[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71725-71728]
[DOCID:fr25no08-139]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0181, Notice 1 Modena Design SpA]

Receipt of Application for a Temporary Exemption From Advanced
Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption from
certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Modena
Design SpA has petitioned the agency for a temporary exemption from
certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The basis for
the application is that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the application, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice of receipt of an application for temporary exemption is
published in accordance with statutory provisions. NHTSA has not made
any judgment on the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than December 26,
2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari Scott, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-326,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \2\ The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving
protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in
moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a
comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the
adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats. The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004
model year.
    Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air bag
requirements until September 1, 2006, but their efforts to bring their
respective vehicles into compliance with these requirements began
several years before that. However, because the new requirements were
challenging, major air bag suppliers concentrated their efforts on
working with large volume manufacturers, and thus, some small volume
manufacturers have had limited access to advanced air bag technology.
Because of the nature of the requirements for protecting out-of-
position occupants, ``off-the-shelf'' systems could not be readily
adopted. Further complicating matters, because small volume
manufacturers build so few vehicles, the costs of developing custom
advanced air bag systems compared to potential profits discouraged some
air bag suppliers from working with small volume manufacturers.
    The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from
air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the
area of consumer education and manufacturers' providing depowered air
bags were successful in reducing air bag fatalities even before
advanced air bag requirements were implemented.
    As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implication
of any temporary exemptions granted by this agency. In the present
case, we are seeking comments on a petition for a temporary exemption
from the advanced air bag requirements submitted by Modena Design SpA

(``Modena Design''), a company operated by Horacio Pagani, regarding a
high-performance sports car, the C9 ZONDA (the ``C9'').

II. Overview of Petition for Economic Hardship Exemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Modena Design has petitioned the agency for a temporary
exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
The basis for the application is that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good
faith to comply with the standard. A copy of the petition\3\ is
available for review and has been placed in the docket for this notice.
Specifically, Modena Design has requested an exemption for a period of
three years from the date of granting, which the petitioner has
estimated to be around December 31, 2011. Modena Design has requested
an exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS 208, set
forth in S14. While Modena Design stated that the C9 will be equipped
with standard air bags, and that the company will use its best efforts
to comply with the S14 requirements for belted 50th percentile and 5th
percentile dummies, it was uncertain as to whether that would be
possible, and therefore requested an exemption from the entirety of
S14. We note that a number of petitions for exemptions from advanced
air bags include not only requests for exemption from S14.5.2, but the
rigid barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female
test dummy (belted and unbelted, S15), the offset deformable barrier
test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female test dummy
(S17), the requirements to provide protection for infants and children
(S19, S21, and S23) and the requirement using an out-of-position 5th
percentile adult female test dummy at the driver position (S25). We
also note that several small vehicle manufacturers have provided
standard air bags that comply with the provisions of S14 in force
before the advanced air bag rules came into effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The company requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR
Part 512 for certain business and financial information submitted as
part of its petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the
information placed in the docket does not contain information
subject to a claim of confidentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Economic Hardship Petitions

a. General Requirements for Petitions for Exemptions

    In order to file a petition for exemption based on substantial
economic hardship, a manufacturer must satisfy relevant requirements
specified in 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety and Bumper Standards. All petitions for exemption must conform
to the requirements in 49 CFR 555.5, ``Application for exemption.'' A
petition must, among other requirements, state the number and title,
and the text or substance of the standard for which the temporary
exemption is sought, and the length of time of the requested exemption.
The petitioner must set forth the basis of the petition (the
requirements listed under Part 555.6(a) for petitions based on economic
hardship). The petition must specify any information withheld from
public disclosure under Part 512. Finally, the petitioner must set
forth the reasons why the granting of the exemption would be in the
public interest, and, as applicable, consistent with the objectives of
49 U.S.C. 301 or 325.

