[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78949-78950]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31796]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0876; FRL-9240-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major
Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection on July 20, 2009. This revision will establish nitrogen
oxides (NOX) as a precursor to ozone, add the Federally
equivalent provisions to the rules for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) as they pertain to ``reasonable possibility'' and
delete certain references to pollution control projects (PCPs) and
clean units (CUs) to make the West Virginia PSD program consistent with
the Federal PSD regulations. This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0876 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0876, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits & Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0876. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street,
SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon McCauley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On July 20, 2009, the State of
West Virginia submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to replace the current SIP-approved version of 45CSR14, entitled,
Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary
Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.

I. Background

    This SIP revision proposes to replace, in its entirety, the SIP
version of 45CSR14, as approved by EPA on December 4, 2006 (71 FR
64470), with West Virginia's current version of this rule. West
Virginia 45 CSR14 governs the permitting for the construction of new
major stationary sources and the significant modification of existing
major stationary sources of air pollutants in areas designated
attainment or non-classifiable for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). This regulatory revision was made effective as a
legislative rule by the State of West Virginia on June 1, 2009.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    West Virginia's rule 45CSR14 establishes a pre-construction permit
program consistent with Title I of the CAA and the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
of Air Quality.'' West Virginia rule 45CSR14 also ensures that the West
Virginia SIP provides for the attainment and maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in accordance with
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA which requires States to have a
permitting program for regulation of the construction and modification
of sources as required by Part C of Title I of the CAA to assure NAAQS
are achieved.
    On November 29, 2005, NOX were established as precursors
to the criteria pollutant ozone and became regulated under 40 CFR
51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 (70 FR 71612). The new version of 45CSR14
establishes NOX as a precursor to ozone to satisfy these
requirements.
    The new version of 45CSR14 also deletes references to pollution
control projects (PCPs) and clean units (CUs) to make the West
Virginia's regulation consistent with the Federal PSD regulations.
    The provisions of the State's rule at 45CSR14.19.8 now include the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources that elect to use
the actual-to-projected actual emission test and where there is a
``reasonable possibility'' that a project may result in a significant
net emissions increase. In our previous approval of 45CSR14, dated
December 4, 2006 (71 FR 64470), at the request of West Virginia, we
took no action on the provisions of 45CSR14.19.8 pertaining to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources that elect to use
the actual-to-projected actual emission test and where there is a
``reasonable possibility'' that a project may result in a significant
net emissions increase. We are now proposing to approve 45CSR14.19.8 as
a revision to the West Virginia SIP because the necessary regulatory
corrections have been made.
    We are proposing approval of West Virginia's July 20, 2009 SIP
revision because we believe that the amendments to West Virginia's PSD
permit program at 45CSR14 as described herein meet the minimum
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and the CAA. Aside from the changes
described herein, no other changes to the West Virginia SIP's PSD
program as approved by EPA on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 64470) would
result from this revision to replace the version of 45CSR14 in the West
Virginia SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve the West Virginia SIP's July 20, 2009
SIP revision to replace 45CSR14 in its entirety. We are soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These
comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to approve replacing the current
SIP-approved version of West Virginia rule 45CSR14 in its entirety with
an updated version to satisfy the CAA's requirements for the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 7, 2010.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-31796 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55116-55118]
[DOCID:fr28se07-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29331; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-136-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/
SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    A crack has been found in an axle adaptor during fatigue
testing. It was found that the internal edges of the dowel holes did
not have the correct radius and the crack had developed from the
edge of one of the dowel holes.
    A crack in the axle adaptor can cause the axle adaptor to fail
and ultimately lead to loss of the wheels and total loss of brake
capability.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web Site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2677; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
29331; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-136-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2006-0263, dated August 29, 2006 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A crack has been found in an axle adaptor during fatigue
testing. It was found that the internal edges of the dowel holes did
not have the correct radius and the crack had developed from the
edge of one of the dowel holes.
    A crack in the axle adaptor can cause the axle adaptor to fail
and ultimately lead to loss of the wheels and total loss of brake
capability.

    The corrective action includes doing repetitive ultrasonic
inspections to detect cracking in the axle adaptor; replacing the axle
adaptor if necessary; and ultimately doing the terminating action of
inspecting and modifying the main landing gear (MLG) shock strut and
axle adaptors. The inspection is a crack test. The modification
includes measuring the dowel hole, and corrective actions if necessary
(replacing the axle adaptor, repairing the dowel hole) and, when
accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspection requirements. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-32-133, Revision 01, dated May
3, 2006. APPH Limited has issued APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12,
Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; and AIR83022-32-32, Revision 3, dated
April 26, 2006.

