests The California Air Resources Board

(CARB)submitted to EPA three separate but related requests to authorize various marine spark ignition engine regulations. EPA examined all three submissions together in our review of the requests to enforce CARB's marine SI engine emissions regulation program. These requests are summarized in order below.

(1)By letter dated April 4, 2000, CARB requested EPA authorization to enforce California's marine SI regulations affecting outboard

(OB)marine engines. The CARB regulations set emission standards for these marine engines commencing with model year 2001 for both certification and in-use standards. The first tier of the CARB regulations basically adopted the standards equivalent to the EPA 2006 marine SI engines. CARB also adopted a second tier of outboard engine regulations, commencing in model year 2004 requiring emissions at levels approximately 80% of the EPA 2006 standards, and a third tier, commencing in 2008, requiring emissions at levels approximately 35% of the EPA 2006 standard. Manufacturers are permitted to meet the standards directly or on a corporate average basis, where some engine families may emit more than the emission standard if they are offset by engines which emit sufficiently less than the standard. To accompany the new standards, CARB also adopted regulations requiring manufacturer production line testing (along with CARB authority to conduct Selective Enforcement Audits), manufacturer demonstration of in-use compliance, emission warranties, permanent emission certification labels for covered engines, and special “hang tags” for consumer/environmental awareness of clean technology engines. 11 11 At the time this request was presented to EPA, the California Office of Administrative Law had not approved the section of the regulations dealing with these hang tags because of problems it found with the applicability date of the hang tag requirement. These problems were resolved and the hang tag requirement was included as part of the CARB June 5, 2002 request described below.

(2)By letter dated June 5, 2002, CARB extended the earlier authorization request to include regulations for marine SI engines in personal watercraft

(PWC)12 for model year 2002 and beyond. The PWCs are subject to the same emission standards and requirements as the marine outboard SI engines discussed above. The CARB marine regulations had included both outboards and PWCs from the outset, but PWCs had not been included in the original CARB request because of technical issues raised by PWC manufacturers related to compliance with the CARB standards for model year 2001. The June 5, 2002 CARB request stated that those issues had been resolved, so CARB submitted this extension. In addition, CARB submitted for authorization the marine engine consumer hang tag regulations because the earlier model year applicability issue had been resolved. 12 Personal watercraft are small watercraft on which the rider sits or stands during operation, such as jet skis and wave runners. CARB Staff Report, October 23, 1998, at p. 9, Docket OAR-2004-0403.

(3)By letter dated March 2, 2004, CARB extended the earlier requests by requesting authorization to enforce California's marine SI regulations affecting inboard and sterndrive (IB/SD) engines for model years 2003 and beyond. 13 The first tier of regulations, for model year 2003 through 2008, sets a cap reflecting average emission levels of 16.0 grams per kilowatt hour (g/kW-hr) HC plus NO X which manufacturers can meet directly by engine family or by corporate average. The second tier of standards sets a level of 5.0 g/kW-hr HC plus NO X and will phase in beginning with 45% of manufacturers' sales in 2007, 75% in 2008 and 100% in 2009 and beyond. For 2007 and 2008, all engines subject to the standard must comply directly with the standard, with no option for sales weighted-averaging. Besides these new standards, other regulations establish requirements for certification, emission test procedures, emissions warranty, and emission certification labels and consumer/environmental awareness hang tag labels. In addition, the IB/SD regulations require on-board diagnostics for these engines. Finally, as part of the IB/SD rulemaking, CARB adopted some minor amendments to the OB and PWC regulations to clarify some definitions and labeling requirements made necessary by the adoption of the regulations for IB/SD marine engines. 13 Inboard engines include a propeller shaft that penetrates the hull of the marine vessel, while the engine and the remainder of the drive unit are internal to the hull of the marine watercraft. In sterndrive engines, the drive unit is external to the hull of the marine watercraft, while the engine is internal to the hull of the marine watercraft. CARB Staff Report, June 8, 2002, at p. 4, Docket OAR-2004-0403. As required by the Act, EPA offered the opportunity for a public hearing and requested public comments on these new standards by publication of a **Federal Register** notice to such effect on January 12, 2005. 14 EPA received a request for a hearing from the National Marine Manufacturers Association, 15 and a hearing was held on February 28, 2005. 16 In addition, EPA received post-hearing written comments for the Docket of this proceeding from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, several marine engine manufacturers, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), and a supplemental submission from CARB responding to matters raised at the public hearing. 17 Accordingly, EPA has made this authorization decision based on the information submitted by CARB in its requests, and the information presented to the Agency at the public hearing and in the comments received after the hearing. 14 70 FR 2151 (January 12, 2005). 15 See Letter from John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturers Association, to Robert M. Doyle, USEPA, dated January 27, 2005, Docket Entry 2004-0403-0030. 16 Written Statements presented at this hearing and the hearing transcript appear in the Docket as Docket Entries 2004-0403-0031 through 2004-0403-0036. 17 These comments appear in the Docket as Docket Entries 2004-0403-0037 through 2004-0403-0047.

