55402 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

advertising neglected to provide any 

example of putative innovations. The 

argument that the regulation as enforced 

imposes costs and practical difficulties 

that outweigh the benefits of detailed 

tax disclosure ignores the fact that the 

policy does not require that 

government-imposed fees be listed 

separately from the fare but merely 

permits this. The argument that 

enforcement action under section 41712 

alone would not be any more 

cumbersome than it is now, since the 

Department must already prove 

violations on a case-by-case basis, 

ignores the considerable difference 

between having to prove only that 

conduct is prohibited by § 399.84, as 

interpreted, and having to prove that 

conduct has violated section 41712, 

which requires a showing of actual or 

likely consumer harm. With § 399.84 in 

place, any act that it prohibits is a per 

se violation of section 41712. The 

argument that consumers know that 

advertised prices do not include taxes 

ignores the vast difference between the 

sales tax applicable to most goods and 

services and the much higher taxes and 

fees—both absolutely and as a 

percentage of the base price—applicable 

to airfares. Aer Lingus does not explain 

why it believes that listings on carriers’

Web sites should not be considered 

advertisements, nor does it specify how 

it believes Internet travel agencies’ fare 

displays should be treated. 

The supporters of Option III B have 

also not persuaded us to dilute § 399.84. 

We agree with the Council of Better 

Business Bureaus that sellers could 

advertise deceptively under this option, 

for example, by falsely implying that a 

carrier’s own surcharges were 

government-imposed or by failing to 

meet the Federal Trade Commission’s 

standards for prominence, readability, 

and clarity. As in the case of Options III 

A and IV, moreover, enforcement would 

be far more burdensome than under the 

status quo. 

Similarly, the overwhelming support 

among individuals for enforcing 

§ 399.84 as written notwithstanding, the 

comments fail to establish a rationale for 

undoing over 20 years of permitting 

exceptions to the rule’s strict terms as a 

matter of enforcement policy. Strict 

enforcement of § 399.84 would still 

create marketing difficulties for sellers 

without necessarily making prices more 

transparent to consumers. Option II’s 

strong support from consumers does, 

however, serve to fortify the case against 

eliminating or diluting the rule and 

enforcement policy. 

We are maintaining the status quo and 

withdrawing the NPRM rather than 

codifying the current exceptions to 

§ 399.84 allowed by the Enforcement 

Office. We do not think that codification 

is necessary to make the enforcement 

policy transparent and available. As we 

observed in the NPRM, sellers and 

lawyers practicing in this industry are 

already familiar with the policy and 

both consumers and newcomers to the 

industry can find the details of the 

policy on the Department’s Web site at 

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/ 

guidance.htm. 70 FR at 73963. As we 

also observed in the NPRM, given that 

enforcement is by nature discretionary, 

by not codifying the exceptions to 

§ 399.84, we are retaining the flexibility 

within the Enforcement Office to 

continue refining its enforcement policy 

without the delays and costs that 

rulemaking would entail, id. 

Two clarifications are in order. First, 

several commenters argue for leeway to 

lump all of the government fees and 

charges that may be broken out from the 

fare together as one sum rather than 

being required to list them individually. 

In practice, except for ad valorem taxes 

and the September 11th Security Fee, 

which under the Department of 

Homeland Security’s regulations must 

be disclosed separately, the 

Enforcement Office already allows this. 

Second, several commenters argue that 

the requirements for disclosure of 

government-imposed charges in 

billboard, television, and radio 

advertisements should be dropped 

because as a practical matter these 

disclosures are invariably unintelligible. 

The fact remains, however, that failure 

to disclose these charges effectively 

renders an advertisement deceptive. 

Sellers always have the option of 

including these charges in the fares 

advertised (using a range of prices or 

using the word ‘‘from’’ with the 

minimum price if need be). 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, we are withdrawing the NPRM. 

Issued this day of September 18, 2006, at 

Washington, DC, under authority delegated 

by 49 CFR 1.56a. 

Michael W. Reynolds, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 06–8041 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0210; FRL–8220–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Utah; Revised 

Definitions of Volatile Organic 

Compounds and Clearing Index; 

Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of Utah 

on November 11 and November 23, 

2005. The revisions are to the Utah 

Administrative Code (UAC) rule R307–

101–2 and (1) incorporate by reference 

the Federal definition of ‘‘Volatile 

Organic Compounds’’ (VOC), and (2) 

update the definition of ‘‘Clearing 

Index’’. The intended effect of this 

action is to make federally enforceable 

those provisions that EPA is approving. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revisions as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as 

noncontroversial SIP revisions and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If EPA receives no adverse 

comments, EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, EPA will 

withdraw the direct final rule and it will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

public comments 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. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 23, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–

OAR–2006–0210, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 55403 

• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air 

and Radiation Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 

18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 

80202–2466. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Domenico Mastrangelo, Air and 

Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466, 

(303) 312–6436, 

mastrangelo.domenico@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations Section of 

this Federal Register. 

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

Dated: September 1, 2006. 

Kerrigan G. Clough, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 06–7955 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR PART 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0543; FRL–8217–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In 

these revisions, the State has 

incorporated changes EPA made to its 

definition of volatile organic compound 

(VOC) and its VOC control requirements 

for yeast manufacturing. As a result of 

EPA’s approval, five chemical 

compounds will no longer be 

considered VOCs. The changes to VOC 

control requirements match the EPA 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) limits for yeast 

manufacturers. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 23, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2006–0543, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria 

Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch 

AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this 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. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should 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 located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 23, 2006. 

Jerri-Anne Garl, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 06–8112 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–8221–7] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the 

Army Materials Technology Laboratory 

Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 1 announces its 

intent to delete the Army Materials 

Technology Laboratory Superfund Site 

(Site) located in Watertown, 

Massachusetts, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comment on this proposed action. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found 

at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 of the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The 

EPA and the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, through the Department 

of Environmental Protection, have 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA—other 

than operation and maintenance and 

five-year reviews—have been 

completed. However, this deletion does 

not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a direct final notice of 

deletion of the Army Materials 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL