EIN NLINE - Regulations.gov

Citation: 76 Fed. Reg. I 2011

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Thu Mar 15 13:41:56 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

E RC4

S 1985

FEDERLRGSE

Vol. 76 Monday,

No. 74 April 18, 2011

Pages 21613-21804

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

II Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011

RECo

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097-6326) is published daily,Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Officeof the Federal Register, National Archives and RecordsAdministration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal RegisterAct (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the AdministrativeCommittee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). TheSuperintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the officialedition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC.

The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for makingavailable to the public regulations and legal notices issued byFederal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations andExecutive Orders, Federal agency documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, documents required to be publishedby act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of publicinterest.

Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of theFederal Register the day before they are published, unless theissuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documentscurrently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov.

The seal of the National Archives and Records Administrationauthenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publicationestablished under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507,the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed.

The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche.It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a serviceof the U.S. Government Printing Office.

The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under theauthority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Registeras the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions(44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. eachday the Federal Register is published and includes both text andgraphics from Volume 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For moreinformation, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S.Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512-1800(toll free). E-mail, gpotcusthelp.com.

The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paperedition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combinedFederal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR SectionsAffected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the FederalRegister including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165,plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-halfthe annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied toorders according to the delivery method requested. The price ofa single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage,is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containingless than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages;and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issuesof the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy,including postage. Remit check or money order, made payableto the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPODeposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, orDiscover. Mail to: U.S. Government Printing Office-New Orders,P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free I-866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. GovernmentOnline Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov.

There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearingin the Federal Register.

How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and thepage number. Example: 76 FR 12345.

Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent ofDocuments, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label fromthe last issue received.

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES

PUBLICSubscriptions:

Paper or fiche

Assistance with public subscri t

General online informationSingle copies/back copies:

Paper or ficheAssistance with public single c

202-512-1800)tions 202-512-1806

202-512-1530; 1-888-293-6498

202-512-18001-866-512-1800

(Toll-Free)

FEDERAL AGENCIESSubscriptions:

Paper or fiche 202-741-6005Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202-741-6005

FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP

THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO USE IT

FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code ofFederal Regulations.

WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register.

'WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present:

1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the FederalRegister system and the public's role in the develop-ment of regulations.

2. The relationship between the Federal Register andCode of Federal Regulations.

3. The important elements of typical Federal Register doc-unents.

4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FRICFR sys-tem.

WHY: To provide the public with access to information nec-essary to research Federal agency regulations which di-rectly affect them. There will be no discussion of spe-cific agency regulations.

WHEN: Tuesday, May 10, 20119 a.m.-12:30 p.m.

WHERE: Office of the Federal RegisterConference Room, Suite 700800 North Capitol Street, NW.Washington, DC 20002

RESERVATIONS: (202) 741-6008

@ Printed on recycled paper.

Contents Federal Register

Vol. 76, No. 74

Monday, April 18, 2011

Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21744-21747

Agricultural Marketing ServiceRULESGrapes Grown in Designated Area of Southeastern

California; Increased Assessment Rate, 21620-21622Suspensions of Handling Requirements:

Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California, 21615-21618

Termination of Marketing Order 924:Fresh Prunes Grown in Designated Counties in

Washington and in Umatilla County, OR, 21618-21620

NOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21700-21701Meetings:

Plant Variety Protection Board, 21701

Agriculture DepartmentSee Agricultural Marketing ServiceSee Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceSee Forest Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceRULESGypsy Moth Generally Infested Areas:

Additions in Indiana, Maine, Ohio, Virginia, WestVirginia, and Wisconsin, 21613-21615

Architectural and Transportation Barriers ComplianceBoard

NOTICESMeetings:

Regular Committee and Board, 21702

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21747-21748Meetings:

Advisory Committee to the Director Health DisparitiesSubcommittee, 21748

Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and ControlSpecial Emphasis Panel, 21748-21749

Children and Families AdministrationNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21749-21750FY 2012 State Median Income Estimates for Use Under the

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 21750-21752

Coast GuardRULESDisestablishing Special Anchorage Area 2; Ashley River,

Charleston, SC, 21633-21636

Drawbridge Operation Regulations:Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL, 21636-21637

Safety Zones:Ford Estate Wedding Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse

Pointe Shores, MI, 21637-21639PROPOSED RULESSafety Zones:

Annual Events at Captain of Port Sault Sainte Marie,21677-21682

NOTICESMeetings:

Navigation Safety Advisory Council, 21772-21773

Commerce DepartmentSee Foreign-Trade Zones BoardSee Industry and Security BureauSee International Trade AdministrationSee National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller of the CurrencyNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21798-21799Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative,

21800-21801

Defense DepartmentSee Navy DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

Defense Science Board, 21705-21706Department of Defense Wage Committee, 21705

Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 21706-21710Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory

Committees, 21710-21711

Education DepartmentNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21713-21716

Energy DepartmentSee Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionPROPOSED RULESAlternative Efficiency Determination Methods and

Alternate Rating Methods, 21673-21675NOTICESIssuance of Loan Guarantees:

Solar Partners for Ivanpah Solar Electric GeneratingSystem Units 1, 2, and 3, 21716-21718

Environmental Protection AgencyRULESFinding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan:

Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revision, 21639-21652

Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, andCountermeasure Rule:

Amendments for Milk and Milk Product Containers,21652-21660

IV Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011 /Contents

PROPOSED RULESApproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation

Plans:Louisiana; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-

Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards, 21682-21691

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans:Washington; Extension of Comment Period, 21691-21692

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Primary Lead Smelting, 21692

NOTICESDraft Toxicological Review of Methanol (Non-Cancer):

In Support of Summary Information on the IntegratedRisk Information System, 21736-21738

Federal Aviation AdministrationRULESIFR Altitudes:

Miscellaneous Amendments, 21622-21628PROPOSED RULESAirworthiness Directives:

Dowty Propellers Type R321/4-82-F/8, R324/4-82-F/9,R333/4-82-F/12, and R334/4-82-F/13 PropellerAssemblies, 21675-21677

NOTICESPetitions for Exemption; Summaries of Petitions Received,

21790

Federal Communications CommissionNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals, 21738-21741Emergency Access Advisory Committee; Establishment;

Correction, 21741Meetings:

Twenty-First Century Communications and VideoProgramming Accessibility Act, 21741-21742

Petitions for Declaratory Rulings:Scope of Preemption of Wireless Entry Regulation;

Extension of Comment Period, 21742-21743

Federal Emergency Management AgencyRULESChanges in Flood Elevation Determinations, 21660-21664Final Flood Elevation Determinations, 21664-21672PROPOSED RULESProposed Flood Elevation Determinations, 21693-21699NOTICESEmergency and Related Determinations:

North Dakota, 21773Major Disaster and Related Determinations:

Hawaii, 21773-21774Wisconsin, 21774

Major Disaster Declarations:Missouri; Amendment No. 1, 21775

Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionNOTICESApplications:

City of Wadsworth, OH, 21718-21719Combined Filings, 21719-21734Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for

Blanket Section 204 Authorizations:Woodway Energy Partners, LLC, 21734-21735

Petition for Approval of Settlement Amendment:Northern Natural Gas Co., 21735

Petitions:Solutions for Utilities, Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,

et al., 21735-21736

Federal Highway AdministrationNOTICESEnvironmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.:

Interstate 66 Corridor, Virginia, 21790

Federal Maritime CommissionNOTICESOrder of Investigation and Hearing:

Indigo Logistics, LLC, Liliya Ivanenko, and LeonidIvanenko, 21743

Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationNOTICESParts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation:

Exemption Renewal for DriveCam, Inc., 21791-21792Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

Mellitus, 21792-21796Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision,

21796-21797

Food and Drug AdministrationNOTICESGuidance for Industry on How to Write a Request for

Designation; Availability, 21752-21753Site Tours Program, 21753

Foreign Assets Control OfficeNOTICESDesignation of Five Individuals and Two Entities Pursuant

to Executive Order 13566, 21801

Foreign-Trade Zones BoardNOTICESApplications for Expansion:

Foreign-Trade Subzone 124B, North AmericanShipbuilding, LLC, Houma, LA, 21702-21703

Approval for Extensions of Subzone Status andManufacturing Authority:

Foreign-Trade Subzone 169A, Aso LLC, Sarasota County,FL; Correction, 21703

Forest ServiceNOTICESMeetings:

Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee, 21701-21702

General Services AdministrationNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:Sealed Bidding, 21743-21744

Health and Human Services DepartmentSee Agency for Healthcare Research and QualitySee Centers for Disease Control and PreventionSee Children and Families AdministrationSee Food and Drug AdministrationSee Health Resources and Services AdministrationSee National Institutes of Health

Health Resources and Services AdministrationNOTICESNoncompetitive Program Extension Supplemental Awards,

21753-21754

Homeland Security DepartmentSee Coast Guard

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011 /Contents V

See Federal Emergency Management AgencySee U.S. Customs and Border ProtectionNOTICESGuidance to Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding

Discrimination Affecting Limited English ProficientPersons, 21755-21768

Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 21768-21772

Indian Affairs BureauNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:Housing Improvement Program, 21778

Industry and Security BureauRULESImplementation of Additional Changes from the Annual

Review of the Entity List:Removal of Person Based on Removal Request, 21628-

21633

Interior DepartmentSee Indian Affairs BureauSee Land Management Bureau

International Trade AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, 21703

Justice DepartmentNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2011-2012, 21780-

21781

Labor DepartmentNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:Repurposed Auto Manufacturing Facilities Study, 21781-

21782

Land Management BureauNOTICESFiling of Plats of Survey:

California, 21779Montana, 21778-21779

Meetings:Central Montana Resource Advisory Council, 21780Dakotas Resource Advisory Council, 21779-21780

National Credit Union AdministrationNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 21782

National Institutes of HealthNOTICESMeetings:

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,21754-21755

Office of the Director, 21755

National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOTICESApplications for Permit Amendments

Marine Mammals; File No. 14326 and 14329, 21703-21705

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska:Catch Accounting in Longline Catcher/Processor Pacific

Cod Fishery, 21705

National Science FoundationNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 21782

Navy DepartmentNOTICESEnvironmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.:

Disposal and Reuse of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, SanFrancisco, CA, 21711-21712

Final Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.:Small-Scale Wind Energy Projects at U.S. Marine Corps

Facilities, 21712Intent to Grant a Partially Exclusive Patent License;

PopTest Cortisol LLC, 21712Meetings:

Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Industry Sub-Panel, 21712-21713

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 21782-21783

Personnel Management OfficeNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:Presidential Management Fellows Nomination Form,

21783-21784

Securities and Exchange CommissionNOTICESMeetings; Sunshine Act, 21784Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes:

NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 21784-21785

Small Business AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

National Women's Business Council, 21786

Social Security AdministrationNOTICESMeetings:

Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel,21786

State DepartmentNOTICESMeetings:

United States-Peru Environmental Affairs Council,Environmental Cooperation Commission, et al.,21786-21787

Notifications to Congress of Proposed Commercial ExportLicenses, 21787-21789

Surface Transportation BoardNOTICESContinuance in Control Exemptions:

Arkansas Shortline Railroads, Inc, and Camden andSouthern Railroad, Inc., 21797-21798

VI Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011 /Contents

Thrift Supervision OfficeNOTICESAgency Information Collection Activities; Proposals,

Submissions, and Approvals:Amendment of a Federal Savings Association Charter,

21801-21802

Transportation DepartmentSee Federal Aviation AdministrationSee Federal Highway AdministrationSee Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationSee Surface Transportation BoardNOTICESMeetings:

ITS Joint Program Office, 21789

Treasury DepartmentSee Comptroller of the CurrencySee Foreign Assets Control OfficeSee Thrift Supervision OfficeSee United States Mint

U.S. Customs and Border ProtectionNOTICESFinal Determination Concerning Certain Office

Workstations, 21775-21778

United States MintNOTICES

Price of 2010 America the Beautiful Five Ounce SilverUncirculated Coins, 21802

Veterans Affairs DepartmentNOTICES

Meetings:Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans,

21802-21803

Reader AidsConsult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page forphone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders,and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of ContentsLISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv. access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing listarchives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or changesettings); then follow the instructions.

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011 /Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in theReader Aids section at the end of this issue.

7 CFR3 0 1 ................................... 2 16 139 16 ................................... 2 16 159 17 ................................... 2 16 159 2 4 ................................... 2 16 1892 5 ................................... 2 162 0

10 CFRProposed Rules:4 3 1 ................................... 2 16 7 3

14 CFR9 5 ..................................... 2 16 2 2Proposed Rules:3 9 ..................................... 2 16 7 5

15 CFR73 0 ................................... 2 162 874 4 ................................... 2 162 8

33 CFR1 10 ................................... 2 16 3 31 17 ................................... 2 16 3 616 5 ................................... 2 16 3 7Proposed Rules:16 5 ................................... 2 16 7 7

40 CFR5 2 ..................................... 2 16 3 91 12 ................................... 2 16 5 2Proposed Rules:52 (2 documents) ........... 21682,

216916 3 ..................................... 2 16 9 244 CFR65 (2 documents) ........... 21660,

216626 7 ..................................... 2 16 6 4Proposed Rules:67 (2 documents) ........... 21693,

21695

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

Vol. 76, No. 74


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains regulatory documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, most of whichare keyed to and codified in the Code ofFederal Regulations, which is published under50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold bythe Superintendent of Documents. Prices ofnew books are listed in the first FEDERALREGISTER issue of each week.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health InspectionService

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0075]

Gypsy Moth Generally Infested Areas;Additions in Indiana, Maine, Ohio,Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

AGENCY: Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the gypsymoth regulations by adding areas inIndiana, Maine, Ohio, Virginia, WestVirginia, and Wisconsin to the list ofgenerally infested areas based on thedetection of infestations of gypsy mothin those areas. As a result of this action,the interstate movement of regulatedarticles from those areas is restricted.This action is necessary to prevent theartificial spread of the gypsy moth tononinfested areas of the United States.

DATES: This interim rule is effectiveApril 18, 2011. We will consider allcomments that we receive on or beforeJune 17, 2011.ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsby either of the following methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go tohttp://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic-component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0075 to submit or viewcomments and to view supporting andrelated materials availableelectronically.

e Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:Please send one copy of your commentto Docket No. APHIS-2010-0075,Regulatory Analysis and Development,PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD20737-1238. Please state that yourcomment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0075.

Reading Room: You may read anycomments that we receive on thisdocket in our reading room. The readingroom is located in Room 1141 of theUSDA South Building, 14th Street andIndependence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC. Normal reading roomhours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except holidays. To besure someone is there to help you,please call (202) 690-2817 beforecoming.

Other Information: Additionalinformation about APHIS and itsprograms is available on the Internet athttp://www.aphis.usda.gov.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Julie S. Spaulding, Forest Pest ProgramsManager, Emergency and DomesticPrograms, Plant Protection andQuarantine, APHIS, 4700 River RoadUnit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301)734-5332.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar(Linnaeus), is a destructive pest offorest, shade, and commercial trees suchas nursery stock and Christmas trees.The gypsy moth regulations (containedin 7 CFR 301.45 through 301.45-12 andreferred to below as the regulations)restrict the interstate movement ofregulated articles from generallyinfested areas to prevent the artificialspread of the gypsy moth.

In accordance with § 301.45-2 of theregulations, generally infested areas are,with certain exceptions, those States orportions of States in which a gypsymoth general infestation has been foundby an inspector, or each portion of aState that the Administrator deemsnecessary to regulate because of itsproximity to infestation or itsinseparability for quarantineenforcement purposes from infestedlocalities. Less than an entire State willbe designated as a generally infestedarea only if: (1) The State has adoptedand is enforcing a quarantine orregulation that imposes restrictions onthe intrastate movement of regulatedarticles that are substantially the sameas those that are imposed with respectto the interstate movement of sucharticles; and (2) the designation of lessthan the entire State as a generallyinfested area will be adequate to preventthe artificial interstate spread ofinfestations of the gypsy moth.

Designation of Areas as GenerallyInfested Areas

Section 301.45-3 of the regulationslists generally infested areas. In thisrule, we are amending § 301.45-3(a) byadding the following to the list ofgenerally infested areas:

" Indiana: LaPorte County." Maine: In Penobscot County, the

townships of Mount Chase, T5 R8WELS, T6 R8 WELS, and the portion ofT3 R8 WELS within the boundaries ofBaxter State Park; in Piscataquis County,the townships of Mount Katahdin,Nesourdnahunk, Trout Brook, T3 R10WELS, T4 R9 WELS, T5 R9 WELS, T6Rio WELS, and the portion of T4 RioWELS within the boundaries of BaxterState Park; and, in Somerset County, thetownships of Bigelow, LowerEnchanted, Pierce Pond, and T3 R4 BKPWKR.

e Ohio: Athens, Crawford, Marion,and Vinton Counties.

e Virginia: The Cities of Covingtonand Radford, and Bland, Floyd,Franklin, and Pulaski Counties.

" West Virginia: Fayette County." Wisconsin: The Madeline Island

area and the Apostle Islands NationalLakeshore (island units only) ofAshland County, and Iron and MonroeCounties.

As a result of this rule, the interstatemovement of regulated articles fromthese areas will be restricted.

We are taking this action because, incooperation with the States of Indiana,Maine, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia,and Wisconsin, the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture conductedsurveys that detected multiple lifestages of the gypsy moth in the areas tobe added. Based on these surveys, wedetermined that reproducingpopulations exist at significant levels inthese areas and that eradication is notfeasible. Adding these areas to theexisting generally infested area will helpprevent the artificial spread of the gypsymoth.

Editorial Amendments

We periodically review the list ofgenerally infested areas for accuracy.During our last review, we noted severalerrors in the listing of generally infestedareas in Maine:

e T3 R4 WELS, in Aroostook County,has long been considered a generallyinfested area, but has never been addedto the regulations due to an inadvertentomission.

21613

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011/Rules and Regulations

* Eustis, in Franklin County, shouldbe included, in alphabetical order, inthe list of townships rather than beinglisted separately as Eustis area.

* In Penobscot County, Patten shouldbe included, in alphabetical order, inthe list of townships rather than beinglisted separately as Patten area. In thesame county, "Seboesis Plantation"should be spelled Seboeis Plantation.

* The Township of Veazie Gore iserroneously listed under Piscataquis,rather than Penobscot County.

* The Township of Wellington inPiscataquis County appears incorrectlyas Willington.

We are amending the regulations in§ 301.45-3 accordingly to correct theseerrors.

Emergency Action

This rulemaking is necessary on anemergency basis because of thepossibility that the gypsy moth could beartificially spread to noninfested areasof the United States, where it couldcause economic losses due to thedefoliation of susceptible forest andshade trees. Under these circumstances,the Administrator has determined thatprior notice and opportunity for publiccomment are contrary to the publicinterest and that there is good causeunder 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this ruleeffective less than 30 days afterpublication in the Federal Register.

We will consider comments wereceive during the comment period forthis interim rule (see DATES above).After the comment period closes, wewill publish another document in theFederal Register. The document willinclude a discussion of any commentswe receive and any amendments we aremaking to the rule.

Executive Order 12866 and RegulatoryFlexibility Act

This interim rule is subject toExecutive Order 12866. However, forthis action, the Office of Managementand Budget has waived its review underExecutive Order 12866.

In accordance with the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, we have analyzed thepotential economic effects of this actionon small entities. The analysis, whichconsiders the number and types ofentities that are likely to be affected bythis action and the potential economiceffects on those entities, provides thebasis for the Administrator'sdetermination that the rule will nothave a significant economic impact ona substantial number of small entities.The economic analysis may be viewedon the Regulations.gov Web site (seeADDRESSES above for instructions foraccessing Regulations.gov). Copies of

the economic analysis are also availablefrom the person listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The requirements of this rule maycause a slight increase in costs for someof the affected entities, depending onthe proportion of their sales made tobuyers in non-quarantined areas.However, any negative impacts that maybe incurred because of the rule will besmall, especially when compared to theharm to the forest industry and the U.S.economy from further spread of thegypsy moth. Regulated articles that meetquarantine requirements can continue tobe sold in non-quarantined areas.Impacts on prices and competitivenesswill be insignificant.

Although the majority of affectedestablishments in the newlyquarantined areas are small entities, theeffects of this rule on these businesseswill be minor. Under thesecircumstances, the Administrator of theAnimal and Plant Health InspectionService has determined that this actionwould not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in theCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistanceunder No. 10.025 and is subject toExecutive Order 12372, which requiresintergovernmental consultation withState and local officials. (See 7 CFR part3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed underExecutive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. This rule: (1) Preempts all Stateand local laws and regulations that areinconsistent with this rule; (2) has noretroactive effect; and (3) does notrequire administrative proceedingsbefore parties may file suit in courtchallenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no newinformation collection or recordkeepingrequirements under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plantdiseases and pests, Quarantine,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFRpart 301 as follows:

PART 301-DOMESTIC QUARANTINENOTICES

m 1. The authority citation for part 301continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204,Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat.1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title 11, Public Law106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).

* 2. In § 301.45-3, paragraph (a) isamended as follows:* a. Under the heading Indiana, byadding, in alphabetical order, an entryfor LaPorte County to read as set forthbelow.* b. Under the heading Maine, byrevising the entries for AroostookCounty, Franklin County, PenobscotCounty, Piscataquis County, andSomerset County to read as set forthbelow.m c. Under the heading Ohio, by adding,in alphabetical order, entries for AthensCounty, Crawford County, MarionCounty, and Vinton County to read asset forth below.* d. Under the heading Virginia, byadding, in alphabetical order, entries forthe Cities of Covington and Radford andfor Bland County, Floyd County,Franklin County, and Pulaski County toread as set forth below.m e. Under the heading West Virginia,by adding an entry for Fayette Countyto read as set forth below.* f. Under the heading Wisconsin, byadding, in alphabetical order, entries forAshland County, Iron County, andMonroe County to read as set forthbelow.

§ 301.45-3 Generally infested areas.(a) * * *

Indiana* * * * *

LaPorte County. The entire county.* * * * *

Maine

Aroostook County. The townships ofAmity, Bancroft, Benedicta, CaryPlantation, Crystal, Dyer Brook,Forkstown, Glenwood Plantation,Haynesville, Hodgdon, Houlton, IslandFalls, Linneus, Macwahoc Plantation,Molunkus, New Limerick, NorthYarmouth Academy Grant, Oakfield,Orient, Reed Plantation, Sherman,Silver Ridge, Upper Molunkus, Weston,Ti R5 WELS, T2 R4 WELS, T3 R3WELS, T3 R4 WELS, T4 R3 WELS, andTA R2 WELS.

Franklin County. Avon, Carthage,Chesterville, Coplin Plantation,Crockertown, Dallas Plantation, Davis,Eustis, Farmington, Freeman, Industry,Jay, Jerusalem, Kingfield, Lang, Madrid,Mount Abraham, New Sharon, New

21614


Vineyard, Perkins, Phillips, Rangeley,Rangeley Plantation, Redington, Salem,Sandy River Plantation, Strong, Temple,Township 6 North of Weld, TownshipD, Township E, Washington, Weld,Wilton, and Wyman.

Penobscot County. The townships ofAlton, Argyle, Bangor City, Bradford,Bradley, Brewer City, Burlington,Carmel, Carroll Plantation, Charleston,Chester, Clifton, Corinna, Corinth,Dexter, Dixmont, Drew Plantation, E.Millinocket, Eddington, Edinburg,Enfield, Etna, Exeter, Garland,Glenburn, Grand Falls Plantation,Greenbush, Greenfield, Grindstone,Hampden, Hermon, Hersey Town,Holden, Hopkins Academy Grant,Howland, Hudson, Indian Purchase,Kenduskeag, Kingman, Lagrange,Lakeville, Lee, Levant, Lincoln, Long A,Lowell, Mattamiscontis, Mattawamkeag,Maxfield, Medway, Milford,Millinocket, Mount Chase, Newburgh,Newport, Old Town City, Orono,Orrington, Passadumkeag, Patten,Plymouth, Prentiss Plantation, SeboeisPlantation, Soldiertown, Springfield,Stacyville, Stetson, Summit, Veazie,Veazie Gore, Webster Plantation, Winn,Woodville, Ti ND, Ti R6 WELS, Ti R8WELS, T2 R8 NWP, T2 R8 WELS, T2 R9NWP, T3 Ri NBPP, T3 R9 NWP, T5 RiNBPP, T5 R8 WELS, T6 R8 WELS, TAR7, TA R8, TA R9, and the portion ofT3 R8 within the boundaries of BaxterState Park.

Piscataquis County. The townships ofAbbot, Atkinson, Barnard, BlanchardPlantation, Bowerbank, Brownville,Dover-Foxcroft, Elliotsville, Greenville,Guilford, Katahdin Iron Works,Kingsbury Plantation, LakeviewPlantation, Medford, Milo, Monson,Mount Katahdin, Nesourdnahunk,Orneville, Parkman, Sangerville, Sebec,Shirley, Trout Brook, Wellington,Williamsburg, Willimantic, Ti R9WELS, Ti R10 WELS, Ti Rul WELS, T2R10 WELS, T2 R9 WELS, T3 R10 WELS,T4 R9 NWP, T4 R9 WELS, T5 R9 NWP,T5 R9 WELS, T6 R10 WELS, T7 R9NWP, TA R10 WELS, TA Rul WELS, TBR10 WELS, TB Rul WELS, and theportion of T4 Rio WELS within theboundaries of Baxter State Park.

Somerset County. The townships ofAnson, Athens, Bald Mountain,Bigelow, Bingham, Bowtown, BrightonPlantation, Cambridge, Canaan,Caratunk, Carrying Place, Carrying PlaceTown, Concord Plantation, Cornville,Dead River, Detroit, East Moxie,Embden, Fairfield, Harmony, Hartland,Highland Plantation, LexingtonPlantation, Lower Enchanted, Madison,

Mayfield, Mercer, Moscow, Moxie Gore,New Portland, Norridgewock, Palmyra,Pierce Pond, Pittsfield, Pleasant RidgePlantation, Ripley, Skowhegan,Smithfield, Solon, St. Albans, Starks,The Forks Plantation, West ForksPlantation, and T3 R4 BKP WKR.

Ohio

Athens County. The entire county.

Cranford County. The entire county.

Marion County. The entire county.

Vinton County. The entire county.

Virginia

City of Covington. The entire city.

City of Radford. The entire city.

Bland County. The entire county.

Floyd County. The entire county.

Franklin County. The entire county.

Pulaski County. The entire county.

West Virginia

Fayette County. The entire county.

Wisconsin

Ashland County. Madeline Island areaand Apostle Islands National Lakeshore(island units only).

Iron County. The entire county.

Monroe County. The entire county.

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of

April 2011.Kevin Shea,Acting Administrator, Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service.[FR Doe. 2011-9291 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P


Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 916 and 917

[Doc. No. AMS-FV-11-0019; FV11-916/917-5 IR]

Nectarines and Peaches Grown inCalifornia; Suspension of HandlingRequirements

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Interim rule with request forcomments.

SUMMARY: This rule suspends thequality, inspection, reporting, andassessment requirements specifiedunder the California nectarine andpeach marketing orders (orders). Theorders regulate the handling ofnectarines and peaches grown inCalifornia. During recent referenda, lessthan the required two-thirds majority ofgrowers, by number and productionvolume, favored continuation of theorders. After consideration of thereferendum results and other factors, theDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) hasdecided to seek termination of theorders. Suspension of the handlingregulations for the 2011 and subsequentmarketing seasons will relieve handlersof all regulatory burden under theorders while USDA processes theterminations. Termination of the ordersmust be delayed until after a 60-dayCongressional notification periodfollowing issuance of a proposed rule,which will be published in a futureissue of the Federal Register.DATES: Effective April 19, 2011;comments received by June 17, 2011will be considered prior to issuance ofa final rule.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areinvited to submit written commentsconcerning this rule. Comments must besent to the Docket Clerk, MarketingOrder Administration Branch, Fruit andVegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400Independence Avenue, SW., STOP0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax:(202) 720-8938, or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All commentsshould reference the document numberand the date and page number of thisissue of the Federal Register and will bemade available for public inspection atthe Office of the Docket Clerk duringregular business hours, or can be viewedat: http://www.regulations.gov. Allcomments submitted in response to thisrule will be included in the record andwill be made available to the public.Please be advised that the identity of theindividuals or entities submitting the

21615


comments will be made public on theInternet at the address provided above.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JerryL. Simmons, Marketing Specialist, orKurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager,California Marketing Field Office,Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901; Fax: (559) 487-5906; or E-mail:Jerry. [email protected] [email protected].

Small businesses may requestinformation on complying with thisregulation by contacting AntoinetteCarter, Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA, 1400 IndependenceAvenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington,DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or E-mail:Antoinette. [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ruleis issued under Marketing Order Nos.916 and 917, both as amended (7 CFRparts 916 and 917), regulating thehandling of nectarines and peachesgrown in California, respectively,hereinafter referred to as the "orders."The orders are effective under theAgricultural Marketing Agreement Actof 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674),hereinafter referred to as the "Act."

USDA is issuing this rule inconformance with Executive Order12866.

This rule has been reviewed underExecutive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. Regulatory requirements fornectarines and peaches grown inCalifornia are suspended indefinitelybeginning with the 2011 marketingseason.

The Act provides that administrativeproceedings must be exhausted beforeparties may file suit in court. Undersection 608c(15)(A) of the Act, anyhandler subject to an order may filewith USDA a petition stating that theorder, any provision of the order, or anyobligation imposed in connection withthe order is not in accordance with lawand request a modification of the orderor to be exempted therefrom. A handleris afforded the opportunity for a hearingon the petition. After the hearing, USDAwould rule on the petition. The Actprovides that the district court of theUnited States in any district in whichthe handler is an inhabitant, or has hisor her principal place of business, hasjurisdiction to review USDA's ruling onthe petition, provided an action is filednot later than 20 days after the date ofthe entry of the ruling.

This action suspends for the 2011 andsubsequent marketing seasons thequality, inspection, reporting, and

assessment requirements for nectarinesand peaches specified under the orders.Suspension of the handlingrequirements will relieve handlers of allregulatory burdens associated with theprograms while USDA seeks toterminate the orders, which are nolonger favored by industry growers.

The nectarine order has been in effectsince 1958. The peach order, whichincludes provisions for the handling offresh pears, has been in effect since1939. The orders have been used overthe years to provide the California treefruit industries with authority for grade,size, maturity, pack, and containerregulations, as well as authority forinspection requirements. The ordersalso authorize production research andmarketing research and developmentprojects, as well as the necessaryreporting and recordkeeping functionsrequired for operation. The programs arefunded by assessments imposed onhandlers.

Sections 916.64(e) and 917.61(e) ofthe orders require continuancereferenda to be conducted every fourthyear between December 1 and February15. During the period January 12through February 2, 2011, USDAconducted referenda among growers todetermine if they favored continuationof their programs. The referendum orderpublished in the Federal Register onDecember 13, 2010 (75 FR 77563),explained that USDA would considerterminating the orders if fewer than two-thirds of the growers voting and growersof less than two-thirds of the productionvolume represented in the referendafavored continuance.

Ballots were mailed to 447 knownnectarine and peach growers inCalifornia. Ninety-nine valid nectarineballots and 102 valid peach ballots werereturned. Only 63 percent ofparticipating nectarine growers, whoproduced 36 percent of the volumerepresented in the referendum, favoredcontinuation of the nectarine order.Only 62 percent of the peach growers,who produced 36 percent of the volumerepresented in the referendum, favoredcontinuing the peach order.

During the same period, referendumballots were mailed to 140 pear growers.Thirty-four valid ballots were returned.Ninety-four percent of participating peargrowers, who produced 99 percent ofthe production volume represented inthe referendum, voted to continue thefresh pear order. The provisions ofMarketing Order No. 917 (7 CFR part917) pertaining to pears have beensuspended since 1994 (59 FR 10055;March 5, 1994). However, because peargrowers support continuance of thesuspended provisions, USDA does not

intend to terminate the pear provisionsat this time. The remainder of thisdocument pertains to the suspension ofregulations under the nectarine andpeach orders only.

These are the second consecutivereferenda in which growers have failedto support continuation of the nectarineand peach orders. In 2003, growers didnot vote in favor of continuing theprograms. However, after conductinglistening sessions with the industry,USDA determined that with certainmodifications the order programs couldcontinue to be beneficial. The orderswere amended (71 FR 41345; July 21,2006) and regulatory changes weremade that were intended to make theprograms relevant to contemporaryindustry needs (72 FR 18847; April 16,2007). No continuance referenda wereconducted in 2007 because the orderswere being amended at the time.

Despite USDA efforts to help refinethe programs over the past several years,growers have continued to express theirbelief that the programs no longer meettheir needs. These referendum resultsdemonstrate a lack of grower supportneeded to carry out the objectives of theAct. Thus, it has been determined thatthe provisions of the orders no longertend to effectuate the declared policy ofthe Act. USDA intends to seektermination of the orders through theinformal rulemaking process and willpublish a proposed rule regarding theterminations in a future issue of theFederal Register. Additionally, USDA isrequired to notify Congress not laterthan 60 days before the date the orderwould be terminated.

The 2011-12 fiscal year for Californianectarines and peaches began March 1,2011. The 2011 marketing season beginson April 1. This action suspends thenectarine and peach quality, inspection,and assessment regulations in effectunder the orders for the 2011-12 andsubsequent marketing seasons. Also,handler reports would not be requiredbeginning with the 2011 marketingseason. Suspending all regulatoryrequirements relieves handlers of allregulatory burden under the orders.

It is hereby determined that thequality, inspection, reporting, andassessment requirements specified inSections 916.110, 916.115, 916.234,916.235, 916.350, and 916.356 fornectarines do not effectuate the declaredpolicy of the Act and should not beapplied during the 2011-12 andsubsequent seasons. Further, it is herebydetermined that the quality, inspection,reporting, and assessment requirementsspecified in Sections 917.143, 917.150,917.258, 917.259, 917.442, and 917.459for peaches do not effectuate the

21616


declared policy of the Act and shouldnot be applied during the 2011-12 andsubsequent seasons. Therefore, thesesections are suspended effective April19, 2011. Upon termination of the orderprovisions pertaining to nectarines andpeaches grown in California, these andother regulations under the orderswould no longer be in effect.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth inthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601-612), the AgriculturalMarketing Service (AMS) hasconsidered the economic impact of thisaction on small entities. Accordingly,AMS has prepared this initial regulatoryflexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fitregulatory actions to the scale ofbusiness subject to such actions in orderthat small businesses will not be undulyor disproportionately burdened.Marketing orders issued pursuant to theAct, and the rules issued thereunder, areunique in that they are brought aboutthrough group action of essentiallysmall entities acting on their ownbehalf.

There are approximately 97 Californianectarine and peach handlers subject toregulation under the orders coveringnectarines and peaches grown inCalifornia, and about 447 growers ofthese fruits in California. Smallagricultural service firms, whichinclude handlers, are defined by theSmall Business Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annualreceipts of less than $7,000,000, andsmall agricultural growers are defined asthose having annual receipts of less than$750,000. A majority of these handlersand growers may be classified as smallentities.

For the 2010 marketing season, thecommittees' staff estimated that theaverage handler price received was$10.50 per container or containerequivalent of nectarines or peaches. Ahandler would have to ship at least666,667 containers to have annualreceipts of $7,000,000. Given data onshipments maintained by thecommittees' staff and the averagehandler price received during the 2010season, the committees' staff estimatesthat approximately 46 percent ofhandlers in the industry would beconsidered small entities.

For the 2010 marketing season, thecommittees' staff estimated the averagegrower price received was $5.50 percontainer or container equivalent fornectarines and peaches. A grower wouldhave to produce at least 136,364containers of nectarines and peaches tohave annual receipts of $750,000. Given

data maintained by the committees' staffand the average grower price receivedduring the 2010 season, the committees'staff estimates that more than 80 percentof the growers within the industrywould be considered small entities.

This rule suspends the quality,inspection, and assessmentrequirements for nectarines and peachesunder the orders. Also, handler reportswould not be required beginning withthe 2011 marketing season. This actionis consistent with USDA's decision toseek termination of the nectarine andpeach order provisions. Growersrecently participated in continuancereferenda to determine current supportfor the orders. Less than the requiredtwo-thirds majority of voters, by numberand production volume, favoredcontinuance. As provided in the orders,USDA is obligated to consider ordertermination when growers fail tosupport the order programs in sufficientnumbers. Following the 2003continuance referenda, in which votersdid not support continuation of theprograms, USDA conducted listeningsessions in the industry. It wasdetermined at that time that theprograms might continue to benefitgrowers and handlers if certainmodifications were made to theprograms. The orders were amended in2006 (71 FR 41345; July 21, 2006).Significant changes to the orders' gradeand inspection regulations weresubsequently made to reduce costs tohandlers (72 FR 18847; April 16, 2007).The industries then transferred the bulkof their promotional activities toCalifornia State marketing programs.The California State marketing programswere subsequently discontinued in2010. Despite all these attempts tomodify the Federal programs, theindustry has continued to express itsbelief that the benefits of the programsno longer outweigh the costs. Therefore,USDA has decided to seek terminationof the nectarine and peach marketingorder programs. Suspension of theregulations would relieve handlers ofquality, inspection, and assessmentburdens during the termination process.Also, handler reports would not berequired beginning with the 2011marketing season. Additionally, growersmay be relieved of some costs, such asassessment expenses, which are oftenpassed onto them by handlers.Suspension of the requirements istherefore expected to reduce theregulatory burden on handlers andgrowers of all sizes.

As an alternative to this rule, AMSconsidered not suspending the statedhandler requirements. In that case,handlers would have to comply with all

quality, inspection, assessment, andreporting requirements until the orderswere terminated. However, AMS doesnot believe that it is appropriate torequire handlers to continue to beregulated during the 2011 marketingseason when AMS intends to terminatethe orders as soon as practicable.Therefore, this alternative was rejectedand handlers will be relieved of theregulatory burdens under orders 916and 917.

This rule will not impose anyadditional reporting or recordkeepingrequirements on either small or largeCalifornia nectarine or peach handlers.As with all Federal marketing orderprograms, reports and forms areperiodically reviewed to reduceinformation requirements andduplication by industry and publicsector agencies. In addition, USDA hasnot identified any relevant Federal rulesthat duplicate, overlap, or conflict withthis rule.

AMS is committed to complying withthe E-Government Act, to promote theuse of the Internet and otherinformation technologies to provideincreased opportunities for citizenaccess to Government information andservices, and for other purposes.

Finally, interested persons are invitedto submit comments on this interimrule, including the regulatory andinformational impacts of this action onsmall businesses.

A small business guide on complyingwith fruit, vegetable, and specialty cropmarketing agreements and orders maybe viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.govlMarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.Any questions about the complianceguide should be sent to AntoinetteCarter at the previously-mentionedaddress in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section.

This rule invites comments onsuspension of the quality, inspection,reporting, and assessment requirementscurrently prescribed under themarketing orders for California freshnectarines and peaches. Any commentsreceived will be considered prior tofinalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevantmaterial presented, including the resultsof recent grower continuance referenda,it is found that the regulatoryrequirements suspended by this interimrule, as hereinafter set forth, do not tendto effectuate the declared policy of theAct.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is alsofound and determined upon good causethat it is impracticable, unnecessary,and contrary to the public interest togive preliminary notice prior to puttingthis rule into effect, and that good cause

21617


exists for not postponing the effectivedate of this rule until 30 days afterpublication in the Federal Registerbecause: (1) This rule should beimplemented as soon as possible, sinceshipments of California nectarines andpeaches are expected to begin in earlyApril; (2) less than the required two-thirds majority of voters, by number orproduction volume, favoredcontinuance of the nectarine and peachorders in the recent referenda; (3)handlers are aware of USDA's intentionto suspend the regulations, which wasannounced in a press release issued onMarch 25, 2011; and (4) this ruleprovides a 60-day comment period, andany comments received will beconsidered prior to finalization of thisrule.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 916

Marketing agreements, Nectarines,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

7 CFR Part 917

Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 7 CFR parts 916 and 917 areamended as follows:

m 1. The authority citation for 7 CFRparts 916 and 917 continues to read asfollows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.

PART 916-NECTARINES GROWN INCALIFORNIA

* 2. In part 916, §§ 916.110, 916.115,916.234, 916.235, 916.350, and 916.356are suspended indefinitely, effectiveApril 19, 2011.

PART 917-FRESH PEARS ANDPEACHES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA

* 3. In part 917, § 917.143, paragraph(b), lift the suspensions of March 3,1994 (59 FR 10056); and suspend§§ 917.143, 917.150, 917.258, 917.259,917.442, and 917.459 indefinitely,effective April 19, 2011.

Dated: April 12, 2011.

David R. Shipman,

Associate Administrator, AgriculturalMarketing Service.

[FR Doe. 2011-9328 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




7 CFR Part 924

[Docket No. AMS-FV-10-0053; FV10-924-1 FR]

Fresh Prunes Grown in DesignatedCounties in Washington and inUmatilla County, OR; Termination ofMarketing Order 924

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Final rule, termination of order.

SUMMARY: This final rule terminates theFederal marketing order regulating thehandling of fresh prunes grown indesignated counties in Washington andin Umatilla County, Oregon, and therules and regulations issued thereunder.The Department of Agriculture (USDA)has determined that the marketing orderis no longer an effective marketing toolfor the fresh prune industry, and thattermination best serves the currentneeds of the industry while alsoeliminating the costs associated with theoperation of the marketing order.DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Martin Engeler, Marketing OrderAdministration Branch, Fruit andVegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202Monterey Street, Suite 102-B, Fresno,California 93721, telephone: (559) 487-5110, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail:[email protected]; or RobertCurry, Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA, 805 SW Broadway, Suite930, Portland, Oregon 97205, telephone:(503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, orE-mail: [email protected].

Small businesses may requestinformation on complying with thisregulation by contacting AntoinetteCarter, Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA, 1400 IndependenceAvenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington,DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisaction is governed by section608c(16)(A) of the AgriculturalMarketing Agreement Act of 1937, asamended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafterreferred to as the "Act", and § 924.64 ofMarketing Agreement and Order No.924, both as amended (7 CFR part 924),effective under the Act and hereinafterreferred to as the "order."

USDA is issuing this rule inconformance with Executive Order12866.

This final rule has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12988, CivilJustice Reform. This rule is not intendedto have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrativeproceedings must be exhausted beforeparties may file suit in court. Undersection 608c(15)(A) of the Act, anyhandler subject to an order may filewith USDA a petition stating that theorder, any provision of the order, or anyobligation imposed in connection withthe order is not in accordance with lawand request a modification of the orderor to be exempted therefrom. A handleris afforded the opportunity for a hearingon the petition. After the hearing USDAwould rule on the petition. The Actprovides that the district court of theUnited States in any district in whichthe handler is an inhabitant, or has hisor her principal place of business, hasjurisdiction to review USDA's ruling onthe petition, provided an action is filednot later than 20 days after the date ofthe entry of the ruling.

This rule terminates FederalMarketing Order No. 924 and the rulesand regulations issued thereunder. Theorder contains authority for regulationof the handling of fresh prunes grown indesignated counties in Washington andin Umatilla County, Oregon. At ameeting held in Prosser, Washington, onJune 1, 2010, the Committeeunanimously recommended terminationof the order.

Section 924.64 of the order provides,in pertinent part, that USDA terminateor suspend any or all provisions of theorder when a finding is made that theorder does not tend to effectuate thedeclared policy of the Act. Section608c(16)(A) of the Act provides thatUSDA terminate or suspend theoperation of any order whenever theorder or provision thereof obstructs ordoes not tend to effectuate the declaredpolicy of the Act. Additionally, USDA isrequired to notify Congress not laterthan 60 days before the date the orderwould be terminated.

The order, which was effectuated in1960, provided the fresh prune industryin Washington and Oregon withauthority for grade, size, quality,maturity, pack, and containerregulations, as well as authority formandatory inspection. The order alsocontained authorization for productionresearch and marketing research anddevelopment projects, as well as thenecessary reporting, recordkeeping, andassessment functions required foroperation.

Based on the Committee'srecommendation, USDA suspended theorder's handling regulations on May 9,2006 (71 FR 26817). The suspended

21618


handling regulations (§ 924.319) consistof minimum quality requirements forcertain fresh prunes produced withinthe regulated production area. When theCommittee made the recommendationto suspend the handling regulations, theindustry believed that the costs ofinspection outweighed the benefits ofhaving the regulatory requirements ineffect. The Committee decided toevaluate the marketing conditionsannually thereafter to determinewhether to continue the regulatorysuspension, reinstate handlingregulations, or take some other action.The only regulatory provisions in effectafter the 2006 suspension were thosepertaining to collection of assessmentsfor the purpose of maintaining thefunctionality of the Committee, and areporting provision that provided abasis for assessment collection.

After four years of operating withoutthe quality regulations in effect, theCommittee, on June 1, 2010, determinedthat the suspension of the regulationshad not negatively impacted themarketing of fresh Washington-Oregonprunes. Analysis of the marketingconditions between 2006 and 2010, aswell as an analysis of statistics showingthat the fresh prune industry has beenin steady decline over the past severaldecades, led the Committee to concludethat the order is no longer an effectivemarketing tool for the fresh pruneindustry, and to subsequentlyrecommend termination.

For the purpose of relieving theindustry of regulation while thetermination request was processed, aninterim rule suspending the order'sreporting and assessment requirementswas published in the Federal Registeron July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43039).

Evidence supporting the conclusionthat the industry has been decreasing inscope and volume include statisticsshowing that the Washington-Oregonfresh prune industry has fewerproducers and handlers today then therewere when the order was promulgated,and that acreage and production hassignificantly declined as well. Forexample, USDA Marketing OrderAdministration Branch records from anamendatory referendum indicate thatthere were approximately 720 producersof fresh prunes in the order's productionarea in 1974, while the Committee's2010 records show that there were only56 active producers. Furthermore,Committee records indicate that therewere 51 handlers in 1961-the year afterthe order was promulgated-as opposedto six handlers operating under theorder in 2010. Committee records alsoindicate that 12,120 tons of fresh pruneswere shipped in 1961 as compared to

the 4,260 tons shipped in 2009. Finally,data provided by the USDA NationalAgricultural Statistics Service (NASS)indicates that prune acreage inWashington and Oregon has declined inthe past 50 years by about 80 percent.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to the requirements set forthin the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),the Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) has considered the economicimpact of this rule on small entities.Accordingly, AMS has prepared thisfinal regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fitregulatory actions to the scale ofbusiness subject to such actions in orderthat small businesses will not be undulyor disproportionately burdened.Marketing orders issued pursuant to theAct, and the rules issued thereunder, areunique in that they are brought aboutthrough group action of essentiallysmall entities acting on their ownbehalf. Thus, both statutes have smallentity orientation and compatibility.

During the 2009-2010 marketing year,there were six handlers of Washington-Oregon fresh prunes subject toregulation under the order andapproximately 56 fresh prune producersin the regulated production area. Smallagricultural service firms are defined bythe Small Business Administration(SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those havingannual receipts of less than $7,000,000,and small agricultural producers aredefined as those having annual receiptsof less than $750,000.

Based on information compiled byboth the Committee and NASS, theaverage producer price for fresh prunesin 2009 was approximately $385 perton. With 4,260 tons of fresh prunesshipped from the Washington andOregon production areas in 2009, thisequates to average producer revenue ofabout $30,000. In addition, AMS MarketNews Service reported that 2009 f.o.b.prices ranged from $12.00 to $18.00 per30-pound container, indicating that theentire Washington-Oregon fresh pruneindustry handled less than $7,000,000worth of prunes last season. In view ofthe foregoing, the majority ofWashington-Oregon fresh pruneproducers and handlers may beclassified as small entities.

This rule terminates the Federalmarketing order for fresh prunes grownin Washington and Oregon, includingthe rules and regulations issuedthereunder. The order containedauthority to regulate the handling offresh prunes grown in designatedcounties in Washington and in UmatillaCounty, Oregon.

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.chapter 35), the information collectionrequirements being terminated by thisrule were approved previously by theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. Termination of the reportingrequirements is expected to reduce thetotal reporting burden on the handlersregulated under the order by about 2.5hours, and should also further reduceindustry expenses.

USDA has not identified any relevantFederal rules that duplicate, overlap orconflict with this rule.

A small business guide on complyingwith fruit, vegetable, and specialty cropmarketing agreements and orders maybe viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.govlfv/moab.html. Any questions about thecompliance guide should be sent toAntoinette Carter at the previouslymentioned address in the FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT section.

A proposed rule inviting commentsregarding the termination of MarketingOrder 924 was published in the FederalRegister on November 8, 2010 (75 FR68510). The rule was made available bythe Committee to handlers andproducers. In addition, the rule wasmade available through the Internet bythe USDA and the Office of the FederalRegister. The rule provided a 60-daycomment period which ended onJanuary 7, 2011. No comments werereceived.

Based on the foregoing, and pursuantto section 608c(16)(A) of the Act and§ 924.64 of the order, it is hereby foundthat Federal marketing order 924regulating the handling of fresh prunesproduced in designated counties inWashington, and in Umatilla County,Oregon, does not tend to effectuate thedeclared policy of the Act, and istherefore terminated.

Section 8c(16)(A) of the Act requiresUSDA to notify Congress at least 60days before terminating a Federalmarketing order program. Congress wasso notified on February 2, 2011. USDAhereby appoints Committee ChairmanPaul Rush and Committee Secretary-Treasurer Ron Eakin as trustees toconclude and liquidate the affairs of theCommittee and to continue in suchcapacity until discharged.

It is further found that good causeexists for not postponing the effectivedate of this rule until 30 days afterpublication in the Federal Register(5 U.S.C. 553) because: (1) This actionrelieves restrictions on handlers byterminating the requirements of thefresh prune order; (2) handlingregulations under the order have beensuspended since 2006; (3) the

21619


Committee unanimously recommendedtermination, and all handlers andproducers in the industry have beennotified and provided an opportunity tocomment; and (4) no useful purposewould be served by delaying theeffective date.