b. Requirements Specific for Exemptions Based on Substantial Economic
Hardship

i. Statement on Eligibility
    The substantial economic hardship exemption is limited to those
manufacturers whose motor vehicle production in its most recent year of
production did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (See 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2)(v)). In determining whether a
manufacturer of a vehicle meets that criterion, NHTSA considers whether
a second vehicle manufacturer also might be deemed the manufacturer of
that vehicle. The statutory provisions governing motor vehicle safety
(49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any provision indicating that a
manufacturer might have substantial responsibility as a manufacturer of
a vehicle simply because it owns or controls a second manufacturer that
assembled that vehicle. However, the agency considers the statutory
definition of ``manufacturer'' (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be sufficiently
broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. Thus, NHTSA
has stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a sponsor, and thus
a secondary manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a primary
manufacturer, if the secondary manufacturer had a substantial role in
the development and manufacturing process of that vehicle. In the event
of such a finding, if either manufacturer has produced over 10,000
vehicles in the previous 12 months, neither manufacturer would be
eligible to receive an economic hardship exemption for the vehicle in
question.
ii. Basis for Application
    A petition for exemption based on economic hardship must meet the
requirements set forth in Part 555.6, ``Basis for Application,''
specifically those in 49 CFR 555.6(a). One of these requirements,
specified at 49 CFR 555.6(a)(1), is for the manufacturer to provide
engineering and financial information demonstrating how compliance
would cause substantial hardship. More specifically, it is required
that a manufacturer: (1) State a list or description of each item that
would need to be modified to achieve compliance; (2) state the itemized
estimated cost of the modifications if compliance were to be achieved
under three different time scenarios; and (3) state the estimated cost
increase of compliance on a per-vehicle basis. Additionally, the
manufacturer must provide corporate balance sheets and income
statements for the fiscal year immediately preceding the application,
as well as projected statements for the year following a hypothetical
denial of the application for exemption. Finally, a manufacturer must
provide a discussion of any other hardships that may result from the
denial of an application.
    The petition must also contain the information specified in 49 CFR
555.6(a)(2), which relate to a manufacturer's efforts to achieve
compliance. This section requires that a petition must contain a
description of the manufacturer's efforts to comply with the standard.
The required information includes: (1) A chronological analysis of such
efforts showing its relationship to the rulemaking history of Standard
No. 208; (2) a discussion of alternate means of compliance considered,
and rationales for the rejection of those means; (3) a discussion of
any other factors that the petitioner desires NHTSA to consider in
deciding that it tried in good faith to comply with the standard; and
(4) a description of its planned efforts to achieve compliance during
the exemption period, and the estimated date by which compliance will
be achieved or, alternatively, production ceased. Finally, the
petitioner must provide the agency with the total number of vehicles
produced by or on behalf of the petitioner during 12-month period prior
to filing the petition, in

order to establish that the manufacturer is eligible to receive the
exemption, as stated above.

IV. Petition of Modena Design

    The following section briefly summarizes the pertinent portions of
the petition related to completeness and eligibility. We note that the
full petition can be viewed by accessing the docket via http://
www.regulations.gov, or by any of the other means listed above in the
COMMENTS section.

a. Requested Exemption

    Modena Design has requested an exemption from paragraph S14 of
FMVSS No. 208, ``Occupant Crash Protection.'' It has requested that the
exemption extend for three years upon the date of publication in the
Federal Register.

b. Petitioner's Statements Relating to Eligibility

    Modena Design asserts that current production volume ranges from 15
to 17 vehicles per year, well under the 10,000 vehicle limit. To date,
Modena Design has only produced 85 vehicles since 1999, all of them the
C8 ZONDA model. Modena Design has provided the following figures with
regard to past production:
--2004: 9 vehicles
--2005: 8 vehicles
--2006: 16 vehicles
--2007 (as of November 8): 17 vehicles

Modena Design states that it is an independent vehicle manufacturer
specialized in the design, development, and construction of high
performance vehicles. Specifically, Modena Design states that it
performs the following tasks:
--Design, Style Interior/Exterior.
--Design of the bodywork.
--Design of the chassis/suspensions/brakes.
--Study of the vehicle dynamics.
--Study of the elasto-kinematics.
--Design of the wiring system.
--Design of the models and moulds for the composite materials.
    Modena Design states that due to the small size of the company (it
states that it has a work force of 30 employees), it contracts out the
other aspects of vehicle development. However, it also states that the
company does do all of the assembly of its vehicles, and that no third
party company is involved with that process, although Mercedes acts as
an arms-length engine supplier. Additionally, Modena Design's sister
company, Pagani Automobili SpA, performs the marketing work on Modena
Design's vehicles. Both companies are owned and run by the Pagani
family.