The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 220 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts cost would be
negligible. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $158,400, or $720 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Saab Aircraft AB: Docket No. FAA-2007-29331; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-136-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 29, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, unless equipped
with Main Landing Gear (MLG) shock struts modified in accordance
with APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12 or AIR83022-32-32.
    (1) Saab Model SAAB-Fairchild SF340A (SAAB/SF340A) airplanes,
serial numbers (S/Ns) SF340A-004 through -159.
    (2) Saab Model SAAB 340B airplanes, S/Ns 340B-160 through -459.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A crack has been found in an axle adaptor during fatigue
testing. It was found that the internal edges of the dowel holes did
not have the correct radius and the crack had developed from the
edge of one of the dowel holes.
    A crack in the axle adaptor can cause the axle adaptor to fail
and ultimately lead to loss of the wheels and total loss of brake
capability.

The corrective action includes doing repetitive ultrasonic
inspections to detect cracking in the axle adaptor; replacing the
axle adaptor if necessary; and ultimately doing the terminating
action of inspecting and modifying the main landing gear (MLG) shock
strut and axle adaptors. The inspection is a crack test. The
modification includes measuring the dowel hole and corrective
actions if necessary (replacing the axle adaptor, repairing the
dowel hole), and, when accomplished, terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 8,000 flight cycles since the last MLG overhaul, or
within 1,500 flight cycles, or 6 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs latest: Inspect the MLG in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133,
Revision 01, dated May 3, 2006. If any crack is found, before
further flight: Replace the axle adaptor in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133,
Revision 01, dated May 3, 2006.
    (2) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles until
the terminating action required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD is
accomplished.
    (3) Within 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, or at the next MLG overhaul, whichever occurs earlier: Inspect
and modify the MLG shock strut and axle

adaptors in accordance with the Accomplishment instructions of APPH
Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006;
or AIR83022-32-32, Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; as applicable.
    (4) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service bulletins listed in paragraphs
(f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(4)(iii) of this AD, as applicable,
are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions in this
AD.
    (i) Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133, dated April 19, 2006.
    (ii) APPH Service Bulletin AIR 83064-32-12, dated January 18,
2006; Revision 1, dated January 23, 2006; and Revision 2, dated
March 30, 2006.
    (iii) APPH Service Bulletin AIR83022-32-32, dated January 18,
2006; Revision 1, dated January 23, 2006; and Revision 2, dated
March 30, 2006.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
an MLG shock strut having part number (P/N) AIR83022 or 83064, or
axle adaptor having P/N AIR127308, 390226, or AIR130238, unless it
has been inspected and modified in accordance with APPH Service
Bulletin AIR83022-32-32 or AIR83064-32-12.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-
116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike
Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2006-0263, dated
August 29, 2006; Saab Service Bulletin 340-32-133, Revision 01,
dated May 3, 2006; APPH Service Bulletin AIR83064-32-12, Revision 3,
dated April 26, 2006; and APPH Service Bulletin AIR83022-32-32,
Revision 3, dated April 26, 2006; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 21, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-19202 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34784-34785]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14858]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2015-0045]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that by a document
dated May 4, 2015, Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd. (CPR) has petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance
from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations
contained at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight
and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment. Specifically, CPR
requests relief from 49 CFR 232.305(b)(2), which requires that a single
car air brake test (SCABT) be performed when a car is on a shop or
repair track, as defined in section 232.303(a), for any reason and has
not received a SCABT within the previous 12-month period. FRA assigned
the petition docket number FRA-2015-0045.
    In its petition, CPR requests relief allowing for replacements of
wheels condemnable by all applicable Association of American Railroads
(AAR) Field Manual Rule 41 defects at Battle Creek Yard, St. Paul, MN,
on a track designated for minor repairs using a drop table. CPR
identifies these defects either by the Wheel Impact Load Detector
(WILD) or visually by a qualified inspector designated under 49 CFR
215.11 and verified by that

inspector before being repaired using the drop table on a track
designated for minor repairs. CP will continue to perform SCABTs as
required in sections 232.305(b)(1), (4), (5) and 232.305(c)-(e). CPR
states that this request is consistent with 49 CFR 232.303(a)(2) which
allows for an exception to the definition of ``major repair'' for
wheels changed on an intermodal loading ramp. Similar to changing
wheels on an intermodal loading ramp, wheel replacements using a drop
table are completed in a short period of time and with no disruption to
the other car components, including the brake system. The wheelset
change-out takes an average of 0.337 person-hours. Besides the drop
table, the repair requires only the use of hand tools and does not
require additional specialized equipment.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 3, 2015 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-14858 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13119]
[DOCID:fr14mr06-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-222-001]

Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 7, 2006.