Prunes, Marketing agreements,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

PART 924-[REMOVED]

* For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, and under authority of 7U.S.C. 601-674, 7 CFR part 924 isremoved.


David R. Shipman,Associate Administrator, AgriculturalMarketing Service.

[FR Doe. 2011-9318 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P



7 CFR Part 925

[Doc. No. AMS-FV-10-0104; FV11-925-1FR]

Grapes Grown in Designated Area ofSoutheastern California; IncreasedAssessment Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule increases theassessment rate established for theCalifornia Desert Grape AdministrativeCommittee (Committee) for the 2011and subsequent fiscal periods from$0.01 to $0.0125 per 18-pound lug ofgrapes handled. The Committee locallyadministers the marketing order, whichregulates the handling of grapes grownin a designated area of southeasternCalifornia. Assessments upon grapehandlers are used by the Committee tofund reasonable and necessary expensesof the program. The fiscal period beganJanuary 1 and ends December 31. Theassessment rate will remain in effectindefinitely unless modified, suspendedor terminated.DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JerryL. Simmons, Marketing Specialist, orKurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager,California Marketing Field Office,Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-

5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail:[email protected] orKurt.Kimmel@ams. usda.gov.

Small businesses may requestinformation on complying with thisregulation by contacting AntoinetteCarter, Marketing Order AdministrationBranch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave.,SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This ruleis issued under Marketing Order No.925, as amended (7 CFR part 925),regulating the handling of grapes grownin a designated area of southeasternCalifornia, hereinafter referred to as the"order." The order is effective under theAgricultural Marketing Agreement Actof 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674),hereinafter referred to as the "Act."

The Department of Agriculture(USDA) is issuing this rule inconformance with Executive Order12866.

This rule has been reviewed underExecutive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. Under the marketing order nowin effect, grape handlers in a designatedarea of southeastern California aresubject to assessments. Funds toadminister the order are derived fromsuch assessments. It is intended that theassessment rate as issued herein will beapplicable to all assessable grapesbeginning on January 1, 2011, andcontinue until amended, suspended, orterminated.

The Act provides that administrativeproceedings must be exhausted beforeparties may file suit in court. Undersection 608c(15)(A) of the Act, anyhandler subject to an order may filewith USDA a petition stating that theorder, any provision of the order, or anyobligation imposed in connection withthe order is not in accordance with lawand request a modification of the orderor to be exempted therefrom. Suchhandler is afforded the opportunity fora hearing on the petition. After thehearing, USDA would rule on thepetition. The Act provides that thedistrict court of the United States in anydistrict in which the handler is aninhabitant, or has his or her principalplace of business, has jurisdiction toreview USDA's ruling on the petition,provided an action is filed not later than20 days after the date of the entry of theruling.

This rule increases the assessmentrate established for the Committee forthe 2011 and subsequent fiscal periodsfrom $0.01 to $0.0125 per 18-pound lugof grapes.

The grape order provides authority forthe Committee, with the approval ofUSDA, to formulate an annual budget ofexpenses and collect assessments fromhandlers to administer the program. Themembers of the Committee areproducers and handlers of grapes grownin a designated area of southeasternCalifornia. They are familiar with theCommittee's needs and with the costsfor goods and services in their local areaand are thus in a position to formulatean appropriate budget and assessmentrate. The assessment rate is formulatedand discussed in a public meeting.Thus, all directly affected persons havean opportunity to participate andprovide input.

For the 2009 and subsequent fiscalperiods, the Committee recommended,and the USDA approved, an assessmentrate that would continue in effect fromfiscal period to fiscal period unlessmodified, suspended, or terminated byUSDA upon recommendation andinformation submitted by theCommittee or other informationavailable to USDA.

The Committee met on October 21,2010, and unanimously recommended2011 expenditures of $89,616 and anassessment rate of $0.0125 per 18-poundlug of grapes handled. In comparison,last year's budgeted expenditures were$73,666. The assessment rate of $0.0125is $0.0025 higher than the rate currentlyin effect. The Committee recommendeda higher assessment rate to offset the2011 budget increases in research,general office expenses, managementand compliance expenses, as well as adecreased crop estimate. The Committeeestimated a decreased 2011 crop of6,000,000 18-pound lugs of grapeshandled, which is about 604,951 18-pound lugs fewer than the 6,604,951 18-pound lugs handled during the 2010fiscal period. Based on increases inexpenses and a decreased crop estimate,the Committee unanimouslyrecommended that the assessment rateof $0.01 currently in effect be increasedby $0.0025. Income derived fromhandler assessments, along with fundsfrom the Committee's authorizedreserve, should be adequate to coverbudgeted expenses.

The major expendituresrecommended by the Committee for the2011 fiscal period include $10,000 forresearch, $15,616 for general officeexpenses, and $64,000 for managementand compliance expenses. The $10,000research project is a for a new vinestudy proposed by the University ofCalifornia Riverside. In comparison,major expenditures for the 2010 fiscalperiod included no funds for research,$13,666 for general office expenses, and

21620


$60,000 management and complianceexpenses.

The assessment rate recommended bythe Committee was derived by thefollowing formula: Anticipated 2011expenses ($89,616) plus the desired2011 ending reserve ($88,384), minusthe 2011 beginning reserve ($103,000),divided by the estimated 2011shipments (6,000,000 18-pound lugs)equals $0.0125 per lug.

Income generated through the $0.0125assessment ($75,000) plus carry-inreserve funds ($103,000) should besufficient to meet anticipated expenses($89,616). Reserve funds by the end of2011 are projected at $88,384 or aboutone fiscal period's expenses. Section925.41 of the order permits theCommittee to maintain about one fiscalperiod's expenses in reserve.

The assessment rate established inthis rule will continue in effectindefinitely unless modified,suspended, or terminated by USDAupon recommendation and informationsubmitted by the Committee or otheravailable information.

Although this assessment rate will bein effect for an indefinite period, theCommittee will continue to meet priorto or during each fiscal period torecommend a budget of expenses andconsider recommendations formodification of the assessment rate. Thedates and times of Committee meetingsare available from the Committee orUSDA. Committee meetings are open tothe public and interested persons mayexpress their views at these meetings.USDA will evaluate the Committeerecommendations and other availableinformation to determine whethermodification of the assessment rate isneeded. Further rulemaking will beundertaken as necessary. TheCommittee's 2011 budget and those forsubsequent fiscal periods would bereviewed and, as appropriate, approvedby USDA.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth inthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601-612), the AgriculturalMarketing Service (AMS) hasconsidered the economic impact of thisrule on small entities. Accordingly,AMS has prepared this final regulatoryflexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fitregulatory actions to the scale ofbusiness subject to such actions in orderthat small businesses will not be undulyor disproportionately burdened.Marketing orders issued pursuant to theAct, and the rules issued thereunder, areunique in that they are brought aboutthrough group action of essentially

small entities acting on their ownbehalf.

There are approximately 14 handlersof southeastern California grapes whoare subject to regulation under the orderand about 50 grape producers in theproduction area. Small agriculturalservice firms are defined by the SmallBusiness Administration (13 CFR121.201) as those having annual receiptsof less than $7,000,000, and smallagricultural producers are defined asthose whose annual receipts are lessthan $750,000. Nine of the 14 handlerssubject to regulation have annual grapesales of less than $7 million. Based ondata from the National AgriculturalStatistics Service and the Committee,the crop value for the 2010 season wasabout $38,139,629. Dividing this figureby the number of producers (50) yieldsan average annual producer revenueestimate of about $762,793. However,according to the Committee, at least tenof 50 producers would be consideredsmall businesses under the SmallBusiness Administration threshold of$750,000. Based on the foregoing, it maybe concluded that a majority of grapehandlers and at least ten of theproducers could be classified as smallentities.

This rule increases the assessmentrate established for the Committee andcollected from handlers for the 2011 andsubsequent fiscal periods from $0.01 to$0.0125 per 18-pound lug of grapes. TheCommittee unanimously recommended2011 expenditures of $89,616 and anassessment rate of $0.0125 per 18-poundlug of grapes handled. The assessmentrate of $0.0125 is $0.0025 higher thanthe 2010 rate currently in effect. TheCommittee recommended the higherassessment rate of $0.0125 to offset the2011 budget increases in research,general office expenses, managementand compliance expenses, and adecreased crop estimate. The number ofassessable grapes is estimated at 6million 18-pound lugs of grapes. Thus,income generated through the $0.0125assessment ($75,000) plus reserve funds($103,000) should be sufficient to meetanticipated expenses ($89,616). Reservefunds by the end of 2011 are projectedat $88,384 or about one fiscal period'sexpenses.

The major expendituresrecommended by the Committee for the2011 fiscal period include $10,000 forresearch, $15,616 for general officeexpenses, and $64,000 for managementand compliance expenses. The $10,000research project is for a new vine studyproposed by the University of CaliforniaRiverside. In comparison, majorexpenditures for the 2010 fiscal periodincluded no funds for research, $13,666

for general office expenses, and $60,000management and compliance expenses.

The assessment rate recommended bythe Committee was derived based on theCommittee's estimates of the availablebeginning reserve ($103,000), projecteddecreased crop size (6 million 18-poundlugs), anticipated assessment income($75,000), anticipated expenses($89,616), and the ending 2011 reserve($88,384).

The Committee reviewed andunanimously recommended 2011expenditures of $89,616, whichincluded increases in research, generaloffice expenses, and management andcompliance expenses. Prior to arrivingat this budget, the Committeeconsidered alternative expenditures andassessment rates, to include notincreasing the $0.01 assessment ratecurrently in effect. Based on a decreased2011 estimate crop of 6 million 18-pound lugs, the Committee ultimatelydetermined that increasing theassessment rate to $0.0125 combinedwith funds available from the reservewould adequately cover increasedexpenses and provide an adequate 2011ending financial reserve.

A review of historical crop and priceinformation, as well as preliminaryinformation pertaining to the upcomingfiscal period indicates that the 2011producer price for California grapescould average about $5.77 per 18-poundlug. With an assessment rate of $0.0125per 18-pound lug of grapes for the 2011season, the assessment revenue as apercentage of grower revenue would be0.217 percent, or well below onepercent.

This action increases the assessmentobligation imposed on handlers. Whileassessments impose some additionalcosts on handlers, the costs are minimaland uniform on all handlers. Some ofthe additional costs may be passed onto producers. However, these costs areoffset by the benefits derived by theoperation of the order. In addition, theCommittee's meeting was widelypublicized throughout the grapeproduction area and all interestedpersons were invited to attend andparticipate in Committee deliberationson all issues. Like all Committeemeetings, the October 21, 2010, meetingwas a public meeting and all entities,both large and small, were able toexpress views on this issue.

This rule imposes no additionalreporting or recordkeeping requirementson either small or large California grapehandlers. As with all Federal marketingorder programs, reports and forms areperiodically reviewed to reduceinformation requirements andduplication by industry and public

21621


sector agencies. As noted in the initialregulatory flexibility analysis, USDAhas not identified any relevant Federalrules that duplicate, overlap, or conflictwith this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying withthe E-Government Act, to promote theuse of the Internet and otherinformation technologies to provideincreased opportunities for citizenaccess to Government information andservices, and for other purposes.

A proposed rule concerning thisaction was published in the FederalRegister on February 9, 2011 (76 FR7119).

Copies of the proposed rule were alsomailed or sent via facsimile to all grapehandlers. Finally, the proposal wasmade available through the Internet byUSDA and the Office of the FederalRegister. A 30-day comment periodending March 11, 2011, was providedfor interested persons to respond to theproposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complyingwith fruit, vegetable, and specialty cropmarketing agreements and orders maybe viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.govlMarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.Any questions about the complianceguide should be sent to AntoinetteCarter at the previously-mentionedaddress in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevantmaterial presented, including theinformation and recommendationsubmitted by the Committee and otheravailable information, it is hereby foundthat this rule, as hereinafter set forth,will tend to effectuate the declaredpolicy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also foundand determined that good cause existsfor not postponing the effective date ofthis rule until 30 days after publicationin the Federal Register because: (1) The2011 fiscal period began on January 1,2011, and the marketing order requiresthat the rate of assessment for eachfiscal period apply to all assessablegrapes handled during the fiscal period;(2) the Committee needs to havesufficient funds to meet its expenseswhich are on a continuous basis; and (3)handlers are aware of this action, whichwas recommended by the Committee ata public meeting. Also, a 30-daycomment period was provided for in theproposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925Grapes, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, 7 CFR part 925 is amended asfollows:

PART 925-GRAPES GROWN IN ADESIGNATED AREA OFSOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA

m 1. The authority citation for 7 CFRpart 925 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.

* 2. Section 925.215 is revised to readas follows:

§925.215 Assessment rate.On and after January 1, 2011, an

assessment rate of $0.0125 per 18-poundlug is established for grapes grown in adesignated area of southeasternCalifornia.

Dated: April 12, 2011.David R. Shipman,

Associate Administrator, AgriculturalMarketing Service.

[FR Doe. 2011-9307 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No. 30778; Amdt. No. 493]

IFR Altitudes; MiscellaneousAmendments

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adoptsmiscellaneous amendments to therequired IFR (instrument flight rules)altitudes and changeover points forcertain Federal airways, jet routes, ordirect routes for which a minimum ormaximum en route authorized IFRaltitude is prescribed. This regulatoryaction is needed because of changesoccurring in the National AirspaceSystem. These changes are designed toprovide for the safe and efficient use ofthe navigable airspace under instrumentconditions in the affected areas.DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, May 5,2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Harry Hodges, Flight ProcedureStandards Branch (AMCAFS-420),Flight Technologies and ProgramsDivision, Flight Standards Service,Federal Aviation Administration, MikeMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125)telephone: (405) 954-4164.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisamendment to part 95 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95)amends, suspends, or revokes IFRaltitudes governing the operation of allaircraft in flight over a specified routeor any portion of that route, as well asthe changeover points (COPs) forFederal airways, jet routes, or directroutes as prescribed in part 95.

The Rule

The specified IFR altitudes, whenused in conjunction with the prescribedchangeover points for those routes,ensure navigation aid coverage that isadequate for safe flight operations andfree of frequency interference. Thereasons and circumstances that createthe need for this amendment involvematters of flight safety and operationalefficiency in the National AirspaceSystem, are related to publishedaeronautical charts that are essential tothe user, and provide for the safe andefficient use of the navigable airspace.In addition, those various reasons orcircumstances require making thisamendment effective before the nextscheduled charting and publication dateof the flight information to assure itstimely availability to the user. Theeffective date of this amendment reflectsthose considerations. In view of theclose and immediate relationshipbetween these regulatory changes andsafety in air commerce, I find that noticeand public procedure before adoptingthis amendment are impracticable andcontrary to the public interest and thatgood cause exists for making theamendment effective in less than 30days.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that thisregulation only involves an establishedbody of technical regulations for whichfrequent and routine amendments arenecessary to keep them operationallycurrent. It, therefore-(1) is not a"significant regulatory action" underExecutive Order 12866; (2) is not a"significant rule" under DOT RegulatoryPolicies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;February 26, 1979); and (3) does notwarrant preparation of a regulatoryevaluation as the anticipated impact isso minimal. For the same reason, theFAA certifies that this amendment willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.


Airspace, Navigation (air).

21622


Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106,2011. Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719,

John M. Allen, amended as follows effective at 0901 44721.

Director, Flight Standards Service. UTC, May 5, 2011. *2. Part 95 is amended to read as

Adoption of the Amendment PART 95-[AMENDED] follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the m 1. The authority citation for part 95authority delegated to me by the continues to read as follows:

REVISIONS TO IFR ALTITUDES AND CHANGEOVER POINTS

[Amendment 493 effective date, May 5, 2011]

From To MEA MAA

§95.3000 Low Altitude RNAV Routes

§ 95.3231 RNAV Route T231 Is Amended To Read in Part

*FAIRBANKS, AK VO RTAC ............................................. HO BO M , AK FIX ................................ ....................... 5100 17500*4300-MCA FAIRBANKS, AK VORTAC, W BND

§ 95.3281 RNAV Route T281 Is Added To Read

Y O Z LE , N E F IX ................................................................ B O K K I, N E F IX ................................................................ 4700 17 500BO KKI, NE FIX ................................................................. AINSW O RTH, NE VO R/DM E ........................ ............. . 4600 17500AINSW O RTH, NE VO R/DM E ........................................... LKO TA, SD FIX ..................... ................................. 4400 17500LKOTA, SD FIX ................................................................ PIERR E, SD VO RTAC .................................. 4300 17500


SCOTTSBLUFF, NE VO RTAC ......................................... GO RDO N, NE NDB ......................................................... 6300 17500G O RDO N, NE N DB .......................................................... W NDED , SD FIX ...................................... *5500 17500

*5000-MOCA

W NDED, SD FIX ............................................................... PIERRE, SD VO RTAC .................................. 5000 17500


NORTH PLATTE, NE VORTAC ....................................... THEDFORD, NE VOR/DME ............................................ 5000 17500THEDFO RD, NE VO R/DM E ............................................. MARSS, NE FIX ............................. ..... ...................... 4900 17500M A R S S , N E FIX ............................................................... V A LE N T IN E , N E N D B ..................................................... 4800 17500V A LE N T IN E , N E N D B ...................................................... LKO T A , S D FIX ................................................................ 4500 17500LK O T A , S D FIX ................................................................ W IN N E R , S D V O R ........................................................... 4300 17500W IN N ER , S D VO R ........................................................... H U RO N , SD VO RTAC ......................................... 4000 17500


RAPID CITY, SD VO RTAC .............................................. GO RDO N, NE NDB ....................... .............. ............... 5700 17500G O R D O N , N E N D B .......................................................... E FF EX , N E FIX ................................................................ 5600 17500EFFEX , N E FIX ................................................................. TH ED FO R D , N E VO R/D M E ........................ .................. 5400 17500THEDFO RD, NE VO R/DM E ............................................. BO KKI, NE FIX ............................... ........................ 4900 17500BO KKI, NE FIX ................................................................. G RAND ISLAND, NE VO RTAC ....................................... 4600 17500

§95.3288 RNAV Route T288 Is Added To Read

RAPID CITY, SD VO RTAC .............................................. W NDED, NE FIX ........................................ .......... 5000 17500W NDED, NE FIX ............................................................... VALENTINE, NE NDB ................................... 5000 17500VALENTINE, NE NDB ...................................................... AINSW O RTH, NE VO R/DM E .......................................... *4700 17500

*4200-MOCAA INSW O RTH , N E VO R/D M E ........................................... FESNT, N E FIX ................................................................ 4500 17500FES NT , N E FIX ................................................................ W O LBA C H , N E VO RTA C ................................................ 4300 17500

§95.4000 High Altitude RNAV Routes

§95.4120 RNAV Route Q120 Is Added To Read

SACRAMENTO, CA VORTAC .........................................*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAZ O R U N , N V F IX ...............................................................

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAG A L L I, N V F IX ..................................................................

*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

BIG PINEY. W Y VO R/DM E ..............................................

ZO RUN, NV FIX ...............................................................

GALLI, NV FIX .................................................................

BIG PINEY, W Y VO R/DM E .............................................

FO SIG . SD FIX ................................................................

#* 18000

#*24000

#*23000

#*23000

45000

45000

45000

45000

21623


REVISIONS TO IFR ALTITUDES AND CHANGEOVER POINTS-Continued[Amendment 493 effective date, May 5, 2011]

From To MEA MAA

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAFO SIG , SD FIX ................................................................. REDW O O D FALLS, M N VO R/DM E ................................ #*18000 45000



PARZZ, NV FIX ................................................................ PO CATELLO , ID VO R/DM E ........................................... #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAPO CATELLO , ID VO R/DM E ............................................. TO UG H, M T FIX .............................................................. #*24000 45000



M O G E E , C A FIX ............................................................... M A C U S , N V FIX .............................................................. #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAM A C U S , N V FIX ............................................................... M C O R D , N V F IX .............................................................. #*28000 45000


M CO RD, NV FIX ............................................................... LUCIN, UT VO RTAC ........ ........................... #*28000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

LUCIN, UT VO RTAC ........................................................ BEARR, UT FIX ....... ............................... #*28000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

B EA R R , U T F IX ................................................................ K U R S E , W Y FIX .............................................................. #*28000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

KURSE, W Y FIX ............................................................... O 'NEILL, NE VO RTAC ................... .................. #*21000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

O 'NEILL, NE VO RTAC ..................................................... FO RT DO DGE, IA VO RTAC ........................................... #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA


PA R Z Z , N V FIX ................................................................ C O K E E , M T FIX ............................................................... #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEA


M O G E E , C A FIX ............................................................... M A C U S , N V FIX .............................................................. #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAM A C U S , N V FIX ............................................................... M C O R D , N V F IX .............................................................. #*28000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAM CO R D , NV FIX ............................................................... SLO W N , NV FIX ........ .............................. #*28000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAS LO W N , N V FIX ............................................................... FA ST E , N V FIX ................................................................ #*28000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAFASTE, NV FIX ................................................................. BO NNEVILLE, UT VO RTAC ................. ........ ............ #*23000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEABONNEVILLE, UT VORTAC ............................................ WAATS, UT FIX ........................................... #*18000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEA


PA R Z Z , N V FIX ................................................................ W LLE S , M T F IX ............................................................... #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEA

21624



From To MEA MAA


T IP R E , C A F IX .................................................................. IN S LO , N V F IX ................................................................. #*2 1000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAIN S LO , N V FIX ................................................................. G A R O T , U T FIX ............................................................... #*26000 45000


GAROT, UT FIX ................................................................ M EEKER, CO VO R/DM E ..................... ................. #*19000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA


LIN D E N , C A V O R T A C ...................................................... JS IC A , N V FIX ................................................................. #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAJS IC A , N V F IX .................................................................. E D LE S , U T F IX ................................................................ #*24000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAE D LE S , U T FIX ................................................................. FLO O D , C O FIX ............................................................... #*24000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAFLO O D , C O FIX ............................................................... ZA R O S , C O FIX ............................................................... #*20000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAZARO S, CO FIX ............................................................... BARTLESVILLE, O K VO R/DM E ..................... ............... #*18000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEABARTLESVILLE, OK VOR/DME ....................................... RAZORBACK, AR VORTAC ............................................ #*18000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEARAZORBACK, AR VORTAC ............................................ PAMMO, AR FIX .................... ............ ................. #*18000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAPAM MO , AR FIX ............................................................... M EM PHIS, TN VO RTAC .................. ........... ............ #*18000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEA


LIN D E N , C A V O R T A C ...................................................... JS IC A , N V FIX ................................................................. #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAJS IC A , N V F IX .................................................................. R E A N A , N V F IX ............................................................... #*29000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAR EA N A , N V F IX ................................................................ M R R N Y , U T FIX .............................................................. #*28000 45000


M RRNY, UT FIX ............................................................... RATT LESNAKE, NM VO RTAC ........................ ............. #*22000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

RATTLESNAKE, NM VORTAC ........................................ DIXAN, NM FIX ....................... ............... ............... #*22000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

D IX A N , N M F IX ................................................................. M IR M E , N M F IX ............................................................... #*22000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

M IRM E, NM FIX ................................................................ PANHAN DLE, TX VO RTAC ........................................... #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA


W E B G O , C A F IX ..............................................................*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAA N A H O , N V F IX ...............................................................


ANAHO , NV FIX ...............................................................

MYBAD, NV FIX ...............................................................

#*18000

#*18000

45000

45000

21625



From To MEA MAA

M Y BA D , N V FIX ............................................................... Z E R A M , N V FIX ............................................................... #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

ZERA M , NV FIX ................................................................ M A G PY , NV FIX ........ .............................. #*26000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA


D U G LE , C A F IX ................................................................ T A T O O , N V F IX ............................................................... #*20000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAT A T O O , N V F IX ................................................................ JU LIK , U T F IX .................................................................. #*24000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAJU LIK , U T F IX ................................................................... H E R S H , U T F IX ............................................................... #*2 1000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAH E R S H , U T F IX ................................................................ V O A X A , C O FIX ............................................................... #*21000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEA


CO A LDA LE, NV VO RTAC ................................................ R U M PS, NV FIX .............................................................. #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAR U M P S , N V FIX ............................................................... KAT T S , N V FIX ................................................................ #*24000 45000


KA T T S , N V FIX ................................................................. W E E M N , U T F IX .............................................................. #*26000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

W E E M N , UT F IX ............................................................... V O A X A , C O FIX ............................................................... #*21000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA


W ILLIA M S , C A VO RTA C .................................................. FIM UV , C A FIX ................................................................ #*18000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAF IM U V , C A F IX ................................................................. JE N S A , N V F IX ................................................................ #*22000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAJE N S A , N V F IX ................................................................. P U H G I, N V F IX ................................................................ #*24000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAP U H G I, N V FIX ................................................................. R O O H Z , N V FIX .............................................................. #*24000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAR O O H Z , N V FIX ............................................................... PA R Z Z , N V FIX ................................................................ #*24000 45000

*18000-GNSS MEA

#DME/DME/IRU MEAPA RZZ, NV FIX ................................................................ U RO CO , W Y FIX ........ .............................. #*24000 45000


URO CO , W Y FIX .............................................................. RICCO , W Y FIX ....... ............................... #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

R IC C O , W Y F IX ................................................................ M O T LY , S D F IX ............................................................... #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

M OTLY, SD FIX ................................................................ ABERDEEN, SD VO R/DM E ......................................... . #*24000 45000*18000-GNSS MEA#DME/DME/IRU MEA

21626


From To MEA

§95.6001 VICTOR Routes-U.S.

§95.6012 VOR Federal Airway V12 Is Amended To Read in Part

H A R R IS B U R G , P A V O R T A C ....................................................... B O B S S , PA FIX ........................................................................... 3 100BO B S S , PA FIX ............................................................................ P O T T ST O W N , PA V O R T A C ....................................................... 3000


M C A LLE N , T X V O R /D M E ........................................................... 'M A N N Y , T X FIX ......................................................................... **5000*5000-M RA

**1700-MOCA

§ 95.6044 VOR Federal Airway V44 Is Amended To Read in Part

BEN D S , W V FIX ........................................................................... M O R G A NTO W N , W V V O RTA C .................................................. 4000


C O LU M B U S , G A V O R T A C .......................................................... *P R A T Z , G A F IX .......................................................................... 2500*3000-M RA

P R A T Z , G A FIX ............................................................................ # M A C O N , G A V O R T A C .............................................................. *2500*GNSS MEA

#MACON R-265 UNUSABLE GNSS REQUIRED


R A Y M O , T X F IX ............................................................................ J IM IE , T X F IX .............................................................................. *4 0 0 0*1600-MOCA


B R A D Y , N E F IX ............................................................... . . . . . ._ _ G A M B L , N E F IX .......................................................................... 4 10 0


V IR G IN IA K E Y , F L V O R /D M E ...................................................... N IT N Y , F L F IX ............................................................................. 2 100


H A R R IS B U R G , P A V O R T A C ....................................................... B O B S S , PA FIX ........................................................................... 3 100


MANTECA, CA VOR/DME ............................................................ TRACY, CA FIX.N E B N D ................................................................................. . ....... ............................................................................................... 2 5 0 0S W B N D ................................................................................. . ........ .............................................................................................. 4 0 0 0

T R A C Y , C A F IX ............................................................................ S U N O L , C A F IX ........................................................................... 5 2 0 0*R A G G S , C A F IX .......................................................................... **B E S S A , C A F IX ........................................................................ **8 50 0

*8500-M RA**8500-MCA BESSA, CA FIX, S BND**4800-MOCA


EA G LE LA K E , T X V O R /D M E ....................................................... B LU M S , T X F IX ........................................................................... 2000


LA G R A N G E , G A V O R T A C ........................................................... H E FIN , A L FIX ............................................................................. *4000*3400-MOCA


PHO ENIX, AZ VO RTAC ................................................. ............ *AVENT, AZ FIX.N W B N D ................................................................................ . .......... . ......................................................................................... . 7 0 0 0S E B N D .................................................................................. . ......... . .......................................................................................... . 5 0 0 0*8000-M RA


SOUTH BOSTON, VA VORTAC .................................................. LAWRENCEVILLE, VA VORTAC ................................................ *3000*2000-MOCA*2300-GNSS MEA

LAW RENCEVILLE, VA VO RTAC ................................................. FRANKLIN, VA VO RTAC ............................................................ 2000

21627


From To MEA


LA G R A N G E , G A V O R T A C ........................................................... H E FIN , A L FIX ............................................................................. * 4000*3400-MOCA


SALMON, ID VOR/DME ................................. DUBOIS, ID VORTAC ................................................................ 13500*9000-MCA DUBOIS, ID VORTAC, E BND*10500-MCA DUBOIS, ID VORTAC, W BND


LARAM IE, W Y VO R/DM E ............................................................. SCOTTSBLUFF, NE VO RTAC ...... . .......................... *12000*10900-MOCA*11000-GNSS MEA


LA K E LA N D , F L V O R T A C ............................................................. *C A M B E , F L F IX .......................................................................... 2000*4000-M RA

*C A M B E , FL FIX ........................................................................... O R LA N D O , F L V O R T A C ............................................................. 2000*4000-M RA


EA G LE LA K E , T X V O R /D M E ....................................................... B LU M S , T X F IX ........................................................................... 2000

§95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Points

Airway segment Changeover pointsFrom To Distance From

V140 Is Amended To Delete Changeover Point

BLUEFIELD, W V VORTAC ............................................ MONTEBELLO, VA VOR/DME ..................................... 44 Bluefield

V266 Is Amended To Modify Changeover Point

SOUTH BOSTON, VA VORTAC .................................... LAWRENCEVILLE, VA VORTAC ................................. 38 South Boston

§95.8005 Jet Route Changeover Points

J120 Is Amended To Modify Changeover Point

ST PAUL ISLAND, A K ................................................... BETH EL, AK VO RTAC ................................................. 190 St Paul IslandNDB/DME

[FR Doe. 2011-9221 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 730 and 744

[Docket No. 110222154-1181-01]

RIN 0694-AF13

Implementation of Additional ChangesFrom the Annual Review of the EntityList; Removal of Person Based onRemoval Request

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry andSecurity, Commerce.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the ExportAdministration Regulations (EAR) toimplement additional changes to theEntity List (Supplement No. 4 to part744) on the basis of the annual reviewof the Entity List conducted by the End-User Review Committee (ERC). The ERCconducts the annual review todetermine if any entities on the EntityList should be removed or modified.This rule implements the results of theannual review for entities located inIran and the United Arab Emirates(U.A.E.). In addition to implementingchanges from the annual review, thisrule removes one person located in theUnited Kingdom (U.K.) from the EntityList. This person is being removed fromthe Entity List as a result of a request forremoval submitted by that person, areview of information provided in theremoval request in accordance with

section 744.16 (Procedure for requestingremoval or modification of an EntityList entity), and further reviewconducted by the End-User ReviewCommittee's (ERC) member agencies.This rule makes a clarification to anexisting entry located in China toaccurately reflect the relationshipbetween two aliases listed under thatentry. The Entity List provides notice tothe public that certain exports,reexports, and transfers (in-country) toentities identified on the Entity Listrequire a license from the Bureau ofIndustry and Security and thatavailability of license exceptions insuch transactions is limited. Lastly, thisrule updates the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) legal authoritycitations for parts 730 and 744 of theEAR.

21628


DATES: Effective Date: This rule iseffective April 18, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Karen Nies-Vogel, Chairman, End-UserReview Committee, Office of theAssistant Secretary, ExportAdministration, Bureau of Industry andSecurity, Department of Commerce,Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, E-mail: [email protected] INFORMATION:

Background

The Entity List provides notice to thepublic that certain exports, reexports,and transfers (in-country) to entitiesidentified on the Entity List require alicense from the Bureau of Industry andSecurity (BIS) and that the availabilityof license exceptions in suchtransactions is limited. Entities areplaced on the Entity List on the basis ofcertain sections of part 744 (ControlPolicy: End-User and End-Use Based) ofthe EAR.

The End-User Review Committee(ERC), composed of representatives ofthe Departments of Commerce (Chair),State, Defense, Energy and, whenappropriate, the Treasury, makes alldecisions to make additions to,removals from and other changes to theEntity List. The ERC makes all decisionsto add an entry to the Entity List bymajority vote and all decisions toremove or modify an entry byunanimous vote.

Annual Review of the Entity List

This rule amends the ExportAdministration Regulations (EAR) toimplement changes to the Entity List(Supplement No. 4 to part 744) on thebasis of the annual review of the EntityList conducted by the ERC, inaccordance with the proceduresoutlined in Supplement No. 5 to part744 (Procedures for End-User ReviewCommittee Entity List Decisions).

The changes from the annual reviewof the Entity List that are approved bythe ERC are implemented in stages asthe ERC completes its review of entitieslisted under different destinations onthe Entity List. Within the past year,three final rules have been publishedimplementing changes from the annualreview. The first rule, published on May28, 2010 (75 FR 29884), implementedthe results of the annual review forlisted entities located in Canada, Egypt,Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Kuwait,Lebanon, Malaysia, South Korea,Singapore, and the U.K. The secondrule, published on December 17, 2010(75 FR 78883), implemented the resultsof the annual review for entities locatedin China and Russia. This rule, the third

rule, implements the results of theannual review for entities located inIran and the U.A.E. An additional rulewill be published later in 2011, ifneeded, to implement the results of theannual review for entities listed locatedin Pakistan and Syria.

ERC Entity List Decisions

This rule removes two entities fromthe Entity List (one person located inthe U.A.E. on the basis of the annualreview, and one person located in theU.K. on the basis of a removal request),as described below under the headingRemovals from the Entity List. On thebasis of decisions made by the ERCduring the annual review, this rulemakes four modifications to the EntityList (modifications to one Iranian entryand three U.A.E. entries currently on theEntity List) by adding additionaladdresses, aliases and/or clarifying thenames for these four entities, asdescribed below under the headingModifications to the Entity List. Lastly,this rule makes a correction to anexisting entry listed under China toclarify the relationship between twoaliases listed for the entity, as describedbelow under the heading Correction tothe Entity List.

Removals From the Entity List

This rule removes two entities fromthe Entity List (one from the U.A.E. onthe basis of the annual review of theEntity List and one from the U.K. on thebasis of a removal request), as follows:

(a) Removal on the basis of the annualreview.

This final rule removes the followingperson located in the U.A.E. from theEntity List on the basis of a decisionmade by the ERC during the annualreview:

United Arab Emirates

(1) Sayed-Ali Hosseini, 201 LatifahBuilding, Al Maktoum St., Dubai, U.A.E.

(b) Removal on the basis of a removalrequest.

The ERC also made a determination toremove one person, Ad Hoc MarineDesigns Ltd., located in the U.K., as aresult of this entity's request for removalfrom the Entity List. Based upon thereview of the information provided inthe removal request in accordance withSection 744.16 (Procedure for requestingremoval or modification of an EntityList entity), and after review by theERC's member agencies, the ERCdetermined that Ad Hoc Marine DesignsLtd. should be removed from the EntityList.

The ERC decision to remove Ad HocMarine Designs Ltd. took into accountAd Hoc Marine Designs Ltd.'s

cooperation with the U.S. Government,as well as Ad Hoc Marine Designs Ltd.'sassurances of future compliance withthe EAR. In accordance with section744.16(c), the Deputy AssistantSecretary for Export Administration hassent written notification to Ad HocMarine Designs Ltd. informing thisentity of the ERC's decision to removeit from the Entity List. This final ruleimplements the decision to remove thisone British person from the Entity List.

Specifically, this rule removes thefollowing person located in the U.K.from the Entity List:

United Kingdom

(1) Ad Hoc Marine Designs Ltd., 38Buckland Gardens, Ryde Isle of WightPO 33 3AG United Kingdom.

The removal of these two entitiesfrom the Entity List eliminates theexisting license requirements inSupplement No. 4 to part 744 forexports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these two entities. However,the removal of these two entities fromthe Entity List does not relieve personsof other obligations under part 744 ofthe EAR or under other parts of theEAR. Neither the removal of an entityfrom the Entity List nor the removal ofEntity List-based license requirementsrelieves persons of their obligationsunder General Prohibition 5 in section736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which providesthat, "you may not, without a license,knowingly export or reexport any itemsubject to the EAR to an end-user orend-use that is prohibited by part 744 ofthe EAR." Nor do these removals relievepersons of their obligation to apply forexport, reexport or in-country transferlicenses required by other provisions ofthe EAR. BIS strongly urges the use ofSupplement No. 3 to part 732 of theEAR, "BIS's 'Know Your Customer'Guidance and Red Flags," when personsare involved in transactions that aresubject to the EAR.

Modifications to the Entity List

On the basis of decisions made by theERC during the annual review, this ruleamends four entries (one Iranian entityand three U.A.E. entities) currently onthe Entity List by adding additionaladdresses or aliases, or by clarifying thenames for the entities listed, as follows:

Iran

(1) NBC Navegan Bar Co. Ltd., a.k.a.,NBC Navegan Bar InternationalTransport Co. Ltd., #135 KhorramshahrAve., Tehran 15338-64163, and 101,Kohrramshahr Ave., Tehran 15338-64163.

21629


United Arab Emirates

(1) AbubakrAbuelazm, Dubai, U.A.E.,500100 (See alternate address underKuwait);

(2) Advanced Technology GeneralTrading Company, a.k.a, AdvancedTechnologies Emirates FZ-LLC, Office#124 1st Floor, Building #3, DellBuilding, Sheikh Zayed Road, DubaiInternet City, Dubai, U.A.E. (Seealternate address under Kuwait); and

(3) Farrokh Nia Yaghmaei, a.k.a,Farokh Nia Yaghmaei, Flat 401- Bin YasCenter-Al Maktum Road, P.O. Box42340, Dubai, U.A.E.; and Shops 3-4,Sharafia Ahmed Ali Building, al-Nakheel, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.

Correction to the Entity List

Lastly, this rule makes a technicalcorrection to a final rule published onDecember 17, 2010 (75 FR 78883). Thechanges in the December 17, final ruleincluded a revision to the Entity List foran entity located in China called the"Chinese Academy of EngineeringPhysics." The changes included revisingthe entry to add additional aliases forthat entry. The eighteenth alias waslisted as "University of ElectronicScience and Technology of China, 901Institute, (No. 4, 2nd Section, NorthJianshe Road, Chengdu, 610054)." Thesealiases should have been listed as twoseparate aliases: the "University ofElectronic Science and Technology ofChina, (No. 4, 2nd Section, NorthJianshe Road, Chengdu, 610054)" andthe "901 Institute." This final rulecorrects the entry by listing the aliasesas separate aliases for the ChineseAcademy of Engineering Physics.

China

(1) Chinese Academy of EngineeringPhysics, a.k.a., the following nineteenaliases:-Ninth Academy;-Southwest Computing Center;-Southwest Institute of Applied

Electronics;-Southwest Institute of Chemical

Materials;-Southwest Institute of Electronic

Engineering;-Southwest Institute of Environmental

Testing;-Southwest Institute of Explosives and

Chemical Engineering;-Southwest Institute of Fluid Physics;-Southwest Institute of General

Designing and Assembly;-Southwest Institute of Machining

Technology;-Southwest Institute of Materials;-Southwest Institute of Nuclear

Physics and Chemistry (a.k.a., ChinaAcademy of Engineering Physics(CAEP)'s 902 Institute);

-Southwest Institute of Research andApplications of Special MaterialsFactory;

-Southwest Institute of StructuralMechanics;

(-all of the preceding located in or nearMianyang, Sichuan Province)

-Chengdu Electronic Science andTechnology University (CUST);

-The High Power Laser Laboratory,Shanghai;

-*The Institute of Applied Physics andComputational Mathematics, Beijing;

-*University of Electronic Science andTechnology of China, (No. 4, 2ndSection, North Jianshe Road,Chengdu, 610054); and

-*901 Institute.A BIS license is required for the

export, reexport or transfer (in-country)of any item subject to the EAR to thepersons described above, including anytransaction in which this listed entitywill act as purchaser, intermediateconsignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user of the items. This listing of theseentities also prohibits the use of licenseexceptions (see part 740 of the EAR) forexports, reexports and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EARinvolving this entity.

Update to Statement of Legal Authorityfor Parts 730 and 744

This rule also revises the authoritycitation paragraphs for parts 730 and744 to include the President's notice ofJanuary 13, 2011, which extends for oneyear the emergency declared on January23, 1995 (Executive Order 12947, 60 FR5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356) andthe measures adopted on that date andon August 20, 1998 (Executive Order13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998Comp., p. 208). These two authoritycitation paragraph revisions are purelyprocedural and do not alter any right,obligations or prohibition to any personunder the EAR.

Savings Clause

Shipments of items removed fromeligibility for a License Exception orexport or reexport without a license(NLR) as a result of this regulatoryaction that were on dock for loading, onlighter, laden aboard an exporting orreexporting carrier, or en route aboard acarrier to a port of export or reexport, onApril 18, 2011, pursuant to actual ordersfor export or reexport to a foreigndestination, may proceed to thatdestination under the previouseligibility for a License Exception orexport or reexport without a license(NLR) so long as they are exported orreexported before May 3, 2011. Anysuch items not actually exported orreexported before midnight, on May 3,

2011, require a license in accordancewith the EAR.

Although the Export AdministrationAct expired on August 20, 2001, thePresident, through Executive Order13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by theNotice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681(August 16, 2010), has continued theExport Administration Regulations ineffect under the InternationalEmergency Economic Powers Act.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. This rule has been determined to benot significant for purposes of ExecutiveOrder 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any otherprovision of law, no person is requiredto respond to nor be subject to a penaltyfor failure to comply with a collectionof information, subject to therequirements of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection ofinformation displays a currently validOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) Control Number. This regulationinvolves collections previouslyapproved by the OMB under controlnumbers 0694-0088, "Multi-PurposeApplication," which carries a burdenhour estimate of 58 minutes to prepareand submit form BIS-748.Miscellaneous and recordkeepingactivities account for 12 minutes persubmission. Total burden hoursassociated with the PaperworkReduction Act and Office andManagement and Budget controlnumber 0694-0088 are expected toincrease slightly as a result of this rule.You may send comments regarding thecollection of information associatedwith this rule, including suggestions forreducing the burden, to Jasmeet K.Seehra, Office of Management andBudget (OMB), by e-mail toJasmeet K. [email protected], or byfax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policieswith Federalism implications as thatterm is defined in Executive Order13132.

4. The provisions of theAdministrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553) requiring notice of proposedrulemaking, the opportunity for publiccomment and a delay in effective dateare inapplicable because this regulationinvolves a military or foreign affairsfunction of the United States. (See 5U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). The U.S.Government's original basis for addingthe entities affected by this rule to theEntity List was their (the entities')involvement in activities contrary toU.S. national security or foreign policyinterests. BIS implements this rule to

21630


further protect U.S. national securityand foreign policy interests bypreventing items from being exported,reexported or transferred (in-country) tothese persons listed on the Entity List bymaking clarifications to the existingentries to inform exporters, reexportersand persons making transfers (in-country) of the intended scope of thelicense requirements for these listedpersons. This action does this by addingadditional addresses for listed persons,clarifying names for listed persons andadding aliases for listed persons. If thisrule were delayed to allow for noticeand comment and a delay in effectivedate, there is a chance that certainexporters, reexporters and personsmaking transfers (in-country) to theselisted persons may inadvertently export,reexport or transfer (in-country) to alisted person on the Entity List becausethe exporter, reexporter or personmaking the transfer (in-country) did notrealize the listed person was subject tothe Entity List-based licenserequirement because of perceivedambiguity regarding the listed person,such as the listed person was using analias or an alternate address. There isalso a chance an exporter, reexporter orperson making a transfer (in-country)may turn away a potential export,reexport, or transfer (in-country)because the customer appeared to bewithin the scope of a listed person onthe Entity List, thereby harming U.S.economic interests. The clarification oflanguage provided in this rule maymake clear that the person was notsubject to an Entity List-based licenserequirement. For these reasons there isa public interest that these changes beimplemented as a final action. Further,no other law requires that a notice ofproposed rulemaking and anopportunity for public comment begiven for this rule. Because a notice ofproposed rulemaking and an

opportunity for public comment are notrequired to be given for this rule by 5U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, theanalytical requirements of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601et seq., are not applicable.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 730

Administrative practice andprocedure, Advisory committees,Exports, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Strategic and criticalmaterials.

15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Terrorism.

Accordingly, parts 730 and 744 of theExport Administration Regulations (15CFR parts 730-774) are amended asfollows:

PART 730-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for 15 CFRpart 730 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C.7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note;22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a;50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR,1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623,3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O.12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p.256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O.12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p.950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995Comp., p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.G. 13020, 61 FR54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O.13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998Comp., p.208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.G. 13224, 66 FR

49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O.13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p.168; Notice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681(August 16, 2010); Notice of November 4,2010, 75 FR 68673 (November 8, 2010);Notice of January 13, 2011, 76 FR 3009.

PART 744-[AMENDED]

* 2. The authority citation for 15 CFRpart 744 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.;42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR,1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181,3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O.12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p.356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O.13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.786; Notice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681(August 16, 2010); Notice of November 4,2010, 75 FR 68673 (November 8, 2010);Notice of January 13, 2011, 76 FR 3009(January 18, 2011).

* 3. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 isamended:* (a) By removing under United ArabEmirates, the entity: "Sayed-AliHosseini, 201 Latifah Building, AlMaktoum St., Dubai, U.A.E.";* (b) By removing under UnitedKingdom, the entity: "Ad Hoc MarineDesigns Ltd., 38 Buckland Gardens,Ryde Isle of Wight PO 33 3AG, UnitedKingdom."* (c) By revising under China, the entity"Chinese Academy of EngineeringPhysics";* (d) By revising under Iran, the entity"NBC Navegan Bar Co. Ltd"; and* (e) By revising under United ArabEmirates, the entities "AbubakrAbuelazm," "Advanced TechnologyGeneral Trading Company," and FarrokhNia Yaghmaei.

The revisions read as follows:

SUPPLEMENT No. 4 TO PART 744-ENTITY LIST

Country Entity License requirement License review Federal Registerpolicy citation

CHINA, PEOPLE'SREPUBLIC OF.

Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics For all items subject toa.k.a., the following nineteen aliases: the EAR.

-Ninth Academy;-Southwest Computing Center;-Southwest Institute of Applied Electronics;-Southwest Institute of Chemical Materials;-Southwest Institute of Electronic Engineering;-Southwest Institute of Environmental Testing;-Southwest Institute of Explosives and Chem-

ical Engineering;-Southwest Institute of Fluid Physics;

Case-by-case 62 FR 35334, 6/30/97.basis. 66 FR 24266, 5/14/

01.75 FR 78883, 12/17/10. 76 FR [IN-SERT FR PAGENUMBER], 4/18/11.

21631


SUPPLEMENT No. 4 TO PART 744-ENTITY LIsT-Continued

Country Entity License requirement License review Federal Registerpolicy citation

-Southwest Institute of General Designing andAssembly;

-Southwest Institute of Machining Technology;-Southwest Institute of Materials;-Southwest Institute of Nuclear Physics and

Chemistry (a.k.a., China Academy of Engi-neering Physics (CAEP)'s 902 Institute);

-Southwest Institute of Research and Applica-tions of Special Materials Factory;

-Southwest Institute of Structural Mechanics;(all of preceding located in or near Mianyang,

Sichuan Province);- Chengdu Electronic Science and Technology

University (CUST);-The High Power Laser Laboratory, Shanghai;-The Institute of Applied Physics and Com-

putational Mathematics, Beijing;-University of Electronic Science and Tech-

nology of China, 901 Institute, (No. 4, 2ndSection, North Jianshe Road, Chengdu,610054); and

-901 Institute.

IR A N ...........................NBC Navegan Bar Co. Ltd., a.k.a., NBC

Navegan Bar International Transport Co. Ltd.,#135 Khorramshahr Ave., Tehran 15338-64163, and 101, Kohrramshahr Ave., Tehran15338-64163.

For all items subject tothe EAR. (See§744.11 of the EAR).

Presumption ofdenial.

73 FR 54503, 9/22/08.76 FR [INSERT FRPAGE NUMBER],4/18/11.

UNITED ARAB EMIR-ATES.

Abubakr Abuelazm, Dubai, U.A.E., 500100(See alternate address under Kuwait).

Advanced Technology General Trading Com-pany, a.k.a, Advanced Technologies Emir-ates FZ-LLC, Office #124 1st Floor, Building#3, Dell Building, Sheikh Zayed Road, DubaiInternet City, Dubai, U.A.E. (See alternateaddress under Kuwait).

Farrokh Nia Yaghmaei, a.k.a, Farokh NiaYaghmaei, Flat 401-Bin Yas Center-AlMaktum Road, P.O. Box 42340, Dubai,U.A.E.; and Shops 3-4, Sharafia Ahmed AliBuilding, al-Nakheel, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.


For all items subject tothe EAR (See§744.11 of the EAR).






73 FR 54509, 9/22/08.73 FR 74001, 12/5/08. 74 FR 35797,

7/21/09. 76 FR [IN-SERT FR PAGENUMBER], 4/18/11.


21632



Kevin J. Wolf,Assistant Secretay for ExportAdministration.