c. Petitioner's Statements Concerning Substantial Economic Hardship

    While Modena Design has posted a profit in recent years, it claims
that it is still suffering from economic hardship, and needs the
requested exemption in order to expand into the U.S. market. According
to the documentation that Modena Design provided, the company has
posted a profit ranging from $19,990-81,463 ([euro]13,327-54,309)
during the past four years. Comparatively, it estimates that the cost
of developing a standard air bag system will be approximately
$3,570,000, and the cost of developing an advanced air bag system an
additional $4 million above that.
    Modena Design asserts that because of the overwhelming cost of
design for standard and advanced air bags, it requires U.S. exempted-
vehicle sales to ``bridge the gap,'' that is, to provide the necessary
financing to fund its air bag development efforts. It states that if
the company is not able to sell vehicles in the U.S., it will not have
the funds to develop FMVSS-compliant successor vehicles.
    Financially, Modena Design states that the financial impact of the
exemption will be approximately $12,000,000 ([euro]8,000,000) over the
period from 2007-2011. Modena Design states that the full cost of
developing the C9 will be approximately $19,500,000 ([euro]13,000,000).
To offset this, Modena Design provides two projections for net income
during the exemption period, from 2009 to 2011. The first, assuming the
exemption is denied, would mean that there are no U.S. sales during the
period, and the net income for the company (excluding development
costs) would be $13,783,500 ([euro]9,189,000). This means that the
company would incur a total of $5,700,000 ([euro]3,800,000) shortfall
as a result of its investment in the C9. The second projection assumes
that an exemption is granted, and that the company would be able to
sell vehicles in the U.S. during the aforementioned period, with the
resulting net income being $25,869,000 ([euro]17,246,000). This figure
implies a profit of $6,375,000 ([euro]4,250,000) with regard to the C9
over the period from 2007-2011.
    Additionally, Modena Design asserts that it requires a substantial
amount of time to design systems that comply with the FMVSSs. In its
petition, the company claims that its system of building test
prototypes means that it will take a significant investment of time and
resources to design new systems for the C9. It states that it takes six
months for Modena Design to build a test car, and ``if the company were
to devote all resources to prototype building, then it would have to
cease building what few C8 production cars [are currently] being
built.''
    Finally, Modena Design states that there is no possibility of
technology transfer that could aid it with its homologation projects.
As an independent manufacturer, Modena Design asserts that there is
``no possibility of technology transfer from a larger parent company
that also manufactures motor vehicles.''

d. Petitioner's Statements Regarding Efforts To Comply With the
Standard

    In explaining why it has not been currently able to meet the air
bag requirements, Modena Design points to the difficulty that many
small vehicle manufacturers have had in obtaining items of specialized
vehicle equipment. Nonetheless, according to the petition, Modena has
made efforts to achieve compliance with the FMVSS. These efforts
involve work with several suppliers to develop compliant air bags for
the U.S. market.
    To begin, Modena Design asserts in its petition that an air bag
project is already underway. This project aims first to create
standard, and then advanced air bags, at a total cost of around
$7,500,000. To this end, Modena Design states that it has partnered
with Applus+ IDIATA, a Spanish engineering services company that has
previously provided advanced air bag development solutions and testing
for small volume manufacturers. According to figures presented in the
petition, a total of $3,828,000 ([euro]2,552,000) has been invested in
the development of standard air bags, and an additional $4,288,500
([euro]2,859,000) has been invested in the development of advanced
systems. Modena Design provided fairly detailed specifications of the
engineering efforts and the design specifications of its air bag
systems in its petition.

e. Petitioner's Statements Concerning Intent To Comply or Cease
Production Upon Expiration of Requested Temporary Exemption

    Modena Design states that it ``expects its smart air bag system to
be ready in December 2011.'' We note that Modena Design asserted that
due to the long product cycle, it expects the C9 to be in production
until 2015.

f. Petitioner's Statements Concerning Why Granting Exemption Would Be
in the Public Interest and Consistent With the Objectives of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 or 325