    Take notice that on February 20, 2006, Viking Gas Transmission
Company (Viking) tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, substitute Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 5B,
to become effective April 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3609 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 230 (Monday, December 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71082-71083]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28272]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 401

[USCG-2014-0481; 1625-AC22]

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment--
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the comment period for the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--
2015 Annual Review and Adjustment,'' published on September 4, 2014,
for 30 days. We have decided to extend the comment period as we have
received new financial data that could affect the discretion provided
by Step 7 of the Appendix A methodology and the final rate.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before December 31,
2014 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0481 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage,
Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2014-0481), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2014-0481'' in the ``Search''

box. Click on ``Submit a Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2014-0481'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.''
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do
not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

II. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled ``Great Lakes Pilotage
Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment,'' on September 4, 2014, (79
FR 52602) proposing rate adjustments for pilotage services on the Great
Lakes, last amended in March 2014. The proposed adjustments would
establish new base rates made in accordance with a full ratemaking
procedure. Additionally, the Coast Guard proposed to exercise the
discretion provided by Step 7 of the Appendix A methodology to result
in an upward adjustment to match the rate increase of the Canadian
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. The NPRM also proposed temporary
surcharges to accelerate recoupment of necessary and reasonable
training costs for the pilot associations. All comments on this NPRM
were originally due by November 3, 2014.

III. Background and Purpose

    On November 14, 2014, we received the final reports of the revenue
audits conducted by CohnReznick, LLP for the three pilotage districts.
Performance of these audits was unanimously recommended by the Great
Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee to the Coast Guard at the most recent
committee meeting on July 23-24, 2014, in Washington, DC. The data
found by the revenue audits are important to analyzing the proposed
rule as the findings may alter the final rate. We believe that the data
provided in the revenue audits are ``other supportable circumstances''
that may alter the rate through the discretion provided by Step 7 of
the ratemaking methodology. As these revenue audits were received after
the comment period closed, we wish to give commenter's the opportunity
to review these revenue audits, which can be found in the docket, and
make comments on the revenue audits.

V. Authority

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: November 25, 2014.
Scott J. Smith,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Marine Transportation
Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-28272 Filed 11-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 51697-51698]
[DOCID:fr04se08-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0211]

Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) invites
comments on its intention to revise forms PHMSA F 7100.2--Incident
Report For Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems; PHMSA F 7100.1--
Incident Report for Gas Distribution Systems; and PHMSA F 7000-1--
Accident Report for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems, and its
intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for revised information collection burdens.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments on or before
November 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2008-0211 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) for this
notice. Internet users may access comments received by DOT at: http://
www.regulations.gov. Note that comments received will be posted without
change to: http://www.regulations.gov including any personal
information provided.
    Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed
to Roger Little by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP-10,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Little by telephone at 202-366-
4569, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., PHP-10, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies revised
information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB
for renewal and extension. The information collected pertaining to
reportable natural gas transmission incidents provides an important
tool for identifying safety trends in the gas pipeline industry. The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) have urged PHMSA to revise the information
collected on the natural gas pipeline operator incident and hazardous
liquid pipeline operator accident report forms. NTSB Safety
Recommendation P-05-04 recommends that PHMSA take action to change the
liquid accident reporting form (PHMSA F 7000-1) and require operators
to provide data related to controller fatigue. Additionally, section 20
of the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of
2006 (PIPES Act) requires PHMSA to ``amend accident reporting forms to
require operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to provide data
related to controller fatigue.'' GAO recommended in its report, GAO-06-
946 titled ``Integrity Management Benefits Public Safety, but
Consistency of Performance Measures Should Be Improved'' that ``To
improve the consistency and usefulness of the integrity management
performance measures, we are recommending that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the Administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration to take the following two actions:
    (1) Revising the definition of a reportable incident to consider
changes in the price of natural gas; and
    (2) Establish consistent categories of causes for incidents and
leaks on all gas pipeline reports.'' Recommendation number (1) is to be
addressed by a future rulemaking and recommendation number (2) is
addressed through improvements in incident forms addressed through this
information collection request (ICR).
    PHMSA consulted industry and trade association representatives of
the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the American Gas
Association, the American Petroleum Institute, and state pipeline
safety office representatives through the National Association of
Pipeline Safety Representatives, in considering revisions to the
natural gas pipeline operator incident and hazardous liquid pipeline
operator accident report forms to make the information collected more
useful to industry, government, and the public.
    PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect
revisions to the accident and incident reporting forms since the
information collections were last approved. The following information
is provided for each information collection: (1) Abstract for affected
accident and incident reporting forms; (2) title of the information
collection; (3) OMB control number; (4) affected accident or incident
form; (5) description of affected public; (6) estimate of total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (7) frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for each information
collection activity and,