[FR Doe. 2011-9181 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0852]

RIN 1625-AA01

Disestablishing Special AnchorageArea 2; Ashley River, Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard isdisestablishing the special anchorage,referred to as Ashley River Anchorage 2,in Charleston, South Carolina. Theremoval of Ashley River Anchorage 2would accommodate an expansion ofthe Ripley Light Yacht Club.DATES: This rule is effective July 18,2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materialreceived from the public, as well asdocuments mentioned in this preambleas being available in the docket, are partof docket USCG-2008-0852 and areavailable online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2008-0852 in the "Keyword" box, andthen clicking "Search." This material isalso available for inspection or copyingat the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation,West Building Ground Floor, RoomW12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ifyou have questions on this rule, call ore-mail Lieutenant Julie Blanchfield,Sector Charleston Office of WaterwaysManagement, Coast Guard; telephone843-740-3184, [email protected]. If youhave questions on viewing the docket,call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

On June 5, 2009, we published anotice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)entitled Disestablishing SpecialAnchorage Area 2; Ashley River,

Charleston, SC in the Federal Register(74 FR 27000). We received sixsubmissions, with a total of 24comments on the proposed rule. Nopublic meetings were requested, and apublic meeting was not held.

Basis and Purpose

Under 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through1236, 2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR1.05-1; and the Department ofHomeland Security Delegation No.0170.1, the Coast Guard may establishspecial anchorage areas. A specialanchorage area is a designated waterarea within which vessels sixty-five feet(20 meters) or less in length are notrequired to: (1) Sound signals requiredby Rule 35 of the Inland NavigationRules (33 U.S.C. 2035); or (2) exhibit thewhite anchor lights or shapes requiredby Rule 30 of the Inland NavigationRules (33 U.S.C. 2030).

Ashley River Properties and theRipley Light Yacht Club submitted apermit application to the Army Corps ofEngineers to construct an additional 200slips for pleasure craft at the RipleyLight Yacht Club in Charleston, SouthCarolina. The proposed expansionwould encompass most of the areacurrently designated as Ashley RiverAnchorage 2. Removal of Ashley RiverAnchorage 2 would be necessary beforethe Ripley Light Yacht Club expansioncan commence. There are, however,several other locations where vesselscurrently anchored at Ashley RiverAnchorage 2 may relocate.

Background

In 1983, the Port of Charleston had nodesignated special anchorage areas.Subsequently, two anchorage areas weredesignated. However, no distinction wasmade between anchorage forcommercial and recreational vessels;either type of vessel could anchor in thetwo designated anchorages. These twoanchorage areas did not provide asufficient area for large commercialvessels, and they did not prevent bothlarge commercial vessels and smallrecreational vessels from competing forthe same anchorage grounds.

In 1984, the Coast Guard published afinal rule (49 FR 26587) establishing thefour currently designated commercialanchorage areas in the Port ofCharleston under 33 CFR 110.173. TheCoast Guard also established a specialanchorage area adjacent to theCharleston Peninsula on the AshleyRiver. This special anchorage area onthe Ashley River existed until the CoastGuard issued a final rule in 1996 (61 FR40993) converting the special anchoragearea into two special anchorage areas:Ashley River Anchorage 1 and Ashley

River Anchorage 2. The specialanchorage area was converted toaccommodate an expansion to theGeorge M. Lockwood Municipal Marina,currently known as The City Marina.Ashley River Anchorage 2 is the smallerof the two special anchorage areasestablished in 1996.

In 2008, Ashley River Properties andthe Ripley Light Yacht Club submitteda permit to the Army Corps of Engineersto construct 200 additional boat slips atthe Ripley Light Yacht Club. Theproposed expansion encompasses mostof the area currently designated asAshley River Anchorage 2. The RipleyLight Yacht Club expansion willaccommodate significantly more vesselsthan can currently safely anchor inAshley River Anchorage 2.

The Ripley Light Yacht Club intendsto reserve several of the 200 additionalslips for transient recreational boaters.Additionally, transient slips areavailable at the Ripley Light Yacht Club,The City Marina, and Anchorage 1remains a viable and convenientlocation for recreational vessels toanchor. Finally, recreational vesselsmay anchor in other areas of the Port ofCharleston so long as they comply withapplicable Navigation Rules and do notpose a navigational hazard whileanchored.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received sixsubmissions, containing a total of 24comments, regarding the NPRM.

Abandoned and Sunken Vessels

One comment stated that due to theconsiderable amount of abandoned andsunken vessels within the largerremaining anchorage, Ashley RiverAnchorage 1 will not be able toaccommodate vessels currentlyanchored in Ashley River Anchorage 2.Three comments recommended AshleyRiver Anchorage 2 not be disestablisheduntil abandoned and sunken vessels inthe two special anchorage areas wereremoved. The Coast Guard understandsthat Ashley River Properties willremove all abandoned and sunkenvessels in both special anchorage areasprior to commencing the Ripley LightYacht Club expansion. The removal ofabandoned and sunken vessels wouldprovide additional space in AshleyRiver Anchorage 1. After abandonedand sunken vessels have been removedfrom Ashley River Anchorage 1, AshleyRiver Anchorage 1 will be able toaccommodate all of the vessels currentlyin Ashley River Anchorage 2.Additionally, this rule does not requirevessels to leave the location where theyare currently anchored. This rule merely

21633


disestablishes Ashley River Anchorage2. Vessels may still remain anchored intheir current location so long as theycomply with applicable NavigationRules and do not pose a navigationalhazard while anchored. Therefore, theCoast Guard made no changes to thefinal rule based on these comments.

One comment suggested that bydisestablishing Ashley River Anchorage2, the Coast Guard would beencouraging the abandonment of vesselsin alternate locations. The Coast Guarddoes not establish special anchorageareas to facilitate the abandonment ofvessels, nor should special anchorageareas be used in such a manner.Additionally, there are several otherlocations where vessels currentlyanchored at Ashley River Anchorage 2may relocate, including Ashley RiverAnchorage 1. Therefore, the Coast Guardmade no changes to the final rule basedon this comment.

Two comments expressed concernthat: (1) Some persons who currentlyanchor their vessels at Ashley RiverAnchorage 2 may not be able to affordto pay for a slip rental in the Port ofCharleston; (2) there are fewinexpensive places in the Charlestonarea to anchor; and (3) Ashley RiverAnchorages 1 and 2 should beprotected. The Coast Guard is notreducing the number of free or low-costanchoring locations by removing AshleyRiver Anchorage 2. The Coast Guardunderstands that, as part of the RipleyLight Yacht Club expansion project,Ashley River Properties will beremoving abandoned and sunkenvessels from both special anchorageareas. Removal of these abandoned andsunken vessels in Ashley RiverAnchorage 1 will provide additionalspace for those vessels currentlyanchored at Ashley River Anchorage 2.Moreover, vessels may still anchor inother areas in the Port of Charleston atno cost so long as they comply withapplicable Navigation Rules and do notpose a navigational hazard whileanchored. Therefore, the Coast Guarddoes not believe that disestablishingAshley River Anchorage 2 will preventmariners from anchoring their boatsnearby. There are several nearbylocations where vessels currentlyanchored in Ashley River Anchorage 2may relocate, including Ashley RiverAnchorage 1. Therefore, the Coast Guardmade no changes to the final rule basedon these comments.

One comment stated that AshleyRiver Anchorage 1 is much moreexposed to prevailing wind and weatherthan Ashley River Anchorage 2 and,therefore, is more suitable to largervessels than Ashley River Anchorage 2.

The Coast Guard disagrees with thiscomment. Ashley River Anchorage 1 isnot much more exposed to prevailingwind and weather than Ashley RiverAnchorage 2. In fact, the two anchoragesare within 200 yards of one another.Therefore, the Coast Guard made nochanges to the final rule based on thiscomment.

Two comments stated that the areabetween Ripley Light Yacht Club andthe Ashley River Marina will becomeoverly congested by vessel trafficbecause of the Ripley Light Clubexpansion. The Coast Guard believesthat disestablishing Ashley RiverAnchorage 2 will not increase vesselcongestion in this area. The removal ofAshley River Anchorage 2 and theabandoned and sunken vesselscontained in the anchorage will actuallyincrease space for vessels to maneuver.Therefore, the Coast Guard made nochanges to the final rule based on thesecomments.

Ripley Light Yacht Club MarinaExpansion

Two comments stated that becausethe proposed expansion extends into theanchorage, the construction permitshould have been denied. The CoastGuard does not have authority toapprove or disapprove the Ripley LightClub expansion, and the Ripley LightYacht Club marina expansionpermitting process is not within thescope of this final rule. Commentsregarding the issuance of the RipleyLight Yacht Club marina expansionpermit should be submitted to Federal,State, and local agencies handling thepermit application, including the ArmyCorps of Engineers and the SouthCarolina Office of Coastal ResourceManagement. Therefore, the CoastGuard made no changes to the final rulebased on these comments.

One comment stated that the RipleyLight Yacht Club is not similar to otheryacht clubs and is more like a business.The name and business practices of theRipley Light Yacht Club are outside thescope of this rulemaking. Therefore, theCoast Guard made no changes to thefinal rule based on this comment.

One comment stated that theproposed rule benefits the privatefinancial gain of the developer at theexpense of numerous small entities. TheCoast Guard disagrees thatdisestablishing Ashley River Anchorage2 would impose costs on small entities.There are several nearby locationswhere vessels currently anchored inAshley River Anchorage 2 may relocateat no additional cost.

One comment stated that thedeveloper has no riparian rights to the

land beneath Ashley River Anchorage 2,and that the proposed rule would giveFederal property to a private entity. Thiscomment is outside the scope of thefinal rule. By disestablishing AshleyRiver Anchorage 2, the Coast Guard isnot conferring any Federal propertyrights on any private entity. Therefore,the Coast Guard made no changes to thefinal rule based on this comment.

One comment stated that anenvironmental study should beconducted to analyze the environmentaleffects of the marina expansion. Whilethe permit process for the marinaexpansion may require anenvironmental review, the Coast Guardhas determined that thedisestablishment of the Ashley RiverAnchorage 2 is one of a category ofactions that do not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment under theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). TheEnvironment section below discussesthis categorical exclusion determinationin detail. Therefore, the Coast Guardmade no changes to the final rule basedon these comments.

One comment stated that under theBackground and Purpose andDiscussion of Proposed Rule sections ofthe NPRM, the Coast Guard indicatedthat the proposed marina expansion will"extend into" Ashley River Anchorage 2,when the expansion actually completelyencompasses the existing anchorage.The Coast Guard disagrees with thecomment that the expansion willcompletely encompass Ashley RiverAnchorage 2. However, the Coast Guardhas amended the preamble to state thatthe expansion will "encompass most ofthe area currently designated as AshleyRiver Anchorage 2."

Local Enforcement of Anchorage

One comment suggested the creationof an association of interested citizensthat could monitor and assist inmaintaining Ashley River Anchorage 2.This comment is outside the scope ofthe regulation. Therefore, the CoastGuard made no changes to the final rulebased on this comment.

Two comments recommended thatjurisdiction over Ashley RiverAnchorage 1 and 2 should be turnedover to the local government to establishand enforce. To the extent this commentsuggests the creation of localordinances, the suggestion is outside theCoast Guard's authority, and the CoastGuard does not believe thisrecommendation affects thedisestablishment of Ashley RiverAnchorage 2. Additionally, a proposalto disestablish Ashley River Anchorage

21634


1 would require a separate rulemaking.At this time, the Coast Guard does nothave any intention of disestablishingAshley River Anchorage 1. Therefore,the Coast Guard made no changes to thefinal rule based on these comments.

Relocation of the Ashley River Channel

Two comments stated that The CityMarina may attempt to have the existingchannel relocated westward due toinsufficient water depths at The CityMarina. As such, The City Marina willsoon be submitting a permit that wouldaffect both anchorages. Thesecommenters recommended the CoastGuard abandon this rulemaking untilThe City Marina submits the permit.The Coast Guard does not believe theproposal by The City Marina shouldhave any impact on disestablishingAshley River Anchorage 2. Whilerelocation of the channel could impactthe location of part of Ashley RiverAnchorage 1, it should not reduce theoverall anchorage space. In any event,the Coast Guard will consider proposalsaffecting Ashley River Anchorage 1separately. Therefore, the Coast Guardmade no changes to the final rule basedon these comments.

Notice and Comments Regarding theProposed Rule

One comment stated that MarineSafety Information Bulletin (MSIB) 31-09, announcing the proposed rule, wasnot distributed to every vessel currentlymoored in Ashley River Anchorage 2until July 10, 2009. The Coast Guardprovided notice of the NPRM by severalmeans. First, on June 1, 2009, the CoastGuard posted MSIB 31-09 on theInternet at http://homepoit.uscg.mil.Second, on June 1, 2009, the CoastGuard e-mailed MSIB 31-09 tosubscribers of a Coast Guard sponsorede-mail list server, which is available forfree to the public at http://cgls.uscg.mil/mailman/listinfo/secchas-msib. Third,the NPRM was published in the FederalRegister on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27000).Fourth, the Coast Guard distributedMSIB 31-09 to all vessels in AshleyRiver Anchorage 2. Such notificationefforts exceed standard outreach effortsfor Federal Register publications andsatisfy the notice requirement set forthin the Administrative Procedure Act (5U.S.C. 553).

One comment requested that theCoast Guard consider extending theAugust 4, 2009 deadline for publiccomments. The Coast Guard did notreceive this request to extend thecomment period until August 3, 2009,the day prior to the end of the commentperiod, and did not believe it necessaryto extend the comment period.

After considering all the comments,the Coast Guard made no changes to theproposed rule.

Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule afterconsidering numerous statutes andexecutive orders related to rulemaking.Below we summarize our analysesbased on 13 of these statutes orexecutive orders.

Executive Order 12866 and ExecutiveOrder 13563

This rule is not a significantregulatory action under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866, RegulatoryPlanning and Review, as supplementedby Executive Order 13563, and does notrequire an assessment of potential costsand benefits under section 6(a)(3) of thatOrder. The Office of Management andBudget has not reviewed it under thatOrder.

The economic impact of this rule isnot significant because of the followingreasons: (1) The limited geographic areaimpacted by disestablishing AshleyRiver Anchorage 2 will not restrict orotherwise significantly impact themovement or routine operation of alarge number of commercial orrecreational vessels in the Ashley River;and (2) vessels currently located inAshley River Anchorage 2 may relocateto Ashley River Anchorage 1, a largeranchorage nearby, or other areas of thePort of Charleston, where they mayanchor at no cost, so long as theycomply with applicable NavigationRules and do not pose a navigationalhazard while anchored.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have consideredwhether this rule would have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The term "small entities" comprisessmall businesses, not-for-profitorganizations that are independentlyowned and operated and are notdominant in their fields, andgovernmental jurisdictions withpopulations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This rule may affect the followingentities, some of which may be smallentities: the owners or operators ofrecreational vessels intending to anchorin the Port of Charleston, Ripley LightYacht Club, and The City Marina. Thisrule would not have a significant impacton a substantial number of small entitiesfor the following reasons: (1) Ashley

River Anchorage 2 is small and cannotaccommodate many vessels; (2)recreational vessels that currentlyanchor at Ashley River Anchorage 2may anchor at many other nearbylocations, including Ashley RiverAnchorage 1, Ripley Light Yacht Club,or The City Marina, all of which arelocated nearby; and (3) after theexpansion is completed, the RipleyLight Yacht Club will be able toaccommodate significantly moretransient vessels than could fit inAshley River Anchorage 2.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),in the NPRM we offered to assist smallentities in understanding the rule sothat they could better evaluate its effectson them and participate in therulemaking process.

Small businesses may send commentson the actions of Federal employeeswho enforce, or otherwise determinecompliance with, Federal regulations tothe Small Business and AgricultureRegulatory Enforcement Ombudsmanand the Regional Small BusinessRegulatory Fairness Boards. TheOmbudsman evaluates these actionsannually and rates each agency'sresponsiveness to small business. If youwish to comment on actions byemployees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).The Coast Guard will not retaliateagainst small entities that question orcomplain about this rule or any policyor action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collectionof information under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalismunder Executive Order 13132,Federalism, if it has a substantial directeffect on State or local governments andwould either preempt State law orimpose a substantial direct cost ofcompliance on them. We have analyzedthis rule under that Order and havedetermined that it does not haveimplications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requiresFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir discretionary regulatory actions. Inparticular, the Act addresses actionsthat may result in the expenditure by aState, local, or Tribal government, in the

21635


aggregate, or by the private sector of$100,000,000 or more in any one year.Though this rule will not result in suchan expenditure, we do discuss theeffects of this rule elsewhere in thispreamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not cause a taking ofprivate property or otherwise havetaking implications under ExecutiveOrder 12630, Governmental Actions andInterference with ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standardsin sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of ExecutiveOrder 12988, Civil Justice Reform, tominimize litigation, eliminateambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule underExecutive Order 13045, Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks. This rule is notan economically significant rule anddoes not create an environmental risk tohealth or risk to safety that maydisproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have Tribalimplications under Executive Order13175, Consultation and Coordinationwith Indian Tribal Governments,because it does not have a substantialdirect effect on one or more IndianTribes, on the relationship between theFederal Government and Indian Tribes,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule underExecutive Order 13211, ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use. We havedetermined that it is not a "significantenergy action" under that order becauseit is not a "significant regulatory action"under Executive Order 12866 and is notlikely to have a significant adverse effecton the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy. The Administrator of the Officeof Information and Regulatory Affairshas not designated it as a significantenergy action. Therefore, it does notrequire a Statement of Energy Effectsunder Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

The National Technology Transferand Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to usevoluntary consensus standards in their

regulatory activities unless the agencyprovides Congress, through the Office ofManagement and Budget, with anexplanation of why using thesestandards would be inconsistent withapplicable law or otherwise impractical.Voluntary consensus standards aretechnical standards (e.g., specificationsof materials, performance, design, oroperation; test methods; samplingprocedures; and related managementsystems practices) that are developed oradopted by voluntary consensusstandards bodies.

This rule does not use technicalstandards. Therefore, we did notconsider the use of voluntary consensusstandards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule underDepartment of Homeland SecurityManagement Directive 023-01 andCommandant Instruction M16475.D,which guide the Coast Guard incomplying with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), andhave concluded this action is one of acategory of actions that do notindividually or cumulatively have asignificant effect on the humanenvironment. This rule is categoricallyexcluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph(34)(f), of the Instruction, because itinvolves disestablishing a specialanchorage area. Under figure 2-1,paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, anenvironmental analysis checklist and acategorical exclusion determination arenot required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110Anchorage grounds.For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 11 O-ANCHORAGEREGULATIONS


Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1;Department of Homeland Security DelegationNo. 0170.1.

* 2. Revise § 110.72d to read as follows:

§110.72d Ashley River, SC.All waters on the southwest portion of

the Ashley River encompassed withinthe following points: beginning at32°46"42.7" N, 79'57"19.3" W; thencesouthwest to 32°46'38.0" N, 79'57"24.0"W; thence southeast to 32°46'32.0" N,79'57"15.5" W; thence southeast to32°46'29.0" N, 79'57'00.9" W; thenceback to origin following the southwest

boundary of the Ashley River Channel.All coordinates are North AmericanDatum 1983.

Dated: March 10, 2011.William D. Baumgartner,tearAdmiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doe. 2011-9255 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2011-0243]

RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.ACTION: Notice of temporary deviationfrom regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, EighthCoast Guard District, has issued atemporary deviation from the regulationgoverning the operation of the CassStreet Drawbridge across the IllinoisWaterway, mile 288.1, at Joliet, Illinois.The deviation is necessary to allowparticipants in an 8K run to cross thebridge. This deviation allows the bridgeto be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for three hours.DATES: This deviation is effective from8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on May 14, 2011.ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned inthis preamble as being available in thedocket are part of docket USCG-2011-0243 and are available online by goingto http://www.regulations.gov, insertingUSCG-2011-0243 in the "Keyword" boxand then clicking "Search". They arealso available for inspection or copyingat the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation,West Building Ground Floor, RoomW12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ifyou have questions on this rule, call ore-mail Eric A. Washburn, BridgeAdministrator, Coast Guard; telephone(314) 269-2378, e-mailEric. [email protected]. If you havequestions on viewing the docket, callRenee V. Wright, Program Manager,Docket Operations, telephone (202)366-9826.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheIllinois Department of Transportationrequested a temporary deviation for the

21636


Cass Street Drawbridge, across theIllinois Waterway, mile 288.1, at Joliet,Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for three hourswhile an 8K run is held in the city ofJoliet, IL. The Cass Street Drawbridgecurrently operates in accordance with33 CFR 117.393(c), which states thegeneral requirement that drawbridgesshall open promptly and fully for thepassage of vessels when a request toopen is given in accordance with thesubpart, except that they need not openfrom 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from4:15 to 5:15 p.m., Monday throughSaturday.

There are no alternate routes forvessels transiting this section of theIllinois Waterway.

The Cass Street Drawbridge, in theclosed-to-navigation position, providesa vertical clearance of 16.6 feet abovenormal pool. Navigation on thewaterway consists primarily ofcommercial tows and recreationalwatercraft. This temporary deviation hasbeen coordinated with waterway users.No objections were received.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),the drawbridge must return to its regularoperating schedule immediately at theend of the designated time period. Thisdeviation from the operating regulationsis authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: April 7, 2011.Eric A. Washburn,Bridge Administrator.[FR Doe. 2011-9257 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165


RIN 1625-AAOO

Safety Zone; Ford Estate WeddingFireworks, Lake St. Clair, GrossePointe Shores, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard isestablishing a temporary safety zone onLake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Shores, MI.This zone is intended to restrict vesselsfrom a portion of Lake St. Clair Riverduring the Ford Estate WeddingFireworks.

DATES: This rule is effective andenforced, at dusk, from approximately8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on June 4,2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in thispreamble as being available in thedocket are part of docket USCG-2011-0165 and are available online by goingto http://www.regulations.gov, insertingUSCG-2011-0165 in the "Keyword"box, and then clicking "Search." Theyare also available for inspection orcopying at the Docket ManagementFacility (M-30), U.S. Department ofTransportation, West Building GroundFloor, Room W12-140, 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, except Federal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ifyou have questions on this temporaryrule, call or e-mail LT Katie Stanko,Prevention Department, Sector Detroit,Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9508,e-mail [email protected]. If youhave questions on viewing the docket,call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is issuing thistemporary final rule without priornotice and opportunity to commentpursuant to authority under section 4(a)of the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provisionauthorizes an agency to issue a rulewithout prior notice and opportunity tocomment when the agency for goodcause finds that those procedures are"impracticable, unnecessary, or contraryto the public interest." Under 5 U.S.C.553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds thatgood cause exists for not publishing anotice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)with respect to this rule because waitingfor a notice and comment period to runwould be impracticable and contrary tothe public interest because it wouldinhibit the Coast Guard's ability toprotect the public from the hazardsassociated with maritime fireworksdisplays.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the CoastGuard finds that good cause exists formaking this rule effective less than 30days after publication in the FederalRegister. Delaying the effective date ofthis rule would be impracticable andcontrary to the public interest because itwould inhibit the Coast Guard fromensuring the safety of vessels and thepublic during the fireworks display.

Background and Purpose

On June 4, 2011, a private party isholding a land based wedding that willinclude fireworks launched from a pointon Lake St. Clair. This temporary safetyzone is necessary to ensure the safety of

vessels and spectators from hazardsassociated with that fireworks display.Such hazards include obstructions tothe waterway that may cause marinecasualties, explosive danger offireworks, debris falling into the waterthat may cause death, serious bodilyharm or property damage. Establishing asafety zone to control vessel movementaround the location of the launchplatform will help ensure the safety ofpersons and property in the vicinity ofthis event and help minimize theassociated risks.

Discussion of Rule

A temporary safety zone is necessaryto ensure the safety of spectators andvessels during the setup, loading, andlaunching of the Ford Estate WeddingFireworks Display. The fireworksdisplay will occur between 8:30 p.m.and 9:30 p.m., June 4, 2011.

The safety zone will encompass allwaters on Lake St. Clair within a 420foot radius of the fireworks barge launchsite located off the shore of GrossePointe Shores, MI at position42027'15.06" N, 082o51'59.01 " W from8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on June 4,2011. All geographic coordinates areNorth American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).

All persons and vessels shall complywith the instructions of the Coast GuardCaptain of the Port or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Entry into,transiting, or anchoring within thesafety zone is prohibited unlessauthorized by the Captain of the PortDetroit or his designated on-scenerepresentative. The Captain of the Portor his designated on-scenerepresentative may be contacted viaVHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule afterconsidering numerous statutes andexecutive orders related to rulemaking.Below we summarize our analysesbased on 13 of these statutes orexecutive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significantregulatory action under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866, RegulatoryPlanning and Review, and does notrequire an assessment of potential costsand benefits under section 6(a)(3) of thatOrder. The Office of Management andBudget has not reviewed it under thatOrder. It is not "significant" under theregulatory policies and procedures ofthe Department of Homeland Security(DHS).

We conclude that this rule is not asignificant regulatory action because we

21637


anticipate that it will have minimalimpact on the economy, will notinterfere with other agencies, will notadversely alter the budget of any grantor loan recipients, and will not raise anynovel legal or policy issues. The safetyzone around the launch platform will berelatively small and exist for only aminimal time. Thus, restrictions onvessel movement within any particulararea of Lake St. Clair are expected to beminimal. Under certain conditions,moreover, vessels may still transitthrough the safety zone when permittedby the Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have consideredwhether this rule would have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The term "small entities" comprisessmall businesses, not-for-profitorganizations that are independentlyowned and operated and are notdominant in their fields, andgovernmental jurisdictions withpopulations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the followingentities, some of which may be smallentities: The owners and operators ofvessels intending to transit or anchor inthis portion of Lake St. Clair between8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on June 4,2011.

This safety zone will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesbecause vessels can easily transitaround the zone. The Coast Guard willgive notice to the public via a BroadcastNotice to Mariners that the regulation isin effect.


Under section 213(a) of the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),we offer to assist small entities inunderstanding the rule so that they canbetter evaluate its effects on them andparticipate in the rulemaking process.

Small businesses may send commentson the actions of Federal employeeswho enforce, or otherwise determinecompliance with, Federal regulations tothe Small Business and AgricultureRegulatory Enforcement Ombudsmanand the Regional Small BusinessRegulatory Fairness Boards. TheOmbudsman evaluates these actionsannually and rates each agency'sresponsiveness to small business. If youwish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).The Coast Guard will not retaliateagainst small entities that question orcomplain about this rule or any policyor action of the Coast Guard.


This rule calls for no new collectionof information under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalismunder Executive Order 13132,Federalism, if it has a substantial directeffect on State or local governments andwould either preempt State law orimpose a substantial direct cost ofcompliance on them. We have analyzedthis rule under that Order and havedetermined that it does not haveimplications for federalism.


The Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requiresFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir discretionary regulatory actions. Inparticular, the Act addresses actionsthat may result in the expenditure by aState, local, or Tribal government, in theaggregate, or by the private sector of$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) ormore in any one year. Though this rulewill not result in such an expenditure,we do discuss the effects of this ruleelsewhere in this preamble.


This rule will not cause a taking ofprivate property or otherwise havetaking implications under ExecutiveOrder 12630, Governmental Actions andInterference with ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights.


This rule meets applicable standardsin sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of ExecutiveOrder 12988, Civil Justice Reform, tominimize litigation, eliminateambiguity, and reduce burden.


We have analyzed this rule underExecutive Order 13045, Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks. This rule is notan economically significant rule anddoes not create an environmental risk tohealth or risk to safety that maydisproportionately affect children.


This rule does not have Tribalimplications under Executive Order13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments,because it does not have a substantialdirect effect on one or more IndianTribes, on the relationship between theFederal Government and Indian Tribes,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule underExecutive Order 13211, ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use. We havedetermined that it is not a "significantenergy action" under that order becauseit is not a "significant regulatory action"under Executive Order 12866 and is notlikely to have a significant adverse effecton the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy. The Administrator of the Officeof Information and Regulatory Affairshas not designated it as a significantenergy action. Therefore, it does notrequire a Statement of Energy Effectsunder Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

The National Technology Transferand Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to usevoluntary consensus standards in theirregulatory activities unless the agencyprovides Congress, through the Office ofManagement and Budget, with anexplanation of why using thesestandards would be inconsistent withapplicable law or otherwise impractical.Voluntary consensus standards aretechnical standards (e.g., specificationsof materials, performance, design, oroperation; test methods; samplingprocedures; and related managementsystems practices) that are developed oradopted by voluntary consensusstandards bodies.

This rule does not use technicalstandards. Therefore, we did notconsider the use of voluntary consensusstandards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule underDepartment of Homeland SecurityManagement Directive 023-01 andCommandant Instruction M16475.D,which guide the Coast Guard incomplying with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), andhave concluded this action is one of acategory of actions that do notindividually or cumulatively have asignificant effect on the humanenvironment. This rule is categoricallyexcluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph(34)(g) of the Instruction because itinvolves the establishment of a

21638


temporary safety zone. Anenvironmental analysis checklist and acategorical exclusion determination willbe available in the docket whereindicated under ADDRESSES.


Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation(water), Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Security measures,Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in thepreamble, the Coast Guard amends 33CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATIONAREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS


Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Departmentof Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

* 2. Add section § 165.T09-0165 to readas follows:

§ 165.T09-0165 Safety zone; Ford EstateWedding Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, GrossePointe Shores, MI.

(a) Location. The safety zone willencompass all U.S. navigable waters onLake St. Clair within a 420 foot radiusof the fireworks barge launch sitelocated off the shore of Grosse PointeShores, MI at position 42°27'15.06" N.,082o51'59.01" W. All geographiccoordinates are North American Datumof 1983 (NAD 83).

(b) Effective and Enforcement Period.This rule is effective and will beenforced from 8:30 p.m. (local) through9:30 p.m. on June 4, 2011.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance withthe general regulations in Section165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting,or anchoring within this safety zone isprohibited unless authorized by theCaptain of the Port Detroit, or hisdesignated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to allvessel traffic, except as may bepermitted by the Captain of the PortDetroit or his designated on-scenerepresentative.

(3) The "on-scene representative" ofthe Captain of the Port is any CoastGuard commissioned, warrant, or pettyofficer who has been designated by theCaptain of the Port to act on his behalf.The on-scene representative of theCaptain of the Port will be aboard eithera Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliaryvessel. The Captain of the Port or hisdesignated on scene representative maybe contacted via VHF Channel 16.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enteror operate within the safety zone shall

contact the Captain of the Port Detroitor his on-scene representative to obtainpermission to do so.

(5) Vessel operators given permissionto enter or operate in the safety zonemust comply with all directions given tothem by the Captain of the Port or hison-scene representative.

Dated: April 5, 2011.J.E. Ogden,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of thePort Detroit.[FR Doe. 2011-9256 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0909; FRL-9294-9]

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy ofImplementation Plan; Call for UtahState Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5) of the CleanAir Act (CAA), EPA is finding that theUtah State Implementation Plan (SIP) issubstantially inadequate to attain ormaintain the national ambient airquality standards (NAAQS) or tootherwise comply with the requirementsof the CAA and issuing a call for theState of Utah to revise its SIP.Specifically, the SIP includes Utah'sunavoidable breakdown rule (ruleR307-107), which exempts emissionsduring unavoidable breakdowns fromcompliance with emission limitations.This rule undermines EPA's, Utah's,and citizens' ability to enforce emissionlimitations that have been relied on toensure attainment or maintenance of theNAAQS or meet other CAArequirements. EPA is requiring that theState revise the SIP to remove R307-107or correct its deficiencies and submitthe revised SIP to EPA within 18months of the effective date of this finalrule. If EPA finds that Utah has failedto submit a complete SIP revision asrequired by this final rule or if EPAdisapproves such a revision, such afinding or disapproval will triggerclocks for mandatory sanctions and anobligation for EPA to impose a FederalImplementation Plan (FIP). If EPAmakes such a finding or disapproval,mandatory sanctions will apply suchthat the offset sanction would apply 18months after such finding ordisapproval and highway funding

restrictions would apply six monthslater unless EPA takes action to stay theimposition of the sanctions or to stopthe sanctions clock based on the Statecuring the SIP deficiencies.

In its proposed rulemaking action,EPA requested comment on whether itshould exercise its discretionaryauthority under CAA section 110(m) toimpose the highway funding restrictionssanctions in areas of the State thatwould not be subject to mandatorysanctions. EPA is deferring a decisionon whether to impose sanctions undersection 110(m) and will consider anycomments on the issue of imposingsanctions under section 110(m) if andwhen we take final action on this issuein the future.DATES: Effective Date: This final rule iseffective May 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: EPA has established adocket for this action under Docket IDNo. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0909. Alldocuments in the docket are listed onthe http://www.regulations.gov Website. Although listed in the index, someinformation is not publicly available,e.g., Confidential Business Information(CBI) or other information whosedisclosure is restricted by statute.Certain other material, such ascopyrighted material, is not placed onthe Internet and will be publiclyavailable only in hard copy form.Publicly available docket materials areavailable either electronically throughhttp://www.regulations.gov, or in hardcopy at the Air Program, EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), Region 8,1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado80202-1129. EPA requests that if at allpossible, you contact the individuallisted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section to view the hard copyof the docket. You may view the hardcopy of the docket Monday throughFriday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excludingFederal holidays.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Vanessa Hinkle, Air Program, Mailcode8P-AR, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 8, 1595 WynkoopStreet, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,(303) 312-6561, [email protected].


Definitions

For the purpose of this document, thefollowing definitions apply:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAAmean or refer to the Clean Air Act,unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or ourmean or refer to the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency.

21639


(iii) The initials NAAQS mean or referto National Ambient Air QualityStandards.

(iv) The initials NOx mean or refer tonitrogen oxides.

(v) The initials PM2 .5 mean or refer toparticulate matter with an aerodynamicdiameter less than or equal to a nominal2.5 micrometers.

(vi) The initials PMo mean or refer toparticulate matter with an aerodynamicdiameter less than or equal to a nominal10 micrometers.

(vii) The initials ppm mean or refer toparts per million.

(viii) The initials SIP mean or refer toState Implementation Plan.

(ix) The initials S0 2 mean or refer tosulfur dioxide.

(x) The initials SSM mean or refer tostartup, shutdown, and malfunction.

(xi) The words State or Utah mean theState of Utah, unless the contextindicates otherwise.

(xii) The initials UBR mean or refer tothe Utah unavoidable breakdown rule,R307-107.

(xiii) The initials UDAQ mean or referto the Utah Division of Air Quality,Utah Department of EnvironmentalQuality.

(xiv) The words 1982 Policy mean orrefer to the September 28, 1982 EPAMemorandum signed by Kathleen M.Bennett, Assistant Administrator forAir, Noise and Radiation, titled "Policyon Excess Emissions During Startup,Shutdown, Maintenance, andMalfunctions."

(xv) The words 1983 Policy mean orrefer to the February 15, 1983 EPAMemorandum signed by Kathleen M.Bennett, Assistant Administrator forAir, Noise and Radiation, titled "Policyon Excess Emissions During Startup,Shutdown, Maintenance, andMalfunctions."

(xvi) The words 1999 Policy mean orrefer to the September 20, 1999 EPAMemorandum signed by Steven A.Herman, Assistant Administrator forEnforcement and ComplianceAssurance, and Robert Perciasepe,Assistant Administrator for Air andRadiation, titled "State ImplementationPlans: Policy Regarding ExcessEmissions During Malfunctions,Startup, and Shutdown."

Table of Contents

I. BackgroundII. Final ActionIII. Summary of Bases for Finding of

Substantial InadequacyIV. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's

ResponsesA. Request for Comment Period Extension/

Procedural IssuesB. Authority and Basis for a SIP CallC. Sanctions

D. Time Period for Response to SIP CallE. Miscellaneous Comments

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

On November 19, 2010, we publishedour proposed rulemaking action in theFederal Register (75 FR 70888) in whichwe proposed to find the Utah SIPsubstantially inadequate to attain ormaintain the NAAQS or to otherwisecomply with the requirements of theCAA.' We also proposed to issue a SIPcall to require the State of Utah to revisethe SIP to correct the inadequacies. Inour proposal, we stated that, "Utah ruleR307-107 contains various provisionsthat are inconsistent with EPA'sinterpretations regarding theappropriate treatment of malfunctionevents in SIPs and which render theUtah SIP substantially inadequate." Id.at 70891. We went on to identifyspecific deficiencies in R307-107 (alsoknown as Utah's unavoidablebreakdown rule and sometimes referredto herein as the UBR). Id. at 70891-70893. In particular, we explained thatthe UBR: (1) Does not treat allexceedances of SIP and permit limits asviolations; (2) could be interpreted togrant the Utah executive secretaryexclusive authority to decide whetherexcess emissions constitute a violation;and (3) improperly applies to Federaltechnology-based standards such asNew Source Performance Standards(NSPS) and National EmissionStandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAPS). We explained why wewere proposing to find that thesedeficiencies in the UBR render the UtahSIP substantially inadequate. Id. Weproposed a 12-month deadline for theState to respond to a final SIP call.

We also proposed the order andtiming of mandatory sanctions underCAA section 179(a) and requestedcomment on whether we shouldexercise our discretionary authority toimpose highway funding sanctions inall areas of the State.

We requested comments on allaspects of our proposed action byDecember 20, 2010. We subsequentlyextended the public comment periodthrough January 3, 2011. See 75 FR79327 (December 20, 2010).

We received numerous comments. Anumber of commenters, particularlycitizens and environmental groups,supported our proposed action. We also

1 Our proposal provided detailed backgroundinformation regarding EPA's CAA interpretationswith respect to SIP malfunction provisions, thehistory of Utah rule R307-107 and relevant SIPactions, and our interactions with the State andothers regarding the rule over the years. See 75 FR70889-891. We direct the reader there for suchbackground information.

received a number of comments,primarily from State agencies andindustrial facilities and groups, thatwere critical of our proposed action.

II. Final Action

We have considered all commentssubmitted and prepared responses,which are contained in Section IV ofthis action, "Issues Raised byCommenters and EPA's Responses."None of the comments has caused us toconclude that our proposal wasunreasonable, and we are finalizing ouraction as proposed, with the exceptionthat we are requiring that the Staterespond to the SIP call within 18months rather than 12 months.Specifically, for the reasons described inour notice of proposed rulemaking (see75 FR 70888) and in this action, EPAfinds that the Utah SIP is substantiallyinadequate to attain or maintain theNAAQS or to otherwise comply withrequirements of the CAA due tosignificant deficiencies created byUtah's unavoidable breakdown rule,R307-107.2 Utah's rule R307-107improperly undermines EPA's, Utah's,and citizens' ability to enforce emissionlimitations that have been relied on inthe SIP to ensure attainment andmaintenance of the NAAQS or meetother CAA requirements. Pursuant tosections 110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5) ofthe CAA, EPA is requiring that the Staterevise the SIP to remove R307-107 orrevise it to make it consistent with CAArequirements. Utah must submit arevised SIP responding to this SIP callwithin 18 months of the effective dateof this final rule.

If Utah fails to submit a complete SIPrevision that responds to this final SIPcall, section 179(a) of the CAA providesfor EPA to issue a finding of Statefailure. Such a finding will startmandatory 18-month and 24-monthsanctions clocks and a 24-month clockfor promulgation of a FIP by EPA. Thetwo sanctions that apply under CAAsection 179(b) are the 2-to-1 emissionoffset requirement for all new andmodified major sources subject to thenonattainment new source review (NSR)program and restrictions on highwayfunding.

EPA issued an order of sanctions rulein 1994 (see 59 FR 39832 (August 4,1994), codified at 40 CFR 52.31) but didnot specify the order of sanctions wherea State fails to submit or submits adeficient SIP in response to a SIP call.However, as we proposed (75 FR 70893-

2 We provide a summary of the bases for ourfinding of substantial inadequacy in Section III ofthis action, "Summary of Bases for Finding ofSubstantial Inadequacy."

21640


70894), we have decided that the orderof sanctions specified in 40 CFR 52.31will apply here for the same reasonsdiscussed in the preamble to that rule.Thus, if Utah fails to submit therequired SIP revision, or submits arevision that EPA determines isincomplete or that EPA disapproves, the2-to-1 emission offset requirement willapply for all new sources subject to thenonattainment NSR program 18 monthsfollowing such a finding or disapprovalunless the State corrects the deficiencybefore that date. The highway fundingrestrictions sanction will also apply sixmonths after the offset sanction appliesunless the State corrects the deficiencybefore that date. The provisions in 40CFR 52.31 regarding staying thesanctions clock and deferring theimposition of sanctions will also apply.

Mandatory sanctions under section179 of the CAA generally apply only innonattainment areas. By its definition,the emission offset sanction appliesonly in areas required to have a part DNSR program, typically areas designatednonattainment.3 Section 179(b)(1)expressly limits the highway fundingrestriction to nonattainment areas.Additionally, EPA interprets the section179 sanctions to apply only in the areaor areas of the State that are subject toor required to have in place thedeficient SIP and for the pollutant orpollutants the specific SIP elementaddresses. In this case, mandatorysanctions would apply in all areasdesignated nonattainment for a NAAQSwithin the State because Utah ruleR307-107 applies statewide and appliesfor all NAAQS pollutants.

In addition to sanctions, if EPA findsthat the State failed to submit acomplete SIP revision that responds tothis SIP call or disapproves suchrevision, CAA section 110(c) wouldrequire EPA to promulgate a FIP no laterthan two years from the date of thefinding or the disapproval if thedeficiency has not been corrected.

In its proposed rulemaking action (75FR 70893-70894), EPA also requestedcomment on whether it should exerciseits discretionary authority under CAAsection 110(m) to impose the highwayfunding restrictions sanction in areas ofthe State that would not be subject tomandatory sanctions-i.e., areas otherthan nonattainment areas. EPA is notfinalizing action on the use of suchdiscretionary authority in this action. IfEPA acts on the use of discretionarysanctions at a later date, it will fully

3 An exception to this, not relevant here, is areaslocated in the Ozone Transport Region, which arerequired to have a part D NSR program regardlessof the area's designation. See CAA section 184(b)(2).

respond to relevant commentssubmitted in response to the November19, 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking.

III. Summary of Bases for Finding ofSubstantial Inadequacy

This section provides a brief summaryof the bases for our finding ofsubstantial inadequacy. For furtherdetail, please refer to our notice ofproposed rulemaking (75 FR 70888) andour response to comments.

1. R307-107-1 provides an exemptionfrom emission limits in the Utah SIPand SIP-based permits for exceedancesof such limits caused by an unavoidablebreakdown-"emissions resulting fromunavoidable breakdown will not bedeemed a violation of these regulations."This generic exemption, applicable toall Utah SIP limits, precludes anyenforcement when there is anunavoidable breakdown. Ourinterpretation of the CAA is that anexemption from injunctive relief isnever appropriate, and that anexemption from penalties is onlyappropriate in limited circumstances. 4

Contrary to CAA section 302(k)'sdefinition of emission limitation, theexemption in the UBR renders emissionlimitations in the Utah SIP less thancontinuous and, contrary to therequirements of CAA sections110(a)(2)(A) and (C), undermines theability to ensure compliance with SIPemissions limitations relied on toachieve the NAAQS and other relevantCAA requirements at all times.Therefore, the UBR renders the Utah SIPsubstantially inadequate to attain ormaintain the NAAQS or to comply withother CAA requirements, such as CAAsections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 302(k),CAA provisions related to prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) andnonattainment NSR permits (sections165 and 173), and provisions related toprotection of visibility (section 169A).

2. R307-107-1 also applies to Federaltechnology-based standards like theNSPS and NESHAPS that Utah hasincorporated by reference to receivedelegation of Federal authority. To theextent any exemptions from thesetechnology-based standards arewarranted for malfunctions, the Federalstandards contained in EPA'sregulations already specify theappropriate exemptions. No additionalexemptions (or criteria for decidingwhether an applicable exemptionapplies) are warranted or appropriate.Thus, the Utah SIP is substantially

4 As we explain in our response to comments, theUBR lacks criteria that are sufficiently detailed orrobust to ensure that penalties are available at allappropriate times.

inadequate because R307-107-1improperly provides an exemption andcriteria not contained in and notsanctioned by the delegated Federalstandards.

3. R307-107-2 requires the source tosubmit information regarding anunavoidable breakdown to the executivesecretary of Utah's Air Quality Board(UAQB) and indicates that theinformation "shall be used by theexecutive secretary of the UAQB indetermining whether a violation hasoccurred and/or the need of furtherenforcement action." This provisionappears to give the executive secretaryexclusive authority to determinewhether excess emissions constitute aviolation and thus to precludeindependent enforcement action by EPAand citizens when the executivesecretary makes a non-violationdetermination. This is inconsistent withthe enforcement structure under theCAA, which provides enforcementauthority not only to the States, but alsoto EPA and citizens. Because a courtcould interpret section R307-107-2 asundermining the ability of EPA andcitizens to independently exerciseenforcement discretion granted by theCAA, it is substantially inadequate tocomply with CAA requirements relatedto enforcement. Because it underminesthe envisioned enforcement structure, italso undermines the ability of the Stateto attain and maintain the NAAQS andto comply with other CAA requirementsrelated to PSD, visibility, NSPS, andNESHAPS. Potential EPA and citizenenforcement provides an importantsafeguard in the event a State cannot ordoes not enforce CAA violations andalso provides additional incentives forsources to design, operate, and maintaintheir facilities so as to meet theiremission limits. Thus, R307-107-2renders the SIP substantially inadequateto attain or maintain the NAAQS orotherwise comply with the CAA.

IV. Issues Raised by Commenters andEPA's Response

A. Request for Comment PeriodExtension/Procedural Issues

(a) Comment: Two comment lettersrequested an extension of the commentperiod of up to 60 days. Othercommenters did not specifically requestan extension, but stated that theybelieved the comment period was tooshort. Some commenters complainedthat the proposal was issued withoutstakeholder input.

Response: We considered the requestsfor an extension of the comment periodand extended the original 30-day publiccomment period from December 20,

21641


2010 to January 3, 2011 (see 75 FR79327 (December 20, 2010)), providinga total of 45 days to submit comments.The comment period was sufficient toprovide a reasonable opportunity tocomment on our proposed action givenits scope. We note that section 307(h) ofthe CAA specifies a 30-day period as aminimum comment period forrulemaking actions under the CAA,except for certain specified provisions(all of which waive notice-and-commentrulemaking requirements). We typicallyprovide a 30-day comment period forSIP-related actions. Neither the CAA northe Administrative Procedure Actrequires a stakeholder process before orduring rulemaking to issue a SIP call.

(b) Comment: A commenter assertsthat EPA's notice is defective because itfails to provide interested parties withsufficient notice of facts, policies andcase law relevant to the proposedfinding. Interested parties cannotunderstand the bases for EPA'sproposed rule and thus cannotparticipate and comment in ameaningful way. EPA needs to correctthe deficiencies in the notice and re-propose.

Response: As described more fullyelsewhere in our response to comments,we explained the bases for our findingof substantial inadequacy and SIP callin our proposed rulemaking action. See75 FR 70891-70893.

(c) Comment: A commenter assertsthat it cannot provide meaningfulcomments and analysis of the proposedrule because EPA has not responded tothe commenter's appeal seekingdocuments under the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA).

Response: We disagree that ouractions under the FOIA are relevant tothe validity of our rulemaking action. Inthis case, we clearly explained the basesfor our proposed action, and madeavailable in our rulemaking docket alldocuments we considered in issuing theproposal. The commenter had the samereasonable opportunity to comment onour proposal as any other commenterand provided substantive comments.

We note that we responded to thecommenter's FOIA request on June 7,2010, providing three compact discscontaining over 1,000 pages ofdocuments. We only withhelddocuments we determined wereprivileged (and thus exempt fromdisclosure).

B. Authority and Basis for a SIP Call

(a) Comment: The proposal isinconsistent with section 110 of theCAA. Commenters assert that EPA'sauthority to issue a SIP call under CAAsection 110(k)(5) is limited to if the

Administrator finds the applicableimplementation plan for an area issubstantially inadequate to attain ormaintain the relevant NAAQS or tootherwise comply with any requirementof that chapter. Commenters assert thatEPA has made no showing or disclosureof relevant facts that the UBR issubstantially inadequate to protect theNAAQS with respect to CAA sections110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5). Commentersstate that the finding of substantialinadequacy must be clearly stated andthat the Administrative Record mustpresent facts which support the SIP call.Commenters state that EPA's docket didnot identify any measured or modeledimpact on attainment or maintenance ofa NAAQS due to excess emissionsresulting from an unavoidablebreakdown. Further, EPA did notprovide any empirical information tosupport its reasoning as to why the ruleis not working.

Response: The SIP call is consistentwith CAA sections 110(a)(2)(H) and110(k)(5). We proposed to find the UBRsubstantially inadequate in our NPR andare finalizing that determination here.We explained the bases for ourproposed finding. See 75 FR 70891-70893. As we indicated in our proposal,SIPs, including the Utah SIP, rely onadoption and enforcement of emissionlimits to attain and maintain theNAAQS, protect PSD increments,protect visibility in national parks andwilderness areas, and meet other CAArequirements. See 75 FR 70891. Theintegrity of the SIP is maintained andprotection is ensured as long as thelimits are met. Consistent with thispremise, the CAA and our regulationsrequire that SIP limits be enforceable.For example, as noted in our proposal(see 75 FR 70892), CAA section110(a)(2)(A) requires each SIP to includeenforceable emission limitationsnecessary or appropriate to meet theCAA's applicable requirements. CAAsection 110(a)(2)(C) requires that eachSIP include a program to "provide forthe enforcement of the measures"described in section 110(a)(2)(A).Section 302(k) defines emissionlimitation as a requirement establishedby a State or EPA that "limits thequantity, rate, or concentration ofemissions of air pollutants on acontinuous basis." These requirementsare intended to ensure attainment andmaintenance of the NAAQS, protectionof increments, and protection ofvisibility at all times, not justoccasionally or intermittently. Theenforceability of the SIP is fundamentalto the SIP's adequacy under the CAA.