    Modena Design argues that the vehicle comes equipped with numerous
features that enhance safety, and that the granting of this exemption
would be consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the
Safety Act (see 49 U.S.C. 301). The petitioner asserts that the Pagani
vehicles incorporate design features that have significant safety
benefits. These include the use of carbon-fiber technology, which
provides great strength at a low weight. The fuel tank is incorporated
into the carbon chassis for maximum protection, and the chassis also
incorporates the monocoque protective ``cell'' design. Enhanced by a
metal roll cage and alloy front and rear chassis subframes, the vehicle
provides a significant safety benefit in the event of a crash or
rollover. The monocoque can stay rigid during repeated impacts,
providing an additional source of protection in the event of a
potentially penetrating impact. Modena Design implies that these
features serve, in part, to mitigate the diminished crashworthiness
caused by the lack of FMVSS-compliant air bags.
    Modena Design lists six additional rationales as to why an
exemption would be in the public interest. They are repeated below:
     All exempted cars will have standard air bags which comply
with the pre-S14 provisions of FMVSS No. 208.
     Exempted vehicles will comply with all Federal safety
standards other than the provisions that are subject to the exemption.
     Due to the extremely small number of exempted vehicles
(even with an increase in production capability, Modena Design states
that it will only produce around 50 vehicles per year), the effect on
motor vehicle safety will be de minimus.
     If an exemption is not granted, U.S. consumer choice would
be adversely affected.
     Modena Design vehicles will not be used extensively, due
to their ``second vehicle'' nature.
     Because of the nature of the C9 as a high-performance
sports car, it is not expected to typically transport children, thereby
reducing the importance of advanced air bags, which are, in part, aimed
at protecting children.

V. NHTSA's Initial Review of Petition as to Completeness/Eligibility

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition is
complete and the petitioner eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the
application.

VI. Issuance of Notice of Final Action

    We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: November 19, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administraton for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-27963 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 64520]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25398]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-227-000.
    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: EEC Housekeeping Filing--2019
to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191113-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-228-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2020 HMRE Surcharge Filing to
be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 11/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20191114-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-229-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2019 ConocoPhillips Amendment
to be effective 11/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20191114-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-230-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TCO Equinor Neg Rate Amendment
to be effective 11/14/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20191114-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-231-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing to incorporate approved
changes and clean-up item to be effective 12/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-232-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DECP--Negotiated Rate and Non-
Conforming Service Agreement to be effective 12/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191115-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25398 Filed 11-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36316-36317]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14995]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019; FRL-9912-94-OW]

Extension of Request for Scientific Views for External Peer
Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for
Selenium--Freshwater 2014

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of the request for scientific views.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is re-opening the
comment period for the external peer review draft aquatic life ambient
water quality criterion for selenium announced in a previous notice
entitled ``External Peer Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water
Quality Criterion for Selenium--Freshwater 2014.'' In response to
stakeholder requests, the EPA is extending the period of time in which
the Agency will accept scientific views for an additional 30 days.

DATES: Scientific views must be received on or before July 28, 2014.
Scientific views postmarked after this date may not receive the same
consideration.
    The comment period was originally scheduled to end on June 13,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your scientific views, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2004-0019.
     Mail: EPA Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822-IT, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019. Please include a total of two
copies (including references).
     Hand Delivery: EPA Water Docket, EPA Docket Center,
William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: 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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section III
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019
Docket, EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Water Docket is
(202) 566-2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Gallagher at U.S. EPA, Office
of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-
1398; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 14, 2014, the EPA announced the
availability of the external peer review draft national recommended
aquatic life water quality criterion for selenium in a previous notice
entitled ``External Peer Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water
Quality Criterion for Selenium--Freshwater 2014'' in the Federal
Register (79 FR 27601). EPA's recommended aquatic life water quality
criteria provide technical information for states and authorized tribes
to adopt water quality standards under the Clean Water Act to protect
aquatic life.
    EPA is re-opening the public comment period of the External Peer
Review Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for
Selenium--Freshwater 2014 (EPA-822-P-14-001). The original comment
deadline was June 13, 2014. This action re-opens the comment period for
30 days. Written scientific views must now be received by July 28,
2014. This external peer review draft criterion document does not
represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA
policy, viewpoint, or determination.

    Following closure of the public comment period, an EPA contractor
will organize and conduct an independent expert external letter peer
review of the draft criterion document. Public comments will be made
available to the peer reviewers for consideration during their review.
Following peer review, EPA will consider the peer reviewer and public
comments, and revise the document as necessary. EPA will then publish a
Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the draft
proposed selenium criterion and soliciting scientific views from the
public. EPA will then revise the document as necessary and issue a
final updated selenium criterion document.

    Dated: June 18, 2014.
Elizabeth Southerland,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2014-14995 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P