when approved by OMB, publish notice of the approval in the Federal
Register.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
    Abstract: To ensure adequate public protection from exposure to
potential natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline failures, PHMSA
collects information on reportable natural gas pipeline incidents and
hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. Additional information is also
obtained concerning the characteristics of an operator's pipeline
system. This information is needed for normalizing the incident
information in order to provide for adequate safety trending. The
requirements for reporting natural gas incidents are found in 49 CFR
Part 191 and for reporting hazardous liquid pipeline accidents are
found in 49 CFR Part 195. The regulations require submission of these
reports within 30 days of the incident or accident occurrence. The
information is used to assist Federal and state pipeline safety
programs for accident trending and by industry, trade associations and
other interested stakeholders, and to provide a background for accident
investigations.
    Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline:
Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0047.
    Form: Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems (Form No.
PHMSA-7000-1).
    Affected Public: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
    Recordkeeping:
    Number of Respondents: 200.
    Total Annual Responses: 130 long form, 200 short form.
    Long form is for spills of five or more barrels; short form is for
spills of 5 gallons to less than 5 barrels.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 1332.
    Frequency of collection:
    Short form: 200 reports/200 operators per year = 1 short form per
operator annually;
    130 reports/200 operators per year = .65 long forms per operator
annually.
    Title: Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.
    Form: Incident Report--Gas Distribution System (Form PHMSA F
7100.1).
    Affected Public: Natural gas distribution pipeline operators.
    Recordkeeping:
    Number of Respondents: 1200.
    Total Annual Responses: 155.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 1210.
    Frequency of collection: 155 incidents per year /1200 operators =
0.14.
    Title: Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.
    Form: Incident Report--Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems (Form
PHMSA F 7100.2).
    Affected Public: Natural gas transmission pipeline operators.
    Recordkeeping:
    Number of Respondents: 900.
    Total Annual Responses: 153.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,102.
    Frequency of collection: 153 incidents per year/900 operators =
0.17.
    Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection
of information for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 28, 2008.
Joy O. Kadnar,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
 [FR Doc. E8-20440 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM:		Amy Kopin

TO:		The Docket

DATE:		July 25, 2011

	On July 7th, 2011 we held a meeting in Ann Arbor, MI with the Hybrid
Manufacturers Regulatory Collaboration (HMRC) to discuss concerns raised
by members of the HMRC regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD)
requirements and timing.  Concerns were raised during the comment period
for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that
heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013
heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final
Rulemaking.,  Specifically, they have requested a delay of the
application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications until 2020.
Attendees from the EPA and HMRC are shown below.

Attendee	Affiliation

Cleophas Jackson	EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Anthony Neam	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Amy Kopin	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Barbara Chance	Allison Transmission

Ian McKenzie	Eaton Corporation

Derek Matthews	BAE Systems

Jim Lyons	Sierra Research

 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,”
republished December 29, 2010.  Available here:
http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway
Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under 14,000
Pounds,” published February 24, 2009.  Available here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-7
4-fr-8310.pdf


[Federal Register: October 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 62457-62458]
[DOCID:fr25oc06-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0202; FRL-8101-2]

Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED); Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of August 2,
2006, concerning the availability of the PCNB reregistration
eligibility decision (RED) and the opening of the 60-day public comment
period on the RED. The original comment period was to close on October
2, 2006. The Agency subsequently issued a notice in the Federal
Register of September 29, 2006, extending the comment period to
November 1, 2006. The Agency is now extending the comment period for an
additional interval, to December 4, 2006.

DATES:  Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-

OPP-2004-0202 must be received on or before December 4, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Follow the detailed instructions for submitting comments as
provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the August 2, 2006 FR
Notice. In addition, comments may be submitted through the Federal
Document Management System Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jill Bloom, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have 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.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please
follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the August 2, 2006 Federal Register
document. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    This document extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register of August 2, 2006 (70 FR 43746) (FRL-8066-6) and later
extended in the Federal Register of September 29, 2006 (71 FR 57506)
(FRL-8096-6). In the first notice, the Agency provided a 60-day comment
period for public input on the reregistration decision for PCNB,
particularly on the benefits associated with certain minor uses of
PCNB. This original comment period was to close on October 2, 2006. EPA
then extended the comment period until November 1, 2006, based on
requests from a PCNB registrant and the National Potato Council. Both
entities had requested that the comment period be extended by 60 days,
but the Agency granted an extension of approximately 30 days. The
registrant and the National Potato Council subsequently reiterated
their requests for the longer extension, and the Agency determined that
the longer time period would facilitate comments from potato growers,
many of whom will be busy with the potato harvest through November, and
provide additional time for technical review by the registrant. The
Agency is hereby extending the comment period to December 4, 2006. This
new extension brings the total duration of the comment period to four
months.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the Administrator
shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient
are eligible for reregistration. Further provisions are made to allow a
public comment period. However, the Administrator may extend the
comment period if additional time for comment is requested. In this
case, two different public entities have requested additional time to
develop comments.

List of Subjects

     Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: October 19, 2006.
 Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division.
[FR Doc. E6-17861 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S