The UBR provides an exemption fromemission limits in the Utah SIP (and

permits) for excess emissions caused byan unavoidable breakdown-"emissionsresulting from unavoidable breakdownwill not be deemed a violation of theseregulations." See R307-107-1. Ourlongstanding view is that allexceedances are violations and must betreated as such by the SIP. See, e.g., our1982, 1983, and 1999 Policies; 42 FR58171 (November 8, 1977). Thistreatment is necessary because itencourages sources to act responsibly intaking necessary measures to ensurecompliance with emissions limits,preserves the potential for injunctiverelief, preserves the potential forpenalties, except in limitedcircumstances, and is consistent withthe notion that protection of healthunder the CAA is not a sometimerequirement. It is also consistent withCAA 302(k)'s definition of emissionlimitation as a requirement limitingemissions on a continuous basis. TheUBR precludes any enforcement whenthere is an unavoidable breakdown. Itthus renders emission limitations in theUtah SIP less than continuous and,contrary to the requirements of sections110(a)(2)(A) and (C), undermines theability to ensure compliance withemissions limitations and the NAAQSand other relevant CAA requirements atall times. Therefore, the UBR rendersthe Utah SIP substantially inadequate toattain or maintain the NAAQS or tocomply with other CAA requirements.

We also explained in our proposalthat R307-107-2 appears to give theexecutive secretary of the UAQBexclusive authority to determinewhether excess emissions have beencaused by an unavoidable breakdownand, thus, whether they constitute aviolation. R307-107-2 provides thatinformation submitted by a source "shallbe used by the executive secretary indetermining whether a violation hasoccurred and/or the need of furtherenforcement action." We explained thatthis provision is inconsistent with theenforcement structure of the CAA,which provides independent authorityto EPA and citizens to enforce SIP andother CAA emission limits. See 75 FR70892. We concluded that, because acourt could interpret R307-107-2 asundermining the ability of EPA andcitizens to independently exerciseenforcement discretion granted by theCAA, it is inconsistent with CAArequirements related to enforcementand, thus, renders the SIP substantiallyinadequate. Preclusion of EPA andcitizen enforcement could make itimpossible to penalize sourcenoncompliance (where the State mayhave erroneously concluded that

21642


exceedances were caused by anunavoidable breakdown) or gain sourcecompliance through injunctive relief.Also, potential preclusion of EPA andcitizen enforcement reduces theincentive for sources to comply becauseit reduces the likelihood of independentevaluation of unavoidable breakdownclaims by a court in an enforcementaction brought by EPA or citizens.

The thrust of several comments is thatwe have not presented facts or empiricalevidence that the UBR is not working orthat shows any measured or modeledimpact on attainment or maintenance ofa NAAQS due to excess emissionsresulting from an unavoidablebreakdown. As we indicated in ourproposal (see 75 FR 70892), we need notshow a direct causal link between anyspecific unavoidable breakdown excessemissions and violations of the NAAQSto conclude that the SIP is substantiallyinadequate. It is our interpretation thatthe fundamental integrity of the CAA'sSIP process and structure is underminedif emission limits relied on to meet CAArequirements can be exceeded withoutpotential recourse by any entity grantedenforcement authority by the CAA. Weare not restricted to issuing SIP callsonly after a violation of the NAAQS hasoccurred or only where a specificviolation can be linked to a specificexcess emissions event. It is sufficientthat emissions limits to which theunavoidable breakdown exemptionapplies have been, are being, and will berelied on to attain and maintain theNAAQS and meet other CAArequirements. Nor are we required towait for a judge to rule in a specificenforcement action that R307-107-2 hasa preclusive effect on EPA or citizenenforcement to determine that theprovision is inconsistent with the CAAand renders the SIP substantiallyinadequate.

5

Nonetheless, we note the following:1. Several counties along the Wasatch

Front in Utah (which includes thelargest population centers in the State)are designated nonattainment for PMo,PM 2.5, and SO 2, and some have recordedviolations of the 2008 0.075 ppm ozoneNAAQS as well. The Wasatch Front issubject to severe wintertime inversions,and several commenters noted that SaltLake County has at times experiencedsome of the worst air quality in thecountry. Exceedances of emissionlimitations due to unavoidable

5 EPA has previously issued SIP calls to correctdeficiencies related to SIP enforceability. Forexample, EPA issued SIP calls in the 1990s torequire States to revise their SIPs to allow for useof any credible evidence in enforcement actionswith respect to SIP emissions limits. See 62 FR8314, 8327 (February 24, 1997).

breakdowns increase pollutant levels inthe air in these nonattainment areas,exacerbating pollution there.6

2. Our experience related to refineries,power plants, and other sourcesindicates that potential emissionsduring malfunctions when normalprocesses or pollution controls arebypassed can be very high, farexceeding SIP limits. For example, datasubmitted by Holly Refining (Holly) inWoods Cross, Utah, to the State of Utahindicate that Holly flared nearly 11,000pounds of SO 2 in a 9-hour period duringa claimed breakdown event in June 2006and thousands of pounds during otherclaimed breakdown events of varyingduration (some on the order of onehour) between 2006 and 2010. By wayof comparison, the January 12, 2010permit limit for Holly's SRU tail gasincinerator is 1.6 tons (3,200 pounds) ofSO 2 per day. 7 During malfunctions,refineries in the Billings, Montana, areasometimes flared thousands of poundsof SO 2 over a two- or three-hour period,whereas the State had modeledattainment of the 3-hour SO 2 NAAQSbased on a routine flare emissions limitof 150 pounds per three hours. IfMontana had modeled the higheremissions, other emission limits wouldhave had to have been greatly curtailedfor the area to demonstrate attainment ofthe NAAQS. Our experience indicatesthat the flare emissions at Holly and inMontana are not unique. See, e.g., EPAEnforcement Alert, Volume 3, Number9, October 2000, "Frequent, RoutineFlaring May Cause Excessive,Uncontrolled Sulfur Dioxide Releases,"which we have included in the docketfor this action. Similarly, our experienceindicates that power plant emissionsduring malfunctions can greatly exceedemissions during routine operations.

3. A report by the EnvironmentalIntegrity Project, which we included inthe record for our notice of proposedrulemaking, also indicates thatmalfunction emissions can dwarf SIPand permit emissions limits. See"Gaming the System," August 2004,docket no. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0909-0042, pages 2, 5-9. See also, EPAEnforcement Alert cited above, p. 2.

6 In 2005, the State submitted a maintenance planfor PM10 for Salt Lake County. The State'sdispersion modeling, which we proposed todisapprove because of flaws, projected values veryclose to the 150 pg/m 3

24-hour NAAQS at the NorthSalt Lake monitor. If the State had usedassumptions we had proposed, the projected valueswould have been higher. Malfunction emissions areof particular concern where modeling predictsvalues just under the NAAQS.

In its 2005 SIP submittal for PM10 , the Stateproposed a combined S02 emission limit for Holly,which included all external combustion processequipment and all gas-fired compressor drivers, of4.7 tons per day.

We also proposed other bases for ourfinding of substantial inadequacy. Aswe indicated in our notice of proposedrulemaking, the UBR not only applies toSIP limits, but also to permit limits andnational technology-based standardslike the NSPS and NESHAPS. See 75 FR70892.

This means a source could use theprovisions of R307-107 to claim anexemption from best available controltechnology (BACT) or lowest achievableemission rate (LAER) limits in a majorsource permit. We have consistentlyinterpreted the Act to not allow foroutright exemptions from BACT limits,and the same logic applies to LAERlimits. See, e.g., 1977 memorandumentitled "Contingency Plan for FGDSystems During Downtime as aFunction of PSD," from Edward E. Reichto G.T. Helms and January 28, 1993memorandum entitled "Automatic orBlanket Exemptions for ExcessEmissions During Startup andShutdowns under PSD," from John B.Rasnic to Linda M. Murphy. As noted,in order to ensure non-degradation of airquality at all times under the PSDprogram and protection of the NAAQSat all times, it is necessary for a sourceto comply with its permit limits at alltimes.

To the extent any exemptions fromthe NSPS or NESHAPS are warranted,the Federal standards contained inEPA's regulations already specify theappropriate exemptions. See, e.g., 40CFR 60.48Da(c).8 No additionalexemptions or criteria are warranted orappropriate. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.10(a);40 CFR 63.12(a)(1); and the 1999 Policy,Attachment, at 3.9 Furthermore, inSierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DCCir. 2008), the DC Circuit determinedthat exemptions from compliance withCAA section 112 Maximum AchievableControl Technology (MACT) standardsduring periods of SSM wereinconsistent with CAA section 302(k),which requires continuous compliancewith emission limits. Thus, R307-107-1 is substantially inadequate because itimproperly provides an exemption andgrants discretion to the Utah executivesecretary not contained in and notsanctioned by the delegated Federalstandards.

8 Some NSPS do not provide any relief during

SSM. For example, the SO 2 and NOx limits underpart 60, subpart Db, apply at all times. See 40 CFR60.45b(a) and 60.46b(a).

9 As EPA noted in the 1999 Policy, "to the extenta state includes NSPS or NESHAPS in its SIP, thestandards should not deviate from those that werefederally promulgated. Because EPA set thesestandards taking into account technologicallimitations, additional exemptions would beinappropriate."

21643


(b) Comment: Commenters state thatEPA is incorrect in its interpretation andreliance on a number of court decisionsused in part to justify the SIP Call.Commenters indicate that MichiganDEQ v. Browner and Arizona PublicService Co. v. EPA are not relevant.Commenters state that EPA fails tomention other cases, such as Sierra Clubv. Georgia Power, which commentersallege are more on point and do notsupport EPA's proposed SIP call.Commenters also criticize EPA's citationof Sierra Club v. EPA, and claim thatEPA's "broad interpretation" is at oddswith a July 2009 letter from AdamKushner to industry.

Response: Our action is based on ourlongstanding interpretation of the CAA,which is reflected in our 1999 andearlier policy statements, among otherlocations. As we noted in our proposal(see 75 FR 70890), Arizona PublicService Co. v. EPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 1129(10th Cir. 2009) held that our 1999Policy was a "reasonable interpretationof the Clean Air Act." The court inMichigan DEQv. Browner, 230 F.3d181, 186 (6th Cir. 2000) similarly foundthat EPA's interpretation of section 110,as explained in the 1982 and 1983Policies, was reasonable and held that"EPA reasonably concluded thatMichigan's proposed SIP revision didnot meet the requirements of the CAA."

Contrary to commenters' arguments,these cases are relevant to our action.The courts agreed with EPA that it is notappropriate under CAA section 110 toprovide or approve an outrightexemption from SIP emissionlimitations, and the Michigan DEQ courtupheld EPA's determination thatMichigan's defective SSM revisions didnot meet the requirements of the CAA.

Commenters suggest that these casesare irrelevant because they didn'tinvolve a SIP call. However, if, as thesecourts held, EPA's interpretation isreasonable-that a malfunctionprovision that provides an exemptionfrom an emission limit does not meetthe minimum requirements of CAAsection 110-then logic leads to theconclusion that the provision issubstantially inadequate to meet section110's requirements with respect to SIPcompliance and enforceability.

EPA's past approval of a provisionthat fails to meet the minimumrequirements of the Act does not renderthe provision compliant, something EPAplainly acknowledged in its variouspolicy statements over the years. TheSIP call provisions of the Act provideEPA with one of the only means torevisit SIP decisions that may have beenwrong or ill-considered, or that havebeen brought into greater focus with the

passage of time and development ofrelevant knowledge and case law.

Contrary to commenters' assertion, wedid refer to Sierra Club v. Georgia PowerCo. in our proposal at 75 FR 70892, n.7, but inadvertently omitted the casename. We disagree that the case "is moreanalogous" or "contradicts EPA's currentinterpretation." The case merely heldthat EPA's 1999 policy did not changethe existing Georgia SIP, a propositionwe agree with and have acted inaccordance with here. See EPA'sDecember 5, 2001 clarification of the1999 Policy, which is in the docket. Ifwe thought the policy trumped theapproved SIP, there would be no needto issue a SIP call now. As Sierra Clubv. Georgia Power Co. suggested, we areissuing a SIP call to ensure that the UtahSIP meets the minimum requirements ofthe CAA. See 443 F.3d 1346, 1355 (11thCir. 2006).

Regarding Sierra Club v. EPA, 551F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), while we didnot cite the case as the main basis forour SIP call, we remain convinced it isrelevant even though it addressed thehazardous air pollutant (HAP)regulations. In particular, the courtsignificantly relied on section 302(k)'sdefinition of emission standard (as arequirement that limits the quantity,rate, or concentration of emissions of airpollutants on a continuous basis) toreach its ultimate holding disallowingEPA's exceptions from the MACTstandards and attempted reliance on thegeneral duty to minimize emissions. Aswith MACT standards, there is noindication that Congress intendedcompliance with NAAQS, orcompliance with emission limits reliedon to attain and maintain the NAAQS,be anything less than continuous. Also,we disagree with the comment that theUBR does not provide an expressexemption from SIP and other emissionlimits. The UBR states that "emissionsresulting from an unavoidablebreakdown will not be deemed aviolation of these regulations." This isan exemption. The provisions in theUBR requiring that an owner/operatortake "reasonable" measures to reduceemissions resulting from an unavoidablebreakdown are analogous to the generalduty provisions in EPA's MACTprovisions. The Sierra Club court foundthese general duty requirements werenot a substitute for a 112 emissionstandard. Here, we find the emissionsminimization requirements in the UBRare not a substitute for continuouslyapplicable emission limitations thatsupport attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS, and protection of PSDincrements and visibility.

We also disagree that our viewscontradict the views Adam Kushner(EPA's Director of the Office of CivilEnforcement) expressed in his July 2009letter to industry representatives. Mr.Kushner was delineating which MACTstandards were directly affected by thecourt's ruling and how they would beaffected. Mr. Kushner was notexpressing an opinion about the importof the Court's decision for other types ofemission standards and limitations. Wealso find noteworthy the followinglanguage from Mr. Kushner's letter:"Although these provisions [source-category specific SSM provisions] willremain in effect following the issuanceof the mandate in Sierra Club, EPArecognizes that the legality of suchsource category-specific SSM provisionsmay now be called into question, andEPA intends to evaluate them in light ofthe court's decision." EPA has sincerevised or proposed to revise severalMACT standards with source-specificmalfunction provisions to eliminate theexemptions from compliance duringperiods of malfunction. See, e.g., 76 FR15608 (March 21, 2011); 75 FR 54970(September 9, 2010); 75 FR 65068(October 21, 2010).

(c) Comment: EPA lacks theregulatory authority to make a SIP callbased on policy or guidance that has notbecome applicable law. The 1999 PolicyEPA cites as justification for the SIP Callhas never been subjected to the legalrequirements of notice and publicrulemaking under the AdministrativeProcedures Act. In addition,commenters assert that if EPA wereauthorized to regulate through policy, itwould be inappropriate in this casebecause the 2001 Policy 10 clarifies thatthe 1999 Policy was not intended toalter the status of any existingmalfunction, startup, or shutdownprovisions in a SIP that had beenapproved by EPA.

Response: The 1999 Policy reflectsour interpretation of the CAA. We havenot treated it as binding on the States orasserted that it changed existing SIPprovisions. Instead, we have done whatcommenters argue is necessary-wehave engaged in notice and commentrulemaking to determine whether a SIPcall is appropriate in this case. Throughthis rulemaking action, we haveevaluated provisions of the Utah SIP todetermine whether they are consistentwith our interpretation of the CAA asreflected in our policies. We providedcommenters with the opportunity to

10 "Re-Issuance of Clarification-StateImplementation Plans (SIPs): Policy RegardingExcess Emissions During Malfunction, Startup, andShutdown," Eric Schaefer and John Seitz, December5, 2001.

21644


comment on the proposed SIP call andour basis for it, and are only finalizingthe SIP call after carefully consideringcommenters' comments."I To the extentsome commenters may be arguing thatwe must conduct national rulemakingon our policy before we can conduct SIPcall rulemaking with respect to aspecific State malfunction provision, wefind no basis for this assertion in theCAA. We have evaluated the UBR,found it substantially inadequate asspecified in the CAA, and issued a SIPcall as required. The process we havefollowed and the substance of our actionare reasonable.

Commenters emphasize our failure tospecifically cite our December 5, 2001clarification to the 1999 Policy, inwhich we indicated that the 1999 Policywas not intended to "alter the status ofany existing malfunction, startup orshutdown provision in a SIP that hasbeen approved by EPA." 12 The 2001clarification merely states the obviouswell-understood principle-that anapproved SIP remains the approved SIPunless or until EPA undertakesrulemaking action to revise the SIP. SeeGeneral Motors v. United States, 496U.S. 530, 540-541 (1990). In otherwords, the 1999 Policy did not modifyexisting SIP provisions. Here, "in thecontext of future rulemaking" ascontemplated by the 2001 clarification,we have considered "the Guidance andthe statutory principles on which theGuidance is based." See December 5,2001 clarification.

One commenter argues that the 2001clarification "clarifies the 1999 Policydoes not apply to" the UBR. On thecontrary, because the UBR addresses thetreatment of excess emissions resultingfrom an unavoidable breakdown, EPA'sinterpretations reflected in the 1999Policy are clearly relevant. Also,nothing in the 2001 clarificationrejected EPA's statement in the 1999Policy that all EPA Regions "shouldreview the SIPs for their states in lightof this clarification and take steps toinsure that excess emissions provisionsin these SIPs are consistent with theattached guidance." As provided above,

11 We have applied the interpretation reflected inour policies in a number of other rulemakingactions. See, e.g., the Billings/Laurel FederalImplementation Plan, 73 FR 21418 (April 21, 2008);approvals of Colorado SSM rules, 71 FR 8958(February 22, 2006) and 73 FR 45879 (August 7,2008); partial approval and partial disapproval ofTexas SSM rules, 75 FR 26892 (May 13, 2010) and75 FR 68989 (November 10, 2010); disapproval ofMichigan SSM rules, 63 FR 8573 (February 20,1998); approval of Maricopa County, Arizona SSMrules, 67 FR 54957 (August 27, 2002).

12 We included the 2001 clarification in thedocket for our proposal but did not cite itspecifically.

the sole purpose of the 2001clarification was to expressly state thatthe policy-standing alone-did notserve to change the terms of anapproved SIP.

(d) Comment: EPA's proposed SIP callis justified regardless of its reliance onguidance. Commenter explains thatUtah's SIP cannot possibly assure theNAAQS and other CAA requirementswill be met if the SIP allows a blanketexemption from emission limits,particularly because the effectiveness ofUtah's SIP is premised upon compliancewith emission limits.

Response: Our SIP call relies on ourinterpretations of the CAA as reflectedin numerous policy statements andactions over the years. Otherwise, weagree with the commenter.

(e) Comment: Commenters assert thatEPA's SIP call is inconsistent whencompared with other EPA SSM policessuch as those for NSPS in 40 CFR60.8(c).

Response: Emission limitations inSIPs must ensure ambient levels ofcriteria pollutants that attain andmaintain the NAAQS. For purposes ofdemonstrating attainment andmaintenance, States assume sourcecompliance with emission limitations atall times. Thus, provisions that exemptcompliance during SSM undermine theintegrity of the SIP. This principleunderlies EPA's interpretationsregarding SIP SSM provisions asreflected in our various policystatements over the years. For example,in our 1999 Policy we stated thefollowing:

"EPA has a fundamental responsibility

under the Clean Air Act to ensure that SIPsprovide for attainment and maintenance ofthe national ambient air quality standards("NAAQS") and protection of PSDincrements. Thus, EPA cannot approve anaffirmative defense provision that wouldundermine the fundamental requirement ofattainment and maintenance of the NAAQS,or any other requirement of the Clean AirAct. See sections 110(a) and (1) of the CleanAir Act * * * Accordingly, an acceptableaffirmative defense provision may only applyto actions for penalties, but not to actions forinjunctive relief.

Generally, since SIPs must provide forattainment and maintenance of the nationalambient air quality standards and theachievement of PSD increments, all periodsof excess emissions must be consideredviolations. Accordingly, any provision thatallows for an automatic exemption for excessemissions is prohibited.

Automatic exemptions might aggravateambient air quality by excusing excessemissions that cause or contribute to aviolation of an ambient air quality standard."

Similarly, in our 1982 Policy, we statedthe following:

"The rationale for establishing theseemissions as violations, as opposed togranting automatic exemptions, is that SIPsare ambient-based standards and anyemissions above the allowable may cause orcontribute to violations of the nationalambient air quality standards."

Thus, EPA has long said that automaticexemptions from SIP emission limits arenot appropriate because the SIPs are forthe purpose of ensuring health-basedstandards are met and maintained. 13

NSPS and other technology-basedstandards, on the other hand, do nothave to ensure attainment of theNAAQS. Instead, CAA section 111(a)(1)provides that a new source "standard ofperformance" must reflect "the degree ofemission limitation achievable throughthe application of the best system ofemission reduction which (taking intoaccount the cost of achieving suchreduction and any nonair quality healthand environmental impact and energyrequirements)" EPA determines hasbeen "adequately demonstrated." Thus,historically, EPA has held differentinterpretations regarding the propertreatment of excess emissions duringSSM under health-based standardsaddressed in SIPs and the NSPStechnology-based standards. 14 In the SIPcontext, and in the context of SIP-basedpermits, EPA's interpretation of theCAA is reasonable, and it is reasonablefor EPA to require that Utah revise theUBR or remove it from the SIP.

(f) Comment: The Utah UBR has beenfederally-approved in the SIP for over30 years. Based on empirical UDAQmonitoring since that approval, the UtahUBR has not contributed to a NAAQSexceedance.

Response: As indicated above, wedisagree that the commenters' suggestedtest-whether there is demonstratedproof that a specific excess emissionevent allowed under the UBR hascontributed to a specific monitored

13 The 1999 Policy defines "automatic exemption"as "a generally applicable provision in a SIP thatwould provide that if certain conditions existedduring a period of excess emissions, then thoseexceedances would not be considered violations."The UBR provides such an automatic exemption:"Except as otherwise provided in R307-107,emissions resulting from an unavoidablebreakdown will not be deemed a violation of theseregulations." In this notice, we also refer to this asan outright exemption or an exemption.

14 As we noted in our proposal and elsewhere inthis action, however, the 2008 Sierra Club case heldthat EPA rules exempting major sources fromtechnology-based NESHAP standards during SSMperiods violated the CAA's requirement in section112 that some standard meeting that provision'ssubstantive requirements apply continuously.Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3D 1019, 1028 (DC Cir.2008).

21645


NAAQS exceedance-is the test wemust use. As stated above, for purposesof demonstrating attainment andmaintenance of the NAAQS (and forprotecting PSD increments andvisibility), States assume sourcecompliance with SIP emissionlimitations at all times. 15 Thus, it isreasonable to insist that the SIP notinterfere with or undermine the abilityto enforce compliance with SIPlimitations at all times. The UBR failsthis test for the reasons already stated.

In addition, even if the commenterswere correct that the sole reasonable testis whether the UBR has contributed toa monitored exceedance of the NAAQS,we cannot discern whether commentersare saying there has never been abreakdown event on a day when amonitor has exceeded a NAAQS. (Thecommenters submitted no dataregarding claims under the UBR.)However, based on monitored violationsof the NAAQS, Utah has had areasdesignated nonattainment for variouspollutants over the course of many yearsand continues to have nonattainmentareas for PM 2.5, PM 10 , and S0 2. Areas inUtah will likely be designatednonattainment for ozone again in thefuture. As noted in a prior response,malfunction-based emissions atstationary sources can lead to largeemissions in a short period of time, andit is reasonable to conclude that excessemissions during malfunctions havecontributed and/or have the potential tocontribute to NAAQS exceedances andviolations in the urbanized areas ofUtah.' 6 If EPA promulgates new, morestringent NAAQS, the potential forNAAQS exceedances and violationsonly increases.

Several commenters emphasize thatthe UBR has been in the SIP for morethan 30 years and that EPA hasapproved it more than once. We firstapproved the UBR in 1980 only afterstating in our 1979 proposed rulemakingaction that we could not fully approvethe UBR "because it exempts certainexcess emissions from being violationsof the Air Conservation Regulations"and only after opining that exemptionsgranted under the UBR would not apply

15 We note that dispersion modeling, based on SIPemission limitations, is often required todemonstrate attainment and maintenance of theNAAQS because modeling can predict pollutantlevels at receptor locations throughout an area,whereas monitors are limited in number andlocation. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.112; 40 CFR part 51,appendix W.

16 Based on data in EPA's Air Quality Systemdatabase for the years 2005 through 2010, therewere 171 days during which the PM 2.5 NAAQS wasexceeded at a monitor in Utah and 154 days duringwhich the 2006 ozone NAAQS was exceeded at amonitor in Utah.

as a matter of Federal law. See 44 FR28688, 28691 (May 16, 1979).

Second, our approval of the UBRpreceded the 1982 and 1983 Policies.These memoranda to EPA's RegionalAdministrators were issued in responseto requests for clarification of EPA'spolicy regarding excess emissionsduring SSM. Presumably, thesememoranda were issued becausepreviously there had been someconfusion about EPA's interpretation ofthe CAA on this issue. A comparison ofthe UBR to these policies reveals thatthe UBR did not and does not comportwith the interpretation reflected in thepolicies. For example, the 1982 Policystates that EPA can approve SIPrevisions that incorporate an"enforcement discretion approach" thatrequires the State agency to treat allexcess emissions due to malfunctions asviolations and commence a proceedingto notify the source of its violation.Then the State agency would determinewhether to initiate an enforcementaction based on specific, detailedcriteria contained in the 1982 Policy.The UBR does not treat all excessemissions as violations, does not requirethe State to initiate a proceeding tonotify the source of its violation, anddoes not contain the criteria consistentwith those contained in the 1982 Policy.The 1982 Policy stated, "Where the SIPis deficient, the SIP should be made toconform to the present policy." Contraryto the 1982 Policy's directive, the SIPwas not made to conform to the 1982Policy.

We approved a revised version of theUBR in 1994 with no preamblediscussion except to note that the Utahair rules had been renumbered and newrequirements had been added to the SIP.See 57 FR 60149 (December 18, 1992)and 59 FR 35036 (July 8, 1994). Thereis no indication that EPA evaluated thesubstance of the UBR or any of the otherre-numbered provisions that werealready included as part of the approvedSIP. Id. We also note that the 1994approval preceded our 1999 Policy,which re-alerted EPA regional offices tothe issues regarding SIP SSM rules,acknowledged that some existing SIPsincluded deficient SSM provisions, anddirected the Regions to review the SIPsand seek to correct such provisions.

Subsequent to EPA's issuance of the1999 Policy, we approved anotherrenumbering of the Utah SIP, includinga renumbering of the UBR. Again, EPAdid not consider the substance of theUBR, but did expressly reference EPA'songoing concerns with SIP rules andspecifically noted that Utah hadcommitted to address those concerns,which included concerns with the UBR.

We indicated that we would "continueto require the State to correct any ruledeficiencies despite EPA's approval" ofthe recodification. See 70 FR 59681,59683 (October 13, 2005).

In other words, we indicated in the1979 proposal that preceded our 1980approval that we could not fullyapprove the UBR because it providedexemptions from violations, and in oursubsequent actions, we did notreanalyze the adequacy of the rule.However, we did indicate in our mostrecent re-numbering approval our intentto require the State to correct thedeficiencies in the UBR.

Furthermore, since EPA issued the1999 Policy, we have been working withUtah in an attempt to change the UBRon a cooperative basis. As noted in ourproposal, Utah acknowledged that theprovision could benefit fromclarification and initiated rulemakingtoward that end. In an April 18, 2002letter, Utah also specifically committedto address our concerns with the rule.See 75 FR 70891. However, Utah nevercompleted a change to the UBR despiteour substantial efforts to help Utahdevelop a revised rule that would meetCAA requirements. Id. The delay thathas resulted from our attempt to reacha consensus-based solution does notdiminish our authority to issue a SIPcall.

(g) Comment: Commenter asserts that"there must be evidence of newinformation that would explain howUtah's SIP has somehow beentransformed from adequate tosubstantially inadequate." Commentercites Clean Air Implementation Projectv. EPA, 150 F.3d 1200, 1207 (DC Cir.1998) for this proposition. Commenterasserts that no such information hasbeen provided.

Response: Commenter's interpretationwould preclude EPA from changing itsinterpretations and conclusions overtime or from determining that priorapprovals were a mistake, and issuing aSIP call on such bases. CAA sections110(a)(2)(H) and 110(k)(5) do notconstrain us in that way, and Clean AirImplementation Project v. EPA did nothold that a SIP previously found by EPAto be adequate could not besubsequently found to be inadequateabsent evidence of new information. Onthe contrary, the case did not involve achallenge to a SIP call at all, and thestatements the commenter refers to weredicta involving a completely differentset of facts. 1 7

17 Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPAaddressed a challenge to EPA's credible evidencerule and held that the challenge was not ripe fordecision.

21646


As a practical matter, our pastdecisions are not infallible. They reflecta decision made at a particular point intime by a particular set of individualsbased on a particular understanding (ormisunderstanding) of facts, policy, andlaw. Our 1999 Policy expresslyrecognizes this: "A recent review of SIPssuggests that several contain provisionsthat appear to be inconsistent with thispolicy, either because they wereinadvertently approved after EPA issuedthe 1982-1983 guidance or because theywere part of the SIP at that time, andhave never been removed." 1999 Policyat 1. Further, the 1999 Policy advised allRegions to review the SIPs for theirStates in light of the clarification andtake steps to insure that excessemissions provisions in these SIPs areconsistent with the policy. Id. at 4.Similarly, EPA's 1982 Policy explainedthat the Agency, because it had beeninundated with proposed SIPs in theearly 1970's and had limited experienceprocessing them, had not givensufficient attention to the "adequacy,enforceability, and consistency" of SSMprovisions. Thus, "many SIPs wereapproved with broad and loosely-defined provisions to control excessemissions." 1982 Policy at 1.

The 1999 Policy can be viewed asrefreshing EPA's institutional memory.It reiterated and clarified EPA'slongstanding interpretation andprovided direction to EPA's regionaloffices to review SIPs from theirrespective States. This caused EPARegion 8 to review SIPs for Utah and theother States within the region. As notedin our proposal, several Region 8 Stateshave submitted revisions to their SSMrules in response to our review, andEPA has approved revised rules forColorado and Wyoming. See 75 FR70890. Our review of the Utah rulerevealed that it was inconsistent withCAA requirements, and we initiatedsustained efforts to get the State torevise the rule. The State did not revisethe rule. See 75 FR 70890-70891.

A review of facts here indicates thatEPA's 1980 approval of the UBR was ill-considered because even then our basicinterpretation that all excess emissionsmust be treated as violations applied. Asdiscussed in our proposal for thisaction, EPA said in its 1979 proposal onthe UBR that EPA "may not fullyapprove Regulation 4.7 because itexempts certain excess emissions frombeing violations of the Air ConservationRegulations" but then proposed toapprove the UBR anyway. Clearly, theregulation did not comport with EPA'sinterpretations regarding SSMprovisions in SIPs. However, withalmost no explanation, EPA justified its

approval based on a conclusion that anyexemptions granted by Utah "are notapplicable as a matter of federal law."See 44 FR 28691. This did not obviatethe deficiency in the UBR. Also, EPA'sinterpretation of that time-thatexemptions granted by Utah would notaffect Federal enforcement-could bequestioned and rejected in court. Whilesome commenters state that EPA'senforcement discretion would not beaffected by the Utah executivesecretary's decision, others offer no suchconcession. See, e.g., UtahManufacturers Association, et al.,comment letter at 5 versus UtahIndustry Environmental Coalition, et al.,comment letter at 14, which are in thedocket for this action. Furthermore,Phillips Petroleum asserted in a 1997EPA enforcement action that Utah'snon-violation determinations under theUBR were binding on EPA. 18

While we disagree with thecommenter that a SIP call is onlyallowed where there is new externalinformation that the SIP is invalid,19

facts since our 1980 approval, such asarguments made in enforcement casescontrary to EPA's interpretation, wouldcertainly qualify as new informationjustifying a SIP call. Among otherthings, the UBR is substantiallyinadequate because it is burdened bythe uncertainty of whether EPA orcitizens may pursue independentenforcement where the Utah executivesecretary decides an excess emission isnot a violation.

(h) Comment: Commenters state thatEPA mischaracterizes the Utah UBR inthat Utah's rule does not allow foroutright exemptions from BACT orLAER limits, and does not undermineprotection of the NAAQS, PSDincrements, or visibility.

Response: We do not agree. Under theUBR, excess emissions resulting from

1' In 1997, EPA initiated an enforcement action

against the Phillips Petroleum refinery in DavisCounty, Utah when the State declined to pursueenforcement. Among other things, EPA alleged thatPhillips had violated its one-hour emission limitcontained in the Utah SIP for the Salt Lake CountyPM10 nonattainment area. The State, with little orno apparent analysis, decided that all or nearly allof the more than 1,000 exceedances EPA cited inits complaint against Phillips were caused byunavoidable breakdowns and were not violationsunder the UBR. Phillips alleged in pleadings thatthe State's decision precluded EPA enforcement asa matter of law. We disagreed with the State'sdecision and with Phillips' arguments, but the courtnever decided the issue because a settlement wasreached. We have included in the docket for thisaction various pleadings and documents from thePhillips enforcement case that reflect the facts citedherein.

19 We also may have been justified using ourauthority under 110(k)(6) to revise the rule, buthave decided the better course here is to providethe State the opportunity to revise the SIP throughthe SIP call process.

unavoidable breakdowns are notviolations. We consider that an outrightexemption, which prevents enforcementaction where, for example, it may beneeded to protect the NAAQS. Thecommenter's premise-that unavoidablebreakdowns will occur regardless of therule-assumes a continued right topollute regardless of whether suchemissions might undermine the verypurpose of the SIP-attainment andmaintenance of the NAAQS. It alsoassumes that the UBR provides adequateincentives to avoid malfunctions andprotect the NAAQS. We do not agree.See our other responses.

(i) Comment: A commenter arguesthat the UBR does not precludeinjunctive relief. The commenter citesUDAQ's ability to pursue injunctiverelief if it decides the excess emissionswere not caused by an unavoidablebreakdown.

Response: The commenter saysnothing about EPA or citizen authoritywhere UDAQ decides, erroneously ornot, that the excess emissions werecaused by an unavoidable breakdown,or where the excess emissions were infact caused by an unavoidablebreakdown as defined in the UBR. It isour interpretation that injunctive reliefmust be preserved regardless of theState determination and regardless ofthe cause of the exceedance. Protectionof the NAAQS should not besubservient to a source's desire tocontinue operating as it has, or its"need" to continue polluting. As wehave explained in our various policystatements over the years, allexceedances must be treated asviolations to allow protection of theNAAQS, and no defense to injunctiverelief is appropriate. See the 1982, 1983,and 1999 Policies.

Also, as to UDAQ's enforcementdiscretion, we find it likely that the UBRwould prevent the State from obtaininginjunctive relief where the breakdownmeets the criteria in the UBR to beclassified as unavoidable.

(j) Comment: Commenters state thatcontrary to EPA's assertion, thediscretion afforded the UDAQ executivesecretary under the unavoidablebreakdown rule does not limit EPA'sability to overfile or a third party'sability to file a citizen's suit. Anothercommenter states that EPA lacks areasonable basis to presume"uncertainty" about reservedenforcement authority.

Response: The UBR language inquestion reads: "The submittal of suchinformation shall be used by theexecutive secretary in determiningwhether a violation has occurred and/orthe need of further enforcement action."

21647


The plain language appears to grant theexecutive secretary the authority todetermine whether excess emissionsconstitute a violation or not. Ourapproval of that language could beconstrued by a court as ceding thatauthority to the State. A court couldconclude that it should not resort to theinterpretation we offered with our 1980approval-that an exemption granted bythe Utah executive secretary would notapply as a matter of Federal law-because the language of the regulation isclear on its face.20 Also, we did notrepeat our 1980 interpretation insubsequent approvals. In addition,representations made by thecommenters here would not bind themor other entities in subsequentenforcement actions.

The State suggests that it would not"forget EPA's interpretation of the law."But, in its comments, the State does notsay it agrees with EPA's interpretationor that it or another entity would notargue against EPA's interpretation in anenforcement action. As noted, at leastone defendant-Phillips Petroleum-has already argued against our 1980interpretation. To our knowledge, theState has never provided aninterpretation that the UBR was notintended to and does not have apreclusive effect on EPA or citizenenforcement.

At best, the UBR language isambiguous, and in the face of thisambiguity, a court could defer to theState's interpretation, whoseinterpretation of the rule is currentlyunknown. Ambiguous language canundermine the purpose of the SIP andcompliance with CAA requirements. 21

The commenters would have usremain silent in face of the uncertaintycaused by the UBR language. Thereasonable course is to require the Statethrough our SIP call authority to changethe UBR to remove its potentialimpediment to our and citizens'exercise of our independent

20 See, e.g., U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 736 F.Supp.

1539 (W.D. Mo. 1990) and U.S. v General MotorsCorp., 702 F.Supp. 133 (N.D. Texas 1988) (EPAcould not pursue enforcement of SIP emissionlimits where States had approved alternative limitsunder procedures EPA had approved into the SIP);Florida Power & Light Co. v. Costle, 650 F.2d 579,588 (5th Cir. 1981) (EPA to be accorded nodiscretion in interpreting State law). While we donot agree with the holdings of these cases, we thinkthe reasonable course is to eliminate anyuncertainty about reserved enforcement authorityby requiring the State to revise or remove theunavoidable breakdown rule from the SIP.

21 In approving Colorado's affirmative defense

rule for startup and shutdown, we specificallydisapproved one section of the rule that we feltcould have been construed to cede authority toColorado to determine whether a source hadestablished the elements of the affirmative defense.71 FR at 8959 (February 22, 2006).

enforcement authority under CAAsections 113 and 304.22 The UBR'sthreat to our and citizens' independentenforcement authority under the CAArenders the SIP substantiallyinadequate.

The State suggests that our action isunreasonable because it has taken us solong to recognize and address theproblem. As we noted above, issuanceof the 1999 Policy spurred our re-examination of the Utah SIP. Inparticular, the 1999 Policy clarified thatSIPs should not include provisionswhereby a State's enforcement decisionwould "bar EPA's or citizens' ability toenforce applicable requirements." 1999Policy at 3. The Phillips Petroleum casealso influenced us. The State does notmention that we attempted to addressour concerns cooperatively with theState since shortly after the 1999 Policywas issued, and for many yearsthereafter.

(k) Comment: One commentersuggests that the potential preclusiveeffect of the executive secretary'sviolation/non-violation determinationsunder the UBR may be "in keeping withthe role given to states in SIP matters."

Response: We disagree. Sections 113and 304 of the Act clearly provideindependent enforcement authority toEPA and citizens. While section 304limits citizens' authority where a Stateor EPA "has commenced and isdiligently prosecuting a civil action,"nothing in the CAA suggests thatCongress intended or required States tohave exclusive authority to determinewhether an exceedance constitutes aviolation. Nor is there any rationalreason EPA should be relegated, as thecommenter suggests, to an action undersection 113(a)(2) of the Act-toessentially wait for "widespread"dereliction of duty on Utah's part-tocorrect this problem in the UBR. Ouruse of SIP call authority to correct theproblem is reasonable. We haveresponsibility to implement andinterpret the CAA, and we reject thecommenter's interpretation that the"balance of authority in Utah's SIP andthe UBR is in keeping with the rolegiven to states in SIP matters." Contraryto the commenter's suggestion, we arenot required to wait for a court todetermine in the context of anenforcement action whether thepotential preclusive effect of the UBRlanguage is consistent with the CAA.Congress did not hamstring us in that

2 2 The UBR could be easily revised to address the

problem. The sentence in question could bechanged to read, "The submittal of such informationshall be used by the executive secretary indetermining whether to pursue enforcementaction."

way; instead it provided us withauthority to issue a SIP call to addresssubstantial inadequacies in the SIP.

(1) Comment: Commenters argue thatEPA's preferred approach would haveno impact on emissions becauseunavoidable breakdowns are by theirnature unavoidable regardless of therule governing such events.

Response: First, as we explain above,the UBR precludes injunctive reliefwhen the excess emissions fall withinthe UBR's coverage. As we haveexplained, this is inconsistent with theCAA. Commenters do not address this,but instead appear to assume the needto pollute trumps protection of theNAAQS.

Second, how "unavoidable" is definedmakes a difference. Depending on thedefinition, different incentives withrespect to design, operation, andmaintenance are created. We find thatthe criteria contained in the UBR are notas extensive or rigorous as the criteria inthe 1999 Policy for asserting anaffirmative defense to penalty actions.For example, the UBR indicates thatbreakdowns caused by "poormaintenance" or "careless operation" or"any other preventable upset conditionor preventable equipment breakdown"shall not be considered unavoidablebreakdowns. Unlike the UBR, the 1999Policy specifically addresses potentialdesign flaws in addition to issues withmaintenance and operation: "The excessemissions were not part of a recurringpattern indicative of inadequate design,operation, or maintenance." The lack ofspecificity in the UBR could lead a courtto conclude that the rule was notintended to reach back to the design ofthe facility or its control equipment. Inaddition, the UBR does not indicatewho has the burden of proof regardingclaims of unavoidable breakdown. The1999 Policy clearly provides that thesource has the burden to prove theelements of the affirmative defense topenalties.

Third, who decides whether abreakdown qualifies as unavoidablemakes a difference. As we haveindicated, the UBR appears to give theUtah executive secretary exclusiveauthority to determine whether aviolation has occurred-i.e., whether abreakdown was an unavoidablebreakdown. As noted, potentialpreclusion of EPA and citizenenforcement reduces the incentive forsources to improve their design,maintenance, and operation practices.

(m) Comment: Commenters assert thatUtah's Unavoidable Breakdown Rule isgenerally consistent with EPA's criteriain the 1999 Policy and provide theirown side-by-side comparison of the

21648


1999 Policy's affirmative defenseprovisions to the relevant provisions inUtah's Unavoidable Breakdown Rule.Commenters state that this comparisonshows the criteria contained in the 1999Policy are addressed "in all materialrespects" by the Utah UBR, and that itis therefore difficult to understandEPA's conclusion of substantialinadequacy.

Response: The commenters have notalleviated our concerns. In our proposaland elsewhere in this notice, weidentify fundamental flaws in the UBRthat render the UBR substantiallyinadequate regardless of the criteria fordetermining whether a breakdown isunavoidable.

We also disagree with the commentersthat the criteria are equivalent. We findthat the UBR lacks the specificitycontained in the 1999 Policy. Forexample, the 1999 Policy indicates thatthe source needed to use off-shift laborand overtime, to the extent practicable,to make repairs and needed to makerepairs expeditiously when it knew orshould have known that emissionslimits were being exceeded. Thisspecificity helps define the more generaladmonition in the policy that the sourceneeds to employ good practices forminimizing emissions. We have alreadynoted that the UBR criteria do notappear to address proper design of thefacility, and they do not requirereporting of all breakdowns. Also, theUBR does not require that the owner oroperator document its actions inresponse to the breakdown with signed,contemporaneous operating logs.

Finally, we note that one significantdifference between the affirmativedefense described in the 1999 Policyand the UBR is that the affirmativedefense recognizes that a violation ofthe emissions standard has occurredand provides relief only for actions forpenalties. The UBR provides that theexcess emissions are excused and wouldprohibit any action for penalties andany action for injunctive relief.

(n) Comment: The terms of the UBRare analogous to the criteria that EPA's1982 and 1983 policies provided foranalyzing whether a malfunction oughtto spur enforcement action under theenforcement discretion approach. TheUBR does not provide an automaticexemption as described in thosepolicies.

Response: See our previous response.Also, assuming the comment regardingthe criteria is relevant, we disagree withthe commenter. The UBR is inconsistentwith the 1982 and 1983 Policies inseveral respects. Specifically, the 1983Policy states that "EPA can approve SIPrevisions which incorporate the

'enforcement discretion approach.' Suchan approach can require the source todemonstrate to the appropriate Stateagency that the excess emissions,though constituting a violation, weredue to an unavoidable malfunction. Anymalfunction provision must provide forthe commencement of a proceeding tonotify the source of its violation and todetermine whether enforcement actionshould be undertaken for any period ofexcess emissions." (Emphasis added).The UBR does not require the State toinitiate a proceeding to notify the sourceof its violation. Moreover, contrary tothe foregoing, the UBR specificallyprovides that the executive secretarymay decide that the excess emissionsare not a violation, which couldpreclude enforcement action by EPA orcitizens as well as injunctive relief.Finally, the 1999 Policy clarified themeaning of the term "automaticexemption." As we explain elsewhere,the UBR clearly provides an automaticexemption.

(o) Comment: EPA fails toacknowledge Utah Rule R307-107-1,'Application', which states "Breakdownsthat are caused entirely or in part bypoor maintenance, careless operation, orany other preventable upset conditionor preventable equipment breakdownshall not be considered unavoidablebreakdown." Therefore, commentersstate EPA's complaint claiming that "therule's exemption reduces a source'sincentive to design, operate, andmaintain its facility to meet emissionlimits at all times" is without merit.

Response: We disagree. First, thequoted language is part of the criteriacontained in the UBR. See our responsesto comments comparing the criteria ofthe UBR to the criteria contained in ourSSM policies. Second, considered as awhole, we conclude that the UBRreduces a source's incentive to meet itsemission limits at all times. We haveexplained the basis for our view in ourresponses to previous comments. Inparticular, the rule appears to give theexecutive secretary exclusive authorityto decide whether a breakdown meetsthe criteria under the UBR and thus,whether an exceedance is a violation.(p) Comment: Commenters assert that

EPA's SIP call is inconsistent with theFederal-State partnership ascontemplated in the CAA. Commentersstate that the CAA does not contemplatemandates to require a State to modify itsSIP, without regard to environmental orair quality benefits, simply because EPAhas a particular policy it wants toadvance.

Response: We are not acting at oddswith the CAA's contemplated Federal-State partnership. The CAA establishes

minimum requirements for SIPs anddoes not, as the commenters indicate,limit EPA's action to simply reviewinga SIP to determine whether it willprovide for attainment and maintenanceof the Act. Section 110(a)(2) provides aspecific list of obligations that a Statemust meet and we are acting to ensurethe Utah SIP meets those minimumrequirements. In particular, we areacting to ensure that SIP emissionlimits, and related permit limits, whichare for the purpose of attaining andmaintaining the health-based air qualitystandards, protecting increments, andimproving visibility in national parksand wilderness areas, can be enforced atall times as contemplated by sections110 and 302 of the Act. We are alsoacting to ensure that Utah's SIP does notundermine delegated national standardslike NSPS and NESHAPS.

(q) Comment: It is left to the states,and not EPA, to choose how they willachieve assigned emission reductionlevels. Section 110 allows for a SIP callonly if the state is not achievingNAAQS. As long as a state achieves theapplicable air quality standards,Congress did not intend EPA to requirea plan revision merely because itdisagrees with the measure that a stateimplements.

Response: We are not interfering withUtah's selection of SIP emissions limits.We are acting to ensure that one elementof the SIP-the UBR-is modified orremoved so that it does not interferewith one of the minimum requirementsof the CAA-that the SIP limits reliedon to attain and maintain the NAAQS,protect increments, and protectvisibility apply and be enforceable at alltimes. Furthermore, in the context ofNSPS and NESHAPS, to which the UBRalso applies, it is up to EPA to selectemission limits (and any exemptions),not the State.

We disagree that section 110 onlyallows a SIP call if the State is notachieving the NAAQS. One commentercites Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397,1410 (DC Cir. 1997) to support its view,but that court was addressing whetherEPA could impose specific controlrequirements through its NOx SIP calland did not reach the holding thecommenter alleges. Such a holdingwould be inconsistent with the plainlanguage of section 110 and thelegislative history. Congress specificallyamended CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) in1977 to add the phrase, "or to otherwisecomply with any additionalrequirements established under thischapter" to the language, "issubstantially inadequate to attain thenational ambient air quality standard."CAA section 110(k)(5), added in 1990, is

21649


in accord. In other words, there areother instances in which a SIP call maybe issued. Fundamentally, SIP limitsmust be enforceable and applycontinuously to meet CAA requirements(CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and302(k)), and where these requirementsare not met, a SIP call is warranted.

Furthermore, as noted already, anumber of areas in Utah are designatednonattainment and have violated, or areviolating various NAAQS.

(z') Comment: Some commenters assertthat allowing EPA to proceed with a SIPcall here in the absence of data showingthe UBR has caused specific NAAQSviolations could set the stage forunfettered, arbitrary EPA SIP calls withrespect to any number of state rules. Acommenter asserts that EPA's SIP callruns counter to past EPA SIP calls.Another asserts that EPA erroneouslyfinds that the SIP call does not haveFederalism implications. A commenterreferences an EPA action under CAAsection 110(k)(6) with respect to aNevada malfunction rule to argue thatthe SIP call is arbitrary.

Response: We explain above why wethink we have a valid basis for the SIPcall. We note that we have rarely issuedSIP calls, but in any event, thecommenters' fears about potential futureEPA SIP calls are irrelevant to thisaction. The question is whether we havereasonably concluded that the UBRrenders the Utah SIP substantiallyinadequate as provided under 110(k)(5).We conclude we have. Whether otherSIPs or SIP rules are substantiallyinadequate will depend on the languageof those rules and facts relevant to them.The comment that this SIP call isinconsistent with past EPA SIP calls isalso inaccurate. While in some casesEPA has issued SIP calls to addressspecific violations of the NAAQS, EPAhas also issued a SIP Call notifyingcertain States that their SIPs wereinadequate to comply with sections110(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the CAA becausethe SIPs could be interpreted to limitthe types of evidence or informationthat could be used for determiningcompliance with and establishingviolations of emissions limits. See 62 FR8314, 8327 (February 24, 1997); October20, 1999 letter from William Yellowtailto Governor Marc Racicot. We stand byour conclusion that the SIP call does nothave Federalism implications within themeaning of Executive Order 13132; weare issuing a SIP call as required bysections 110(a)((2)(H) and 110(k)(5) ofthe CAA, following a finding ofsubstantial inadequacy. Finally,regarding the vague reference (withoutcitation) to EPA Region 9's proposal toaddress issues with the Nevada SIP

using the authority of CAA section110(k)(6) (not section 110(a)(2)(H) or110(k)(5)), we are unable to ascertain therelevance. Section 110(k)(6) provides anadditional tool to ensure that SIPs areconsistent with the requirements of theAct, and whether it could have beenused in this instance does not implicatewhether sections 110(a)(2)(H) and110(k)(5) are appropriate tools to use. Tothe extent the commenter is suggestingthat our SIP call is arbitrary becauseEPA Region 9 has not finalized itsproposed 110(k)(6) action, werespectfully disagree.