(C)Authorization Decision After review of the information submitted by CARB and other parties to the record of this Docket, EPA finds that no party has presented information to the Agency which would demonstrate that California did not meet the burden of satisfying the statutory criteria of section 209(e). For this reason, EPA is granting authorization for the CARB Marine Spark-Ignition Engines regulations for OB and PWC engines in their entirety. With respect to the regulations affecting IB/SD engines, EPA grants authorization for CARB to enforce the first tier of these regulations for model year 2003 through 2008, which set a cap reflecting average emission levels of 16.0 grams per kilowatt hour (g/kW-hr) HC plus NO X which manufacturers can meet directly by engine family or by corporate average. EPA is deferring an authorization decision on the second tier of standards which set a level of 5.0 g/kW-hr HC plus NO X and will phase in beginning with 45% of manufacturers' sales in 2007, 75% in 2008 and 100% in 2009 and beyond. There is testing currently underway, performed as a joint program by CARB, EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the industry, to evaluate the technological feasibility of both the CARB IB/SD standards and Federal IB/SD standards which are expected to be proposed regulations in 2007. At the conclusion of this testing, EPA will issue its authorization decision for the second tier (i.e., for 2007 and beyond) CARB IB/SD standards. My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's requirements in order to produce nonroad engines and vehicles for sale in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by May 29, 2007. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings. As with past authorization decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866. In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations regarding authorizations under section 209(e) of the Act to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Dated: March 22, 2007. William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7-5665 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0037; FRL-8118-3] Pesticide Registration Review; New Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA has established registration review dockets for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit III.A. With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for these registration reviews. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. This document also announces the Agency's intent not to open a registration review docket for pyridate. This pesticide does not currently have any active federally registered pesticide products and is not, therefore, scheduled for review under the registration review program. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 26, 2007.. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by the docket identification

(ID)number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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 the docket ID numbers listed in the Table below for the pesticides you are commenting on. 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 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 available at regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. 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 electronically 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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 Facility telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the pesticides included in this notice, contact the specific Chemical Review Managers for these pesticides as identified in the table to this document. For general questions on the registration review program, contact Kennan Garvey, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-7106; fax number:

(703)308-8090; e-mail address: *garvey.kennan@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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

(7002)EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0109 Nathan Mottl

(703)305-0208 mottl.nathan@epa.gov Cyromazine

(7439)EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0108 James Parker

(703)306-0469 parker.james@epa.gov Fenarimol

(7001)EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0241 Katherine St. Clair

(703)347-8778 stclair.katherine@epa.gov Triflumizole

(7003)EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0115 Mark T. Howard

(703)308-8172 howard.markt@epa.gov Formesafen

(7211)EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0239 Wilhelmena Livingston

(703)308-8025 livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov Clofentezine

(7602)EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0240 Joy Schnackenbeck

