Fed. Reg. Proposed Rules — Notice of proposed rulemak…

Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT)
Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Citation: FR Doc. 06-4113 · RIN 2120-AA64 · Docket No. FAA-2006-24228; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-22-AD · 14 CFR 39

Summary

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the engine mount for any cracks, repair or replace any cracked engine mount, and report any cracks found to the FAA. This proposed AD results from reports of cracked engine mounts. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the engine mount, which could result in failure of the engine mount. Such failure could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane.

Dates

We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 27, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-24228; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-22-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We received two reports from Air Tractor, Inc. of cracked engine mounts resulting from fatigue. One report was for a Model AT-602 airplane. The specific airplane model with the other crack is unverified. This AD applies to Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes due to design similarity. A cracked engine mount, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the engine mount. Such failure could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, dated December 12, 2005. The service information describes procedures for performing a visual inspection for cracks of the engine mount and requesting a repair scheme from the manufacturer. Snow Engineering Co. has a licensing agreement with Air Tractor, Inc. that allows them to produce technical data to use for Air Tractor, Inc. products. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the engine mount for any cracks, repair or replace any cracked engine mount, and report any cracks found to the FAA. To repair a cracked engine mount, you would obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme from Air Tractor, Inc. following the instructions in the service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 368 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection of the engine mount for cracks: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane per inspection Total cost on U.S. operators for initial inspection 1.5 work hours × $80 per hour = $120 Not Applicable $120 368 × $120 = $44,160 We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need repair/replacement of the engine mount as a result of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the cost of an engine mount repair. To replace the engine mount would take 81 work hours at $80 per hour (estimated total labor = $6,480), parts cost of $3,982, and a total replacement cost of $10,462 per airplane. 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 have 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 that the 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. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Air Tractor, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2006-24228; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-22-AD. Comments Due Date (a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) action by June 27, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD affects all Models AT-602, AT-802, and AT-802A airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from reports of cracked engine mounts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the engine mount, which could result in failure of the engine mount. Such failure could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. What Must I do to Address This Problem? (e) To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures (1) Visually inspect the engine mount for any cracks Initially inspect upon accumulating 4,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done. Thereafter, repetitively inspect every 300 hours TIS Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, dated December 12, 2005. (2) If you find any crack damage, do one of the following: (i) Obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer and incorporate this repair scheme; or (ii) Replace the engine mount with a new engine mount. Before further flight after any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where crack damage is found. If you repair the cracked engine mount, then continue to reinspect at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, unless the repair scheme states differently. If you replace the engine mount, then initially inspect upon accumulating 4,000 hours TIS and repetitively at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS For obtaining a repair scheme: Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #253, dated December 12, 2005. For the replacement: The maintenance manual includes instructions for the replacement. (3) Report any cracks that you find to the FAA at the address specified in paragraph (f) of this AD. Include in your report: (i) Airplane serial number; (ii) Airplane and engine mount hours TIS; (iii) Crack location(s) and size(s); (iv) Corrective action taken; and (v) Point of contact name and telephone number Within the next 10 days after you find the cracks or within the next 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements contained in this regulation under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information (g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone: (940) 564-5616; facsimile: (940) 564-5612. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-24228; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-22-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 26, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-6584 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 58] RIN: 1513-AB18 Proposed Sonoma County Green Valley Viticultural Area Name Change (2005R-412P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to rename the “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area as the “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” viticultural area. The area's size and boundaries would remain unchanged. This northern California viticultural area is totally within the Russian River Valley viticultural area, the Sonoma Coast viticultural area, and the multi-county North Coast viticultural area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of wines and to allow consumers to better identify the wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed change to our regulations. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before July 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 58, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • (e-mail). • . An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, and any comments we receive about this notice by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at . See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding a product's identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of distinct viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of a viticultural area allows vintners to more accurately describe the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. However, the establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. A petition requesting the modification of an established viticultural area must include the appropriate evidence described above to support the requested modification. Sonoma County Green Valley Viticultural Area Background TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), established the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.57) in a Treasury Decision (T.D. ATF-161), published in the Federal Register at 48 FR 52577 on November 21, 1983. The 19,010-acre Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area is located north of San Francisco in southern Sonoma County. (T.D. ATF-161 mistakenly stated the size of the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area as 32,000 acres.) The Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area lies between the towns of Sebastopol, Forestville, and Occidental within the western region of the Russian River Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.66), which lies entirely within the Sonoma Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.116) and the multi-county North Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30). In 1982, the original petitioner sought to use the name “Green Valley” for this viticultural area. However, while ATF determined that the Green Valley name was appropriate for the area, ATF required the addition of “Sonoma County” to the name, and thus approved the name “Sonoma County Green Valley” as the viticultural area name. ATF took this action to avoid consumer confusion since “Green Valley” is a commonly used geographical place name in the United States. In approving the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area, ATF specifically noted its 1982 approval of the “Solano County Green Valley” viticultural area (27 CFR 9.44) with the same condition—that the county name appear in conjunction with the viticultural area's name to prevent consumer confusion with other “Green” valleys elsewhere in the United States. T.D. ATF-161 stated that since both “Green Valley” viticultural areas are located in northern California, the inclusion of the county name modifiers in each viticultural area name helped to avoid consumer confusion by distinguishing between the two viticultural areas. Green Valley of Russian River Valley Petition The Winegrowers and Vintners of Sonoma County's Green Valley, an association of local winegrowers and vintners based in Sebastopol, California, has petitioned TTB to change the name of the “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley.” The group explains in its petition that the name change is warranted because the viticultural area is commonly referred to as “Green Valley,” without the Sonoma County modifier, and because the Green Valley area is considered by many to be a sub-appellation of the Russian River Valley viticultural area by virtue of its location and similar climate. TTB notes that the recently expanded 126,600-acre Russian River Valley viticultural area now encompasses the entire Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area. (See T.D. TTB-32, published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 53297 on September 8, 2005.) We also note that the proposed name change does not affect the established boundaries of either viticultural area. Three wineries located within the viticultural area at issue, according to the petition, consistently claim the “Sonoma County Green Valley” appellation on their wine labels. Other regional wineries use the Russian River Valley viticultural area appellation on their labels, the petition explains, but include references to the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area on their wines' back labels and in their promotional materials. Changing the viticultural area name to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” the petition explains, will provide greater clarity regarding the viticultural area location and its association with the cool climate of the Russian River Valley. Thus, the petition states, consumers will have more accurate and descriptive geographical and climatic information for this viticultural area's wines. Name Evidence The petition provides evidence, summarized below, to document that the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area is known, and referred to, simply as “Green Valley.” Also, the same evidence describes “Green Valley” as being a part of the larger Russian River Valley viticultural area. The Savor Wine Country magazine (winter 2003, page 78), published by the Press Democrat newspaper of Sonoma County, California, included a feature article on “Green Valley.” A map of the “Green Valley” area and the Russian River Valley area provided with the article generally agrees with the boundaries of both viticultural areas, including the (at that time) proposed boundary expansion of that Russian River Valley viticultural area. The article states that “Green Valley” is a sub-appellation of the sprawling Russian River Valley viticultural area. It also describes the abundant sparkling wines, pinot noir grapes, and other agricultural products produced in the “Green Valley” area. The article characterizes the viticultural area as a diverse farming region with cool coastal breezes, which coincides with the climatic conditions found in the Russian River Valley viticultural area. A Los Angeles Times article of January 14, 2004, titled “Out of the Mist, Pinots,” describes the Russian River Valley American viticultural area and its “sub-regions” as having distinct wine personalities. The article states: “Russian River Valley AVA and the Green Valley AVA are primarily climate-based appellations.” While expounding on the exceptional soils of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, the article also states: “The Green Valley AVA (a part of the Russian River AVA) yields bright, bold Pinots with crystalline fruit and piercing acidity.” A recent “Sonoma County Wine Country Guide,” published by the Sonoma County Wineries Association and included with the petition, describes the “Green Valley” area as a small sub-appellation of the Russian River Valley viticultural area (see the Guide, page 24). The article also describes the marine-influenced climate and the Goldridge series soils, which are conducive to growing fruit. Also, the publication contains an untitled map of Sonoma County's rural western expanse that identifies the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area simply as “Green Valley” (see the Guide, page 18). Linkage of Two Viticultural Area Names In addition, with the establishment of the Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.161), TTB has approved the use of the name of one viticultural area within the name of another viticultural area in order to prevent consumer confusion. In that case, a petitioner proposed to establish the Oak Knoll District viticultural area within the larger Napa Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.23) in