(s) Comment: Utah's UBR is "clearlyless stringent than the CAA and EPArules and guidance."

Response: We agree that the UBR doesnot meet minimum CAA requirementsand thus is substantially inadequate.

C. Sanctions

(a) Comment: Commenter asserts thatEPA fails to meet the requirements toimpose mandatory sanctions under theCAA because sanctions can only betriggered by a "finding of substantialinadequacy." The commenter alsoasserts that sanctions are unwarrantedbecause Utah has always acted in goodfaith to involve all stakeholders,including EPA, in an attempt to craft aclarified rule. The commenter expressesconcern that sanctions would harmUtah's economy in these difficulteconomic times and indicates that EPA"should be circumspect in brandishingits sanctions club."

Response: This rulemaking actionfinalizes our finding of substantialinadequacy under CAA section110(k)(5), and the State is required tosubmit a SIP revision in response to thefinding of substantial inadequacy. If theState fails to submit the required SIP,the 18-month period before mandatorysanctions apply under section 179 willbe triggered.

Under CAA section 179, whether ornot Utah has acted in good faith tochange the UBR is irrelevant; we lackauthority to forestall the mandatorysanctions if EPA determines Utah hasfailed to respond to the SIP call orsubmits an incomplete or disapprovableSIP. Utah, however, has the power toavoid sanctions and any economicimpacts to the State by submitting anapprovable SIP addressing our SIP call.We have provided additional time, atthe State's request, for the State to makeits submission. Finally, as we noted inour proposal, other States in the Regionhave changed their SSM rules andgained EPA's approval.

(b) Comment: If EPA were to imposestatewide sanctions, it would violate 40CFR 52.30(b) if the criteria of 40 CFR

52.30(c) are met by one or more politicalsubdivisions within the State.

Response: No commenter hassuggested that a political subdivisionwithin Utah meets the criteria of 40 CFR52.30(c). However, as described in the"Final Action" section of this action, weare deferring a decision on whether toimpose sanctions under section 110(m)and will consider any comments on theissue of imposing sanctions undersection 110(m) if and when we takefinal action on this issue in the future.

(c) Comment: EPA's discretion underthe CAA "must not be unreasonable orarbitrary. Since the EPA has notidentified any reasons upon whichconsideration of statewide sanctionswas based, the EPA has not providedadequate notice to the public of whetherthe exercise of discretionary authorityunder CAA Section 110(m) isappropriate in this case."

Response: While we provided areason in our proposal-namely, thatthe UBR applies statewide-we aredeferring a decision on whether toimpose discretionary sanctions.

(d) Comment: Transportation andmobile sources should not be punishedfor a rule governing industry operations.The commenter therefore recommendsthat EPA "include a 'Protective finding'in the SIP call for mobile sources,"which "would prevent the automatic'freeze' of conformity and allow foroperations to continue for at least twoyears after an EPA disapproval takeseffect." Another commenter expressesconcern that sanctions would negativelyimpact transit services.

Response: EPA does not intend to"punish" anyone. The purpose ofsanctions is to encourage correctiveaction by the State. The applicablesanctions are specified by Congress, notEPA. As noted above, sanctions can beavoided altogether by Utah's timelysubmission of an approvable revision tothe SIP. Regarding the suggestion thatwe provide a protective finding, ourinterpretation is that disapproval of anyrule submitted in response to this SIPcall would not result in a conformityfreeze because the revision at issue isnot a control strategy SIP revisiongoverned by 40 CFR 93.120. Themetropolitan planning organizationcould continue to make conformitydeterminations even after such adisapproval. Also, for the same reason,even if highway sanctions are triggeredby future disapproval of a revisedbreakdown rule, a conformity lapsewould not occur because we would notbe disapproving a control strategy SIPrevision. If highway sanctions aretriggered, certain projects, such astransit projects and highway safety and

21650


maintenance projects, could still goforward. See 61 FR 14363 (April 1,1996), which contains the FederalHighway Administration's sanctionexemption criteria policy.

(e) Comment: EPA sanctions ontransportation funding might slowimprovements to transportation projectsacross Utah, potentially resulting indiminished air quality in bothattainment and nonattainment areasacross the state. Sanctions ontransportation funding might also stiflegrowth.

Response: See our previous responses.As noted, the sanctions would bemandatory in certain areas. Thesanctions can be avoided throughappropriate State action, and certainprojects can proceed even if highwaysanctions are triggered. As noted, we aredeferring a decision on whether toimpose discretionary sanctions underCAA section 110(m).

(f) Comment: EPA should not imposestatewide sanctions, because this wouldpunish portions of the state that are incompliance with the CAA.

Response: As noted, we are deferringa decision on whether to impose thesanctions under CAA section 110(m).

(g) Comment: Applying sanctionsonly in nonattainment areas rather thanstatewide would be inconsistent withthe CAA, as the intent of the CAA "isnot simply to attain the NAAQS andother CAA requirements, but tomaintain compliance."

Response: As noted, we are deferringa decision regarding the application ofsanctions statewide. However, we notethat the CAA provides us withdiscretion to expand the scope of thesanctions; it does not require we do so.

(h) Comment: EPA should applysanctions if Utah fails to correct theUBR.

Response: As noted, mandatorysanctions will apply if the relevanttriggering events occur. We are deferringa decision regarding the application ofdiscretionary sanctions. See the "FinalAction" section of this action, above.

D. Time Period for Response to SIP Call

(a) Comment: Utah requests that EPAgrant the entire 18 months allowed bysection CAA 179(a). Twelve months isan extremely short time to gatherstakeholders, build consensus, draft aproposed rule, and allow for publicparticipation, especially considering theconsiderable workload UDAQ facesaside from this SIP Call. Utah states thata response time of less than 18 monthsmay cause a change in the prioritizationand possibly compromise other airquality efforts by the State including thedevelopment of its Regional Haze Rule,

the development of its PM 2.5 SIPrevision, and efforts to meet the lowerozone standard. Another commenterbelieves that 12 months is anappropriate response period, whileanother argues for six months.

Response: In our proposedrulemaking action (see 75 FR 70893), weproposed that 12 months would be anappropriate length of time for Utah torespond to this SIP call. We viewed thisas an acceptable time frame given thehistory with the State of Utah regardingthe UBR and the time it has taken otherStates to submit SIPs addressing SSMrules. We have considered the State'scomments and appreciate the resourceburden a 12-month time frame wouldpose for UDAQ in view of the State'scurrent work with its Regional Haze SIPrevision, the development of its PM 2.5attainment SIP revision (for three PM 2.5nonattainment areas), and the potentialfor additional resource requirements tomeet EPA's forthcoming reconsidered 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We also concludethat six months may not provide theState with sufficient time to revise therule and still provide a reasonableopportunity for public input. Therefore,as CAA section 110(k)(5) grants EPA theauthority to establish "reasonabledeadlines" up to 18 months for a Stateto respond to a SIP call, and in view ofthe resource requirements that this SIPcall will impose on the State in additionto those noted above, we have decidedto grant the full 18 months for responseas allowed by the CAA. We considerthis a reasonable time period for theState to revise the rule, provide forpublic input, process the SIP revisionthrough the State's procedures, andsubmit the SIP revision to us. Weencourage the State to work with us onappropriate rule language and to submitthe SIP revision as soon as possible.

E. Miscellaneous Comments

(a) Comment: The commenterssupport EPA's action, and believe theaction benefits the health and well-being of Utah citizens.

Response: We acknowledge receipt ofthe comment and the support for ourproposal.

(b) Comment: Utah's UBR does notgive industry incentive to design,operate and maintain equipment to meetemission limits at all times.

Response: We agree.(c) Comment: The Utah UBR prevents

the opportunity for citizen enforcementor injunctive relief.

Response: We agree that the UBR maypreclude citizen enforcement orinjunctive relief.

(d) Comment: EPA has notified Utahof the need to change their UBR onmany occasions.

Response: We agree.(e) Comment: SSM plans should be

part of Title V permits so thatinformation such as emission limits willbe available to the public.

Response: This comment is notdirectly relevant to our action today,which does not address the treatment ofSSM plans in Title V permits.

(f) Comment: EPA should includeUtah R307-415-(7)(g) "Startup Shutdown and Malfunction" in its analysis.

Response: Our review indicates thatUtah rule R307-415-(7)(g) is part ofUtah's Title V operating permitregulations and is titled "PermitRevision: Reopening for Cause." Utah'sTitle V regulations are separate fromand not approved as part of the SIP.Thus, our SIP call authority is notapplicable to those regulations. We wereunable to find any discussion of startup,shutdown, or malfunction in R307-415-(7)(g) and, thus, are unable to respondmore extensively to the comment.

V. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993), this action isnot a "significant regulatory action" andtherefore is not subject to review by theOffice of Management and Budget. Forthis reason, this action is also notsubject to Executive Order 13211,"Actions Concerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May22, 2001).

This action only requires the State ofUtah to revise Utah rule R307-107 toaddress requirements of the CAA.Accordingly, I certify that this actionwill not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because thisaction does not impose anyrequirements on small entities.

Since the only costs of this action willbe those associated with preparationand submission of the SIP revision, EPAhas determined that this action does notinclude a Federal mandate that mayresult in expenditures of $100 million ormore to either State, local, or Tribalgovernments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector in any one year.Accordingly, this action is not subject tothe requirements of sections 202 or 205of the unfunded mandates reform act(UMRA).

In addition, since the only regulatoryrequirements of this action apply solelyto the State of Utah, this action is notsubject to the requirements of section

21651


203 of UMRA because it contains noregulatory requirements that mightsignificantly or uniquely affect smallgovernments.

Since this action imposesrequirements only on the State of Utah,it also does not have Tribalimplications. It will not have asubstantial direct effect on one or moreIndian Tribes, on the relationshipbetween the Federal Government andIndian Tribes, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities between theFederal Government and Indian Tribes,as specified by Executive Order 13175(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action also does not haveFederalism implications because it willnot have substantial direct effects on theStates, on the relationship between thenational government and the States, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,August 10, 1999), because it will simplymaintain the relationship and thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between EPA and theStates as established by the CAA. ThisSIP call is required by the CAA becauseEPA has found the current SIP issubstantially inadequate to attain ormaintain the NAAQS or comply withother CAA requirements. Utah's directcompliance costs will not be substantialbecause the SIP call requires Utah tosubmit only those revisions necessary toaddress the SIP deficiencies andapplicable CAA requirements.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045"Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) asapplying only to those regulatoryactions that concern health or safetyrisks, such that the analysis requiredunder section 5-501 of the EO has thepotential to influence the regulation.This action is not subject to EO 13045because it does not establish anenvironmental standard, but insteadrequires Utah to revise a State rule toaddress requirements of the CAA.

Section 12 of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act of 1995requires Federal agencies to evaluateexisting technical standards whendeveloping a new regulation. To complywith the National Technology Transferand Advancement Act, EPA mustconsider and use "voluntary consensusstandards" (VCS) if available andapplicable when developing programsand policies unless doing so would beinconsistent with applicable law orotherwise impractical. In making afinding of a SIP deficiency, EPA's roleis to review existing information against

previously established standards. In thiscontext, there is no opportunity to useVCS. Thus, the requirements of section12(d) of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act of 1995(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

This action does not impose aninformation collection burden under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),since it only requires the State of Utahto revise Utah rule R307-107 to addressrequirements of the CAA.

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this action and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. A major rulecannot take effect until 60 days after itis published in the Federal Register.This action is not a "major rule" asdefined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CleanAir Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action must be filed in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for theappropriate circuit by June 17, 2011.Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator of this final rule doesnot affect the finality of this action forthe purposes of judicial review nor doesit extend the time within which apetition for judicial review may be filed,and shall not postpone the effectivenessof such rule or action. This action maynot be challenged later in proceedings toenforce its requirements. (See section30 7(b)(2).)


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Carbon monoxide,Incorporation by reference,Intergovernmental relations, Lead,Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulatematter, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatileorganic compounds.

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

Dated: March 31, 2011.

James B. Martin,Regional Administrator, Region 8.[FR Doe. 2011-9215 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2008-0821; FRL-9297-3]

RIN 2050-AG50

Oil Pollution Prevention; SpillPrevention, Control, andCountermeasure (SPCC) Rule-Amendments for Milk and Milk ProductContainers

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA or the Agency)is amending the Spill Prevention,Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)rule to exempt all milk and milkproduct containers and associatedpiping and appurtenances from theSPCC requirements. The Agency is alsoremoving the compliance daterequirements for the exemptedcontainers.

DATES: This final rule is effective onJune 17, 2011.ADDRESSES: The public docket for thisrulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2008-0821, contains theinformation related to this rulemaking,including the response to commentsdocument. All documents in the docketare listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed inthe index, some information may not bepublicly available, such as ConfidentialBusiness Information (CBI) or otherinformation the disclosure of which isrestricted by statute. Certain othermaterial, such as copyrighted material,will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docketmaterials are available eitherelectronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy atthe EPA docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,NW., Washington, DC. The PublicReading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The telephonenumber of the Public Reading Room is202-566-1744, and the telephonenumber to make an appointment to viewthe docket is 202-566-0276.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forgeneral information, contact theSuperfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and OilInformation Center at 800-424-9346 orTDD at 800-553-7672 (hearingimpaired). In the Washington, DCmetropolitan area, contact theSuperfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil

21652


Information Center at 703-412-9810 orTDD 703-412-3323. For more detailedinformation on specific aspects of thisfinal rule, contact either Gregory Wilsonat 202-564-7989([email protected]) or, Vanessa E.Principe at 202-564-7913([email protected]), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code5104A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thecontents of this preamble are:

I. General InformationII. Entities Potentially Affected by This Final

RuleIII. Statutory Authority and Delegation of

AuthorityIV. BackgroundV. This Action

A. Finalize Modified Amendments1. Industry Sanitary Standards and

Construction Requirements2. Summary of Comments3. Response to Comments4. Universe Affected by This ActionB. Removal of Compliance Date for

Exempted Containers, Associated Pipingand Appurtenances

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction ActC. Regulatory Flexibility ActD. Unfunded Mandates Reform ActE. Executive Order 13132: FederalismF. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal ActionsTo Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations

K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

On January 15, 2009, EPA proposed toamend the Spill Prevention, Control,and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule totailor and streamline the requirementsfor the dairy industry. Specifically, EPAproposed to exempt milk containers andassociated piping and appurtenancesfrom the SPCC requirements provided

they are constructed according to thecurrent applicable 3-A SanitaryStandards, and are subject to the currentapplicable Grade "A" Pasteurized MilkOrdinance (PMO) or a State dairyregulatory requirement equivalent to thecurrent applicable PMO. The Agency ismodifying the proposed exemption toexempt all milk containers, andassociated piping and appurtenancesand is further extending the exemptionto also include all milk productcontainers, and associated piping andappurtenances. Finally, the Agency isremoving the compliance daterequirements for the exemptedcontainers.

EPA estimates that dairy farms willincur an average annualized savings of$133 million and milk productmanufacturing plants an averageannualized savings of $13 million(estimates based on 2009$ and a 7%discount rate). In aggregate, the totalannualized savings is estimated at $146million. The Regulatory Impact analysis,which can be found in the docket,provides more detail of the cost savingsand methodology.

COST AND BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE

Annualized cost savings

Discounted at 3% Discounted at 7%

C o s ts ........................................................................................................................................................ $ 0 $ 0Benefits (Cost Savings) ........................................................................................................................... 143 146Net Benefits (Benefits- Costs) ................................................................................................................ 143 146

II. Entities Potentially Affected by ThisFinal Rule

Industry sector NAICS code

F a rm s ........................................ 1 1 1 , 1 12Food Manufacturing .................. 311

The Agency's goal is to provide aguide for readers to consider regardingentities that potentially could beaffected by this action. However, thisaction may affect other entities notlisted in this table. If you have questionsregarding the applicability of this actionto a particular entity, consult the personlisted in the preceding section entitledFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. Statutory Authority and Delegationof Authority

Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean WaterAct (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C.1321(j)(1)(C), requires the President toissue regulations establishingprocedures, methods, equipment, andother requirements to preventdischarges of oil to navigable waters or

adjoining shorelines from vessels andfacilities and to contain such discharges.The President delegated the authority toregulate non-transportation-relatedonshore facilities to EPA in ExecutiveOrder 11548 (35 FR 11677, July 22,1970), which was replaced by ExecutiveOrder 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22,1991). A Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) between the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT)and EPA (36 FR 24080, November 24,1971) established the definitions oftransportation-related and non-transportation-related facilities. AnMOU between EPA, the U.S.Department of the Interior (DOI), andDOT (59 FR 34102, July 1, 1994) re-delegated the responsibility to regulatecertain offshore facilities from DOI toEPA.

In 1995, Congress enacted the EdibleOil Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA),33 U.S.C. 2720, which mandates that

Federal agencies,' in issuing orenforcing any regulation or establishingany interpretation or guideline relatingto the transportation, storage, discharge,release, emission or disposal of oil,differentiate between and establishseparate classes for the various types ofoils, specifically: Animal fats and oilsand greases, and fish and marinemammal oils; oils of vegetable origin;other non-petroleum oils and greases;and petroleum oils. In differentiatingbetween these classes of oils, Federalagencies are directed to considerdifferences in the physical, chemical,biological, and other properties, and inthe environmental effects of the classes.

IV. Background

EPA promulgated a series ofamendments to the SPCC rule inDecember 2006, December 2008 andNovember 2009 that provided the

1 The requirements of the Edible Oil RegulatoryReform Act do not apply to the Food and DrugAdministration and the Food Safety and InspectionService.

21653


facility owner or operator withsignificant flexibility to comply with theSPCC regulatory requirements. Facilitieshandling animal fats and vegetable oils(AFVOs), subject to the SPCC rulebecause of their oil storage capacity,may benefit from a number of theseamendments, which tailored preventionand control measures to the facility typeand oils being stored. The provisionsincluded streamlined requirements forqualified facilities and reducedrequirements for a subset of thosequalified facilities. The rule alsoamended the security, integrity testing,and facility diagram requirements,while exemptions were provided forpesticide application equipment andrelated mix containers, and for single-family residential heating oil containers.Finally, the amendments offeredclarifications for fuel nurse tanks, windfarms and for the definition of "facility."

Milk typically contains a percentageof animal fat, a non-petroleum oil. Thus,containers storing milk and milkproducts are currently subject to theSPCC rule when they meet theapplicability criteria set forth in § 112.1.In the SPCC rule, the term "bulk storagecontainer" is defined at § 112.2 as "anycontainer used to store oil." Therefore,bulk storage containers storing milk arecurrently subject to the applicableprovisions under § 112.12. Additionally,milk is processed in containers duringthe pasteurization process. Thesecontinuous pasteurizers, while not bulkstorage containers, are considered oilfilled-manufacturing equipment and arecurrently subject to the generalprovisions of the SPCC rule under§ 112.7. Finally, milk is also handledand transferred through piping andappurtenances associated withcontainers which are currently subjectto certain provisions of the SPCC rule.

In response to EPA's October 2007proposal for amendments to the SPCCrule (72 FR 58378, October 15, 2007),several comments requested that EPAexempt containers used to store milkfrom the SPCC requirements.Specifically, these comments suggestedthat milk storage containers beexempted from the SPCC requirementsbecause the Grade "A" PMO addressesmilk storage and tank integrity. Thecomments identified the PMO, whichspecifically addresses milk intended forhuman consumption, as a modelordinance maintained through acooperative agreement between theStates, the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA), and the regulatedcommunity. States typically adopt thePMO either by reference, or by directlyincorporating similar requirements intotheir statutes or regulations.

Thus, on January 15, 2009, theAgency published a proposal to exemptfrom SPCC requirements milkcontainers and associated piping andappurtenances provided they areconstructed according to currentapplicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, andare subject to the current applicablePMO or a State dairy regulatoryrequirement equivalent to the currentapplicable PMO [74 FR 2463].

The Agency also requested commenton an exemption for milk productcontainers and their associated pipingand appurtenances from the SPCC ruleprovided they are constructed inaccordance with the current applicable3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subjectto the current applicable Grade "A"PMO sanitation requirements or a Statedairy regulatory equivalent to thecurrent applicable PMO. In addition, theAgency requested comment on how toaddress milk storage containers(including totes) that may not beconstructed to 3-A Sanitary Standardsunder the SPCC rule and whether theyshould also be exempted from the SPCCrequirements, provided they are subjectto the current applicable Grade "A"PMO or a State dairy regulatoryrequirement equivalent to the currentapplicable PMO. Finally, the Agencyrequested comment on alternativeapproaches to address milk and milkproduct containers, associated pipingand appurtenances under the SPCC rule.

After the Agency's review ofcomments and consideration of allrelevant facts, today's rule modifies theproposed exemption to exempt all milkcontainers, and associated piping andappurtenances and further extends theexemption to include all milk productcontainers, and associated piping andappurtenances. The Agency is alsoremoving the compliance daterequirements for the exempt containers.

V. This Action

A. Finalize Modified Amendments

The Agency is exempting from theSPCC requirements milk and milkproduct containers, and associatedpiping and appurtenances.Additionally, the capacity of theseexempted containers, and associatedpiping and appurtenances is not to beincluded in a facility's total oil storagecapacity calculation (see§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii)). The Agency is alsoremoving the compliance daterequirements for the exemptedcontainers.

This preamble discusses theseprovisions, and any related commentreceived during the 2009 commentperiod, that raised substantive policy

issues. For a complete discussion of thecomments received in 2009, seeComment and Response Document OilPollution Prevention; SPCC PlanRequirements-Amendments, a copy ofwhich is available in the docket for thisrulemaking.

1. Industry Sanitary Standards andConstruction Requirements

Milk and milk product containers andtheir associated piping andappurtenances are generally constructedaccording to an industry standardestablished by the 3-A SanitaryStandards organization (3-A SanitaryStandards, Inc., McLean, VA, http://www.3-a.org) which satisfy the PMOmodel code construction requirementsfor milk and milk product containersand associated piping andappurtenances. These containers,associated piping and appurtenancesmay also be subject to the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)Recommended Requirements for Milkfor Manufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing (Milk forManufacturing Purposes and ItsProduction and Processing;Requirements Recommended forAdoption by State Regulatory Agencies;see http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004791).All milk handling operations subject tothe PMO are required to have anoperating permit, and are subject toinspection by State dairy regulatoryagencies. The PMO model codeestablishes criteria for the permitting,inspection and enforcement of milkhandling equipment and operations thatgovern all processes for milk intendedfor human consumption.

Likewise, USDA has developed andmaintains a set of model regulationsrelating to quality and sanitationrequirements for the production andprocessing of manufacturing grade milk,which are recommended for adoptionand enforcement by the various Statesthat regulate manufacturing grade milk.The purpose of the model requirementsis to promote uniformity in State dairylaws and regulations relating tomanufacturing grade milk. Theserecommended requirements containcriteria similar to those of the PMO formilk for manufacturing purposes,including its processing, use, labelingand storage. Furthermore, theserequirements include provisions forinspections, certification and licensingof facilities that handle and processmilk for manufacturing purposes and itsproducts. These requirements serve asthe basis for the exemption of milk andmilk product containers, and theirassociated piping and appurtenances

21654


from the SPCC rule. Milk and milkproduct containers, associated pipingand appurtenances are generallyconstructed in accordance withstandards like the current applicable3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subjectto standards like the current applicablePMO sanitation requirements, USDARecommended Requirements for Milkfor Manufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, orequivalent State dairy regulations. The3-A Sanitary Standards for equipmentconstruction require the use of durablematerials and sanitary constructioncriteria that can be easily maintainedand kept clean and free of defects whenappropriate cleaning procedures andchemicals are used. Both the PMOsanitation requirements and the USDARecommended Requirements includeconstruction and sanitation standardsand frequent State and/or Federalinspections for these containers, pipingand appurtenances, and providedefinitions and/or list those milk andmilk products to which they apply.State dairy requirements for permits/licenses, operations and inspections aregenerally structured to be equivalent tothe current applicable PMOrequirements and/or USDARecommended Requirements. TheAgency believes the combination ofthese specific standards andrequirements address the prevention ofoil discharges.

2. Summary of Comments

Support for an Expanded Exemption.There was only one comment to the2009 proposal, and it expressed generalsupport for the exemption. Thecomment requested that EPA considerexempting all milk and milk products,including cheese, cream, yogurt and icecream mix. The comment stated theseproducts and their containers do notpresent a potential for spills intonavigable waters of the United Statesbecause the equipment must beconstructed to preclude deteriorationand must be maintained to keep it cleanand free of defects. The comment statesthat all dairy processing equipment,storage containers, piping andappurtenances are made of high gradestainless steel (with the exception ofsome cheese storage containers) and aredesigned and constructed in accordancewith 3-A and/or FDA's Current GoodManufacturing Practices (CGMP) orequivalents. The comment also statesthat other requirements mandatefrequent inspection of dairy operationsfor defects in equipment thereby makingspillage and leakage highly improbable.

Exemption of Solid Mixtures. Thecomment also requested that EPA

exempt cheese and other mixtures thatare solid at room temperature from theSPCC requirements. The commentincluded as an appendix a lettercommenting on an earlier Agency actionand requested an exemption ofsubstances that are solid at ambienttemperatures (including animal fats).The comment also stated that should acheese production or storage facilitycatch fire, "under no circumstanceswould cheese liquefy and flow" out ofthe facility to potentially pollute orendanger navigable waters of the UnitedStates.

Expand the Scope of Regulations andStandards To Qualify the Exemption.The comment requested that EPAbroaden the scope of regulatoryrequirements and constructionstandards to exempt additionalcontainers from the SPCC rule,specifically those that are subject to theFood and Drug Administration (FDA)requirements under 21 CFR Part 110.The comment suggested the exemptionstate: "The SPCC rule does not apply tostorage containers and associated pipingand appurtenances that contain milk ormilk products that are: A) subject to theconstruction requirements of 3-ASanitary Standards or the equivalentstandards approved by a federal, state orlocal regulatory authority, and b) aresubject to 21 CFR Part 110, the PMO, ora state or local equivalent."Additionally, the comment argued that,along with high sanitation standards foredible fats and oils, regulations issuedby the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) for workersafety address storage and use of oils atfood facilities, thereby reducing thelikelihood, rate and magnitude of a spillshould an accident occur.

Definition of Oil and Oil Mixtures.The comment also argued milk and milkproducts should not be defined as oil.The comment incorporates by referencestatements that milk and other dairyproducts do not seem to meet thedefinition of "oil" because milk, icecream mix, yogurt, cream, cheese andother dairy products are not (1) fat, oilor grease or (2) fat, oil or grease mixedwith waste. The comment included asan appendix a letter to the Agencycommenting on a separate action,stating there are minimal environmentalrisks resulting from edible fats and oilsspills and EPA should exemptsubstances not listed on the U.S. CoastGuard list of petroleum and non-petroleum oils (e.g., milk or milkproducts). The comment requests EPAclarify the definition of oil and oilmixtures so that lower fat mixtures, e.g.,those below 50 percent fat, or those thatare solid at room temperature might not

be considered oil, thereby exemptingmost milk and milk products from theSPCC requirements. The commenterfurther requested EPA not initiate anyenforcement actions against operationswhere there is substantial doubtregarding whether substances at thosefacilities are within the scope of theSPCC rule until EPA has clarified oilmixtures.

3. Response to Comments

Support for an Expanded Exemption.EPA recognizes the merits to argumentssupporting an exemption for milkproduct containers. Thus, EPA isamending the proposed exemption byexempting all milk containers, andassociated piping and appurtenancesand by further extending the exemptionto include all milk product containers,and associated piping andappurtenances. The exemptedcontainers include all milk and milkproduct containers as defined in thePMO model code, but also all milk andmilk product containers subject to theUSDA Recommended Requirements forMilk for Manufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing. EPA alsoacknowledges that some milk and milkproduct handling operations are subjectto 21 CFR 110. However, EPA believesthat the dairy specific standards aboveapply to the vast majority of milk andmilk product containers. The Agencycould not identify any milk or milkproduct containers that are not subjectto PMO, USDA RecommendedRequirements for Milk forManufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, orequivalent State dairy regulatoryrequirements and thus the final ruleexempts all milk and milk productcontainers from the SPCC requirements.

In this final rule, EPA is amending thescope of the exemption by exempting allmilk containers, and associated pipingand appurtenances and by furtherexpanding the exemption to include allmilk product containers, and associatedpiping and appurtenances. Theseexempted milk and milk productcontainers, and associated piping andappurtenances are constructedaccording to standards like the currentapplicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, andare subject to standards like the currentapplicable Grade "A" (PMO), USDARecommended Requirements for Milkfor Manufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, orequivalent State dairy regulatoryrequirements. Because of theiroperational requirements, particularlyfor permits/licenses and frequentinspections, the Agency expects theowner or operator of a facility with milk

21655


and milk product containers subject tothe 3-A Sanitary Standards, and PMOrequirements, USDA RecommendedRequirements for Milk forManufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, orequivalent State dairy regulatoryrequirements, to be in compliance withthose provisions in order to maintaintheir operations. For the purposes ofthis provision, "equivalent" means aState dairy regulation that includes allthe components of the PMO model codeand/or the USDA RecommendedRequirements. All milk and/or milkproduct transfer and processingactivities are included in the scope ofthis exemption from the SPCC rule.

Exemption of Solid Mixtures. EPAdisagrees that all oils or oil mixturesthat are solid at room temperatureshould, as a general matter, be exemptedfrom the SPCC rule. Vegetable oils andanimal fats that are solid at roomtemperature serve as potent physicalcontaminants and are more difficult toremove from affected animals thanpetroleum oil (see 62 FR 54511, October20, 1997).

The Agency believes that spillprevention for milk and milk productsproduced for processing andmanufacturing (e.g., butter, cheese, drymilk) are appropriately addressedthrough standards like the PMO modelcode, the USDA RecommendedRequirements for Milk forManufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, orequivalent State dairy regulatoryrequirements, and thus is extending theexemption to include all milk and milkproduct containers, associated pipingand appurtenances.

To decide whether a facility is subjectto the SPCC rule, the owner or operatormust first identify whether there is areasonable expectation of an oildischarge to navigable waters oradjoining shorelines from the facility.The owner or operator of a facility mayconsider the nature and flow propertiesof the oils handled at the facility tomake this determination (for moreinformation, see Chapter 2 of the SPCCGuidance for Regional Inspectors). Ifthere is a reasonable expectation thatany oil (in any container) at the facilitymay impact waters if discharged, thenthe next step is to determine theaboveground and completely buriedstorage capacity of all oil located at thefacility (except for exempt containers). Ifthe aboveground storage capacity isgreater than 1,320 U.S. gallons or thecompletely buried capacity is greaterthan 42,000 U.S. gallons, then thefacility is subject to the SPCC rule andthe owner or operator must develop an

SPCC Plan that describes oil handlingoperations, spill prevention practices,discharge or drainage controls, and thepersonnel, equipment and resources atthe facility that are used to prevent oilspills from reaching navigable waters oradjoining shorelines. However, if theowner or operator of the facilitydetermines there is not a reasonableexpectation of discharge of oil tonavigable waters or adjoining shorelinesfrom all oils stored at the facility thenthe facility is not subject to the SPCCrequirements. We recommend that theowner or operator document and datethese determinations in the event thatEPA challenges the determinationfollowing an inspection.

The SPCC rule is primarily aperformance-based rule, therefore, theowner or operator may consider theproperties of each oil located at thefacility to identify measures andprocedures to prevent spills from thefacility. For example, storage of an oil insolid form inside a building mayprovide adequate secondarycontainment. Additionally, many SPCCrule provisions allow forenvironmentally equivalent alternativesto be used (except for secondarycontainment) provided they aredocumented in the Plan and certified bya Professional Engineer (see Chapter 3 ofthe SPCC Guidance for RegionalInspectors for more information).

Expand the Scope of Regulations andStandards To Qualify the Exemption.EPA agrees that the scope of theexemption should apply to all milk andmilk product containers because theyare subject to a combination ofstandards like the 3-A SanitaryStandards with either PMO or the USDArequirements or State equivalent dairyregulations. EPA is expanding theexemption because non-PMO milk andmilk product containers are subject tostandards like the USDA RecommendedRequirements for Milk forManufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, orequivalent State dairy regulations. TheAgency believes the components ofthese requirements are comparable tothe PMO requirements. Specifically,both PMO and USDA RecommendedRequirements have provisions thatinclude permitting/licensing,inspections, construction standards,operations, maintenance, enforcementand other sanitation requirements.

All milk and milk product handlingoperations subject to the PMO andUSDA Recommended Requirementsmust have an operating permit orlicense, and are subject to inspection byState dairy regulatory agencies. Both thePMO and the USDA Recommended

Requirements establish criteria for thepermitting/licensing, inspection andenforcement of handling equipment andoperations that typically governprocesses for milk and milk productsintended for human consumption andfor milk produced for processing andmanufacturing products for humanconsumption. These include, but are notlimited to, specifications for the designand construction of milk and milkproduct handling equipment,equipment sanitation and maintenanceprocedures, temperature controls, andpasteurization standards. In addition,because many kinds of harmful bacteriacan grow rapidly in milk and milkproducts, and thus, to ensure a propersanitary environment, standards likeboth the PMO and the USDARecommended Requirements requirethat milk and milk product containersbe frequently emptied, cleaned,inspected and sanitized and that recordsof such events be maintained. Suchfrequent cleaning and inspection of thecontainers suggests that any leaks ordeterioration of container integritywould be quickly identified. PMO andUSDA Recommended Requirementsalso require inspections of facilitieswith such milk and milk productshandling operations by the State-designated regulatory agency prior toissuing a permit or license, and routineinspections thereafter (for example, atdairy farms covered by PMO at leastonce every six months) by a Statedesignated regulatory agency.Inspections at these facilities encompassthose elements associated with the milkand milk products operation, includingthe containers, and associated pipingand appurtenances. Violations of thepermitting or licensing requirementsmay result in the suspension orrevocation of the facility's operatinglicense or permit.

USDA regulations, guidelines andrecommended requirements allrecognize the unique nature in whichmilk and milk products are handled andstored in contrast to other oils intendedfor human consumption. Subpart D-Farm Requirements for Milk forManufacturing of the USDARecommended Requirements for Milkfor Manufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing requires thatfarm bulk tanks meet 3-A SanitaryStandards for construction at the time ofinstallation, that they be installed inaccordance with USDA regulations, andthat all new utensils and equipment bein compliance with applicable 3-ASanitary Standards. Furthermore USDAregulation under 7 CFR 58.128(d)requires new or replacement storage

21656


tanks or vats to comply with theappropriate 3-A Sanitary Standards (i.e.,Storage Tanks for Milk and MilkProducts or Sanitary Standards for Silo-Type Storage Tanks for Milk and MilkProducts). According to USDAGuidelines for the Sanitary Design andFabrication of Dairy ProcessingEquipment, "Dairy Grading Branchpolicy fully supports and utilizesestablished 3-A Sanitary Standards andAccepted Practices." Furthermore thedocument says "When a USDA-DairyGrading Branch review is requested ofequipment for which there are no 3-ASanitary Standards or AcceptedPractices, USDA will use the generalcriteria, guidelines, and principlesoutlined in this document. Thesecriteria, guidelines, and principles areconsistent with those utilized by the3-A Sanitary Standards Committeesduring the development of standardsand accepted practices."

Although OSHA worker safetyregulations may apply to facilities withmilk or milk product containers, theirrequirements specifically focus onworker safety and do not addresscontainer design or container inspectionpractices as in the case of the PMO orUSDA requirements and the 3-ASanitary Standards. The FDArequirements under 21 CFR Part 110, arecurrent good manufacturing practices inmanufacturing, packing, or holdinghuman food and apply to all foodsunder FDA jurisdiction; whereas PMOand USDA requirements are specific tomilk and milk products. The PMOmodel code and the USDARecommended Requirements arespecific to milk and milk products andserve to minimize their potential fordischarge because they includepermitting or licensing of facilities,strict inspection frequencies andenforcement procedures, among others.The monitoring and sanitationstandards under PMO and USDA servein part as spill prevention measuresbecause the frequent cleaning andinspections of the milk and milkproduct containers, associated pipingand appurtenances leads to earlyidentification of equipment failure, andspill detection. Failure to comply withthese provisions may lead to asuspension of licenses or permits issuedunder PMO or USDA.

Definition of Oil and Oil Mixtures.EPA does not agree with the commentthat milk is not an oil. Milk and othermilk products comprised of animal fatsmeet both the definition of oil and ofnon-petroleum oil included in § 112.2 ofthe rule. EPA has an established recordof including animal fats and vegetableoils in planning and spill prevention

requirements (see 40 FR 28849, July 9,1975; and 62 FR 54509, October 20,1997). The SPCC rule defines oil as "oilof any kind or in any form, including,but not limited to: Fats, oils, or greasesof animal, fish, or marine mammalorigin; vegetable oils, including oilsfrom seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and,other oils and greases, includingpetroleum, fuel oil, sludge, syntheticoils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oilmixed with wastes other than dredgedspoil." (40 CFR 112.2) The rule furtherdefines non-petroleum oil as "oil of anykind that is not petroleum-based,including, but not limited to: Fats, oils,and greases of animal, fish, or marinemammal origin; and vegetable oils,including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits,and kernels." Both definitions qualifythe listed examples with the statement"including but not limited to" whichindicates that these definitions are notlimited by the examples provided.

EPA disagrees with the comment thatedible fats and oils pose minimalenvironmental risks. In a noticepublished on October 20, 1997 (62 FR54508), EPA denied a request submittedby various trade associations to treatfacilities that handle, store, or transportanimal fats and vegetable oils in amanner differently from those facilitiesthat store petroleum-based oils. Thepetitioners claimed that unlike most ifnot all other oils, animal fats andvegetable oils are non-toxic, readilybiodegradable, not persistent in theenvironment, and in fact are essentialcomponents of human and wildlifediets. EPA agrees with the comment thatanimal fats and vegetable oils, which areconsumed in small amounts, are anessential component of human andwildlife diets. However, large amountsof such oils, when discharged intonavigable waters or adjoiningshorelines, present significant risks tothe environment, including wildlife. Infact, the environmental effects ofpetroleum and non-petroleum oils,including vegetable oils and animal fats,are similar because of the physical andchemical properties common to both.(See Federal Register notice at 62 FR54508; October 20, 1997 for moreinformation on the environmentaleffects of oil spills of edible fats andoils.)

EPA acknowledges that the U.S. CoastGuard list of petroleum and non-petroleum oils 2 does not specifically

2 The U.S. Coast Guard List Of Petroleum and

Non-petroleum Oils can be found at: http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/con tent View. do ?con ten tTypeId=2&ch an elId= -30565&contentId= 120944&programId= 117833&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2Feditorial.jsp&pageTypeId=13489.

list milk or milk products; however, thisdoes not provide an adequate basis toexempt milk or milk products from theSPCC rule, especially since they meetthe definition of oil under the SPCCrule. Moreover, the U.S. Coast Guard listonly includes examples of oils and isnot meant to be all-inclusive. Theexamples are organized alphabeticallyinto several subgroups, including agroup for edible animal and vegetableoils and other oils of animal or vegetableorigin (which have historically beenconsidered Clean Water Act (CWA)oils). While milk and milk products arenot specifically included on the CoastGuard list, for purposes of SPCC, theyfall under the category of edible animaland vegetable oils.

Finally, the Agency did not proposechanges to the definitions of oil or oilmixture and therefore defining oil and/or oil mixtures are issues outside thescope of this action. Furthermore, EPAwill continue to enforce the OilPollution Prevention regulations for oilmixtures. The owner or operator of aSPCC-subject facility should considerthe definition of oil included in § 112.2of the rule and the CWA definition of oilwhen making determinations on how toaddress the SPCC requirements.

4. Universe Affected by This Action

The approach in this action addressesthe concerns raised by the dairyindustry for milk producers (dairies)and milk product facilities subject to theSPCC requirements. In 2009, theNational Agricultural Statistics Service(NASS), an agency within the USDA,estimated there were 65,000 operationswith one or more milk cows and 1,178facilities manufacturing one or moredairy products (excluding fluid milkproducts) in the United States. Most ofthe 65,000 operations with milk cowsproduce only fluid milk (subject to thePMO or the USDA RecommendedRequirements) and their milk storagecontainers would be exempted.Manufactured dairy facilities handlemilk and milk products subject tostandards such as either the PMO or theUSDA Recommended Requirements,and all their milk/milk product storagecontainers are also exempt. Milk or milkproduct containers not under the PMOor the USDA RecommendedRequirements are generally covered byan equivalent State dairy regulation; allthese State regulated milk and milkproduct containers are also exempt.This action exempts the entire universeof milk and milk product containers,and associated piping andappurtenances.

Note that milk and milk productfacilities may handle other oils subject

21657


to the SPCC requirements. Thesefacilities either have or are developingSPCC Plans in anticipation of thecompliance date, but will not have toaccount for, or address the exemptedcontainers in their SPCC Plans. Some ofthese facilities may now be eitherexempt, or eligible as a qualified facilityto self-certify the facility's SPCC Plan. Inaddition, "micro" processor facilitiesthat process one milk product areexpected to manufacture and/or storequantities below the SPCC applicabilitythresholds for container or aggregatequantities (e.g., 1,000 pounds of cheeseper month; self-bottling milk for farmconsumption). The container sizes atthese facilities are typically below the55-gallon de minimis container size ofthe SPCC rule and therefore, areunlikely to be subject to SPCCrequirements (see SPCC Guidance forRegional Inspectors for moreinformation).

B. Removal of Compliance Date forExempted Containers, AssociatedPiping and Appurtenances

On October 14, 2010, the Agencydelayed the compliance date by whichfacilities must address milk and milkproduct containers, associated pipingand appurtenances that are constructedaccording to the current applicable 3-ASanitary Standards, and subject to thecurrent applicable Grade "A" PMO or aState dairy regulatory requirementequivalent to the current applicablePMO (see 75 FR 63093). The date bywhich the owner or operator of a facilitymust comply with the SPCCrequirements for these milk and milkproduct containers was delayed oneyear from the effective date of a finalrule specifically addressing these milkand milk product containers, associatedpiping and appurtenances, or asspecified by a rule that otherwiseestablishes a compliance date for thesefacilities. This delay of the compliancedate was to provide time for certainfacilities to undertake the actionsnecessary to prepare or amend theirSPCC Plans, as well as implement them.Today's action specifically addressesthose milk and milk product containers,associated piping and appurtenances forwhich the delay was established anddoes so by exempting them from anySPCC regulatory requirements. Thus, adate for the exempted containers tocome into compliance with SPCCrequirements is no longer necessary. Assuch, the Agency is removing theregulatory requirement to comply withSPCC for these exempt containers by adate certain. The Agency providednotice of its intent in the October 14,2010 final rule. The regulatory text is

amended by removing and reserving112.3(c).

This action does not affect the owneror operator's responsibility to preventoil discharges, including those of milkor milk products, into navigable watersor adjoining shorelines. Thesedischarges may be subject to otherapplicable statutes and regulations,including but not limited to Section 311of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321.

VI. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:Regulatory Planning and Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of ExecutiveOrder (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76FR 3821, January 18, 2011), this actionis an "economically significantregulatory action" because it is likely tohave an annual effect on the economyof $100 million or more. Accordingly,EPA submitted this action to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) forreview under EOs 12866 and 13563 andany changes made in response to OMBrecommendations have beendocumented in the docket for thisaction.

In addition, EPA prepared an analysisof the potential costs and benefitsassociated with this action. Thisanalysis is contained in "RegulatoryImpact Analysis for the FinalAmendment to the Oil PollutionPrevention Regulations to ExemptCertain Milk and Milk ProductContainers and Associated Piping andAppurtenances (40 CFR part 112)." Acopy of the analysis is available in thedocket for this action and the analysisis briefly summarized in section VI-C.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any newinformation collection burden. The finalrule amendment exempts from the SPCCrule milk and milk product containers,associated piping and appurtenances.The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) has previously approved theinformation collection requirementscontained in the existing regulations, 40CFR part 112, under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR1320.3(b).

An Agency may not conduct orsponsor, and a person is not required torespond to, a collection of informationunless it displays a currently valid OMBcontrol number. The OMB controlnumbers for EPA's regulations in 40CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Actgenerally requires an agency to preparea regulatory flexibility analysis of anyrule subject to notice and commentrulemaking requirements under theAdministrative Procedure Act or anyother statute unless the agency certifiesthat the rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Small entitiesinclude small businesses, smallorganizations, and small governmentaljurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impactsof this final rule on small entities, asmall entity is defined as: (1) A smallbusiness as defined in the U.S. SmallBusiness Administration (SBA)'sregulations at 13 CFR 121.201-SBAdefines small businesses by category ofbusiness using North American IndustryClassification System (NAICS) codes,and in the case of dairy farms, whichconstitute a large percentage of thefacilities affected by this final rule,defines small businesses as having lessthan $0.75 million per year in salesreceipts; (2) a small governmentaljurisdiction that is a government of acity, county, town, school district orspecial district with a population of lessthan 50,000; and (3) a smallorganization that is any not-for-profitenterprise that is independently ownedand operated and is not dominant in itsfield.

After considering the economicimpacts of this final rule on smallentities, the Agency certifies that thisaction will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities since the rulerelieves regulatory burden, or otherwisehas a positive economic effect on all ofthe small entities subject to the rule.The impact of concern is anysignificant, adverse economic impact onsmall entities, since the primarypurpose of the regulatory flexibilityanalyses is to identify and addressregulatory alternatives "which minimizeany significant economic impact of the* * * rule on small entities" (5 U.S.C.603 and 604).

Under this final rule, EPA isexempting from SPCC rule requirementsmilk and milk product containers,associated piping and appurtenancesbecause they are generally designed,constructed and maintained accordingto the standards such as the currentapplicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, andare subject to the standards such as thecurrent applicable Grade "A" PMO,USDA Recommended Requirements forMilk for Manufacturing Purposes and itsProduction and Processing, or an

21658


equivalent State dairy regulatoryrequirement. Overall, EPA estimatesthat this final action will reduce annualcompliance costs by approximately$146 million for owners and operatorsof affected facilities. Total costs wereannualized over a 10-year period usinga 7 percent discount rate. To derive thissavings estimate, EPA first estimated thenumber of dairy farms and milkprocessing facilities that will be affectedeach year (2010-2019) by the final rule.EPA next analyzed the expected milkand fuel oil storage capacity of dairyfarms with varying numbers of cattlebased on daily production rate per cow,the storage requirements for milk, andconversations with industryrepresentatives. EPA also estimated themilk/milk product and fuel oil storagecapacity of milk processing facilities,and estimated the cost savingsassociated with the exemption for milk/milk product storage containers at bothdairy farms and milk processingfacilities. These savings includesecondary containment costs, costsavings from preparing and maintainingan SPCC Plan for a smaller facility, and,for Qualified Facilities, preparing only aPlan Template and saving PEcertification costs. A certain number ofdairy farms are expected to becomeexempt as a result of the amendments.While the Agency extended theexemption to include milk productcontainers, piping and appurtenances, itdoes not have data on the number ofmilk product containers at milk productmanufacturing facilities to determinethe overall cost savings for theexemption. Therefore, EPA expects thatthe total cost savings for the final ruleis underestimated.

EPA, therefore, concludes that thisfinal rule will relieve regulatory burdenfor small entities and certifies that thisaction will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. EPA requestedcomment on potential impacts on smallentities, but received no commentsspecific to small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federalmandates under the provisions of TitleII of the Unfunded Mandates ReformAct of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribalgovernments or the private sector. Theaction imposes no enforceable duty onany State, local or Tribal governments orthe private sector; therefore, this actionis not subject to the requirements ofsections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. Thisaction is also not subject to therequirements of section 203 of UMRAbecause it contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly oruniquely affect small governments; theamendments impose no enforceableduty on any small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,1999), requires EPA to develop anaccountable process to ensure"meaningful and timely input by Stateand local officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have federalismimplications." "Policies that havefederalism implications" is defined inthe Executive Order to includeregulations that have "substantial directeffects on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government."

This final rule does not havefederalism implications. It will not havesubstantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132. Under the CleanWater Act (CWA) section 311(o), Statesmay impose additional requirements,including more stringent requirements,relating to the prevention of oildischarges to navigable waters oradjoining shorelines. EPA recognizesthat some States have more stringentrequirements (56 FR 54612, October 22,1991). This final rule would notpreempt State law or regulations. Thus,Executive Order 13132 does not applyto this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultationand Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments

This action does not have Tribalimplications, as specified in ExecutiveOrder 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,2000). This final rule will notsignificantly or uniquely affectcommunities of Indian Tribalgovernments. Thus, Executive Order13175 does not apply to this final rule.EPA specifically solicited additionalcomment on this action from Tribalofficials, but none was received.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045as applying only to those regulatoryactions that are based on health or safetyrisks, such that the analysis requiredunder section 5-501 of the Order hasthe potential to influence the regulation.This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it doesnot establish an environmental standardintended to mitigate health or safetyrisks.