(703)308-8072 schnackenbeck.joy@epa.gov EPA is also announcing that it will not be opening a docket for pyridate because this pesticide is not included in any products actively registered under section 3 of FIFRA. Tough 3.75 EC was officially cancelled in 2002 for failure to pay the required annual maintenance fee. Pryridate Technical and Tough 5EC were subsequently cancelled in 2004 (October 27, 2004; 69 FR 62666; FRL-7683-7). The Agency will take separate action to cancel any remaining section 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations with this active ingredient and to propose revocation of any affected tolerances that are not supported for import purposes only. B. Docket Content 1. *Review dockets* . The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information: • An overview of the registration review case status. • A list of current product registrations and registrants. • FR Notices regarding any pending registration actions. • FR Notices regarding current or pending tolerances. • Risk assessments. • Bibliographies concerning current registrations. • Summaries of incident data. • Any other pertinent data or information. Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome. 2. *Other related information* . More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's website at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm* . Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/* . 3. *Information submission requirements* . Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements: To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date. The data or information submitted must be presented in legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form. Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information. Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review. As provided in 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, § 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 14, 2007. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E7-5574 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145; FRL-8119-4] Boscalid; Pesticide Tolerances; Availability of Objections and Request for Comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of objections filed with respect to the establishment of two boscalid tolerances under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The objections were filed on February 20, 2007 by the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”). NRDC's objections assert that EPA unlawfully removed the additional 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children. Additionally NRDC claims that EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious for failing to provide an adequate explanation for the decision on the children's safety factor. This document seeks comment on the NRDC objections. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID)number(s) EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145, 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., 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(s) EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145. 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

(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145. To access the electronic docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information

(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 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open 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: Barbara Madden, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:

(703)305-6463; fax number:

(703)605-0781; e-mail address: *madden.barbara@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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? On February 20, 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) filed objections to a final rule establishing tolerances for the pesticide boscalid on two crop subgroups in the leafy vegetables crop group. (December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76185; FRL-8107-8)). Pesticide tolerances are established under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”). (21 U.S.C. 346a). The new tolerances were for Crop Subgroup 4A, leafy greens except head and leaf lettuce, and Crop Subgroup 4B, leafy petioles. NRDC's objections assert that it was unlawful for EPA to remove the additional 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children in assessing the risk of boscalid because the evidence shows that juveniles are more sensitive to boscalid than adults. NRDC claims that if the 10X children's safety factor is retained, the boscalid tolerances do not meet the safety standard for establishing tolerances under FFDCA section 408. Additionally, NRDC argues that EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious for failing to provide an adequate explanation for the decision on the children's safety factor. Because the issues raised by NRDC concern matters of great interest not just to NRDC but to growers, food distributors and processors, and pesticide manufacturers as well as members of the public, EPA believes it decision-making will be enhanced by obtaining the views of all affected parties. For that reason, EPA is publishing this notice of availability of NRDC's objections and requesting comment on the objections. The objections are available in the docket for the tolerance rule in question, i.e., Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145. See the “ ADDRESSES ” section of this document for information accessing the docket. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? Under section 408(g)(2)(A) of the FFDCA, any person may file objections with EPA within 60 days of issuance of a final tolerance regulation. (21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)). Such person may also request a public evidentiary hearing on the objections; however, NRDC has not requested such a hearing. Under EPA regulations, EPA must publish an order setting forth its determination on each of NRDC's objections. (40 CFR 178.37(a)). Such order must contain EPA's reasons for its determination. (40 CFR 178.37(b)). If based on the objections EPA determines that the tolerance regulation should be modified or revoked, EPA will publish by order any revisions to the regulation. (21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(C); 40 CFR 178.35). List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests. Dated: March 14, 2007. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. E7-5576 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8292-5] Proposed CERCLA Administrative Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs; Denova Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs (“Agreement,” Region 9 Docket No. 9-2006-0025) pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA concerning the Denova Superfund Site, (the “Site”), located in Rialto, California. The settling parties are Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, the Boeing Company, Georgia Pacific, BNSF Railway Company, Royal Caribbean Cruises, JBL Inc., the Marquardt Company, Davis Wire Corp., Aerojet-General Corp., the Department of Energy (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), the Department of Energy (Sandia National Laboratory), NASA, the Department of the Interior and the Navy. The Agreement compensates EPA and the County of San Bernardino Consolidated Fire District for past response costs related to the removal action taken at the Site. The Agreement provides for a total recovery of $1,246,160. The Agreement also provides the settling parties with contribution protection under CERCLA section 113(f)(2) for response cost paid under the Agreement. For thirty