Napa County, California. In order to distinguish the proposed Oak Knoll District viticultural area from the established Oak Knoll Winery located in Oregon, TTB approved the addition of the “Napa Valley” name to the area's name, resulting in the establishment of the “Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley” viticultural area. (See T.D. TTB-9, published in the Federal Register at 69 FR 8562 on February 25, 2004.) Likewise, by linking the name of the Green Valley viticultural area and the larger Russian River Valley viticultural area that surrounds it, the petitioners seek to prevent consumer confusion between the two established “Green Valley” viticultural areas, as well as between the Green Valley in Sonoma County and other “Green” valleys in the United States. Therefore, TTB believes that adoption of the proposed new “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” name would be permissible so long as it accurately reflects the geographical location of the viticultural area and does not otherwise create confusion for the consumer. Impact on Current Wine Labels General Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If we approve this proposed viticultural area name change, the new name, “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance. If approved, this name change will affect vintners who appropriately use the original “Sonoma County Green Valley.” While “Russian River Valley” and “Solano County Green Valley,” as viticultural area names, are also terms of viticultural significance, we do not believe it would be appropriate to treat “Green Valley” standing alone as a term of viticultural significance due to its widespread use across the United States as a geographic place name. For example, a recent search of the USGS Geographic Names Information System ( ) found 65 entries for “Green Valley” in 23 States, including at least 13 places in California in 11 different counties. Consequently, wine bottlers using the entire descriptor, “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text amendments set forth in this document specify that the name “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” is a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new label or a previously approved label uses the name “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date of this proposed name change. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Transition Period If the proposed “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” name is adopted as a final rule, holders of labels using the current “Sonoma County Green Valley” name that were approved by the effective date of the final regulation changing the viticultural area name to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” will be permitted to continue using those approved labels for two years from the effective date of the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition period, holders of “Sonoma County Green Valley” wine labels must discontinue use of those labels and will need to secure approval of new labels reflecting the correct use of the new viticultural area name as an appellation of origin. We believe the two year period should provide such label holders with adequate time to use up their old labels. Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on the appropriateness of changing the name of the established “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” and the proposed two year transition period. We are particularly interested in comments on any possible effects that the use of this changed name would have on the use of the established Russian River Valley and Solano County Green Valley viticultural area names, including any potential conflicts with existing brand names. TTB will consider only comments concerning the re-naming of the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area and the transition period. The proposed name change of Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area does not affect its boundaries or those of the Russian River Valley viticultural area. With each comment submitted, please provide all available specific information that supports the position of the comment. Submitting Comments Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: • Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must— (1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper; (2) Contain a legible, written signature; and (3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages. • E-mail: You may e-mail comments to . Comments transmitted by electronic mail must— (1) Contain your e-mail address; (2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and (3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper. • Online form: We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at . Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number. • Federal e-rulemaking portal: To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit and follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. For your convenience, we will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit . Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9-AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.57 is amended by revising the section heading, paragraph (a), the introductory text of paragraphs (b) and (c), and by adding a new paragraph (d), to read as follows: § 9.57 Green Valley of Russian River Valley. (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Green Valley of Russian River Valley.” For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” is a term of viticultural significance. (b) Approved Maps. The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the Green Valley of Russian River Valley viticultural area are three United States Geological Survey maps. They are titled: (c) Boundary. The Green Valley of Russian River Valley viticultural area is located in Sonoma County, California. The beginning point is located in the northeastern portion of the “Camp Meeker Quadrangle” map where the line separating section 31 from section 32, in Township 8 North (T.8N.), Range 9 West (R.9W.) intersects River Road. (d) From December 21, 1983, until [INSERT DATE ONE DAY BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], the name of this viticultural area was “Sonoma County Green Valley”. Effective [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], this viticulture area is named “Green Valley of Russian River Valley”. Existing certificates of label approval showing “Sonoma County Green Valley” as the appellation of origin will be revoked by operation of this regulation on [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. Signed: March 29, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-6538 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 151 [USCG-2006-24580] Ballast Water Treatment Technology and Analysis Methods AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Request for public comments. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public assistance in gathering information regarding the status of research and development of ballast water management systems and analytical technologies/methods used in testing ballast water management systems. The Coast Guard may then provide this information to the 55th Session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 55) to inform the Committee during the review of the status of the development of ballast water management systems. Our specific interest is in ballast water management systems that have been rigorously tested both in land-based test platforms and on board ships. We are also interested in technologies/methods for rapid detection, enumeration, and determination of organism viabilities in ballast water. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before Friday, June 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2006-24580 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods: (1) Web site: . (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (3) Fax: 202-493-2251. (4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, contact LT Heather St. Pierre, Environmental Standards Division, U.S. Coast Guard, via the ballast water information line at 202-267-2716 or via e-mail at . If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments All comments received will be posted, without change, to and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below. Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this notice (USCG-2006-24580) and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 ″ by 11″, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them 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 received during the comment period. Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, go to at any time, click on “Simple Search,” enter the last five digits of the docket number for this rulemaking, and click on “Search.” You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act: Anyone can 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 the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit . Background and Purpose The Coast Guard is interested in receiving information about the current status of the development of ballast water management systems. Specifically, the Coast Guard requests comments to be submitted based on two categories: • Ballast water management systems that have been carefully tested at all scales, including rigorous land-based testing and tests on board ships; and • Technologies/methods for rapid detection, enumeration, and determination of organism viabilities in ballast water. Ballast Water Management System Submissions: For those submissions pertaining to shipboard ballast water management systems, specific areas must be addressed for the submission to be considered pertinent to the discussion during the Review: (1) Types and sizes of ships, ballast capacities, flow rates, and the geographic region in which the testing occurred; (2) The availability of commercial infrastructure and support, including sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet initial requirements of the IMO's Ballast Water Convention (At MEPC 53, it was estimated that between 300 and 500 vessels may be subject to the Convention's discharge requirement in 2009); (3) Concise explanation of system requirements, including space, power, consumables, maintenance and manning requirements; and (4) Concise quantitative description of the technology's ability to meet IMO's Ballast Water Performance Standard (Regulation D-2) under shipboard circumstances identified in (1) above, including specific information about the ships on which the management system meets this performance standard, and whether or not the IMO guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems were employed. Testing Technology/Methodology Submissions: For those submissions pertaining to testing ballast water, submissions must address the following areas: (1) Types of organisms to which the test technology or method applies; (2) The intended purpose of the technology/method (detection, enumeration, viability assessment, etc.); (3) Explanation of how this technology/method will facilitate testing of ballast water treatment systems; and (4) Cost of the technology/method, to include capital costs and maintenance/annual costs (including personnel, special training, and expendable supplies). General Submission Information: Submissions for both treatment and testing technologies/methods must be five pages or less (Times New Roman font size 12, single spaced with a minimum of one-inch margins) and relate to the specific classifications of organisms as expressed in the Ballast Water Performance Standard (Regulation D-2) of the IMO's International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water & Sediments. If deemed applicable and pertinent to the discussions of the meeting at IMO, the United States may submit the documents on these technologies and methods to MEPC 55 as information papers. These information papers are documents submitted to the Committee to make note of, and sample papers can be requested via the e-mail address and phone number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Coast Guard appreciates any assistance and information offered by the public; however, providing this information to the Coast Guard does not guarantee the information will be submitted to IMO. Supporting information—including relevant citations for reported results, not intended for wider dissemination—may also be provided. Such material need not comply with the formatting and page limitations described above. Any material considered proprietary or commercially sensitive should be plainly marked as such. The Coast Guard will retain all information received, and may use the information for development and implementation of regulations and policies. Dated: April 27, 2006. Howard L. Hime, Acting Director of Standards, Assistant Commandant for Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. E6-6628 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0303; FRL-8164-3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to the control of oxides of nitrogen (NO ^X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from stationary sources. The SIP revision consists of amendments to New York's Code of Rules and Regulations Parts 214, “Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,” and 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes.” The revision was submitted to comply with the 1-hour ozone Clean Air Act reasonably available control technology requirements for major sources of VOC and NO ^X not covered by Control Techniques Guidelines. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of control strategies which will result in emission reductions that will help achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0303, by one of the following methods: • : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: . • Fax: 212-637-3901. • Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. • Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0303. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at , 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 or e-mail. The 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 your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3381. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action is EPA Proposing Today? II. What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements? A. What are the volatile organic compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements? B. What are the oxides of nitrogen (NO ^X ) RACT requirements? III. What Did New York Include in its Submittals? IV. What Are the Revisions to Part 214, “By-Product Coke Oven Batteries” and Part 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes”? A. What is the definition of generic RACT and do Parts 214 and 216 contain generic RACT provisions? B. How has New York addressed case-by-case RACT determinations? V. Conclusion VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing Today? The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of amendments to New York's Code of Rules and Regulations, Parts 214, “Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,” and 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes” and is intended to comply with certain 1-hour ozone Clean Air Act Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements. II. What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements? A. What are the volatile organic compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements? The Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990 sets forth a number of requirements that states with areas designated as nonattainment for ozone must satisfy and a timetable for satisfying these requirements. The specific requirements vary depending upon the severity of the ozone problem. One of the requirements, and the subject of this proposed rulemaking, requires states to adopt RACT rules for various VOC source categories. EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). Section 182 of the Act sets forth two separate RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The first requirement, contained in section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and referred to as RACT fix-up, requires the correction of RACT rules for which EPA identified deficiencies before the Act was amended in 1990. The second requirement, set forth in section 182(b)(2) of the Act, applies to moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas as well as to ozone transport regions. The goal of this latter requirement is to ensure that areas not required previously to adopt RACT for some or all of the major stationary sources, adopt rules and “catch-up” to those areas subject to more stringent RACT requirements. EPA issued three sets of Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents, establishing a “presumptive norm” for RACT for various categories of VOC sources. The three sets of CTGs were (1) Group I—issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs); (2) Group II—issued in 1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III—issued in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). Those sources not covered by a CTG are referred to as non-CTG sources. Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or worse to develop RACT for all pre-enactment CTG source categories, for all sources subject to post-enactment CTGs and for all non-CTG major sources in those areas. Under the pre-1990 Clean Air Act, ozone nonattainment areas were required to adopt RACT rules for sources of VOC emissions. New York has previously addressed most of these requirements and EPA has approved these revisions into the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP). B. What are the oxides of nitrogen (NO ^X ) RACT requirements? The air quality planning requirements for the reduction of NO ^X emissions using RACT are set out in section 182(f) of the Act. EPA further defines the section 182(f) requirements in a notice, “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,” published November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55620). Refer to the November 25, 1992 notice for detailed information on the NO ^X requirements. Also refer to additional guidance memoranda that EPA released subsequent to the NO ^X Supplement. The additional guidance includes but is not limited to: EPA publication EPA-452/R-96-005 (March 1996) entitled “NO ^X Policy Documents for The Clean Air Act of 1990;” EPA's policy memorandum on the approval options for generic RACT rules submitted by states entitled “Approval Options for Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain NO ^X RACT Requirements” (November 7, 1996); EPA's draft system-wide averaging trading guidance (December 1993); and EPA's publications of “Alternative Control Technique Documents,” which are technical documents identifying alternative controls for most categories of stationary sources of NO ^X . The Act requires that states establish requirements, where practicable, for major stationary sources to include NO ^X RACT controls by May 31, 1995. III. What Did New York Include in Its Submittals? On July 8, 1994, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to EPA a request to revise its SIP. The revisions consisted of amendments to New York's Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Parts 214, “Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,” and 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes.” Parts 214 and 216 were adopted by the State on July 8, 1994 and became effective on September 22, 1994. These regulations are intended to address, at least in part, the requirements of the Act explained in Section I of this notice. It should be noted that because the specific requirements of the Act which New York must address vary relative to the severity of the ozone problem in a specific metropolitan area, the applicability of New York's Parts 214 and 216 also varies accordingly. A summary of EPA's review and findings concerning the revisions to Parts 214 and 216 follows. IV. What Are the Revisions to Part 214, “By-Product Coke Oven Batteries” and Part 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes”? Part 214 Revised Part 214 includes definitions which have been added for convenience in interpreting the provisions of Part 214. Revised Part 214 also includes a new subdivision, subpart 214.9(b) which requires facilities subject to this rule to comply with RACT requirements. Facilities subject to this rule must submit a compliance plan which identifies RACT for each NO ^X and VOC emission point or limit the facility's potential to emit these contaminants below threshold applicability levels through federally and state enforceable special conditions in permits to construct and/or certificates to operate. A compliance plan must identify the emission points not equipped with RACT and must include a schedule for installation of RACT. Subpart 214.9(b) required that compliance plans be submitted to the NYSDEC by October 20, 1994, and RACT implemented by May 31, 1995. VOC emission points which are subject to and are in compliance with subparts L or FF of the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants in 40 CFR Part 61 are considered to be equipped with RACT for purposes