H. Executive Order 13211: ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use

This action is not a "significant energyaction" as defined in Executive Order13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 2001)),because it is not likely to have asignificant adverse effect on the supply,distribution, or use of energy. Theoverall effect of the final rule is todecrease the regulatory burden oncertain facility owners or operatorssubject to its provisions.

L National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NationalTechnology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No.104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directsEPA to use voluntary consensusstandards in its regulatory activitiesunless to do so would be inconsistentwith applicable law or otherwiseimpractical. Voluntary consensusstandards are technical standards (e.g.,materials specifications, test methods,sampling procedures, and businesspractices) that are developed or adoptedby voluntary consensus standardsbodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provideCongress, through OMB, explanationswhen the Agency decides not to useavailable and applicable voluntaryconsensus standards.

The owner or operator of a facilitysubject to the SPCC rule has theflexibility to consider applicableindustry standards in the developmentof an SPCC Plan, in accordance withgood engineering practice. EPA solicitedcomments on this aspect of therulemaking and, specifically, invited thepublic to identify potentially applicablevoluntary consensus standards and toexplain why such standards should beused in this regulation. The singlecomment submitted agreed with the useof the 3-A Sanitary Standards and thePMO model code as a basis forexempting milk and milk productcontainers, associated piping andappurtenances from the SPCCrequirements. However, this rulemakingdoes not involve technical standards, asit does not set or incorporate byreference any one specific technicalstandard. Therefore, the NTTAA doesnot apply.

21659


J. Executive Order 12898: FederalActions To Address EnvironmentalJustice in Minority Populations andLow-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federalexecutive policy on environmentaljustice. Its main provision directsFederal agencies, to the greatest extentpracticable and permitted by law, tomake environmental justice part of theirmission by identifying and addressing,as appropriate, disproportionately highand adverse human health orenvironmental effects of their programs,policies, and activities on minoritypopulations and low-incomepopulations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this finalrule will not have disproportionatelyhigh and adverse human health orenvironmental effects on minority orlow-income populations because it doesnot affect the level of protectionprovided to human health or theenvironment.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. A Major rulecannot take effect until 60 days after itis published in the Federal Register.This action is a "major rule" as definedby 5 U.S.C. 904(2). This rule will beeffective June 17, 2011.


Environmental protection, Animalfats and vegetable oils, Farms, Milk,Milk products, Oil pollution, Tanks,Water pollution control, Waterresources.


Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in thepreamble, the Environmental ProtectionAgency amends 40 CFR part 112 asfollows:

PART 112-OIL POLLUTIONPREVENTION


Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C.2720; and E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

Subpart A-[Amended]

* 2. Amend § 112.1 by addingparagraphs (d)(2)(ii)(F) and (d)(12) toread as follows:

§112.1 General applicability.* * * * *

(d) * * *(2) * * *(ii) * * *

(F) The capacity of any milk and milkproduct container and associated pipingand appurtenances.* * * * *

(12) Any milk and milk productcontainer and associated piping andappurtenances.* * * * *

§112.3 [Amended]

0 3. Amend § 112.3 by removing andreserving paragraph (c).[FR Doe. 2011-9288 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY

Federal Emergency ManagementAgency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; InternalAgency Docket No. FEMA-B-1186]

Changes in Flood ElevationDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: This interim rule listscommunities where modification of theBase (1% annual-chance) FloodElevations (BFEs) is appropriate becauseof new scientific or technical data. Newflood insurance premium rates will becalculated from the modified BFEs fornew buildings and their contents.DATES: These modified BFEs arecurrently in effect on the dates listed inthe table below and revise the FloodInsurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effectprior to this determination for the listedcommunities.

From the date of the secondpublication of these changes in a

newspaper of local circulation, anyperson has ninety (90) days in which torequest through the community that theDeputy Federal Insurance andMitigation Administrator reconsider thechanges. The modified BFEs may bechanged during the 90-day period.ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for eachcommunity are available for inspectionat the office of the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of each community. Therespective addresses are listed in thetable below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LuisRodriguez, Chief, EngineeringManagement Branch, Federal Insuranceand Mitigation Administration, FederalEmergency Management Agency, 500 CStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20472,(202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Themodified BFEs are not listed for eachcommunity in this interim rule.However, the address of the ChiefExecutive Officer of the communitywhere the modified BFE determinationsare available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration mustbe based on knowledge of changedconditions or new scientific or technicaldata.

The modifications are made pursuantto section 201 of the Flood DisasterProtection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105,and are in accordance with the NationalFlood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currentlyeffective community number is shownand must be used for all new policiesand renewals.

The modified BFEs are the basis forthe floodplain management measuresthat the community is required either toadopt or to show evidence of beingalready in effect in order to qualify orto remain qualified for participation inthe National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP).

These modified BFEs, together withthe floodplain management criteriarequired by 44 CFR 60.3, are theminimum that are required. Theyshould not be construed to mean thatthe community must change anyexisting ordinances that are morestringent in their floodplainmanagement requirements. Thecommunity may at any time enactstricter requirements of its own orpursuant to policies established by otherFederal, State, or regional entities. Thechanges in BFEs are in accordance with44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act.This interim rule is categoricallyexcluded from the requirements of 44

21660


CFR part 10, EnvironmentalConsideration. An environmentalimpact assessment has not beenprepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As floodelevation determinations are not withinthe scope of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatoryflexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification. Thisinterim rule is not a significantregulatory action under the criteria ofsection 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 ofSeptember 30, 1993, RegulatoryPlanning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This interim rule involves no policiesthat have federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132, Federalism.

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. This interim rule meets theapplicable standards of Executive Order12988.


Flood insurance, Floodplains,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 isamended to read as follows:

PART 65-[AMENDED]


Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

§ 65.4 [Amended]

* 2. The tables published under theauthority of § 65.4 are amended asfollows:

Location and case Date and name of newspaper Effective date of CommunityState and county No. where notice was published Chief executive officer of community modification No.

Alabama: Tusca-loosa.

Arizona:Maricopa ...........

Maricopa ...........

California: Riverside

Colorado:Adams ..............

Douglas ............

Douglas ............

Nevada:Washoe ............

Washoe ............

North Carolina:Alamance .........

Wake ................

Ohio:La ke ..................

La ke ..................

Tennessee: Sumner

City of Tuscaloosa(10-04-7227P).

City of Surprise (10-09-3551P).

Unincorporatedareas of MaricopaCounty (10-09-3551 P).

City of Hemet (10-09-2521P).

City of CommerceCity (10-08-0226P).

Town of Parker (10-08-0769P).

Unincorporatedareas of DouglasCounty (10-08-0769P).

City of Reno (10-09-3236P).

City of Sparks (10-09-3236P).

Unincorporatedareas of AlamanceCounty (10-04-2172P).

City of Raleigh (10-04-1146P).

City of Painesville(10-05-6522P).

Unincorporatedareas of LakeCounty (10-05-6522P).

City of Gallatin (10-04-4673P).

January 10, 2011; January 17,2011; The Tuscaloosa News.

January 27, 2011; February 3,2011; The Arizona BusinessGazette.

January 27, 2011; February 3,2011; The Arizona BusinessGazette.

December 24, 2010; December31, 2010; The Press-Enter-prise.

February 1, 2011; February 8,2011; The Commerce CitySentinel Express.

December 23, 2010; December30, 2010; The DouglasCounty News-Press.

December 23, 2010; December30, 2010; The DouglasCounty News-Press.

January 4, 2011; January 11,2011; The Reno Gazette-Journal.

January 4, 2011; January 11,2011; The Reno Gazette-Journal.

December 16, 2010; December23, 2010; The Times-News.

January 6, 2011; January 13,2011; The News & Observer.

January 3, 2011; January 10,2011; The News-Herald.

January 3, 2011; January 10,2011; The News-Herald.

January 19, 2011; January 26,2011; The Gallatin News-paper.

The Honorable Walter Maddox, Mayor,City of Tuscaloosa, P.O. Box 2089,Tuscaloosa, AL 35401.

The Honorable Lyn Truitt, Mayor, City ofSurprise, 16000 North Civic CenterPlaza, Surprise, AZ 85734.

Mr. Andrew Kunasek, Chairman, Markcopa County Board of Supervisors, 301West Jefferson, 10th Floor, Phoenix,AZ 85003.

The Honorable Jerry Franchville, Mayor,City of Hemet, 445 East Florida Ave-nue, Hemet, CA 92543.

The Honorable Paul Natale, Mayor, Cityof Commerce City, 7887 East 60th Av-enue, Commerce City, CO 80022.

The Honorable David Casiano, Mayor,Town of Parker, 20120 East MainStreet, Parker, CO 80138.

Mr. Steven A. Boand, Chairman, DouglasCounty Board of Commissioners, 1003rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104.

The Honorable Bob Cashell, Mayor, Cityof Reno, P.O. Box 1900, Reno, NV89505.

The Honorable Geno Martini, Mayor, Cityof Sparks, 431 Prater Way, Sparks, NV89431.

Mr. Craig F. Honeycutt, Alamance CountyManager, 124 West Elm Street,Graham, NC 27253.

The Honorable Charles Meeker, Mayor,City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh,NC 27602.

Mr. Joseph Hada, Jr., President, Paines-ville City Council, 7 Richmond Street,P.O. Box 601, Painesville, OH 44077.

Mr. Raymond E. Sines, President, LakeCounty Board of Commissioners, 105Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville,OH 44077.

The Honorable Jo Ann Graves, Mayor,City of Gallatin, 132 West Main Street,Gallatin, TN 37066.

December 31, 2010 ........

June 3, 2011 ..................

June 3, 2011 ..................

December 17, 2010 ........

June 8, 2011 ..................

April 29, 2011 .................

April 29, 2011 .................

December 28, 2010 ........

December 28, 2010 ........

April 22, 2011 .................

May 13, 2011 .................

January 24, 2011 ...........

January 24, 2011 ...........

May 26,2011 .................

010203

040053

040037

060253

080006

080310

080049

320020

320021

370001

370243

390319

390771

470185

21661


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.97.022, "Flood Insurance.")

Dated: March 30, 2011.Sandra K. Knight,Deputy Federal Insurance and MitigationAdministrator, Mitigation, Department ofHomeland Security, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

[FR Doe. 2011-9342 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 9110-12-P



44 CFR Part 65


Changes in Flood ElevationDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: This interim rule listscommunities where modification of theBase (1% annual-chance) FloodElevations (BFEs) is appropriate becauseof new scientific or technical data. Newflood insurance premium rates will becalculated from the modified BFEs fornew buildings and their contents.DATES: These modified BFEs arecurrently in effect on the dates listed inthe table below and revise the FloodInsurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effectprior to this determination for the listedcommunities.

From the date of the secondpublication of these changes in anewspaper of local circulation, anyperson has ninety (90) days in which torequest through the community that theDeputy Federal Insurance andMitigation Administrator reconsider thechanges. The modified BFEs may bechanged during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for eachcommunity are available for inspectionat the office of the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of each community. Therespective addresses are listed in thetable below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LuisRodriguez, Chief, EngineeringManagement Branch, Federal Insuranceand Mitigation Administration, FederalEmergency Management Agency, 500 CStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20472,(202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Themodified BFEs are not listed for eachcommunity in this interim rule.However, the address of the ChiefExecutive Officer of the communitywhere the modified BFE determinationsare available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration mustbe based on knowledge of changedconditions or new scientific or technicaldata.

The modifications are made pursuantto section 201 of the Flood DisasterProtection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105,and are in accordance with the NationalFlood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

For rating purposes, the currentlyeffective community number is shownand must be used for all new policiesand renewals.

The modified BFEs are the basis forthe floodplain management measuresthat the community is required either toadopt or to show evidence of beingalready in effect in order to qualify orto remain qualified for participation inthe National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP).

These modified BFEs, together withthe floodplain management criteriarequired by 44 CFR 60.3, are theminimum that are required. Theyshould not be construed to mean thatthe community must change anyexisting ordinances that are morestringent in their floodplainmanagement requirements. Thecommunity may at any time enact

stricter requirements of its own orpursuant to policies established by otherFederal, State, or regional entities. Thechanges in BFEs are in accordance with44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act.This interim rule is categoricallyexcluded from the requirements of 44CFR part 10, EnvironmentalConsideration. An environmentalimpact assessment has not beenprepared.


Regulatory Classification. Thisinterim rule is not a significantregulatory action under the criteria ofsection 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 ofSeptember 30, 1993, RegulatoryPlanning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This interim rule involves no policiesthat have federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132, Federalism.

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. This interim rule meets theapplicable standards of Executive Order12988.


Flood insurance, Floodplains,Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 isamended to read as follows:

PART 65-[AMENDED]



§ 65.4 [Amended]


Location and case Date and name of newspaper Effective date of CommunityState and county No. where notice was published Chief executive officer of community modification No.

Arizona: Maricopa ...

California:Ventura .............

Ventura .............

Ventura .............

Town of CaveCreek, (10-09-2786P).

City of Camarillo,(10-09-2501P).

City of Moorpark,(10-09-2904P).

Unincorporatedareas of VenturaCounty, (10-09-2501 P).

February 17, 2011; February The Honorable Vincent Francia, Mayor,24, 2011; The Arizona Busi- Town of Cave Creek, 37622 Caveness Gazette. Creek Road, Cave Creek, AZ 85331.

February 4, 2011; February 11,2011; The Ventura CountyStar.



The Honorable Mike Morgan, Mayor, Cityof Camarillo, 601 Carmen Drive,Camarillo, CA 93010.

The Honorable Janice S. Parvin, Mayor,City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Ave-nue, Moorpark, CA 93021.

Ms. Linda Parks, Chair, Ventura CountyBoard of Supervisors, 800 South Vic-toria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009.

June 24, 2011 ................

June 13, 2011 ................

June 13, 2011 ................

June 13, 2011 ................

040129

065020

060712

060413

21662

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011/Rules and Regulations 21663

S Location and case Date and name of newspaper Effective date of CommunityState and county No. where notice was published Chief executive officer of community odification No.

Ventura .............

Colorado:Adams ..............

Adams ..............

Douglas ............

El Paso .............

Summit .............

Summit .............

Florida:Le e ...................

Monroe .............

Monroe .............

Orange .............

Hawaii: Hawaii .........

North Carolina:Caldwell ............

Dare ..................

W ake ................

Tennessee: Sullivan

Utah: W ashington ....

Wyoming: Uinta .......

Unincorporatedareas of VenturaCounty, (10-09-2904P).

City of Thornton,(10-08-0748P).

Unincorporatedareas of AdamsCounty, (10-08-0748P).

Unincorporatedareas of DouglasCounty, (11-08-0030P).

City of ColoradoSprings, (10-08-0471 P).

Town ofBreckenridge, (10-08-0858P).

Unincorporatedareas of SummitCounty, (10-08-0858P).

Unincorporatedareas of LeeCounty, (10-04-7794P).

City of Key West,(11-04-2484X).

Unincorporatedareas of MonroeCounty, (11-04-2484X).

City of Ocoee, (10-04-8380P).

Unincorporatedareas of HawaiiCounty, (10-09-3793P).

Unincorporatedareas of CaldwellCounty, (10-04-7739P).

Town of Kill DevilHills, (10-04-3184P).

Town of Apex, (10-04-4743P).

City of Kingsport,(10-04-7017P).

City of St. George,(11-08-0105P).

Unincorporatedareas of UintaCounty, (10-08-0740P).

February 4, 2011; February 11, Ms. Linda Parks, Chair, Ventura County2011; The Ventura County Board of Supervisors, 800 South Vic-Star. toria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009.

February 17, 2011; February24, 2011; The Northglenn-Thornton Sentinel.

February 17, 2011; February24, 2011; The Northglenn-Thornton Sentinel.

February 10, 2011; Feburary17, 2011; The DouglasCounty News-Press.

January 5, 2011; January 12,2011; The El Paso CountyAdvertiser and News.

February 25, 2011; March 4,2011; The Summit CountyJournal.

February 25, 2011; March 4,2011; The Summit CountyJournal.

November 3, 2010; November10, 2010; The News-Press.

February 9, 2011; February 162011; The Key West Citizen.

February 9, 2011; February 162011; The Key West Citizen.

February 22, 2011; March 1,2011; The Orlando Sentinel.

January 3, 2011; January 10,2011; The Hawaii Tribune-Herald.

January 20, 2011; January 27,2011; The Lenoir News-Topic.

November 9, 2010; November16, 2010; The CoastlandTimes.

January 28, 2011; February 4,2011; The News & Observer.

February 14, 2011; February21, 2011; The KingsportTimes-News.

February 11, 2011; Feburary18, 2011; The Spectrum.

December 17, 2010; December24, 2010; The Uinta CountyHerald.

The Honorable Mack Goodman, MayorPro Tempore, City of Thornton, 9500Civic Center Drive, Thornton, CO80229.

Mr. W. R. "Skip" Fischer, Chair, AdamsCounty Board of Commissioners, 4430South Adams County Parkway, Brigh-ton, CO 80601.

Ms. Jill Repella, Chair, Douglas CountyBoard of Commissioners, 100 3rdStreet, Castle Rock, CO 80104.

The Honorable Lionel Rivera, Mayor, Cityof Colorado Springs, P.O. Box 1575,Colorado Springs, CO 80901.

The Honorable John Warner, Mayor,Town of Breckenridge, P.O. Box 168,Breckenridge, CO 80424.

Ms. Karn Stiegelmeier, Chair, SummitCounty Board of Commissioners, P.O.Box 68, Breckenridge, CO 80424.

Mr. Frank Mann, Chair, Lee County Boardof Commissioners, 2115 2nd StreetFort Myers, FL 33901.

The Honorable Craig Cates, Mayor, Cityof Key West, 525 Angela Street, KeyWest, FL 33040.

The Honorable Heather Carruthers,Mayor, Monroe County, 1100 SimontonStreet, Key West, FL 33040.

The Honorable S. Scott Vandergrift,Mayor, City of Ocoee, 150 North Lake-shore Drive, Ocoee, FL 34761.

The Honorable William P. Kenoi, Mayor,Hawaii County, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo,HI 96720.

Mr. Ben Griffin, Chair, Caldwell CountyBoard of Commissioners, P.O. Box2200, 905 West Avenue, NW, Lenoir,NC 28645.

The Honorable Raymond Sturza, Mayor,Town of Kill Devil Hills, P.O. Box 1719,Kill Devil Hills, NC 27948.

The Honorable Keith H. Weatherly,Mayor, Town of Apex, 73 Hunter Street,Apex, NC 27502.

The Honorable Dennis R. Phillips, Mayor,City of Kingsport, 225 West CenterStreet, Kingsport, TN 37660.

The Honorable Daniel D. McArthur,Mayor, City of St. George, 175 East200 North, St. George, UT 84770.

Mr. Mick Powers, Chair, Uinta CountyBoard of Commissioners, 225 9thStreet, Evanston, WY 82930.

June 13, 2011 ................

June 24, 2011 ................

June 24, 2011 ................

June 17, 2011 ................

December 29, 2010 ........

July 5, 2011 ....................

July 5, 2011 ....................

October 27, 2010 ...........

January 31, 2011 ...........

January 31, 2011 ...........

February 14, 2011 ..........

May 10, 2011 .................

May 27,2011 .................

October 29, 2010 ...........

June 6, 2011 ..................

June 21,2011 ................

February 4, 2011 ............

April 25, 2011 .................

060413

080007

080001

080049

080060

080172

080290

125124

120168

125129

120185

155166

370039

375353

370467

470184

490177

560053



Dated: April 8, 2011.Sandra K. Knight,Deputy Federal Insurance and MitigationAdministrator, Mitigation, Department ofHomeland Security, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.




44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance)Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modifiedBFEs are made final for thecommunities listed below. The BFEsand modified BFEs are the basis for thefloodplain management measures thateach community is required either toadopt or to show evidence of beingalready in effect in order to qualify orremain qualified for participation in theNational Flood Insurance Program(NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the FloodInsurance Rate Map (FIRM) showingBFEs and modified BFEs for eachcommunity. This date may be obtainedby contacting the office where the mapsare available for inspection as indicatedin the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for eachcommunity are available for inspectionat the office of the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of each community. Therespective addresses are listed in thetable below.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis

Rodriguez, Chief, EngineeringManagement Division, FederalInsurance and MitigationAdministration, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064,or (e-mail) [email protected] INFORMATION: TheFederal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) makes the final determinationslisted below for the modified BFEs foreach community listed. These modifiedelevations have been published innewspapers of local circulation andninety (90) days have elapsed since thatpublication. The Deputy FederalInsurance and Mitigation Administratorhas resolved any appeals resulting fromthis notification.

This final rule is issued in accordancewith section 110 of the Flood DisasterProtection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA hasdeveloped criteria for floodplainmanagement in floodprone areas inaccordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of realproperty are encouraged to review theproof Flood Insurance Study and FIRMavailable at the address cited below foreach community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs aremade final in the communities listedbelow. Elevations at selected locationsin each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act.This final rule is categorically excludedfrom the requirements of 44 CFR part

10, Environmental Consideration. Anenvironmental impact assessment hasnot been prepared.


Regulatory Classification. This finalrule is not a significant regulatory actionunder the criteria of section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866 of September 30,1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This final rule involves no policies thathave federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. This final rule meets theapplicable standards of Executive Order12988.


Administrative practice andprocedure, Flood insurance, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 isamended as follows:

PART 67-[AMENDED]



§ 67.11 [Amended]


* Elevation in feet(NGVD)

+ Elevation in feet(NAVD) Communities

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation # Depth in feet affectedabove groundA Elevation inmeters (MSL)

Modified

Crittenden County, Arkansas, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1045

Mississippi River ....................... Approximately at River Mile 700 ......................................... +212 Unincorporated Areas ofCrittenden County.

Approxim ately at River M ile 727 ......................................... +226Approxim ately at River M ile 741 ......................................... +234Approxim ately at River M ile 750 ......................................... +237

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

+ North American Vertical Datum.#Depth in feet above ground.A Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

21664





Modified

ADDRESSESUnincorporated Areas of Crittenden County

Maps are available for inspection at the Crittenden County Courthouse, 85 Jackson Street, Marion, AR 72482.Madison County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas

Docket No.: FEMA-B-1037

Alexandria Creek ...................... Approximately 150 feet upstream of the confluence with +853 City of Alexandria, Unincor-Pipe Creek. porated Areas of Madison

County.Approximately 2,100 feet upstream of 1 1th Street ............. +861

Big Duck C reek ......................... At South P Street ................................................................ +843 City of Elwood, Unincor-porated Areas of MadisonCounty.

Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of North 20th Street ... +856Boland Ditch ............................. Approximately 700 feet downstream of Meadowbrook +872 City of Anderson.

Parkway.Approximately 4,190 feet upstream of Main Street ............ +881

Fall Creek ................................. Approximately 630 feet downstream of Reformatory Road +821 Unincorporated Areas ofMadison County.

Approximately 9,980 feet upstream of State Route 67 ...... +862Foster Branch ........................... Approximately 2,060 feet downstream of Fall Creek Road +816 Town of Ingalls, Town of

Pendleton, UnincorporatedAreas of Madison County.

Approximately 240 feet upstream of Old State Road 132 +860Pipe Creek ................................ Approximately 1,425 feet downstream of Conrail Railroad +820 City of Alexandria, Unincor-

porated Areas of MadisonCounty.

Approximately 2,690 feet upstream of Washington Street +857Prairie Creek ............................. Approximately 2,460 feet upstream of State Route 67 ...... +851 Unincorporated Areas of

Madison County.Approximately 4,460 feet upstream of State Route 67 ...... +851

W est Fork W hite River ............. At State Route 13 North ...................................................... +805 City of Anderson, Town ofChesterfield, Town ofCountry Club Heights,Town of River Forest,Town of WoodlawnHeights, UnincorporatedAreas of Madison County.

At County Line Road/South 1000 West .............................. +872



ADDRESSES

City of AlexandriaMaps are available for inspection at the City of Alexandria Office, 125 North Wayne Street, Alexandria, IN 46001.City of AndersonMaps are available for inspection at the City Building, 120 East 8th Street, Anderson, IN 46016.City of ElwoodMaps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1505 South B Street, Elwood, IN 46036.Town of ChesterfieldMaps are available for inspection at the Government Center, 17 Veterans Boulevard, Chesterfield, IN 46017.Town of Country Club HeightsMaps are available for inspection at 1202 North Madison Avenue, Anderson, IN 46011.Town of IngallsMaps are available for inspection at the Town Center, 247 Meridian Street, Ingalls, IN 46048.Town of PendletonMaps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 100 West State Street, Pendleton, IN 46064.Town of River ForestMaps are available for inspection at 53 River Forest Street, Anderson, IN 46011.Town of Woodlawn HeightsMaps are available for inspection at 1301 Van Buskirk Road, Anderson, IN 46011.

21665





Modified

Unincorporated Areas of Madison CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Madison County Government Center, 16 East 9th Street, Room 200, Anderson, IN 46018.

Lee County, Iowa, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1106

Des Moines River (backwater At the confluence with the Mississippi River ...................... +499 City of Keokuk.effects from MississippiRiver).

Approximately 700 feet upstream of Burlington Northern +499Railroad.

Devils Creek (backwater effects Just upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi River +524 City of Fort Madison, Unin-from Mississippi River). corporated Areas of Lee

County.Approximately 900 feet downstream of 235th Street ......... +524

Dry Creek (backwater effects Just upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi River +525 City of Fort Madison.from Mississippi River).

Approximately 100 feet downstream of Atchison Topeka +525and Santa Fe Railway (Southernmost Track).

Fork Creek (backwater effects Just upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi River +526 City of Fort Madison.from Mississippi River).

Approximately 100 feet downstream of Burlington North- +526ern Railroad.

French Creek ............................ Approximately 600 feet upstream of B Avenue .................. +558 Unincorporated Areas of LeeCounty.

Approximately 700 feet upstream of B Avenue .................. +558Horton Creek (backwater ef- At the downstream side of Burlington Northern Railroad ... +523 City of Montrose.

fects from Mississippi River).Approximately 200 feet downstream of 2nd Street ............ +523

Jack Creek (backwater effects Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of 1st Street ............... +523 City of Montrose.from Mississippi River).

At the downstream side of Burlington Northern Railroad ... +523Mississippi River ....................... At the confluence with the Des Moines River ..................... +499 City of Fort Madison, City of

Keokuk, City of Montrose,Unincorporated Areas ofLee County.

Approximately 4.7 miles downstream of the confluence +529with the Skunk River.

Mississippi River Tributary Approximately 100 feet upstream of Atchison Topeka and +524 Unincorporated Areas of Lee(backwater effects from Mis- Santa Fe Railway. County.sissippi River).

Approximately 0.6 miles upstream of Ortho Road .............. +524Soap Creek ............................... Just upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi River +500 City of Keokuk.

Approximately 500 feet downstream of 7th Street ............. +502



ADDRESSES

City of Fort MadisonMaps are available for inspection at 811 Avenue E, Fort Madison, IA 52627.City of KeokukMaps are available for inspection at 415 Blondeau Street, Keokuk, IA 52632.City of MontroseMaps are available for inspection at 102 South 2nd Street, Montrose, IA 52639.

Unincorporated Areas of Lee CountyMaps are available for inspection at 933 Avenue H, Fort Madison, IA 52627.

Franklin County, Kansas, and Incorporated AreasDocket Nos.: FEMA-B-1 057 and FEMA-B-1105

Marias des Cygnes River ......... At South East Street ...........................................................Approximately 800 feet upstream of Vermont Road ..........

21666

+882 City of Rantoul.+882





Modified

Nugent Creek ............................ Just upstream of Marshall Road ......................................... +904 City of Ottawa, Unincor-porated Areas of FranklinCounty.

Just dow nstream of 1-35 ..................................................... +940Pottawatomie Creek ................. At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary between Wal- +874 City of Lane.

nut Street and Cherry Street in eastern portion of thecity.

Just upstream of the intersection of Lane Road and South +875Kansas Avenue.

Rock Creek ............................... Just upstream of East 15th Street ...................................... +902 City of Ottawa, Unincor-porated Areas of FranklinCounty.

Just dow nstream of 1-35 ..................................................... +913W alnut C reek ............................ Just upstream of 1-35 ......................................................... +1012 City of W ellsville, Unincor-

porated Areas of FranklinCounty.

Just upstream of Utah Road ............................................... +1040Walnut Creek Tributary ............. At the confluence with Walnut Creek .................................. +1030 Unincorporated Areas of

Franklin County.Approximately 800 feet downstream of Hedge Road ......... +1038



ADDRESSES

City of LaneMaps are available for inspection at 520 3rd Street, Lane, KS 66042.City of OttawaMaps are available for inspection at 101 South Hickory Street, 2nd Floor, Ottawa, KS 66067.City of RantoulMaps are available for inspection at 120 East Main Street, Rantoul, KS 66079.City of WellsvilleMaps are available for inspection at 411 Main Street, Wellsville, KS 66092.

Unincorporated Areas of Franklin CountyMaps are available for inspection at 315 South Main Street, Suite 202, Ottawa, KS 66067.

Barren County, Kentucky, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1080

Barren River Lake .....................

Barren River Tributary 32.1(backwater effects from Bar-ren River Lake).

Beaver Creek (backwater ef-fects from Barren River Lake).

Beaver Creek Tributary 1(backwater effects from Bar-ren River Lake).

Beaver Creek Tributary 1.4(backwater effects from Bar-ren River Lake).

Beaver Creek Tributary 47(backwater effects from Bar-ren River Lake).

Coon Creek (backwater effectsfrom Barren River Lake).

Dry Creek (backwater effectsfrom Barren River Lake).

E n tire s h o re lin e ...................................................................

From the confluence with Barren River Lake to approxi-mately 0.2 mile upstream of the confluence with BarrenRiver Lake.

From the confluence with Barren River Lake to approxi-mately 4.0 miles upstream of the confluence with Bar-ren River Lake.


From the confluence with Beaver Creek Tributary 1 to ap-proximately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence withBeaver Creek Tributary 1.

From the confluence with Beaver Creek to approximately0.3 mile upstream of the confluence with Beaver Creek.



+590

+590

+590

+590

+590

+590

+590

+590

Unincorporated Areas ofBarren County.








21667





Modified

Peter Creek (backwater effects From the confluence with Barren River Lake to approxi- +590 Unincorporated Areas offrom Barren River Lake). mately 2.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Bar- Barren County.

ren River Lake.Rose Creek (backwater effects From the confluence with Skaggs Creek to approximately +590 Unincorporated Areas of

from Barren River Lake). 1.6 miles upstream of the confluence with Skaggs Barren County.Creek.

Skaggs Creek (backwater ef- From the confluence with Barren River Lake to approxi- +590 Unincorporated Areas offects from Barren River Lake). mately 2.3 miles upstream of the confluence with Bar- Barren County.

ren River Lake.South Fork Beaver Creek From the confluence with Beaver Creek to approximately +590 Unincorporated Areas of

(backwater effects from Bar- 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Beaver Creek. Barren County.ren River Lake).

South Glover Creek (backwater From the confluence with Barren River Lake to approxi- +590 Unincorporated Areas ofeffects from Barren River mately 1.5 miles upstream of the confluence with Bar- Barren County.Lake). ren River Lake.



ADDRESSES

Unincorporated Areas of Barren CountyMaps are available for inspection at 117 North Public Square, Suite 3A, Glasgow, KY 42141.

Clinton County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)Docket No.: FEMA-B-1053

Looking Glass River ................. Just upstream of South Chandler Road ............................. +805 Charter Township of Bath,Township of Victor.

Approximately 9,000 feet upstream of Babcock Road ....... +807Prairie Creek and Gunderman At the confluence with Remy Chandler Drain ..................... +817 Charter Township of DeWitt.

Lake Drain.Approximately 7,410 feet upstream of West Stoll Road ..... +832

Remy Chandler Drain ............... Approximately 350 feet downstream of 1-69 ...................... +834 Charter Township of Bath,Charter Township ofDeWitt, City of East Lan-sing.

Approximately 1,140 feet upstream of Coleman Road ....... +841Steel and Walbridge Drain ....... At the confluence with Spaulding Drain .............................. +730 City of St. Johns, Township

of Bingham.Approximately 600 feet upstream of Glastonbury Drive ..... +752



ADDRESSES

Charter Township of BathMaps are available for inspection at 14480 Webster Road, Bath, MI 48808.Charter Township of DeWittMaps are available for inspection at 1401 West Herbison Road, DeWitt, MI 48820.City of East LansingMaps are available for inspection at 410 Abbott Road, East Lansing, MI 48823.City of St. JohnsMaps are available for inspection at 100 East State Street, Suite 1100, St. Johns, MI 48879.Township of BinghamMaps are available for inspection at 1637 South DeWitt Road, St. Johns, MI 48879.Township of VictorMaps are available for inspection at 6843 East Alward Road, Laingsburg, MI 48848.

Clay County, Mississippi, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1093

Tombigbee River ...................... Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence withTibbee Creek.

21668

+177 Unincorporated Areas ofClay County.





Modified

Approximately 4.2 miles upstream of the confluence with +188Town Creek East.



ADDRESSES

Unincorporated Areas of Clay CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Clay County Courthouse, 205 Court Street, West Point, MS 39773.

Cooper County, Missouri, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1087

Missouri River ........................... Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the Moniteau Coun- +587 City of Boonville, Unincor-ty boundary. porated Areas of Cooper

County.Approximately 2,500 feet downstream of the Saline Coun- +610

ty boundary.



ADDRESSES

City of BoonvilleMaps are available for inspection at 1200 Locust Street, Boonville, MO 65233.

Unincorporated Areas of Cooper CountyMaps are available for inspection at 200 Main Street, Room 4, Boonville, MO 65233.

Dawson County, Nebraska, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1087

North Channel Platte River ....... Approximately 1.2 miles downstream of Cottonwood Drive +2548 City of Gothenburg.Just upstream of 1-80 ......................................................... +2566

Platte River ............................... Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Plum Creek Park- +2381 City of Gothenburg, City ofway. Lexington, Unincorporated

Areas of Dawson County.Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of Plum Creek Parkway +2398Approximately 1.6 miles downstream of State Highway 47 +2550Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of State Highway 47 .... +2572

Spring Creek ............................. Approximately 1,500 feet southeast of the intersection of +2367 City of Lexington, Unincor-Road 436 and East Prospect Road. porated Areas of Dawson

County.On Spring Creek just downstream of Road 431 ................. +2424



ADDRESSES

City of GothenburgMaps are available for inspection at 409 9th Street, Gothenburg, NE 69138.City of LexingtonMaps are available for inspection at 406 East 7th Street, Lexington, NE 68850.

Unincorporated Areas of Dawson CountyMaps are available for inspection at 700 North Washington Street, Lexington, NE 68850.

Seneca County, Ohio, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1085

Morrison Creek (backwater ef- At the confluence with the Sandusky River ........................fects from Sandusky River).

21669

+717 Unincorporated Areas ofSeneca County.





Modified

Approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with +717the Sandusky River.

Sandusky River ......................... Approximately 1.0 mile downstream of Huss Street ........... +709 City of Tiffin, UnincorporatedAreas of Seneca County.

Approximately 1,600 feet downstream of U.S. Route 224 +745



ADDRESSESCity of TiffinMaps are available for inspection at 51 East Market Street, Tiffin, OH 44883.

Unincorporated Areas of Seneca CountyMaps are available for inspection at 109 South Washington Street, Suite 2002, Tiffin, OH 44883.

Jackson County, Oregon, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1085

Daisy Creek .............................. At the confluence with Griffin Creek ................................... +1274 City of Central Point, Unin-corporated Areas of Jack-son County.

Just upstream of Beall Lane ............................................... +1299Elk Creek .................................. At the confluence with Bear Creek ..................................... +1271 City of Central Point, Unin-

corporated Areas of Jack-son County.

Just upstream of Beall Lane ............................................... +1297Griffin Creek .............................. At the confluence with Bear Creek ..................................... +1214 City of Central Point, Unin-


Just downstream of Taylor Road ........................................ +1267Just upstream of Beall Lane ............................................... +1301

Horn Creek ............................... At the confluence with Jackson Creek ................................ +1264 City of Central Point, Unin-corporated Areas of Jack-son County.

Just downstream of Mendolia W ay ..................................... +1281Just upstream of G rant Road .............................................. +1290

Jackson Creek .......................... Just downstream of Scenic Avenue .................................... +1235 City of Central Point, Unin-corporated Areas of Jack-son County.

Just downstream of Taylor Road ........................................ +1266Just upstream of Beall Lane ............................................... +1301

Jackson Creek Overbank ......... At the confluence with Jackson Creek ................................ +1238 City of Central Point, Unin-corporated Areas of Jack-son County.

At the divergence from Griffin Creek .................................. +1258Mingus Creek ............................ Just downstream of Pine Street .......................................... +1261 City of Central Point, Unin-


Just upstream of Highway 99 ............................................. +1295Rouge River .............................. Approximately 500 feet upstream of Savage Rapids Dam +975 Unincorporated Areas of

Jackson County.Approximately 1.02 miles upstream of the confluence with +987

Little Savage Creek.



ADDRESSESCity of Central PointMaps are available for inspection at City Hall, 140 South 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502.

Unincorporated Areas of Jackson CountyMaps are available for inspection at City Hall, 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Room 200, Medford, OR 97501.

21670





Modified

Fairfield County, South Carolina, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1110

McCulley Creek ........................ Approximately 1,370 feet downstream of State Road S- +350 Town of Winnsboro, Unincor-20-56. porated Areas of Fairfield

County.Approximately 560 feet downstream of Dogwood Avenue +396

Sand Creek ............................... Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of Pumphouse Road +378 Town of Winnsboro, Unincor-porated Areas of FairfieldCounty.

Approximately 169 feet downstream of U.S. Route 321 .... +522Sand Creek Tributary 10 .......... At the confluence with Sand Creek .................................... +429 Unincorporated Areas of

Fairfield CountyApproximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with +489

Sand Creek.Sand Creek Tributary 11 .......... At the confluence with Sand Creek .................................... +449 Town of Winnsboro.

Approximately 1,473 feet upstream of U.S. Route 321 ...... +544



ADDRESSES

Town of WinnsboroMaps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 117 South Congress Street, Winnsboro, SC 29180.

Unincorporated Areas of Fairfield CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Winnsboro Town Hall, 117 South Congress Street, Winnsboro, SC 29180.

Greenwood County, South Carolina, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1093

Lake Greenwood ...................... Entire shoreline within community ...................................... +442 Unincorporated Areas ofGreenwood County.

Ninety-Six Creek ....................... Approximately 1.0 mile downstream of U.S. Route 702 ..... +399 Unincorporated Areas ofGreenwood County.

Approximately 1,655 feet upstream of U.S. Route 702 ...... +403Rocky Creek Tributary .............. Approximately 516 feet downstream of Bypass 72 ............ +575 City of Greenwood.

Approximately 2,177 feet upstream of Bypass 72 .............. +590Saluda River ............................. Approximately 3.9 miles downstream of U.S. Route 25 ..... +448 Town of Ware Shoals, Unin-

corporated Areas ofGreenwood County.

Approximately 200 feet upstream of Saluda Avenue ......... +531Sample Branch ......................... Approximately 1,206 feet upstream of the confluence with +527 City of Greenwood, Unincor-

Rocky Creek. porated Areas of Green-wood County.

Approximately 130 feet upstream of Dry Branch Court ...... +563



ADDRESSESCity of GreenwoodMaps are available for inspection at City Hall, 520 Monument Street, Greenwood, SC 29648.Town of Ware ShoalsMaps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 8 Mill Street, Ware Shoals, SC 29692.

Unincorporated Areas of Greenwood CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Greenwood County Courthouse, 600 Monument Street, Greenwood, SC 29646.

Barbour County, West Virginia, and Incorporated AreasDocket No.: FEMA-B-1083

Tygart Valley River ................... Approximately 40 feet downstream of the confluence withBig Run.

21671

+1696 Unincorporated Areas ofBarbour County.





Modified

Approximately 175 feet upstream of the confluence with +1706Tributary No. 1 to Tygart Valley River.



ADDRESSES

Unincorporated Areas of Barbour CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Barbour County Courthouse, 8 North Main Street, Philippi, West Virginia 26416.



Sandra K. Knight,

DeputyFederal Insurance and MitigationAdministrator, Mitigation, Department ofHomeland Security, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

[FR Do. 2011-9341 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


21672

Proposed Rules Federal Register

Vol. 76, No. 74


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BP-TP-00024]

RIN 1904-AC46

Alternative Efficiency DeterminationMethods and Alternate Rating Methods

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, Department ofEnergy.ACTION: Notice of availability of requestfor information (RFI).

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) seeks information anddata related to the use of computersimulations, mathematical methods, andother alternative methods ofdetermining the efficiency of certaintypes of consumer products andcommercial and industrial equipment.DOE intends to use the information anddata collected in this RFI to betterinform the proposals for a rulemakingaddressing alternative efficiencydetermination methods (AEDM) andalternate rating methods (ARM) forthese types of covered products.DATES: Written comments andinformation are requested on or beforeMay 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: Interested persons areencouraged to submit comments usingthe Federal eRulemaking Portal athttp://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments.Alternatively, interested persons maysubmit comments, identified by docketnumber EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024, byany of the following methods:

* E-mail: to AED/[email protected]. Include EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024 in the subject line of themessage.

* Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.Department of Energy, BuildingTechnologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J,Revisions to Energy EfficiencyEnforcement Regulations, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024, 1000 IndependenceAvenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Pleasesubmit one signed paper original.

* Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. BrendaEdwards, U.S. Department of Energy,Building Technologies Program, 6thFloor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.,Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202)586-2945. Please submit one signedpaper original.

Instructions: All submissions receivedmust include the agency name anddocket number or RIN for thisrulemaking.

Docket: For access to the docket toread background documents, orcomments received, go to the FederaleRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Direct requests for additionalinformation may be sent to Ms. AshleyArmstrong, U.S. Department of Energy,Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, BuildingTechnologies Program, EE-2J, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20585-0121.Telephone: (202) 586-6590. E-mail:[email protected], and Ms.Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office of the General Counsel,Forrestal Building, GC-32, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:(202) 287-6122. E-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background: As part of the testing

procedures for certain consumerproducts and commercial and industrialequipment (hereafter referred tocollectively as covered products), DOEallows the use of AEDMs or ARMs, oncevalidated, in lieu of actual testing for thepurposes of determining the certifiedratings for basic models. AEDMs andARMs are derived from mathematicalmodels and engineering principles thatgovern the energy efficiency and energyconsumption characteristics of a basicmodel. Where authorized by regulation,AEDMs and ARMs enablemanufacturers to rate their basic modelsusing estimated energy use or energyefficiency results. DOE has authorizedthe use of AEDMs or ARMs for coveredproducts that are difficult or expensiveto test, thereby reducing the testingburden for manufacturers of expensiveor highly custom basic models.Currently, DOE allows the use ofalternative rating procedures, once

specified development and validationcriteria are met, for commercial heating,ventilation, and air conditioning(HVAC) equipment; commercial waterheaters; electric motors; distributiontransformers; and residential splitsystem central air conditioners and heatpumps.

DOE's existing requirements for theuse of an AEDM include substantiationof the alternative method, as well assubsequent verification. Substantiationof the AEDM requires a manufacturer totest a specified number of basic modelsand then compare those test results withvalues derived by an AEDM. Testedvalues and derived values for eachindividual unit must be within aspecified percentage of each other. Theoverall averages for the tested andAEDM values must also be within aspecified percentage of each other. Thenumber of units tested and thepercentage correlations are productspecific (see 10 CFR 429.70).Verification of an AEDM requires amanufacturer to test a specified numberof basic models with the substantiatedAEDM. No prior approval is requiredbefore the AEDM can be used to certifyproducts. With respect to subsequentverification, if a manufacturer choosesto use an AEDM, it must makeinformation available to DOE uponrequest for verification of the AEDM,including but not limited to: Themathematical model, complete test data,and the calculations used to determineefficiency. Additionally, if requested byDOE, a manufacturer must performsimulations, analysis, or unit testing toverify the AEDM.

While serving the same purpose asAEDMs, ARMs differ in that they arespecific to residential central airconditioners and heat pumps andrequire approval from DOE before theycan be used to certify products. In orderto receive approval for an ARM, amanufacturer must submit test data forfour mixed systems of central airconditioners and heat pumps along withcomplete documentation of the ARMand products as specified in 10 CFR429.70(e)(2). Similar to the process forAEDM verification, the manufacturermay be required to conduct furtheranalysis, including additionalsimulations, if requested by DOE.

DOE is publishing this RFI to seekinformation regarding the currentprocedures being employed by industry

21673

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011/Proposed Rules

to rate low-volume, custom-built-equipment and to better understandhow DOE's current AEDM and ARMprocedures are being applied. At thistime, DOE is considering expanding theapplication of AEDMs to other types ofcovered commercial equipment, such ascommercial refrigeration equipment andautomatic commercial ice makers.Additionally, DOE plans to considerwhether revisions to the proceduresgoverning the substantiation andsubsequent verification of AEDMs andARMs are appropriate based on the dataand comments received in response tothis RFI.

Issues on Which DOE Seeks Commentand Information

General

1. What types of covered productsnecessitate or warrant the use of anAEDM or ARM?

2. What are the current methodsemployed by manufacturers to ratecommercial and certain low-volume,built-to-order equipment?

3. Should DOE have two differenttypes of alternative rating procedures?Are the distinctions between ARMs andAEDMs warranted?

4. Could an AEDM or ARM be usedacross multiple product classes orproduct types? Additionally, if anAEDM is used across product classes ortypes, should the amount of verificationtests performed on the AEDM bedependent on the number of productclasses/types to which it is applied?

5. Should DOE disallow the use ofARMs or AEDMs for manufacturers whohave been found in non-compliancewith an applicable conservationstandard and/or certificationrequirement? Further, should DOE findall models rated using a specific ARMor AEDM in noncompliance as a resultof a determination of noncompliance ofone basic model rated with that specificARM or AEDM?

6. What are the advantages and/ordisadvantages of DOE approval of anAEDM or ARM prior to use as opposedto maintaining and providing data uponrequest?

7. Should DOE consider expandingthe ARM provisions to allow forsubstitution of different systemcomponents (e.g., condensers) instead ofjust applying to coils for residential splitsystem air conditioners and heatpumps? Additionally, shouldmanufacturers be allowed to use ARMsfor other residential central airconditioner and heat pump productclasses?

8. Should voluntary industrycertification programs (VICP) be

involved in the development,substantiation, and verification ofAEDMs and ARMs, and, if so, to whatextent?

9. What, if any, other changes tocurrent AEDM and ARM regulationsshould DOE consider that would reducetesting burdens while still ensuring thatcovered products are appropriatelyrated and certified as compliant withapplicable standards?

Substantiation

10. The recently issued certification,compliance, and enforcement final ruleadded a requirement for re-substantiation of an AEDM or ARM asa result of a change in standard or testprocedure. 76 FR 12492 (March 7,2011). What are the advantages and/ordisadvantages of periodic re-substantiation of an ARM or AEDM? Ifre-substantiation is not necessary,please provide supporting data andspecify the amount of time the AEDM orARM should continue to be validwithout further substantiation.

11. If the current number of units(sample size) that must be tested tosubstantiate the AEDM or the ARM iseither unwarranted or inadequate, on aproduct-specific basis, what would bean appropriate sample size? (Pleaseprovide supporting data.) Should therebe certain types of basic models thatmust be used in the substantiationprocess (e.g., the highest selling basicmodel)?

12. DOE seeks product specificinformation on the appropriatetolerances for substantiation of AEDMsand ARMs. Should these tolerances varyby product? Should these tolerances bealigned with the certification tolerancesfor a given covered product?

13. Would it be feasible for DOE tocreate standardized tolerances across allproducts or products with similarcharacteristics to which AEDMs orARMs may apply (e.g., refrigerationproducts)?

14. Are two sets of comparison testingfor substantiation of the AEDM forcommercial HVAC and water heaterequipment warranted? Would one set oftesting be sufficient?

Verification

15. DOE requests information on thefeasibility and necessity of approval ofAEDMs before use by the manufacturer.

16. What criteria should DOE use toselect AEDM/ARMs for verification?

17. When and how frequently shouldDOE verify AEDM/ARMs?

18. What criteria should be used toverify AEDM/ARMs? DOE welcomesspecific comment on the following as

well as comment on any otherapplicable criteria:

* Tolerances; and* Number of basic models per

comparison.Purpose: The purpose of this RFI is to

solicit feedback from industry,manufacturers, academia, consumergroups, efficiency advocates,government agencies, and otherstakeholders on issues related to AEDMsand ARMs. DOE is specificallyinterested in information and sources ofdata related to covered products andequipment that could be used informulating a methodology regardingcreation of a standardized procedure forsubstantiation and verification, whereapplicable. This is solely a request forinformation and not a FundingOpportunity Announcement (FOA).

Disclaimer and Important Notes: ThisRFI does not constitute a formalsolicitation for proposals or abstracts.Your response to this notice will betreated as information only. Inaccordance with FAR 15.201(e),responses to this notice are not offersand cannot be accepted by theGovernment to form a binding contract.DOE will not provide reimbursement forcosts incurred in responding to this RFI.Commenters are advised that DOE isunder no obligation to acknowledgereceipt of the information received orprovide feedback to commenters withrespect to any information submittedunder this RFI. Responses to this RFI donot bind DOE to any further actionsrelated to this topic.