(30)days following the date of publication of this Notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed Agreement. The Agency's response to any comments will be available for public inspection at the Agency's Region IX offices, located at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: The proposed Agreement may be obtained from Judith Winchell, Docket Clerk, telephone

(415)972-3124. Comments regarding the proposed Agreement should be addressed to Judith Winchell (SFD-7) at United States EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and should reference the Denova Superfund Site, Rialto, California, and USEPA Docket No. 9-2006-0025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Benson, Office of Regional Counsel, telephone

(415)972-3918, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Dated: March 13, 2007. Keith A. Takata, Director, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. E7-5664 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority March 21, 2007. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning

(a)whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments by May 29, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Allison E. Zaleski, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503,

(202)395-6466, or via fax at 202-395-5167, or via the Internet at *Allison_E._Zaleski@omb.eop.gov.* and to *Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov* , Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. To submit your comments by e-mail send them to: *PRA@fcc.gov.* If you would like to obtain or view a copy of this information collection after the 60 day comment period, you may do so by visiting the FCC PRA Web page at: *http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to *PRA@fcc.gov* or contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0691. *Title:* Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside of the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, 2nd Order on Reconsideration and 7th Report and Order for the 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 135 respondents; 135 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2.5 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement and recordkeeping requirement. *Obligation to Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 220 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* 34,000. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements) after this 60 day comment period to Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. This information collection contains the following reporting, recordkeeping, and third party requirements on auction winners or licensees:

(1)Auction winners claiming status as a small business to submit detailed ownership and gross revenue information necessary to determine whether they qualify as a small business pursuant to Commission rules;

(2)licensees who transfer licenses within three years to maintain a file of all documents and contracts pertaining to the transfer; and

(3)licensees to submit information to verify that they meet the coverage requirements required by 47 CFR 90.665 at the three-year coverage benchmark and the five-year construction deadline. License winners are required to maintain certain information to ensure compliance with Commission rules. Specifically,

(1)small business license winners are required to maintain a file over the license term containing ownership and gross revenue information necessary to determine their eligibility as a small business; and

(2)licensees who transfer licenses within three years are to maintain a file of all documents and contracts pertaining to the transfer. Furthermore, in case a licensee defaults or loses its license, the Commission retains the discretion to re-auction those licenses. If licenses are re-auctioned, the new license winners would be required at the close of the re-auction to:

(1)Submit and maintain detailed ownership and gross revenue information necessary to determine whether they qualify as a small business pursuant to Commission rules;

(2)disclose the term of any joint bidding agreements, if any, with other auction participants in order to ensure the integrity of the market structure;

(3)for licensees who transfer licenses within three years, maintain a file of all documents and contracts pertaining to the transfer; and

(4)submit information to verify that they meet the coverage requirements required by 47 CFR 90.665. *OBM Control No.:* 3060-0281. *Title:* Section 90.651. Supplemental Reports Required of Licensees Authorized under this Subpart. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 4,947 respondents; 4,947 responses. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion reporting requirement. *Obligation To Respond:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *Total Annual Burden:* 1,649 hours. *Annual Cost Burden:* N/A. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* N/A. *Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:* There is no need for confidentiality. *Needs and Uses:* This collection will be submitted as an extension (no change in reporting, recordkeeping or third party disclosure requirements) after this 60-day comment period to Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in order to obtain the full three year clearance. The radio facilities addressed in this subpart of the rules are allocated on and governed by regulations designed to award facilities on a need basis determined by the number of mobile units served by each base station. This is necessary to avoid frequency hoarding by applicants. Further, the Commission licensing personnel use the information to maintain an accurate database of frequency users, and both the Commission and the public use the database information in spectrum planning, interference resolution and licensing activities. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-1499 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 7

Traces to 7 documents

U.S. Code