of compliance with subpart 214.9(b). Pursuant to subpart 214.9(b)(5), any other process specific RACT determinations developed by the facilities, which have been determined by the NYSDEC to be acceptable, must be submitted to EPA for approval as SIP revisions. Part 216 Revised Part 216 includes definitions which have been added for convenience in interpreting the provisions of Part 216. Revised Part 216 also includes a new subdivision, subpart 216.5 which requires facilities subject to this rule to comply with RACT requirements. Facilities subject to this rule must submit a compliance plan which identifies RACT for each NO ^X and VOC emission point or limit the facility's potential to emit these contaminants below threshold applicability levels through federally and state enforceable special conditions in permits to construct and/or certificates to operate. A compliance plan must identify the emission points not equipped with RACT and must include a schedule for installation of RACT. Subpart 216.5 required that compliance plans be submitted to the NYSDEC by October 20, 1994, and RACT implemented by May 31, 1995. Pursuant to subpart 216.5(c)(4), any process specific RACT determinations developed by the facilities, which have been determined by the NYSDEC to be acceptable, must be submitted to EPA for approval as SIP revisions. A. What Is the Definition of Generic RACT and Do Parts 214 and 216 Contain Generic RACT Provisions? Generic provisions are those portions of a regulation which require the application of RACT to an emission point, but the degree of control is not specified in the rule and is to be determined on a case-by-case basis taking technological and economic factors into consideration. New York refers to these as “process specific RACT demonstrations.” Under the Act, these individually determined RACT limits would then need to be submitted by a state as a SIP revision for EPA approval. On November 7, 1996, EPA issued a policy memorandum providing additional guidance for approving regulations which contain these “generic provisions”. (Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, memorandum to EPA Division Directors, “Approval Options for Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain NO ^X RACT Requirements”). EPA policy allows for the full approval of state rules containing generic RACT requirements prior to actual EPA approval of SIP revisions establishing RACT for each individual major source making use of the generic RACT requirements. However, to allow this, the state must provide an analysis that shows that the sources likely to make use of these generic requirements would only represent a small amount or de-minimis level of emissions and that the majority of emissions would be regulated by a specified RACT level of control included in the general rule. An EPA approval of this generic provision does not exempt the remaining sources from complying with RACT, but does provide an opportunity for EPA to make a determination that the state has met a non-CTG requirement prior to taking action on all of the individual case-by-case RACT determinations. Parts 214 and 216 both include generic RACT provisions requiring the application of RACT on a case-by-case basis for any item of equipment, process or source where the degree of control has not been specified in the general rule. B. How Has New York Addressed the Case-by-Case RACT Determinations? In a letter dated March 1, 2006, New York provided sufficient data for EPA to evaluate the de-minimis level of NO ^X emissions from generic sources in the State that are subject to Parts 214 and 216. New York also determined that there are no sources located in New York State which are subject to the VOC RACT requirements of Parts 214 and 216 which would need to submit individual case-by-case RACT determinations as single source SIP revisions. Therefore, New York provided de-minimis data for NO ^X sources only. Given the State's data, EPA determined that 0.50 percent of the NO ^X emissions subject to RACT controls have either not yet been submitted to EPA as single source SIP revisions or, if submitted, have not yet been approved by EPA. This 0.50 percent level includes NO ^X emissions from four facilities for which New York is required to submit single source SIP revisions addressing NO ^X RACT requirements for these facilities. EPA policy indicates that 0.50 percent is below the de-minimis level. 1 EPA has determined that New York's NO ^X RACT regulation conforms to EPA's policy regarding the approval of generic RACT provisions or rules. Therefore, EPA proposes full approval of the generic RACT provisions of Part 214 and 216. Subparts 214.9(b)(5) and 216.5(c)(4) require New York to submit any remaining case-by-case RACT determinations for the NO ^X sources to EPA for approval as single source SIP revisions. 1 EPA guidance (“Approval Options for Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain NO ^X RACT Requirements,” November 7, 1996) provides that where the non-approved RACT requirements concern sources whose emissions represent less than 5 percent of the 1990 stationary source NO ^X inventory, excluding utility boilers, it may be appropriate to issue a full approval of the generic RACT regulation. V. Conclusion EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Part 214, “By-Product Coke Oven Batteries” and Part 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes” of New York's regulations as meeting the VOC and NO ^X RACT “catch-up” requirements under sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act for non-CTG major sources. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: April 24, 2006. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E6-6618 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0034; FRL-8164-5] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to Texas AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted a request for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). The requests apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by EPA, as adopted by TCEQ on May 25, 2005. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. EPA is providing notice that proposes to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TDEQ. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the final rules section of the Federal Register . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Air Permits Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division (6PD-R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, at (214) 665-6435, or at . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal Register , EPA is approving TCEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ has adopted certain NESHAPs into Texas' state regulations. In addition, EPA is waiving its notification requirements so sources will only need to send notifications and reports to TCEQ. The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412. Dated: April 24, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 06-4113 Filed 5-1-06; 8:45 am]

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

Summary

Dates

Supplementary Information