Proprietary Information: Patentableideas, trade secrets, and proprietary orconfidential commercial or financialinformation, may be included inresponses to this RFI. The use anddisclosure of such data may berestricted, provided the commenterincludes the following legend on thefirst page of the comment and specifiesthe pages of the comment which are tobe restricted:

"The data contained in pages _ of thiscomment have been submitted in confidenceand contain trade secrets or proprietaryinformation, and such data shall be used ordisclosed only for information and programplanning purposes. This restriction does notlimit the government's right to use ordisclose data obtained without restrictionfrom any source, including the commenter,consistent with applicable law."

To protect such data, each line orparagraph on the pages containing suchdata must be specifically identified andmarked with a legend similar to thefollowing:

"The following contains proprietaryinformation that (name of commenter)requests not be released to persons outside

21674


the Government, except for purposes ofreview and evaluation."

Evaluation and Administration byFederal and Non-Federal Personnel:Government civil servant employees aresubject to the non-disclosure obligationsof a felony criminal statute, the TradeSecrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905. TheGovernment may seek the advice ofqualified non-Federal personnel. TheGovernment may also use non-Federalpersonnel to conduct routine,nondiscretionary administrativeactivities. The commenter, bysubmitting its response, consents toDOE providing its response to non-Federal parties.

Non-Federal parties given access toresponses must be subject to anappropriate obligation of confidentialityprior to being given the access.Comments may be reviewed by supportcontractors and private consultants.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8,2011.Kathleen B. Hogan,Deputy Assistant Secretaiyfor EnergyEfficiency, Office of TechnologyDevelopment, Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 2011-9274 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1270;Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-50-AD]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DowtyPropellers Type R321/4-82-F/8, R324/4-82-F/9, R333/4-82-F/12, and R334/4-82-F/13 Propeller Assemblies

AGENCY: Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), DOT.ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking(NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to revise anexisting airworthiness directive (AD)that applies to the products listed above.The existing AD currently requiresinitial and repetitive ultrasonicinspections of propeller hubs, partnumber (P/N) 660709201. Since weissued that AD, Dowty Propellersintroduced a new hub assembly P/N.This proposed AD would revise that ADby introducing as an optionalterminating action for the initial andrepetitive ultrasonic inspections of thatAD, replacement of propeller hub P/N

660709201 with a new propeller hub,P/N 660717226. We are proposing thisAD to prevent that same propeller hubfailure due to cracks in the hub, whichcould result in loss of control of theairplane, and to introduce an optionalterminating action.DATES: We must receive comments onthis proposed AD by June 2, 2011.ADDRESSES: You may send comments byany of the following methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go tohttp://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments." Fax:202-493-2251.* Mail: U.S. Department of

Transportation, Docket Operations,M-30, West Building Ground Floor,Room W12-140, 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

* Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mailaddress above between 9 a.m. and5 p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays.For service information identified in

this AD, contact Dowty Propellers,Anson Business Park, Cheltenham RoadEast, Gloucester GL 29QN, UK;telephone: 44 (0) 1452 716000; fax: 44(0) 1452 716001. You may review copiesof the referenced service information atthe FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,12 New England Executive Park,Burlington, MA. For information on theavailability of this material at the FAA,call 781-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket onthe Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at theDocket Management Facility between9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday throughFriday, except Federal holidays. The ADdocket contains this proposed AD, theregulatory evaluation, any commentsreceived, and other information. Thestreet address for the Docket Office(phone: 800-647-5527) is in theADDRESSES section. Comments will beavailable in the AD docket shortly afterreceipt.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer,Boston Aircraft Certification Office,FAA, 12 New England Executive Park,Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7761; fax: 781-238-7170; e-mail:[email protected].


Comments Invited

We invite you to send any writtenrelevant data, views, or arguments aboutthis proposed AD. Send your commentsto an address listed under theADDRESSES section. Include "Docket No.FAA-2010-1270; Directorate Identifier

2001-NE-50-AD" at the beginning ofyour comments. We specifically invitecomments on the overall regulatory,economic, environmental, and energyaspects of this proposed AD. We willconsider all comments received by theclosing date and may amend thisproposed AD because of thosecomments.

We will post all comments wereceive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including anypersonal information you provide. Wewill also post a report summarizing eachsubstantive verbal contact we receiveabout this proposed AD.

Discussion

On December 2, 2005, we issued AD2005-25-10, Amendment 39-14403 (70FR 73364, December 12, 2005), forDowty Propellers type R321/4-82-F/8,R324/4-82-F/9, R333/4-82-F/12, andR334/4-82-F/13 propeller assemblies.That AD requires initial and repetitiveultrasonic inspections of propeller hubs,P/N 660709201. That AD resulted froma report of a hub separation on a CASA212 airplane, and mandatory continuingairworthiness information (MCAI)issued by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correctan unsafe condition on an aviationproduct. We issued that AD to preventpropeller hub failure due to cracks inthe hub, which could result in loss ofcontrol of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

Since we issued AD 2005-25-10, theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency(EASA) has issued AD 2010-0196R1,dated November 12, 2010, whichrequires initial and repetitive ultrasonicinspections of propeller hubs, andintroduces a new P/N propeller hub asoptional terminating action to theinspections.

Relevant Service Information

We have reviewed the technicalcontents of Dowty Propellers AlertService Bulletin (SB) No. 61-1119,Revision 5, dated July 1, 2009, Alert SBNo. 61-1124, Revision 2, dated August25, 2010, Alert SB No. 61-1125,Revision 2, dated August 25, 2010, andAlert SB No. 61-1126, Revision 2, datedAugust 25, 2010. The SBs describeprocedures for initial and repetitiveultrasonic inspections of the rear wall ofthe rear half of the propeller hub forcracks on types R334/4-82-F/13, R333/4-82-F/12, R321/4-82-F/8, and R324/4-82-F/9 propeller assemblies,respectively. The SBs also introducenew hub assembly P/N 660717226, asoptional terminating action for theinitial and repetitive inspections. EASA

21675


classified the service information asmandatory and issued AD 2010-0196R1, dated November 12, 2010, toensure the airworthiness of thesepropeller assemblies in Europe.

Bilateral Agreement Information

These propeller assemblies aremanufactured in the United Kingdom,and are type certificated for operation inthe United States under the provisionsof Section 21.29 of the Federal AviationRegulations (14 CFR 21.29) and theapplicable bilateral airworthinessagreement. Under this bilateralairworthiness agreement, EASA kept usinformed of the situation describedabove. We have examined the findingsof the EASA, reviewed all availableinformation, and determined that ADaction is necessary for products of thesetype designs that are certificated foroperation in the United States.

FAA's Determination

We are proposing this AD revisionbecause we evaluated all the relevantinformation and determined the unsafecondition described previously is likelyto exist or develop in other products ofthese same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would retain theinspection requirements of AD 2005-25-10. This proposed AD wouldintroduce the installation of a new P/Nhub assembly as optional terminatingaction to the inspections. This proposedAD would also eliminate the inspectionreporting requirements, since we havealready collected sufficient data.

Differences Between the Proposed ADand the Service Information or MCAI

Although Appendix A of Alert SB No.61-1119, Revision 5, dated July 1, 2009,requires reporting the inspection data toDowty Propellers, this proposed ADwould not require any reporting.

Although the MCAI uses initialinspection compliance times of 20 days/60 days, we removed them from theproposed AD, since the unsafecondition is not related to corrosion.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed ADwould affect 132 propellers installed onairplanes of U.S. registry. We alsoestimate that it would take about 0.5work-hour per propeller to perform theproposed inspection and about 1 hour to

replace a propeller hub. The averagelabor rate is $85 per work-hour.Required parts would cost about$19,500 per engine. Based on thesefigures, we estimate the total cost of theproposed AD to U.S. operators to be$2,590,830.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Codespecifies the FAA's authority to issuerules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,Section 106, describes the authority ofthe FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,Aviation Programs, describes in moredetail the scope of the Agency'sauthority.

We are issuing this rulemaking underthe authority described in Subtitle VII,Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701,"General requirements." Under thatsection, Congress charges the FAA withpromoting safe flight of civil aircraft inair commerce by prescribing regulationsfor practices, methods, and proceduresthe Administrator finds necessary forsafety in air commerce. This regulationis within the scope of that authoritybecause it addresses an unsafe conditionthat is likely to exist or develop onproducts identified in this rulemakingaction.

Regulatory Findings

We have determined that thisproposed AD would not have federalismimplications under Executive Order13132. This proposed AD would nothave a substantial direct effect on theStates, on the relationship between thenational Government and the States, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, Icertify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a "significant regulatoryaction" under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a "significant rule" under theDOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviationin Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significanteconomic impact, positive or negative,on a substantial number of small entitiesunder the criteria of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act.


Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviationsafety, Incorporation by reference,Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authoritydelegated to me by the Administrator,the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part39 as follows:

PART 39-AIRWORTHINESSDIRECTIVES

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 byremoving airworthiness directive (AD)2005-25-10, Amendment 39-14403(70 FR 73364, December 12, 2005), andadding the following new AD:

Dowty Propellers (formerly DowtyAerospace; Dowty Rotol Limited; andDowty Rotol): Docket No. FAA-2010-1270; Directorate Identifier 2001-NE-50-AD.

Comments Due Date(a) The FAA must receive comments on

this AD action by June 2, 2011.

Affected ADs

(b) This AD revises AD 2005-25-10,Amendment 39-14403.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to Dowty PropellersType R321/4-82-F/8, R324/4-82-F/g, R333/4-82-F/12, and R334/4-82-F/13 propellerassemblies with propeller hubs part number(P/N) 660709201.

Unsafe Condition(d) This AD was prompted by the need to

introduce an optional terminating action forthe repetitive inspections. We are issuing thisAD to prevent propeller hub failure due tocracks in the hub, which could result in lossof control of the airplane, and to introducean optional terminating action.

Compliance(e) Comply with this AD within the

compliance times specified, unless alreadydone.

Initial Ultrasonic Inspections

(f) Perform an initial ultrasonic inspectionof the rear wall of the rear half of thepropeller hub for cracks within thecompliance time specified in Table 1 of thisAD. Use Appendix A or Appendix D of theapplicable Dowty Alert Service Bulletin (SB)listed in Table 1 of this AD to do theinspection.

21676


TABLE 1-APPLICABLE ALERT SB FOR PROPELLER TYPE

Propeller assembly type Initial inspection within Repeat inspection within Applicable SB

(1) R334/4-82-F/13 ....................... 10 flight hours (FH) time-in-serv- 300 FH time-since-last-inspection Alert SB No. 61-1119, Revision 5,ice (TIS) after the effective date (TSLI) or 300 flight cycles- dated July 1, 2009.of this AD. since-last inspection, whichever

occurs sooner.(2) R321/4-82-F/8 ......................... 50 FH TIS after the effective date 1,000 FH TSLI .............................. Alert SB No. 61-1125, Revision 2,

of this AD. dated August 25, 2010.(3) R324/4-82-F/9 ......................... 50 FH TIS after the effective date 1,000 FH TSLI .............................. Alert SB No. 61-1126, Revision 2,

of this AD. dated August 25, 2010.(4) R333/4-82-F/12 ....................... 50 FH TIS after the effective date 1,000 FH TSLI .............................. Alert SB No. 61-1124, Revision 2,

of this AD. dated August 25, 2010.

(g) For hubs and propellers in storage,perform an initial ultrasonic inspection of therear wall of the rear half of the propeller hubfor cracks, before placing in service. UseAppendix A or Appendix D of the applicableDowty Alert SB listed in Table 1 of this ADto do the inspection.

Initial Inspection-Previous Credit

(h) Propeller hubs, P/N 660709201, thatpreviously passed inspection using DowtyAlert SBs listed in Table 1 of this AD or anearlier issue of those SBs, have satisfied theinitial inspection requirements of this AD.However, you must comply with therepetitive inspection requirements found inthis AD.

Repetitive Ultrasonic Inspections

(i) Thereafter, perform a repetitiveultrasonic inspection of the rear wall of therear half of the propeller hub for crackswithin the compliance time specified inTable 1 of this AD. Use Appendix A orAppendix D of the applicable Dowty Alert SBlisted in Table 1 of this AD to do theinspection.

Optional Terminating Action

(j) As optional terminating action for therepetitive inspections required by this AD,replace propeller hub, P/N 660709201, witha new propeller hub, P/N 660717226.

Alternative Methods of Compliance(AMOCs)

(k) The Manager, Boston CertificationOffice, has the authority to approve AMOCsfor this AD if requested using the proceduresfound in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD,contact Michael Schwetz, AerospaceEngineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office,FAA, 12 New England Executive Park,Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7761; fax: 781-238-7170; e-mail:michael.schwetztfaa.gov.

(in) European Aviation Safety Agency2010-0196R1, dated November 12, 2010,pertains to the subject of this AD.

(n) For service information identified inthis AD, contact Dowty Propellers, AnsonBusiness Park, Cheltenham Road East,Gloucester GL 29QN, UK; telephone: 44 (0)1452 716000; fax: 44 (0) 1452 716001. Youmay review copies of the referenced serviceinformation at the FAA, Engine & PropellerDirectorate, 12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA. For information on theavailability of this material at the FAA, call781-238-7125.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, onApril 7, 2011.Peter A. White,Acting Manager, Engine & PropellerDirectorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doe. 2011-9258 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165


RIN 1625-AAOO

Safety Zones; Annual EventsRequiring Safety Zones in the Captainof the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes toestablish regulations requiring safetyzones in the Captain of the Port SaultSainte Marie zone. This proposed rule isintended to establish safety zones thatwill restrict vessels from certainportions of water areas within the SectorSault Ste Marie Captain of the Port zone,as defined by our regulations. Theseproposed safety zones are necessary toprotect spectators, participants, andvessels from the hazards associated withvarious maritime events.DATES: Comments and related materialsmust be received by the Coast Guard onor before May 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: You may submit commentsidentified by docket number USCG-2011-0188 using any one of thefollowing methods:

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.

(2) Fax: 202-493-2251.(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility

(M-30), U.S. Department of

Transportation, West Building GroundFloor, Room W12-140, 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mailaddress above, between 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays. The telephone numberis 202-366-9329.

To avoid duplication, please use onlyone of these four methods. See the"Public Participation and Request forComments" portion of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sectionbelow for instructions on submittingcomments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ifyou have questions on this proposedrule, call or e-mail BMC Gregory Ford,Prevention Department, Coast Guard,Sector Sault Sainte Marie, MI, telephone(906) 635-3222, [email protected]. If you havequestions on viewing or submittingmaterial to the docket, call Renee V.Wright, Program Manager, DocketOperations, telephone 202-366-9826.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request forComments

We encourage you to participate inthis rulemaking by submittingcomments and related materials. Allcomments received will be posted,without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will includeany personal information you haveprovided.

Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, pleaseinclude the docket number for thisrulemaking (USCG-2011-0188),indicate the specific section of thisdocument to which each commentapplies, and provide a reason for eachsuggestion or recommendation. Youmay submit your comments andmaterial online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, orhand delivery, but please use only oneof these means. If you submit a

21677


comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will beconsidered received by the Coast Guardwhen you successfully transmit thecomment. If you fax, hand deliver, ormail your comment, it will beconsidered as having been received bythe Coast Guard when it is received atthe Docket Management Facility. Werecommend that you include your nameand a mailing address, an e-mailaddress, or a telephone number in thebody of your document so that we cancontact you if we have questionsregarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov, click on the"submit a comment" box, which willthen become highlighted in blue. In the"Document Type" drop down menuselect "Proposed Rule" and insert"USCG-2011-0188" in the "Keyword"box. Click "Search" then click on theballoon shape in the "Actions" column.If you submit your comments by mail orhand delivery, submit them in anunbound format, no larger than 81/2 by11 inches, suitable for copying andelectronic filing. If you submitcomments by mail and would like toknow that they reached the Facility,please enclose a stamped, self-addressedpostcard or envelope. We will considerall comments and material receivedduring the comment period and maychange the rule based on yourcomments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well asdocuments mentioned in this preambleas being available in the docket, go tohttp://www.regulations.gov, click on the"Read Comments" box, which will thenbecome highlighted in blue. In the"Keyword" box insert "USCG-2011-0188" and click "Search." Click the"Open Docket Folder" in the "Actions"column. You may also visit the DocketManagement Facility in Room W12-140on the ground floor of the Departmentof Transportation West Building, 1200New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,Monday through Friday, except Federalholidays. We have an agreement withthe Department of Transportation to usethe Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronicform of comments received into any ofour dockets by the name of theindividual submitting the comment (orsigning the comment, if submitted onbehalf of an association, business, laborunion, etc.). You may review a PrivacyAct notice regarding our public dockets

in the January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a publicmeeting, but you may submit a requestfor one by using one of the four methodsspecified under ADDRESSES. Pleaseexplain why you believe a publicmeeting would be beneficial. If wedetermine that one would aid thisrulemaking, we will hold one at a timeand place announced by a later noticein the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

This proposed rule will add 33 CFR165.9xx, Annual Events requiring safetyzones in the Captain of the Port SaultSainte Marie zone. Various private andpublic entities organize marine eventswithin the Sault Sainte Marie Captain ofthe Port zone. Many of these eventsrecur in the same location on or aboutthe same date each year. Also, many ofthese events pose hazards to the public.Such hazards include obstructions tothe navigable channels, explosivedangers associated with fireworks,debris falling into the water, and generalcongestion of waterways. To minimizethese and other hazards, this proposedrule will establish twenty safety zones,each related to a specific recurringmarine event.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

This proposed rule and its associatedsafety zones are necessary to ensure thesafety of vessels and people during eachof the annual marine events discussedbelow.

Although this rule will remain ineffect year round, the proposed safetyzones will be enforced onlyimmediately before, during, and aftereach corresponding event.

The Captain of the Port Sault SainteMarie will notify the public when thesafety zones in this proposal will beenforced. In keeping with 33 CFR165.7(a), the Captain of the Port SaultSainte Marie will use all appropriatemeans to notify the affected segments ofthe public. This will include, aspracticable, publication in the FederalRegister, Broadcast Notice to Mariners,and Local Notice to Mariners. TheCaptain of the Port will, as practicable,issue a Broadcast Notice to Marinersnotifying the public when anyenforcement period is cancelled.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoringwithin each of the below safety zones isprohibited unless authorized by theCaptain of the Port Sault Sainte Marieor his or her designated representative.All persons and vessels permitted toenter one of the safety zones established

by this proposed rule shall comply withthe instructions of the Coast GuardCaptain of the Port or the designatedrepresentative. The Captain of the Portor his or her designated representativemay be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

We developed this proposed rule afterconsidering numerous statutes andexecutive orders related to rulemaking.Below we summarize our analysesbased on 13 of these statutes orexecutive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

This proposed rule is not a significantregulatory action under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866, RegulatoryPlanning and Review, and does notrequire an assessment of potential costsand benefits under section 6(a)(3) of thatOrder. The Office of Management andBudget has not reviewed it under thatOrder. It is not "significant" under theregulatory policies and procedures ofthe Department of Homeland Security(DHS). We conclude that this proposedrule is not a significant regulatory actionbecause we anticipate that it will haveminimal impact on the economy, willnot interfere with other agencies, willnot adversely alter the budget of anygrant or loan recipients, and will notraise any novel legal or policy issues.The safety zones created by thisproposed rule will be relatively smalland enforced for a relatively short time.Also, each safety zone is designed tominimize its impact on navigablewaters. Furthermore, each safety zonehas been designed to allow vessels totransit unrestricted to portions of thewaterways not affected by the safetyzones. Thus, restrictions on vesselmovement within that particular areaare expected to be minimal. Undercertain conditions, moreover, vesselsmay still transit through each safetyzone when permitted by the Captain ofthe Port. On the whole, the Coast Guardexpects insignificant adverse impact tomariners from the activation of thesesafety zones.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have consideredwhether this proposed rule would havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The term "small entities" comprisessmall businesses, not-for-profitorganizations that are independentlyowned and operated and are notdominant in their fields, andgovernmental jurisdictions withpopulations of less than 50,000.

21678


The Coast Guard certifies under 5U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rulewould not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. This proposed rule would affectthe following entities, some of whichmight be small entities: The owners andoperators of vessels intending to transitor anchor in any one of the belowestablished safety zones while the safetyzone is being enforced. These safetyzones will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities for thefollowing reasons: Each safety zone inthis proposed rule will be in effect foronly a few hours within any given 24hour period. Each of the safety zones,with one exception, will be in effectonly once per year. Furthermore, thesesafety zones have been designed toallow traffic to pass safely around eachzone. Moreover, vessels will be allowedto pass through each zone at thediscretion of the Captain of the Port.

If you think that your business,organization, or governmentaljurisdiction qualifies as a small entityand that this proposed rule would havea significant economic impact on it,please submit a comment (seeADDRESSES) explaining why you think itqualifies and how and to what degreethis rule would economically affect it.


Under section 213(a) of the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),we want to assist small entities inunderstanding this proposed rule so thatthey can better evaluate its effects onthem and participate in the rulemaking.If the rule would affect your smallbusiness, organization, or governmentaljurisdiction and you have questionsconcerning its provisions or options forcompliance, please contact BMCGregory Ford, Prevention Department,Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie,MI at (906) 635-3222. The Coast Guardwill not retaliate against small entitiesthat question or complain about thisproposed rule or any policy or action ofthe Coast Guard.


This proposed rule calls for no newcollection of information under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalismunder Executive Order 13132,Federalism, if it has a substantial directeffect on State or local governments andwould either preempt State law orimpose a substantial direct cost of

compliance on them. We have analyzedthis proposed rule under that Order andhave determined that it does not haveimplications for federalism.


The Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requiresFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir discretionary regulatory actions. Inparticular, the Act addresses actionsthat may result in the expenditure by aState, local, or Tribal government, in theaggregate, or by the private sector of$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) ormore in any one year. Though thisproposed rule would not result in suchan expenditure, we do discuss theeffects of this rule elsewhere in thispreamble.


This proposed rule will not affect thetaking of private property or otherwisehave taking implications underExecutive Order 12630, GovernmentalActions and Interference withConstitutionally Protected PropertyRights.


This proposed rule meets applicablestandards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) ofExecutive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform, to minimize litigation,eliminate ambiguity, and reduceburden.


We have analyzed this proposed ruleunder Executive Order 13045,Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks. This proposed rule is not aneconomically significant rule and wouldnot create an environmental risk tohealth or risk to safety that mightdisproportionately affect children.


The Coast Guard recognizes the treatyrights of Native American Tribes.Moreover, the Coast Guard is committedto working with Tribal Governments toimplement local policies and to mitigateTribal concerns. We have determinedthat this rule and fishing rightsprotection need not be incompatible.We have also determined that thisproposed rule does not have Tribalimplications under Executive Order13175, Consultation and Coordinationwith Indian Tribal Governments,because it does not have a substantialdirect effect on one or more IndianTribes, on the relationship between theFederal Government and Indian Tribes,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian Tribes.Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that havequestions concerning the provisions ofthis proposed rule or options forcompliance are encouraged to contactthe point of contact listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this proposed ruleunder Executive Order 13211, ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use. We havedetermined that it is not a "significantenergy action" under that order becauseit is not a "significant regulatory action"under Executive Order 12866 and is notlikely to have a significant adverse effecton the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy. The Administrator of the Officeof Information and Regulatory Affairshas not designated it as a significantenergy action. Therefore, it does notrequire a Statement of Energy Effectsunder Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

The National Technology Transferand Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to usevoluntary consensus standards in theirregulatory activities unless the agencyprovides Congress, through the Office ofManagement and Budget, with anexplanation of why using thesestandards would be inconsistent withapplicable law or otherwise impractical.Voluntary consensus standards aretechnical standards (e.g., specificationsof materials, performance, design, oroperation; test methods; samplingprocedures; and related managementsystems practices) that are developed oradopted by voluntary consensusstandards bodies.

This proposed rule does not usetechnical standards. Therefore, we didnot consider the use of voluntaryconsensus standards.

Environment

We have analyzed this proposed ruleunder Department of HomelandSecurity Management Directive 023-01and Commandant InstructionM16475.lD, which guide the CoastGuard in complying with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), andhave made a preliminary determinationthat this action is one of a category ofactions that do not individually orcumulatively have a significant effect onthe human environment. A preliminaryenvironmental analysis checklistsupporting this preliminarydetermination is available in the docketwhere indicated under ADDRESSES. This

21679


proposed rule establishes a safety zoneand therefore paragraph (34)(g) of figure2-1 applies. We seek any comments orinformation that may lead to thediscovery of a significant environmentalimpact from this proposed rule.


Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation(water), Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Security measures,Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in thepreamble, the Coast Guard proposes toamend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATIONAREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for Part 165continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department ofHomeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.918 to read as follows:

§ 165.918 Safety Zones; Annual eventsrequiring safety zones in the Captain of thePort Sault Sainte Marie zone.

(a) Safety Zones. The following areasare designated safety zones:

(1) Marquette Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Marquette, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Marquette Harbor within a 1000-footradius of the fireworks launch site,centered approximately 1250 feet southof the Mattson Park Bulkhead Dock and450 feet east of Ripley Rock, at position46°32'21.7" N, 087023'07.60" W[DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period This safetyzone will be enforced each year on July4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July4 fireworks are cancelled due toinclement weather, then this sectionwill be enforced July 5 from 9 p.m. until11 p.m.

(2) Munising Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Munising, Mh

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof South Bay within a 600-foot radiusfrom the fireworks launch site at the endof the Munising City Dock, centered inposition: 46024'50.08" N, 086039'08.52"W [DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period This safetyzone will be enforced each year on July4 from 9 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. on July5. If the July 4 fireworks are cancelleddue to inclement weather, then thissection will be enforced on July 5 from9 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. on July 6.

(3) Grand Marais Splash-In; GrandMarais, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable withinthe southern portion of West Bay bound

to the north by a line beginningapproximately 175 feet south-southeastof the Lake Street Boat Launch,extending 5280 feet to the east on a truebearing of 079 degrees. The easternboundary will then be formed by a linedrawn to the shoreline on a true bearingof 170 degrees. The western andsouthern boundaries of the zone will bebound by the shoreline of West Bay. Thecoordinates for this zone are as follows:46'40'22.32" N, 085059'00.66" W,46'40'32.04" N, 085o57'46.14" W, and46o40'19.68" N, 085057'43.08" W[DATUM: NAD 83], with the West Bayshoreline forming the South and Westboundaries of the zone.

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onthe second to last Saturday in June from2 p.m. until 5 p.m.

(4) Sault Sainte Marie Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Sault SainteMarie, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof the St. Marys River within a 750-footradius around the eastern portion of theU.S. Army Corp of Engineers Soo LocksNorth East Pier, centered in position:46°30'19.66" N, 084'20'31.61" W[DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. This safetyzone will be enforced each year on July4 from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. If the July4 fireworks are cancelled due toinclement weather, then this sectionwill be enforced July 5 from 9 p.m. until11:30 p.m.

(5) St. Ignace Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; St. Ignace, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof East Moran Bay within a 700-footradius from the fireworks launch site atthe end of the Arnold Transit Mill Slip,centered in position: 45o52'24.62" N,084°43'18.13" W [DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. This safetyzone will be enforced each year on July4 from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. If the July4 fireworks are cancelled due toinclement weather, then this sectionwill be enforced July 5 from 9 p.m. until11:30 p.m.

(6) Mackinac Island Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Mackinac Island,Mth

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Huron within a 500-foot radiusof the fireworks launch site, centeredapproximately 1000 yards west ofRound Island Passage Light, at position45'50'34.92" N, 084°37'38.16" W[DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. This safetyzone will be enforced each year on July4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July4 fireworks are cancelled due toinclement weather, then this sectionwill be enforced July 5 from 9 p.m. until11 p.m.

(7) Festivals of Fireworks CelebrationFireworks; St. Ignace, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof East Moran Bay within a 700-footradius from the fireworks launch site atthe end of the Arnold Transit Mill Slip,centered in position: 45052'24.62" N,084°43'18.13" W [DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. This safetyzone will be enforced each year onevery Saturday following the 4th of Julyuntil the second Sunday in Septemberfrom 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the fireworksare cancelled on Saturday due toinclement weather, then this sectionwill be enforced on Sunday from 9 p.m.to 11 p.m.

(8) Canada Day CelebrationFireworks; Sault Sainte Marie, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof the St. Marys River within a 1200-footradius from the fireworks launch site,centered approximately 160 yards northof the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers SooLocks North East Pier, at position46'30'20.40" N, 084°20'17.64" W[DATUM: NAD 83].


(9) Jordan Valley Freedom FestivalFireworks; East Jordan, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Charlevoix, near the City of EastJordan, within the arc of a circle witha 1000-foot radius from the fireworkslaunch site in position 45o09'18" N,085'07'48" W [DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onSaturday of the third weekend of Junefrom 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.

(10) National Cherry Festival Fourthof July Celebration Fireworks; TraverseCity, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof the West Arm of Grand Traverse Baywithin the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launchsite located on a barge in position44o46'12 " N, 08503 7'06" W [DATUM:NAD 83].


(11) Harbor Springs Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Harbor Springs,MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Michigan and Harbor SpringsHarbor within the arc of a circle with a1000-foot radius from the fireworks

21680


launch site located on a barge inposition 45o25'30" N, 084o59'06" W[DATUM: NAD 83].


(12) Bay Harbor Yacht Club Fourth ofJuly Celebration Fireworks; Petoskey,MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Michigan and Bay Harbor Lakewithin the arc of a circle with a 500-footradius from the fireworks launch sitelocated on a barge in position 45o21'50"N, 085o01'37" W [DATUM: NAD 83].


(13) Petoskey Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Petoskey, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Michigan and Petoskey Harbor,in the vicinity of Bay Front Park, withinthe arc of a circle with a 1000-footradius from the fireworks launch sitelocated in position 45o22'40" N,084057'30" W [DATUM: NAD 83].


(14) Boyne City Fourth of JulyCelebration Fireworks; Boyne City, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity ofVeterans Park, within the arc of a circlewith a 1400-foot radius from thefireworks launch site located in position45o13'30" N, 085o0140" W [DATUM:NAD 83].


(15) National Cherry Festival AirShow; Traverse City, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof the West Arm of Grand Traverse Baybounded by a line drawn from 44o46'48"N, 085o38'18" W, then southeast to44o46'30" N, 085o35'30" W, thensouthwest to 44o46'00" N, 085035'48" W,then northwest to 44O46'30" N,085o38'30" W, then back to the point oforigin [DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onFriday, Saturday, and Sunday of thefirst complete weekend of July fromnoon until 4 p.m.

(16) National Cherry Festival FinaleFireworks; Traverse City, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersand adjacent shoreline of the West Armof Grand Traverse Bay within the arc ofa circle with a 1000-foot radius from thefireworks launch site located on a bargein position 44o46'12 " N, 085037'06" W[DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onthe second Saturday of July from 9 p.m.until 11 p.m.

(17) Charlevoix Venetian FestivalFriday Night Fireworks; Charlevoix, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Charlevoix, in the vicinity ofDepot Beach, within the arc of a circlewith a 1000-foot radius from thefireworks launch site located on a bargein position 45o19'08" N, 085o14'18" W[DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onFriday of the fourth weekend of Julyfrom 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.

(18) Charlevoix Venetian FestivalSaturday Night Fireworks; Charlevoix,MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Round Lake within the arc of a circlewith a 300- foot radius from thefireworks launch site located on a bargein position 45o19'03" N, 085o15'18" W[DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onSaturday of the fourth weekend of Julyfrom 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.

(19) Elk Rapids Harbor DaysFireworks; Elk Rapids, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Grand Traverse Bay, in the vicinity ofEdward G. Grace Memorial Park, withinthe arc of a circle with a 1000-footradius from the fireworks launch sitelocated in position 44o53'58" N,085°25'04" W [DATUM: NAD 83].

(ii) Enforcement Period. Each year onthe first Saturday of August from 9 p.m.until 11 p.m.

(20) Alpena Fourth of July CelebrationFireworks, Alpena, MI:

(i) Location. All U.S. navigable watersof Lake Huron within an 800-foot radiusof the fireworks launch site located nearthe end of Mason Street, South of StateAvenue, at position 45002'42" N,083o26'48" W (NAD 83).


(b) Definitions. The followingdefinitions apply to this section:

(1) Designated representative meansany Coast Guard commissioned,warrant, or petty officer designated bythe Captain of the Port Sault SainteMarie to monitor these safety zones,permit entry into these safety zones,give legally enforceable orders topersons or vessels within these safetyzones, or take other actions authorizedby the Captain of the Port Sault SainteMarie.

(2) Public vessel means a vesselowned, chartered, or operated by theUnited States or by a State or politicalsubdivision thereof.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance withthe general regulations in § 165.23 ofthis part, entry into, transiting, oranchoring within any of the safety zoneslisted in this section is prohibitedunless authorized by the Captain of thePort Sault Sainte Marie, or a designatedrepresentative.

(2) All persons and vessels mustcomply with the instructions of theCoast Guard Captain of the Port SaultSainte Marie or a designatedrepresentative. Upon being hailed by theU.S. Coast Guard by siren, radio,flashing light or other means, theoperator of a vessel shall proceed asdirected.

(3) When a safety zone established bythis section is being enforced, all vesselsmust obtain permission from theCaptain of the Port Sault Sainte Marieor a designated representative to enter,move within, or exit that safety zone.Vessels and persons granted permissionto enter the safety zone shall obey alllawful orders or directions of theCaptain of the Port Sault Sainte Marieor a designated representative. Whilewithin a safety zone, all vessels shalloperate at the minimum speednecessary to maintain a safe course.

(d) Suspension of Enforcement. If theevent concludes earlier than scheduled,the Captain of the Port Sault SainteMarie or a designated representativewill issue a Broadcast Notice toMariners notifying the public thatenforcement of the respective safetyzone is suspended.

(e) Exemption. Public vessels, asdefined in paragraph (b) of this section,are exempt from the requirements inthis section.

(f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captainof the Port Sault Sainte Marie or adesignated representative may, at his orher discretion, waive any of therequirements of this section, uponfinding that circumstances are such thatapplication of this section isunnecessary or impractical for thepurposes of safety or environmentalsafety.

21681



J.C. McGuiness,Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of thePort Sault Sainte Marie.

[FR Doe. 2011-9148 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0635; FRL-9296-7]

Approval and Promulgation of AirQuality Implementation Plans;Louisiana; Section 110(a)(2)Infrastructure Requirements for the1997 8-Hour Ozone and FineParticulate Matter National Ambient AirQuality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approvesubmittals from the State of Louisianapursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA orAct) that address the infrastructureelements specified in the CAA section110(a)(2), necessary to implement,maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hourozone and 1997 fine particulate matter(PM2 .5) national ambient air qualitystandards (NAAQS or standards). Weare proposing to find that the currentLouisiana State Implementation Plan(SIP) meets the following infrastructureelements for the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS:110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),

(H), (j), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is alsoproposing to approve SIP revisions thatmodify Louisiana's PSD SIP for the 19978-hour ozone NAAQS to includenitrogen oxides (NOx) as an ozoneprecursor. This action is being takenunder section 110 and part C of the Act.DATES: Comments must be received onor before May 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0635, by one of thefollowing methods:

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:iiwww.regulations.gov. Follow the onlineinstructions for submitting comments.

* U.S. EPA Region 6 "Contact Us"Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6comment.htm. Please click on "6PD(Multimedia)" and select "Air" beforesubmitting comments.

* E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson [email protected]. Please alsosend a copy by e-mail to the personlisted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section below.

* Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, AirPlanning Section (6PD-L), at faxnumber 214-665-7263.

* Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,Air Planning Section (6PD-L),Environmental Protection Agency, 1445Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas75202-2733.

* Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. GuyDonaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section(6PD-L), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Suchdeliveries are accepted only between thehours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays,and not on legal holidays. Specialarrangements should be made fordeliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments toDocket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0635. EPA's policy is that all commentsreceived will be included in the publicdocket without change and may bemade available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including anypersonal information provided, unlessthe comment includes informationclaimed to be Confidential BusinessInformation (CBI) or other informationwhose disclosure is restricted by statute.Do not submit information that youconsider to be CBI or otherwiseprotected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Thehttp://www.regulations.gov Web site isan "anonymous access" system, whichmeans EPA will not know your identityor contact information unless youprovide it in the body of your comment.If you send an e-mail comment directlyto EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mailaddress will be automatically capturedand included as part of the commentthat is placed in the public docket andmade available on the Internet. If yousubmit an electronic comment, EPArecommends that you include yourname and other contact information inthe body of your comment and with anydisk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPAcannot read your comment due totechnical difficulties and cannot contactyou for clarification, EPA may not beable to consider your comment.Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free of any defects orviruses. For additional informationabout EPA's public docket visit the EPADocket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docketare listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Althoughlisted in the index, some information isnot publicly available, e.g., CBI or otherinformation whose disclosure isrestricted by statute. Certain other

material, such as copyrighted material,will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docketmaterials are available eitherelectronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy atthe Air Planning Section (6PD-L),Environmental Protection Agency, 1445Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas75202-2733. The file will be madeavailable by appointment for publicinspection in the Region 6 FOIA ReviewRoom between the hours of 8:30 a.m.and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legalholidays. Contact the person listed inthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTparagraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at214-665-7253 to make an appointment.If possible, please make theappointment at least two working daysin advance of your visit. There will bea fee of 15 cents per page for makingphotocopies of documents. On the dayof the visit, please check in at the EPARegion 6 reception area at 1445 RossAvenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202.

The State submittal is also availablefor public inspection during officialbusiness hours by appointment:Louisiana Department of EnvironmentalQuality (LDEQ), Office ofEnvironmental Quality Assessment, 602N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana70802.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section(6PD-L), Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,telephone 214-665-6521; fax number214-665-6762; e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Throughout this document, "we," "us,"and "our" means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. BackgroundA. What are the national ambient air

quality standards?B. What is a SIP?C. What is the background for this

rulemaking?a. Section 110(a)(1) and (2)b. Revisions to Louisiana's SIPc. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of

PSD ProgramsD. What elements are required under

Section 110(a)(2)?II. What action is EPA proposing?III. How has Louisiana addressed the

elements of section 110(a)(2)?IV. Proposed ActionV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What are the national ambient airquality standards?

Section 109 of the Act requires EPAto establish NAAQS for pollutants that

21682


"may reasonably be anticipated toendanger public health and welfare,"and to develop a primary and secondarystandard for each NAAQS. The primarystandard is designed to protect humanhealth with an adequate margin ofsafety, and the secondary standard isdesigned to protect public welfare andthe environment. EPA has set NAAQSfor six common air pollutants, referredto as criteria pollutants: Carbonmonoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,ozone, particulate matter, and sulfurdioxide. These standards present Stateand local governments with theminimum air quality levels they mustmeet to comply with the Act. Also,these standards provide information toresidents of the United States about theair quality in their communities.

B. What is a SIP?

The SIP is a set of air pollutionregulations, control strategies, othermeans or techniques, and technicalanalyses developed by the State, toensure that the State meets the NAAQS.The SIP is required by section 110 andother provisions of the Act. These SIPscan be extensive, containing Stateregulations or other enforceabledocuments and supporting informationsuch as emissions inventories,monitoring networks, and modelingdemonstrations. Each State must submitthese regulations and control strategiesto EPA for approval and incorporationinto the Federally enforceable SIP. EachFederally approved SIP protects airquality primarily by addressing airpollution at its point of origin.

C. What is the background for thisrulemaking?

a. Section 110(a)(1) and (2)

On July 18, 1997, we promulgatednew and revised NAAQS for ozone (62FR 38856) and PM (62 FR 38652). Forozone we set an 8-hour standard of 0.08parts per million (ppm) to replace the1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm. For PM weset a new annual and a new 24-hourNAAQS for particles with anaerodynamic diameter less than or equalto a nominal 2.5 micrometers (denotedPM 2.5). The annual PM 2.5 standard wasset at 15 micrograms per cubic meter(pjg/m3). The 24-hour PM 2.5 standardwas set at 65 pjg/m 3 . For moreinformation on these standards pleasesee the 1997 Federal Register notices(62 FR 38856 and 62 FR 38652).

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of theAct, States are required to submit SIPsthat provide for the implementation,maintenance, and enforcement (theinfrastructure) of a new or revisedNAAQS within three years following

the promulgation of the NAAQS, orwithin such shorter period as EPA mayprescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists thespecific infrastructure elements thatmust be incorporated into the SIPs,including for example, requirements forair pollution control measures, andmonitoring that are designed to assureattainment and maintenance of theNAAQS. A table listing all 14infrastructure elements is included inSection D of this proposed rulemaking.'Thus States were required to submitsuch SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone andPM 2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June2000.2 However, intervening litigationover the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5NAAQS created uncertainty about howto proceed and many States did notprovide the required "infrastructure" SIPsubmission for these newly promulgatedNAAQS.

On March 4, 2004, Earthjusticesubmitted a notice of intent to suerelated to EPA's failure to issue findingsof failure to submit related to theinfrastructure requirements for the 19978-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPAentered into a consent decree withEarthjustice which required EPA, amongother things, to complete a FederalRegister notice announcing EPA'sdeterminations pursuant to section110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whethereach State had made completesubmissions to meet the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hourozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007.Subsequently, EPA received anextension of the date to complete thisFederal Register notice until March 17,2008, based upon agreement to make thefindings with respect to submissions

1 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) arenot governed by the 3-year submission deadline ofsection 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporatingnecessary local nonattainment area controls are notdue within 3 years after promulgation of a new orrevised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time thenonattainment area plan requirements are duepursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (i)Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to theextent that subsection refers to a permit program asrequired in part D Title I of the CAA and (ii)submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) whichpertain to the nonattainment planning requirementsof part D Title I of the CAA. Therefore, this actiondoes not cover these specific SIP elements. Thisaction also does not pertain to section110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA previously approved the State's110(a)(2)(D)(i) submission (72 FR 55064, September28, 2007).

2 EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard onMarch 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). On September 16,2009, the EPA Administrator announced that EPAwould take rulemaking action to reconsider the2008 primary and secondary ozone NAAQS. OnJanuary 19, 2010, EPA proposed to set differentprimary and secondary ozone standards than thoseset in 2008 to provide requisite protection of publichealth and welfare, respectively (75 FR 2938). Thefinal reconsidered ozone NAAQS have yet to bepromulgated. This rulemaking does not address the2008 ozone standard.

made by January 7, 2008. In accordancewith the consent decree, EPA madecompleteness findings for each Statebased upon what the Agency receivedfrom each State as of January 7, 2008.With regard to the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS,EPA entered into a consent decree withEarthjustice which required EPA, amongother things, to complete a FederalRegister notice announcing EPA'sdeterminations pursuant to section110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whethereach State had made completesubmissions to meet the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2 .5NAAQS by October 5, 2008.

On March 27, 2008, and October 22,2008, we published findings concerningwhether States had made the 110(a)(2)submissions for the 1997 ozone (73 FR16205) and PM2 .5 standards (73 FR62902). In the March 27, 2008 action,we found that Louisiana had made acomplete submission that provides forthe basic program elements specified insection 110(a)(2) of the Act necessary toimplement the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS. In the October 22, 2008 action,we found that Louisiana had made acomplete submission that provides forthe basic program elements specified insection 110(a)(2) of the Act necessary toimplement the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS.

On October 2, 2007, we issued"Guidance on SIP Elements RequiredUnder Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2 .5 NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards,"Memorandum from William T. Harnett,Director, Air Quality Policy Division,Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards. 3 The guidance provides thatto the extent that existing SIPs for ozoneand PM already meet the requirements,States need only certify that fact to us.

On December 11, 2007, January 7,2008, and March 24, 2011, the LouisianaDepartment of Environmental Quality(LDEQ) submitted letters certifying thatLouisiana has addressed any potentialinfrastructure issues associated withozone and PM2 .5 and fulfilled itsinfrastructure SIP obligations. Theletters provided information on how thecurrent Louisiana SIP provisions meetthe 110(a)(2) requirements. These lettersare in the docket for this rulemaking.

b. Revisions to Louisiana's SIP

On December 20, 2005, the LDEQsubmitted revisions to their New SourceReview (NSR) program to meet therequirements of the "NSR Reform"published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR80186). On November 9, 2007, the State

3 This and any other guidance documentsreferenced in this action are in the docket for thisrulemaking.

21683


submitted their 2006 revisions (GeneralUpdate) to the SIP. Among otherrevisions, the 2007 submission includedrevisions that provided for NO, to betreated as a precursor to ozoneformation in the State's PSD program.We are proposing action on a limitednumber of revisions to the PSD programthat implement the provisions for NO,as a precursor because EPA believes thatthis is a necessary provision forimplementation of the 1997 ozonestandard.

c. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component ofPSD Programs

EPA has recently undertaken a seriesof actions pertaining to the regulation ofGHGs that, although for the most partdistinct from one another, establish theoverall framework for today's proposedaction on the Louisiana SIP. Four ofthese actions include, as they arecommonly called, the "EndangermentFinding" and "Cause or ContributeFinding," which EPA issued in a singlefinal action, 4 the "Johnson MemoReconsideration," 5 the "Light-DutyVehicle Rule," 6 and the "TailoringRule." 7 Taken together and inconjunction with the CAA, these actions

established regulatory requirements forGHGs emitted from new motor vehiclesand new motor vehicle engines;determined that such regulations, whenthey took effect on January 2, 2011,subjected GHGs emitted from stationarysources to PSD requirements; andlimited the applicability of PSDrequirements to GHG sources on aphased-in basis. EPA took this lastaction in the Tailoring Rule, which,more specifically, establishedappropriate GHG emission thresholdsfor determining the applicability of PSDrequirements to GHG-emitting sources.In December 2010, EPA followed up onthese actions by issuing the PSD SIPNarrowing Rule, in which EPAwithdrew its previous approval of SIPPSD programs in 24 States, includingLouisiana, that apply to GHG-emittingsources below the thresholds in the finalTailoring Rule. 75 FR 82536. TheTailoring Rule and PSD SIP NarrowingRule both discuss the States' ability toprovide assurances that they will haveadequate resources to meet the newGHG PSD permitting requirements atstatutory levels of emissions, and thePSD SIP Narrowing Rule affected EPA'sprior approval of portions of a State's

SIP which do not incorporate thresholdsestablished under the Tailoring Rule.The LDEQ submitted a supplementalcertification letter to EPA dated March24, 2011, certifying that the portions ofthe PSD program related to greenhousegas permitting which remainedapproved after the promulgation ofEPA's PSD SIP Narrowing Rule satisfysections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the Act.As we discuss further in this notice andin the TSD, Louisiana currently hasadequate resources to carry out the GHGcomponent of the currently approvedPSD SIP program, which requires PSDpermitting for sources emitting GHGs ator above the 75,000/100,000 tons peryear (tpy) threshold specified by theTailoring Rule.

D. What elements are required underSection 110(a)(2)?

The October 2, 2007, EPA guidancefor addressing the SIP infrastructureelements required under sections110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone andPM 2.5 NAAQS, provides a list of 14essential components that States mustinclude in their SIPs. These are listed inTable 1 below.

TABLE 1-SECTION 110(A)(2) ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN SIPS

Clean Air Act citation

S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(A ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(B ) .................................................................................Section 110(a)(2)(C) ............................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(D )(ii) .............................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(E ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(F ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(G ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(H ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 1 0 (a )(2 )(J ) 8 ...............................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(J ) ..................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(J ) ..................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(K ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(L ) .................................................................................S e ctio n 1 10 (a )(2 )(M ) ................................................................................

Brief description

Emission limits and other control measures.Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.Program for enforcement of control measures.International and interstate pollution abatement.Adequate resources.Stationary source monitoring system.Emergency power.Future SIP revisions.Consultation with government officials.Public notification.Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.Air quality modeling/data.Permitting fees.Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

II. What action is EPA proposing?

The EPA is proposing to approve theLouisiana SIP submittals that identifywhere and how the 14 basicinfrastructure elements are in the EPA-approved SIP as specified in section110(a)(2) of the Act. The Louisianasubmittals do not include revisions tothe SIP, but document how the current

4"Endangerment and Cause or Contribute

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section202(a) of the Clean Air Act." 74 FR 66496(December 15, 2009).

5 "Interpretation of Regulations that DeterminePollutants Covered by Clean Air Act PermittingPrograms." 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).

Louisiana SIP already includes therequired infrastructure elements. Intoday's action, we are proposing to findthat the following section 110(a)(2)elements are contained in the currentLouisiana SIP and provide theinfrastructure for implementing the1997 ozone and PM standards: emissionlimits and other control measures

6 "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas EmissionStandards and Corporate Average Fuel EconomyStandards; Final Rule." 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).

7 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and TitleV Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule." 75FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).

8 Section 110(a)(2)() pertains to thenonattainment planning requirements of part D,Title I of the Act. This section is not governed by

(section 110(a)(2)(A)); ambient airquality monitoring/data system (section110(a)(2)(B)); program for enforcementof control measures (section110(a)(2)(C)); international andinterstate pollution abatement (section110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); adequate resources(section 110(a)(2)(E)); stationary sourcemonitoring system (section 110(a)(2)(F));

the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)because SIPs incorporating necessary localnonattainment area controls are not due within 3years after promulgation of a new or revisedNAAQS, but are due at the time the nonattainmentarea plan requirements are due pursuant to section172. Thus this action does not cover section110(a)(2)(1).

i

21684


emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G));future SIP revisions (section110(a)(2)(H)); consultation withgovernment officials (section110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibilityprotection (section 110(a)(2)(J)); airquality modeling/data (section110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees (section110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/participation by affected local entities(section 110(a)(2)(M)).

In conjunction with our proposedfinding that the Louisiana SIP meets thesection 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructureSIP elements listed above, we are alsoproposing to fully approve fourseverable portions of two SIP revisionssubmitted by the LDEQ to EPA onDecember 20, 2005 and November 9,2007. These portions contain rulerevisions by LDEQ to (1) regulate NO,emissions in its PSD permit program asa precursor to ozone; (2) add NO, to thePSD definitions for Major Modificationand Major Stationary Source; (3) underthe PSD definition for Significant, addthe emission rate for NO., as a precursorto ozone, as 40 tpy; and (4) under thePSD requirements, allow for anexemption with respect to ambient airquality monitoring data for a sourcewith a net emissions increase less than100 tpy of NOx. The actions proposedherein are described in greater detailbelow and in the TSD. At this time, EPAis not taking action on other portions ofthe December 20, 2005 and November 9,2007 SIP revisions submitted by LDEQ;EPA intends to act on the otherrevisions at a later time.

III. How has Louisiana addressed theelements of Section 110(a)(2)?

The Louisiana submittals address theelements of Section 110(a)(2) asdescribed below. We provide a moredetailed review and analysis of theLouisiana infrastructure SIP elements inthe Technical Support Document (TSD),located in the docket for thisrulemaking.

Enforceable emission limits and othercontrol measures, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(A): Section 110(a)(2)(A)requires that all measures and otherelements in the SIP be enforceable. Thisprovision does not require the submittalof regulations or emission limitsdeveloped specifically for attaining the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards.Those regulations are due later as partof attainment demonstrations.

The Louisiana Environmental QualityAct (LEQA) names the LDEQ as theState's air pollution control agency andprovides enforcement authority to theLDEQ. The Louisiana legislature in Acts1983, No. 97 amended and reenacted a

multitude of the State's statutes,including provisions which created andempowered the LDEQ. The SIP rule atTitle 33 of the Louisiana AdministrativeCode (denoted 33 LAC), Chapter 1,section 101 describes the LDEQ as theState's air pollution control agency andits enforcement authority, referencingthe 1983 LEQA (54 FR 9783, March 8,1989).

9

The LDEQ has promulgated rules tolimit and control emissions of PM,sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), NOx and volatileorganic compounds (VOCs). 10 Theserules include emission limits, controlmeasures, programs for banking andtrading of emissions, permits, fees, andcompliance schedules and are found inTitles 33 and 55 of the LAC: 11 33 LACchapters 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-15, and 21-23; and 55 LAC Chapter 8.

In this proposed action, EPA has notreviewed and is not proposing to takeany action to approve or disapprove anyexisting Louisiana SIP provisions withregard to excess emissions duringstartup, shutdown, or malfunction(SSM) of operations at a facility. EPAbelieves that a number of States haveSSM SIP provisions which are contraryto the Act and inconsistent with existingEPA guidance 12 and the Agency plansto conduct a SIP call in the future toaddress such SIP regulations. In themeantime, EPA encourages any Statehaving an SSM SIP provision which iscontrary to the Act and inconsistentwith EPA guidance to take steps tocorrect the deficiency as soon aspossible before a SIP call isimplemented. Similarly, this proposedaction does not include a review of andalso does not propose to take any actionto approve or disapprove any existingSIP rules with regard to director'sdiscretion or variance provisions. EPAbelieves that a number of SIPs havesuch provisions which are contrary tothe Act and not consistent with existingEPA guidance (52 FR 45044, November

9 Older references to this Federal Register (FR)notice are written as 54 FR 9795. We now identifya FR notice by the first page of the rulemaking, thuswe refer to this rulemaking as 54 FR 9783.

1o NOx and VOCs are precursors to ozone. PM can

be emitted directly and secondarily formed; thelatter is the result of NOx and S02 precursorscombining with ammonia to form ammoniumnitrate and ammonium sulfate.

11 Title 33 addresses Environmental Quality andTitle 55 addresses Motor Vehicles. Within 33 LAC,the State's rules are codified in Part III (Air).

12 "State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions,Startup, and Shutdown," Memorandum from StevenA. Herman, Assistant Administrator forEnforcement and Compliance Assurance, andRobert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Airand Radiation, dated September 20, 1999.

24, 1987) 13 and the Agency plans totake action in the future to address suchSIP regulations. In the meantime, EPAencourages any State having a director'sdiscretion or variance provision in itsSIP which is contrary to the Act andinconsistent with EPA guidance to takesteps to correct the deficiency as soonas possible.

A detailed list of the applicable 33LAC and 55 LAC chapters, discussedabove, are provided in the TSD.Louisiana's SIP clearly containsenforceable emission limits and othercontrol measures, which are in theFederally enforceable SIP. EPA isproposing to find that the Louisiana SIPmeets the requirements of section110(a)(2)(A) of the Act with respect tothe 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5NAAQS.

Ambient air quality monitoring/dataanalysis system, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(B): Section 110(a)(2)(B)requires SIPs to include provisions forestablishment and operation of ambientair quality monitors, collecting andanalyzing ambient air quality data, andmaking these data available to EPAupon request. The LDEQ operates andmaintains a statewide network of airquality monitors; data are collected,results are quality assured, and the dataare submitted to EPA's Air QualitySystem 14 on a regular basis. Louisiana'sStatewide Air Quality SurveillanceNetwork was approved by EPA onAugust 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005), andconsists of stations that measureambient concentrations of the sixcriteria pollutants, including ozone andPM 2.'. 1 5 EPA also approved Chapter 7into the SIP that requires air qualitymonitoring be conducted consistentwith EPA guidelines (54 FR 9783,March 8, 1989). EPA also approvedLouisiana's enhanced ambient airquality monitoring network ofPhotochemical Assessment MonitoringStations (PAMS) on June 19, 1996 (61FR 31035).16 The LDEQ Web siteprovides the ozone and PM 2.5 monitorlocations, and current and historicaldata including 8-hour ozone design

13 The section addressing exemptions andvariances is found on p. 45109 of the 1987rulemaking.

14 The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA'srepository of ambient air quality data. AQS storesdata from over 10,000 monitors, 5000 of which arecurrently active. State, Local and Tribal agenciescollect the data and submit it to AQS on a periodicbasis.

15 The air quality surveillance network undergoesannual review and approval by EPA. A copy of thecurrent approval, dated January 12, 2011, isavailable in the docket for this rulemaking.

16 The PAMS network undergoes annual reviewand approval by EPA. A copy of the currentapproval, dated October 30, 2009, is in the docketfor this rulemaking.

21685


values for current 17 and pasttrienniums. On July 1, 2010, LDEQsubmitted its 2010 Annual AirMonitoring Network Plan (AAMNP) thatincluded the plans for the 1997 ozoneand PM 2.5 NAAQS; EPA approved theAAMNP on January 12, 2011.18

In summary, Louisiana meets therequirement to establish, operate, andmaintain an ambient air monitoringnetwork, collect and analyze themonitoring data, and make the dataavailable to EPA upon request. EPA isproposing to find that the currentLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Program for enforcement of controlmeasures and regulation of themodification and construction of anystationary source within the areascovered by the plan as necessary toassure that NAAQS are achieved,including a permit program, as requiredby Parts C and D, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(C). Regarding a program forenforcement of control measures, asstated previously, the LEQA providesthe LDEQ with authority to enforce theState's environmental quality rules. TheLDEQ established rules governingemissions of the NAAQS and theirprecursors throughout the State andthese rules are in the Federallyenforceable SIP. The rules in 33 LAC 1,5-7, 9, 11, 13-15, and 21-23 includeallowable rates, compliance, controlplan requirements, actual and allowableemissions, monitoring and testingrequirements, recordkeeping andreporting requirements, and controlschedules. These rules clarify theboundaries beyond which regulatedentities in Louisiana can expectenforcement action.

To meet the requirement for having aprogram for the regulation of themodification and construction of anystationary source within the areascovered by the plan as necessary toassure that national ambient air qualitystandards are achieved, including apermit program as required by Parts Cand D, generally, the State is required tohave SIP-approved PSD, Nonattainment,and Minor NSR permitting programsadequate to implement the 1997 8-hourozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. We are notevaluating nonattainment-relatedprovisions, such as the NonattainmentNSR program required by part D in110(a)(2)(C) and measures forattainment required by section

17 The current design values for 2010 arepreliminary, as the monitoring seasons have notended and data has yet to be reviewed for qualityassurance.

18 A copy of our approval letter is in the docket

for this rulemaking.

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructureSIPs for these two NAAQS becausethese submittals are required beyond thedate (3 years from NAAQSpromulgation) that section 110infrastructure submittals are required.

PSD programs apply in areas that aremeeting the NAAQS or areunclassifiable, referred to as areas inattainment. PSD applies to new majorsources and major modifications atexisting sources. Louisiana's PSDprogram was initially approved into theSIP on April 24, 1987 (52 FR 13671).Subsequent revisions to Louisiana's PSDprogram were approved into the SIP onJune 15, 1989 (54 FR 25449), May 2,1991 (56 FR 20137), and October 15,1996 (61 FR 53639).

To meet the requirements of110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozonestandard, EPA believes the State musthave updated its PSD rules to treat NOxas a precursor for ozone (70 FR 71612).As part of this action we are proposingto approve a total of four severableportions from each of two SIP revisionsto implement NOx as precursor. TheLDEQ submitted SIP revisions to us onDecember 20, 2005 and November 9,2007. EPA proposes to approve thefollowing four portions of the December20, 2005 and November 9, 2007 SIPrevisions: (1) The 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the definition of MajorModification at subsection 2 assubsection b, and the 2007 substantivechange adding NOx to the definition ofMajor Modification; (2) the 2005 non-substantive recodification of thedefinition of Major Stationary Source atsubsection 4 as subsection d, and the2007 substantive change adding NOx tothe definition of Major StationarySource; (3) the 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the first paragraph ofthe definition of Significant atsubsection 1 to subsection a (thus takingno action on the substantive changes tothe definition's table), and the 2007substantive change adding NOx as aprecursor to the table's criteria andother pollutants listing for ozone; and(4) the 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the first paragraph ofsubsection 1.8 to subsection L5 (thustaking no action on the substantivechanges to the table), and the 2007substantive change allowing for anexemption with respect to ozonemonitoring for a source with a netemissions increase less than 100 tpy ofNOx.

For the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, theNovember 9, 2007 SIP revisions to thedefinitions in the Louisiana rules forMajor Modification and MajorStationary Source meet the Federaldefinition in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1) to

identify a major source of NOx as amajor source for ozone. The November9, 2007 revisions to the Louisiana rulesalso meet the Federal definition in 40CFR 51.166(b)(49) for inclusion of NOxas an ozone precursor. The November 9,2007 revisions to the emission rate forozone under the definition forSignificant in the Louisiana rules alsomeet the Federal requirements in 40CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i). The November 9,2007 revisions allowing for anexemption with respect to ozonemonitoring for a source with a netemissions increase less than 100 tpy ofNOx also meet the Federal requirementon monitoring exemptions under thefootnote for 40 CFR 166(i)(5)(i)(e). Thus,the November 9, 2007 revisions wouldmake the LA SIP more stringent andwould not interfere with any applicableCAA requirement concerningattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone andPM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing toapprove these revisions as meeting therequirements of section 110 of the Actand 40 CFR 51.166 for establishing NOxemissions as a precursor for ozone.

The PSD revisions we are proposingto approve are limited to those specifiedin the preceding paragraphs and areseverable from the portions of theDecember 20, 2005 and November 9,2007 SIP submittals on which we aretaking no action. By severable, we meanthat the portions of the SIP revisions weare proposing to approve can beimplemented independently of theportions on which we are not acting,without affecting the stringency of thesubmitted rules. In addition, theportions on which we are taking noaction are not necessary for approval ofthe infrastructure SIP requirementsaddressed in this proposed action. EPAis not proposing to take action on anyother portions of the December 20, 2005and November 9, 2007 SIP revisions inthis proposed rulemaking; we intend toact on those revisions in a futurerulemaking.

To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) forthe 1997 PM 2.5 standard, EPA believesthat States should appropriatelyimplement the interim policy forpreconstruction (PSD) review asinterpreted by legal rulings. States mayfollow this approach in the interim untilthey must provide revisions toimplement the PM 2.5 standard due May16, 2011 under 73 FR 28321.19 Duringthe transition to SIP-approved PSDrequirements for PM 2.5, LDEQconfirmed to EPA by letter that, shouldthey rely on the EPA's PM 1o SurrogatePolicy, the State would include an

19 The Federal Register notice (73 FR 28321) waspublished May 16, 2008.

21686


adequate rationale or demonstration tosupport the use of PM1 o as a surrogatebased on the facts and circumstances ofthe specific permit action, consistentwith relevant case law on the use ofsurrogate pollutant analyses.20 See 75FR 6827, 6831-32 (February 11, 2010)(discussion of case law relevant to theuse of PM10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5). OnFebruary 18, 2011, the LDEQ proposedrevisions to the Louisiana SIP to amendtheir PSD and nonattainment NSRprograms for PM 2.5. The State isplanning to submit these changes as aSIP revision by May 16, 2011. EPA willact on this submission in a separaterulemaking.

Louisiana has the authority to issuepermits under the SIP-approved PSDprogram to sources of GHG emissions(75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010; 75 FR77698, December 13, 2010).21 TheTailoring Rule established thresholdsthat phase in the applicability of PSDrequirements to GHG sources, startingwith the largest GHG emitters, and weredesigned to relieve the overwhelmingadministrative burdens and costsassociated with the dramatic increase inpermitting burden that would haveresulted from applying PSDrequirements to GHG emission increasesat or above only the mass-basedstatutory thresholds of 100/250 tpygenerally applicable to all PSD-regulated pollutants starting on January2, 2011. However, EPA recognized thateven after it finalized the Tailoring Rule,many SIPs with approved PSD programswould, until they were revised,continue to apply PSD at the statutorythresholds, even though the Stateswould not have sufficient resources toimplement the PSD program at thoselevels. EPA consequently implementedits "PSD SIP Narrowing Rule" andnarrowed its approval of thoseprovisions of previously approved SIPsthat apply PSD to GHG emissionsincreases from sources emitting GHGsbelow the Tailoring Rule thresholds (75FR 82536, December 30, 2010). Throughthe PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPAwithdrew its previous approvals ofthose programs to the extent the SIPsapply PSD to increases in GHGemissions from GHG-emitting sourcesbelow the Tailoring Rule thresholds.The portions of the PSD programsregulating GHGs from GHG-emitting

20 December 16, 2010, letter from Cheryl Sonnier

Nolan, Assistant Secretary, Environmental ServicesDivision, Louisiana Department of EnvironmentalQuality to Thomas Diggs, Associate Director for AirPrograms, EPA Region 6. This letter is in the docketfor this rulemaking.

21 To view Louisiana's letter, in which the Statetold EPA it had this authority, please see http://www.epa.go vnsr/2OlOletterslIa.pdf.

sources with emission increases at orabove the Tailoring Rule thresholdsremained approved. The effect of EPAnarrowing its approval in this manner isthat the provisions of previouslyapproved SIPs that apply PSD to GHGemissions increases from sourcesemitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rulethresholds have the status of havingbeen submitted by the State but not yetacted upon by EPA (75 FR 82536,December 30, 2010).

Louisiana submitted to EPA asupplemental certification, dated March24, 2011, certifying that the portion ofthe GHG PSD program in the State'ssubmittal under infrastructure SIPreview is only the portion that remainedapproved after EPA's promulgation ofthe PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which isthe portion that regulates GHG-emittingsources with GHG emissions at or abovethe Tailoring Rule thresholds.Therefore, we are proposing to find thatthe current Louisiana PSD SIP meetssection 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) creates "a generalduty on States to include a program intheir SIP that regulates the modificationand construction of any stationarysource as necessary to assure that theNAAQS are achieved" (70 FR 71612,71677). EPA provides States with a"broad degree of discretion" inimplementing their minor NSRprograms (71 FR 48696, 48700). The"considerably less detailed" regulationsfor minor NSR are provided in 40 CFR51.160 through 51.164. EPA hasdetermined that Louisiana's minor NSRprogram adopted pursuant to section110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulatesemissions of ozone and its precursorsand PM. Louisiana's minor sourcepermitting requirements are containedat 33 LAC 5-505 and were approved at54 FR 9783.

In this action, EPA is proposing toapprove Louisiana's infrastructure SIPfor the 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQSwith respect to the general requirementof section 110(a)(2)(C) to include aprogram in the SIP that regulates themodification and construction of anystationary source as necessary to assurethat the NAAQS are achieved. EPA isnot proposing to approve or disapprovethe State's existing minor NSR programitself to the extent that it is inconsistentwith EPA's regulations governing thisprogram. EPA believes that a number ofStates may have minor NSR provisionsthat are contrary to the existing EPAregulations for this program. EPAintends to work with States to reconcileState minor NSR programs with EPA'sregulatory provisions for the program.The statutory requirements of section

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerableflexibility in designing minor NSRprograms, and EPA believes it may betime to revisit the regulatoryrequirements for this program to givethe States an appropriate level offlexibility to design a program thatmeets their particular air qualityconcerns, while assuring reasonableconsistency across the country inprotecting the NAAQS with respect tonew and modified minor sources.

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(C) for both the 1997ozone and PM 2.5 standards.

Interstate and international transport,pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): EPAapproved into the Louisiana SIP theClean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)NOxTrading Programs on September 28,2007 (72 FR 55064). The SIP revision at72 FR 55064 contains provisions thataddress significant contribution,interference with maintenance, PSD,and protection of visibility. Theprovisions that address significantcontribution and interference withmaintenance will be re-evaluated afterthe EPA's Transport Rule is finalized.The protection of visibility requirementwill be further evaluated when EPAcompletes its review of the regionalhaze SIP revision submitted on June 13,2008. For additional detail, please referto the TSD. Because 110(a)(2)(D)(i) wasaddressed in other actions, EPA is notproposing action on this element here.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Actrequires compliance with sections 115and 126 of the Act, relating to interstateand international pollution abatement.Section 115(a) addresses endangermentof public health or welfare in foreigncountries from pollution emitted in theUnited States. Pursuant to section 115,the Administrator has neither receivednor issued a formal notification thatemissions from Louisiana areendangering public health or welfare ina foreign country. Section 126(a) of theAct requires new or modified sources tonotify neighboring States of potentialimpacts from such sources. 33 LAC 503requires that each major proposed newor modified source provide suchnotification and is in the Federallyenforceable SIP (see 54 FR 9783). TheState also has no pending obligationsunder section 126 of the Act.

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect tothe 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5NAAQS.

Adequate personnel, funding, andauthority, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(E): The duties, powers andstructure of the LDEQ (described at RS

21687


30:2011.F) provide that "the basicpersonnel [* * *] shall be employed orprovided by the department;" and theLDEQ may contract, employ, andcompensate such assistance on a full orpart-time basis as may be necessary tocarry out the provisions of this Subtitle.In addition, the State has theEnvironmental Trust Fund, establishedat RS 30:2015, which is used, in part, to"defray the cost to the State ofpermitting, monitoring, * * *maintaining and administering theprograms provided for under theLEQA."

There are Federal sources of fundingfor the implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, through,for example, the CAA sections 103 and105 grant funds. The LDEQ receivesFederal funds on an annual basis, undersections 103 and 105 of the Act, tosupport its air quality programs. Feescollected for motor vehicle inspections,the Title V and non-Title V permitprograms, and other inspections,maintenance and renewals required ofother air pollution sources 22 alsoprovide necessary funds to helpimplement the State's air programs.Information on permitting fees isprovided in the discussion for110(a)(2)(L) below. The secretary has thepower and duty "to receive and budgetduly appropriated monies and to accept,receive, and administer grants or otherfunds or gifts from public and privateagencies, including the Federalgovernment, to carry out the provisionsand purposes of this Subtitle." See RS30:2011.D.10. For more detail onfunding sources, please see the TSD.

The LEQA furthermore provides thesecretary of the LDEQ adequateauthority with the powers and duties, inpart, "to adopt, amend, or repeal allrules, regulations, and standards for theprotection of the environment." See RS30:2011.D.1. The SIP rule at 33 LAC,Chapter 1, section 101 describes theLDEQ as the State's air pollution controlagency and its enforcement authority,referencing the 1983 LEQA (54 FR9783). Therefore, the State hasdemonstrated it has adequate authorityunder its rules and regulations to carryout its SIP obligations with respect tothe 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5NAAQS.

As discussed previously in thisrulemaking with regards to section110(a)(2)(C), Louisiana submitted toEPA a supplemental certification, datedMarch 24, 2011, certifying that theportion of the GHG PSD program in the

22 For example, annual fees are collected forinspections of Stage I Vapor Recovery systems atgasoline dispensing stations.

State's submittal under infrastructureSIP review is the portion that remainedapproved after EPA's promulgation ofthe PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. LDEQ hasthe resources to implement its GHG PSDprogram for sources with emissionsincreases at or above the thresholdsindicated by the PSD SIP NarrowingRule.

EPA is proposing to find that thecurrent Louisiana PSD SIP meets section110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Stationary source monitoring system,pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(F): 33LAC, chapters 7, 9, 13, 15, and 21-23require source monitoring forcompliance, recordkeeping andreporting, and provide for enforcement,with respect to all the NAAQS and theirprecursors. These source monitoringprogram requirements generate data for,among other pollutants, ozone, PM2.5,and precursors to these pollutants(VOCs, NOx, and SO 2).

Under the Louisiana SIP rules, theLDEQ is required to analyze theemissions data from point, area, mobile,and biogenic (natural) sources. TheLDEQ uses this data to track progresstowards maintaining the NAAQS,develop control and maintenancestrategies, identify sources and generalemission levels, and determinecompliance with Louisiana and EPArequirements. The State's emissionsdata are available on the LDEQ Web site(http://www.deq.louisiana.gov.) Theserules have been approved by EPA intothe SIP. A list of the chapters andFederal Register citations are providedin the TSD.

There are two additional requirementsthat Louisiana must meet regardingemissions inventories (Els): the Elrequirement for nonattainment areas,and the requirement to submit annual Eldata to EPA's National EmissionsInventory (NEI) database. For the BatonRouge ozone nonattainment area, theLDEQ submitted an El SIP with a 2002base year which included NOx and VOCdata. EPA approved this El SIP onSeptember 3, 2009 (74 FR 45561). TheNEI is EPA's central repository for airemissions data. EPA published the AirEmissions Reporting Rule (AERR) onDecember 5, 2008, which modified therequirements for collecting andreporting air emissions data (73 FR76539). The AERR shortened the timeStates had to report emissions data from17 to 12 months, giving States onecalendar year to submit emissions data.All States are required to submit acomprehensive emissions inventoryevery three years and report emissionsfor certain larger sources annuallythrough EPA's online Emissions

Inventory System (EIS). States reportemissions data for the six criteriapollutants and the precursors that formthem-nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide,particulate matter, and volatile organiccompounds. EPA compiles theemissions data, supplementing it wherenecessary, and releases it to the generalpublic through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. The LDEQ iscurrent with their submittals to the NEIdatabase; the 2008 data was submittedto EPA in 2010. The State's emissionsdata are also available on EPA's AirDataWeb site (http://www.epa.gov/air/datalindex.html.) 23

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Emergency power, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(G): Section 110(a)(2)(G)requires States to provide for authorityto address activities causing imminentand substantial endangerment to publichealth, including contingency plans toimplement the emergency episodeprovisions in their SIPs. The LEQA,pursuant to RS 2011.D.15, provides theLDEQ with authority to addressenvironmental emergencies, and theLDEQ has contingency plans toimplement emergency episodeprovisions in the SIP. The LDEQpromulgated the "Prevention of AirPollution Emergency Episodes," whichincludes contingency measures, andthese provisions were approved into theSIP on March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9783). Theepisode criteria and contingencymeasures are found in 33 LAC Chapter56. The criteria for ozone are based ona 1-hour average ozone level. Theseepisode criteria and contingencymeasures are adequate to address ozoneemergency episodes and are in theFederally approved SIP.

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidancefor PM 2.5 recommends that a State withat least one monitored 24-hour PM 2.5value exceeding 140.4 pg/m 3 since 2006establish an emergency episode planand contingency measures to beimplemented should such level beexceeded again. The 2006-2010 ambientair quality monitoring data 24 forLouisiana do not exceed 140.4 pg/m 3 .

The PM 2.5 levels have consistentlyremained below this level (140.4 pg/m3),

23 The AirData Web site provides access to airpollution data for the entire United States andproduces reports and maps of air pollution databased on criteria specified by the user.

24 The ozone and PM data are available throughAQS and the State Web site (http://www.deq.louisiana.gov.) The AQS data for PM areprovided in the docket for this rulemaking.

21688


and furthermore, the State hasappropriate general emergency powersto address PM 2.5 related episodes toprotect the environment and publichealth. Given the State's low monitoredPM 2.5 levels, EPA is proposing the Stateis not required to submit an emergencyepisode plan and contingency measuresat this time, for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.Additional detail is provided in theTSD.

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Future SIP revisions, pursuant tosection 11 O(a)(2)(H): The LEQA,codified at RS 30:2011.D.1, providesthat the secretary of the LDEQ shall, inpart, "adopt, amend or repeal all rules,regulations, and standards for theprotection of the environment." Inaddition, the LEQA at RS 30:2011.D.7requires the LDEQ to "cooperate with[* * *] the Federal government [* * *]in furtherance of the purposes of thisSubtitle." Thus, Louisiana has theauthority to revise its SIP from time totime as may be necessary to take intoaccount revisions of primary orsecondary NAAQS, or the availability ofimproved or more expeditious methodsof attaining such standards.Furthermore, Louisiana also has theauthority under these LEQA provisionsto revise its SIP in the event the EPApursuant to the Act finds the SIP to besubstantially inadequate to attain theNAAQS.

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Consultation with governmentofficials, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(J):25 The LEQA, as codified atRS 30:2011.D.1, provides that thesecretary of the LDEQ" shall hold apublic hearing to receive comments[* * *] from all interested parties andthe public" prior to the adoption of anyrule or regulation. In addition, RS30:2011.D.7 provides that the secretaryshall have the power and duty "toadvise, consult, and cooperate withother agencies of the State, the Federalgovernment, other States, and interstateagencies and with affected groups,political subdivisions, interestedagricultural, industrial, professional,and environmental groups andindividuals in furtherance of thepurposes of this Subtitle." Further,section 509 of 33 LAC Chapter 5

25 Section 110(a)(2)(J) is divided into threesegments: Consultation with government officials;public notification; and PSD and visibilityprotection.

provides that the State shall providewritten notice of any permit applicationfor a proposed major stationary sourceor major modification the emissionsfrom which may affect a Class I area tothe Federal land manager (see 54 FR9783). Section 1434 of 33 LAC Chapter14 requires that interagencyconsultation be undertaken beforemaking conformity determinations andbefore adopting applicable SIP revisionsand public hearings shall be held toreceive public comment ontransportation-related SIPs.26 Theserules are in the Federally approved SIP.EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofthis portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) withrespect to the 1997 8-hour ozone andPM 2.5 NAAQS.

Public notification if NAAQS areexceeded, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(J): Public notification beginswith the air quality forecast, whichadvises the public of conditions capableof exceeding the NAAQS (see 54 FR9783). A 3-day air quality forecast canbe found on the LDEQ Web site for bothozone and PM 2.5 for each forecast area. 27

In addition, the State implements anOzone Action Day (OAD) program andwill issue an ozone alert in theafternoon on the day before an elevatedlevel of ozone is expected to occur.Announcements for an OAD will bebroadcast through television and othernews media, and to employersparticipating in the OAD program. TheOAD program includes examples ofactions that can be implemented byindividuals and organizations to reduceozone levels and exposure to ozone.Also through the LDEQ Web site, thepublic can subscribe to Enviroflash, anelectronic information system thatprovides a forecast of air qualityinformation via e-mail, cell phone, orpager. Ozone data are posted on theLDEQ Web site; current, regional hourlyand regional 8-hour ozone data areposted hourly (see http://www.deq.louisiana.gov). EPA isproposing to find that the Louisiana SIPmeets this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozoneand PM 2.5 NAAQS.

PSD and visibility protection,pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(J): Thisportion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in partrequires that a State's SIP meet theapplicable requirements of section110(a)(2)(C) as relating to PSD programs.As detailed in the subsection titled

26 See 64 FR 72934, published December 29,

1999.27 There are eight forecast areas: Baton Rouge,

Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Monroe, NewOrleans, Shreveport, and Thibodaux. Please seehttp://www.deq.louisiana.gov.

"Program for enforcement of controlmeasures and regulation of themodification and construction of anystationary source * * * pursuant tosection 11 0(a)(2)(C) of this rulemakingand in the TSD, the State's PSD programis in the SIP (52 FR 13671, 54 FR 25449,56 FR 20137, and 61 FR 53639). Inaddition to the approved program and tomeet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) forthe 1997 ozone standard, EPA believesthe State must have updated its PSDrules to treat NOx as a precursor forozone. Thus, we are proposing toapprove portions of two SIP revisions(submitted December 20, 2005 andNovember 9, 2007) to implement NOxas a precursor to ozone. These revisionsare proposed for the definitions at 33LAC 5-509, as described earlier. Toimplement section 110(a)(2)(C) for the1997 PM 2.5 standard, EPA believes thatStates should appropriately implementthe interim policy for preconstructionreview, as described above. During thetransition to SIP-approved PSDrequirements for PM 2.5, the State wouldinclude an adequate rationale ordemonstration to support the use ofPM10 as a surrogate based on the factsand circumstances of the specific permitaction, should they rely on the EPA'sPM10 Surrogate Policy.28 The State'sminor source permitting requirementswere approved at 54 FR 9783. Theportions of the State's PSD programrelated to permitting GHGs at or abovethe Tailoring Rule thresholds areapprovable in light of the PSD SIPNarrowing Rule. EPA is proposing tofind that the Louisiana SIP meets thePSD requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C).A more detailed discussion is providedin subsection 110(a)(2)(C) above and inthe TSD. EPA is proposing to find thatthe Louisiana SIP meets this portion ofsection 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

EPA approved Louisiana's VisibilityProtection Plan into the Louisiana SIPon June 10, 1986 (51 FR 20967). EPAapproved revisions to Louisiana'sVisibility Protection Plan and approveda Long-Term Strategy for VisibilityProtection into the Louisiana SIP onDecember 19, 1988 (53 FR 50958). TheState's most recent SIP revision of theirRegional Haze program was submittedto EPA on June 13, 2008, and we willtake action on it in a separaterulemaking. With regard to theapplicable requirements for visibilityprotection, EPA recognizes that Statesare subject to visibility and regionalhaze program requirements under Part C

28 See 75 FR 6827, 6831-32 (discussion of caselaw relevant to the use of PM10 as a surrogate forPM2.).

21689


of the Act (which includes sections169A and 169B). In the event of theestablishment of a new NAAQS,however, the visibility and regionalhaze program requirements under part Cdo not change. Thus, we find that thereis no new visibility obligation"triggered" under section 110(a)(2)(J)when a new NAAQS becomes effective.This would be the case even in theevent a secondary PM 2.5 NAAQS forvisibility is established, because thisNAAQS would not affect visibilityrequirements under part C. EPA istherefore proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets this portion ofsection 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Air quality modeling and submissionof data, pursuant to section 11 O(a)(2)(K):The Secretary of the LDEQ has thepower and duty, under RS 30:2011.D.26to provide for the functions ofenvironmental air quality assessment.As an example, Louisiana submittedmodeling and control measures in a SIPrevision to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard.29 Themodeling and control measures in theSIP revision were approved by EPA andadopted into the SIP.

This section of the Act also requiresthat a SIP provide for the submission ofdata related to such air quality modelingto the EPA upon request. RS30:2011.D.7 authorizes LDEQ tocooperate with the Federal government,allowing it to make this submission tothe EPA.

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Permitting fees, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(L): LEQA as codified in RS30:2014 provides legal authority forestablishing a fee schedule to recoverthe reasonable costs of acting on permitapplications, implementing, andenforcing permits. Louisiana's PermitFee System was approved by EPA onJuly 7, 1982 (47 FR 29535) and revisionswere approved by EPA into theLouisiana SIP on May 3, 1984 (49 FR18825) and March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9783).The annual maintenance fee, newapplication fee, major modified permitfee, and minor modified permit fee wereapproved by EPA at 54 FR 9783 and onMarch 25, 1994 (59 FR 14112). The TitleV program and associated fees legallyare not part of the SIP, but wereapproved by EPA on September 12,1995 (60 FR 47296) as part of the

29 See the Attainment Demonstration for theShreveport-Bossier City Early Action Compact Area,approved by EPA and adopted into the SIP onAugust 22, 2005 (7o FR 48880).

Louisiana Title V Program. EPA isreviewing the Louisiana Title Vprogram, including the Title V feestructure, separate from this action.Because the Title V program andassociated fees legally are not part of theSIP, the infrastructure SIP action we areproposing today does not preclude EPAfrom taking future action regardingLouisiana's Title V program.

EPA is proposing to find that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Consultation/participation by affectedlocal entities, pursuant to section110(a)(2)(M): As indicated above, theLouisiana statute under RS 30:2011.D.1provides that the secretary of the LDEQ"shall hold a public hearing to receivecomments [* * *] from all interestedparties and the public" prior to theadoption of any rule or regulation. Inaddition, RS 30:2011.D.7 provides thatthe secretary shall have the power andduty "to advise, consult, and cooperatewith other agencies of the State, theFederal government, other States, andinterstate agencies and with affectedgroups, political subdivisions,interested agricultural, industrial,professional, and environmental groupsand individuals in furtherance of thepurposes of this Subtitle." EPA isproposing to find that the Louisiana SIPmeets the requirements of section110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 19978-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

We are proposing to approve thesubmittals provided by the State ofLouisiana to demonstrate that theLouisiana SIP meets the requirements ofSection 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act forthe 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Weare proposing to find that the currentLouisiana SIP meets the infrastructureelements listed below:

Emission limits and other control measures(110(a)(2)(A) of the Act);

Ambient air quality monitoring/data system(110(a)(2)(B) of the Act);

Program for enforcement of control measures(110(a)(2)(C) of the Act);

Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of theAct);

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of the Act);Stationary source monitoring system

(110(a)(2)(F) of the Act);Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the Act);Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of the Act);Consultation with government officials

(11O(a)(2)(J) of the Act);Public notification (11O(a)(2)(J) of the Act);Prevention of significant deterioration and

visibility protection (11 O(a)(2)(J) of theAct),

Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K) of theAct);

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the Act); andConsultation/participation by affected local

entities (110(a)(2)(M) of the Act).

EPA is also proposing to approve thefollowing revisions to 33 LAC 5-509,submitted by LDEQ on December 20,2005 and November 9, 2007:

1. The 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the definition for MajorModification subsection 2 to subsectionb, and the 2007 substantive changeadding NOx to the definition of MajorModification.

2. The 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the definition for MajorStationary Source at subsection 4 tosubsection d, and the 2007 substantivechange adding NOx to the definition ofMajor Stationary Source.

3. The 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the first paragraph ofthe definition for Significant atsubsection 1 to subsection a, and the2007 substantive change adding NOx asa precursor to the table's criteria andother pollutants listing for ozone.

4. The 2005 non-substantiverecodification of the first paragraph ofsubsection 1.8 to subsection 1.5, and the2007 substantive change allowing for anexemption with respect to ozonemonitoring for a source with a netemissions increase less than 100 tpy ofNOx.

EPA is proposing these actions inaccordance with section 110 and part Cof the Act and EPA's regulations andconsistent with EPA guidance.

V. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

Under the Clean Air Act, theAdministrator is required to approve aSIP submission that complies with theprovisions of the Act and applicableFederal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIPsubmissions, EPA's role is to approveState choices, provided that they meetthe criteria of the Clean Air Act.Accordingly, this action merelyproposes to approve State law asmeeting Federal requirements and doesnot impose additional requirementsbeyond those imposed by State law. Forthat reason, this action:

* Is not a "significant regulatoryaction" subject to review by the Officeof Management and Budget underExecutive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,October 4, 1993);

* Does not impose an informationcollection burden under the provisionsof the Paperwork Reduction Act (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

* Is certified as not having asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities

21690


under the Regulatory Flexibility Act(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

* Does not contain any unfundedmandate or significantly or uniquelyaffect small governments, as describedin the Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

* Does not have federalismimplications as specified in ExecutiveOrder 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,1999);

* Is not an economically significantregulatory action based on health orsafety risks subject to Executive Order13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

* Is not a significant regulatory actionsubject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR28355, May 22, 2001);

* Is not subject to requirements ofsection 12(d) of the NationalTechnology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) becauseapplication of those requirements wouldbe inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;and

* Does not provide EPA with thediscretionary authority to address, asappropriate, disproportionate humanhealth or environmental effects, usingpracticable and legally permissiblemethods, under Executive Order 12898(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not haveTribal implications as specified byExecutive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,November 9, 2000), because the SIP isnot approved to apply in Indian countrylocated in the State, and EPA notes thatit will not impose substantial directcosts on Tribal governments or preemptTribal law.


Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Incorporation byreference, Intergovernmental relations,Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulatematter, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Volatile organiccompounds.

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

Dated: April 7, 2011.Al Armendariz,Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doe. 2011-9286 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-RiO-OAR-2011-0315, FRL-9296-8]

Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; Washington:Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule; extension ofcomment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the publiccomment period on EPA's notice ofproposed rulemaking "Approval andPromulgation of Implementation Plans;Washington: Correction" published onMarch 23, 2011 at 76 FR 16365. Acommenter requested additional time toreview the proposal and preparecomments. In response to this request,EPA is extending the original 30-daycomment period for an additional 30days. The extended comment periodwill close on May 23, 2011.DATES: Comments must be received onor before May 23, 2011.ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0315, by any of thefollowing methods:

* http://www.regulations.gov: Followthe online instructions for submittingcomments.

* E-mail:RIO-Public [email protected].

* Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10,Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,Seattle, WA 98101.

* Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: KristinHall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics,AWT-107. Such deliveries are onlyaccepted during normal hours ofoperation, and special arrangementsshould be made for deliveries of boxedinformation.

Instructions: Direct your comments toDocket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0315. EPA's policy is that all commentsreceived will be included in the publicdocket without change and may bemade available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including anypersonal information provided, unlessthe comment includes informationclaimed to be Confidential BusinessInformation (CBI) or other informationwhose disclosure is restricted by statute.Do not submit information that youconsider to be CBI or otherwiseprotected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site isan "anonymous access" system, whichmeans EPA will not know your identityor contact information unless youprovide it in the body of your comment.If you send an e-mail comment directlyto EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mailaddress will be automatically capturedand included as part of the commentthat is placed in the public docket andmade available on the Internet. If yousubmit an electronic comment, EPArecommends that you include yourname and other contact information inthe body of your comment and with anydisk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPAcannot read your comment due totechnical difficulties and cannot contactyou for clarification, EPA may not beable to consider your comment.Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free of any defects orviruses.

Docket: All documents in the docketare listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Althoughlisted in the index, some information isnot publicly available, e.g., CBI or otherinformation whose disclosure isrestricted by statute. Certain othermaterial, such as copyrighted material,is not placed on the Internet and will bepublicly available only in hard copy.Publicly available docket materials areavailable either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copyduring normal business hours at theOffice of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPARegion 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,WA 98101.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kristin Hall at telephone number: (206)553-6357, e-mail address:[email protected], or the above EPA,Region 10 address.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March23, 2011, EPA published a proposedrulemaking to correct errors in the StateImplementation Plan (SIP) for the Stateof Washington regarding the scope ofcertain regulations incorporated byreference into the SIP. 76 FR 16365.This correction would limit theapplicability of certain regulations topollutants for which National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) havebeen established and precursors to thoseNAAQS pollutants. EPA received arequest that the public comment periodbe extended to allow more time toreview the proposal and preparecomments. In response to this request,EPA is extending the original 30-daycomment period for an additional 30days. The extended comment periodwill close on May 23, 2011.

21691


All comments received on or beforeMay 23, 2011, will be considered in thedevelopment of a final rule. A copy ofthe request to extend the publiccomment period has been placed intothe docket and may be reviewedelectronically or during normal businesshours at the locations listed above.Interested parties are invited tocomment on all aspects EPA's March 23,2011, proposal. Comments should beaddressed to Kristin Hall at the addresslisted above.

Dated: April, 8, 2011.Dennis J. McLerran,Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doe. 2011-9290 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305; FRL-9296-6]

RIN 2060-AQ43

National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants: PrimaryLead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Extension of public commentperiod.

SUMMARY: On February 17, 2011, EPAproposed amendments to the NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants for Primary Lead Smelting(76 FR 9410). The EPA is extending thedeadline for written comments on theproposed amendments by 19 days toMay 8, 2011. The EPA received arequest for this extension from the DoeRun Company, the sole covered facility.Doe Run Company requested theextension in order to analyze data andreview the proposed amendments. EPAfinds this request to be reasonable dueto the significant changes the proposalwould make to the current rule.DATES: Comments must be received onor before May 8, 2011.ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305, by one of thefollowing methods:

* http://www.regulations.gov: Followthe online instructions for submittingcomments.

* E-mail: [email protected] Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305.

* Fax: (202) 566-9744. AttentionDocket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305.

* Mail: U.S. Postal Service, sendcomments to: EPA Docket Center(6102T), EPA West (Air Docket),Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Mailcode 2822T,1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460. Please include atotal of two copies. In addition, pleasemail a copy of your comments on theinformation collection provisions to theOffice of Information and RegulatoryAffairs, Office of Management andBudget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA,725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC20503.

* Hand Delivery: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA West (AirDocket), Room 3334, 1301 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004,Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305. Such deliveries areonly accepted during the Docket'snormal hours of operation, and specialarrangements should be made fordeliveries of boxed information. Pleaseinclude a total of two copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments toDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305. EPA's policy is that all commentsreceived will be included in the publicdocket without change and may bemade available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including anypersonal information provided, unlessthe comment includes informationclaimed to be Confidential BusinessInformation (CBI) or other informationwhose disclosure is restricted by statute.Do not submit information that youconsider to be CBI or otherwiseprotected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Thehttp://www.regulations.gov Web site isan "anonymous access" system, whichmeans EPA will not know your identityor contact information unless youprovide it in the body of your comment.If you send an e-mail comment directlyto EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mailaddress will be automatically capturedand included as part of the commentthat is placed in the public docket andmade available on the Internet. If yousubmit an electronic comment, EPArecommends that you include yourname and other contact information inthe body of your comment and with anydisk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPAcannot read your comment due totechnical difficulties and cannot contactyou for clarification, EPA may not beable to consider your comment.Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free of any defects orviruses.

Docket: All documents in the docketare listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Althoughlisted in the index, some information isnot publicly available, e.g., CBI or otherinformation whose disclosure isrestricted by statute. Certain othermaterial, such as copyrighted material,will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docketmaterials are available eitherelectronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy atthe EPA Docket Center, EPA West,Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,NW., Washington, DC. The PublicReading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,excluding legal holidays. The telephonenumber for the Public Reading Room is(202) 566-1744, and the telephonenumber for the Docket Center is (202)566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Questions concerning the proposed ruleshould be addressed to Mr. NathanTopham, Office of Air Quality Planningand Standards, Sector Policies andPrograms Division, Metals and InorganicChemicals Group (D243-02),Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,telephone number: (919) 541-0483; faxnumber: (919) 541-3207; e-mail address:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For thereasons noted above, the publiccomment period will now end on May8, 2011.

How can I get copies of the proposedrule and other related information?

The proposed rule titled, NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants: Primary Lead Smelting, waspublished February 17, 2011 (76 FR9410). EPA has established the publicdocket for the proposed rulemakingunder docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0305, and a copy of the proposedrule is available in the docket. We notethat, since the proposed rule waspublished, additional materials havebeen added to the docket. Informationon how to access the docket is presentedabove in the ADDRESSES section.


Gina McCarthy,Assistant Administrator, Office of Air andRadiation.[FR Doe. 2011-9287 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


21692




44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Docket No.FEMA-B-7755]

Proposed Flood ElevationDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: On December 28, 2007, FEMApublished in the Federal Register aproposed rule that contained anerroneous table. This notice providescorrections to that table, to be used inlieu of the information published at 72FR 73732. The table provided hererepresents the flooding sources, locationof referenced elevations, effective andmodified elevations, and communitiesaffected for Racine County, Wisconsin,and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, itaddresses the following floodingsources: Bartlett Branch, Chicory Creek,East/West Canal, Fonk's Tributary,Kilbourn Road Ditch, Lamparek Creek,Nelson Creek, North Cape Lateral, PikeRiver, Root River, Sorenson Creek,Union Grove Industrial Tributary,Unnamed Tributary No. 18 to KilbournRoad Ditch, Unnamed Tributary No. 2 toWest Branch Root River Canal,Unnamed Tributary No. 37 to DesPlaines River, Unnamed Tributary No.38 to Des Plaines River, UnnamedTributary No. 39 to Des Plaines River,Unnamed Tributary to UnnamedTributary No. 2 to West Branch RootRiver Canal, and Waxdale Creek.

DATES: Comments are to be submittedon or before July 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7755, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief,Engineering Management Branch,Federal Insurance and MitigationAdministration, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064or (e-mail) [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LuisRodriguez, Chief, EngineeringManagement Branch, Federal Insuranceand Mitigation Administration, FederalEmergency Management Agency, 500 CStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20472,(202) 646-4064 or (e-mail)[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheFederal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) publishes proposeddeterminations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) andmodified BFEs for communitiesparticipating in the National FloodInsurance Program (NFIP), inaccordance with section 110 of theFlood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed BFEs and modifiedBFEs, together with the floodplainmanagement criteria required by 44 CFR60.3, are minimum requirements. Theyshould not be construed to mean thatthe community must change anyexisting ordinances that are morestringent in their floodplainmanagement requirements. Thecommunity may at any time enactstricter requirements of its own orpursuant to policies established by otherFederal, State, or regional entities.These proposed elevations are used tomeet the floodplain managementrequirements of the NFIP and also are

used to calculate the appropriate floodinsurance premium rates for newbuildings built after these elevations aremade final, and for the contents in thosebuildings.

Correction

In the proposed rule published at 72FR 73732, in the December 28, 2007,issue of the Federal Register, FEMApublished a table under the authority of44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled "RacineCounty, Wisconsin, and IncorporatedAreas" addressed the following floodingsources: Bartlett Branch, Chicory Creek,East/West Canal, Fonk's Tributary,Kilbourn Road Ditch, Lamparek Creek,Nelson Creek, North Cape Lateral, PikeRiver, Root River, Sorenson Creek,Union Grove Industrial Tributary,Unnamed Tributary No. 18 to KilbournRoad Ditch, Unnamed Tributary No. 2 toWest Branch Root River Canal,Unnamed Tributary No. 37 to DesPlaines River, Unnamed Tributary No.38 to Des Plaines River, UnnamedTributary No. 39 to Des Plaines River,Unnamed Tributary to UnnamedTributary No. 2 to West Branch RootRiver Canal, and Waxdale Creek. Thattable contained inaccurate informationas to the location of referencedelevation, effective and modifiedelevation in feet, and/or communitiesaffected for the following floodingsources: Bartlett Branch, Chicory Creek,Kilbourn Road Ditch, Lamparek Creek,Nelson Creek, Pike River, SorensonCreek, Unnamed Tributary No. 18 toKilbourn Road Ditch, and WaxdaleCreek. In this notice, FEMA ispublishing a table containing theaccurate information, to address theseprior errors. The information providedbelow should be used in lieu of thatpreviously published.

* Elevation in feet (NGVD)+ Elevation in feet

(NAVD)# Depth in feet above

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation** ground Communities affectedA Elevation in meters

(MSL)

Effective Modified

Racine County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas

Bartlett Branch ......................

Chicory Creek .......................

East/W est Canal ...................

Fonk's Tributary ....................

At the Pike River confluence ........................................Approximately 70 feet downstream of County High-

way C.Approximately 570 feet upstream of the Pike River

confluence.At the downstream side of 105th Street ......................At the North Cape Lateral confluence ..........................

Approximately 40 feet downstream of U.S. Route 45Approximately 200 feet upstream of the Union Grove

Industrial Tributary confluence.

+682None

+669

+723None

NoneNone

+686+693

+668

+722+788

+788+746

Village of Mount Pleasant.

Village of Mount Pleasant,Village of Sturtevant.

Unincorporated Areas ofRacine County.


21693





(MSL)

Effective Modified

Kilbourn Road Ditch ..............

Lam parek Creek ...................

Nelson C reek ........................

North Cape Lateral ...............

P ike R ive r ..............................

R oot R ive r .............................

Sorenson Creek ....................

Union Grove Industrial Tribu-tary.

Unnamed Tributary No. 18 toKilbourn Road Ditch.

Unnamed Tributary No. 2 toWest Branch Root RiverCanal.

Unnamed Tributary No. 37 toDes Plaines River.



Unnamed Tributary toUnnamed Tributary No. 2to West Branch Root RiverCanal.

W axdale Creek .....................

Approximately 4,880 feet upstream of the UnionGrove Industrial Tributary confluence.

A t C ounty Line R oad ....................................................Approximately 2,400 feet downstream of 1-94 ............At the Pike River confluence ........................................At the downstream side of 105th Street ......................A t C ounty Line R oad ....................................................At the downstream side of Garden Drive .....................Approximately 30 feet upstream of Britton Road .........

Approximately 2,350 feet upstream of the East/WestCanal confluence.

A t C ounty Line R oad ....................................................

Approximately 80 feet downstream of Spring Street ...At m outh at Lake M ichigan ..........................................Approximately 825 feet upstream of Memorial Drive ...A t C ounty Line R oad ....................................................

Approximately 75 feet downstream of Meachem RoadA t C ounty Line R oad ....................................................

Approximately 30 feet downstream of Durand Avenue(State Highway 11).

Approximately 1,110 feet downstream of 1-94 ............

At the upstream side of 1-94 ........................................Approximately 30 feet upstream of Raymond Avenue

Approximately 3,300 feet downstream of 65th Drive ...Approximately 2,675 feet downstream of 69th Street ..

Approximately 70 feet downstream of 69th Street .......At the confluence with the Des Plaines River ..............

Approximately 2,750 feet upstream of Durand Avenue(State Highway 11).

At the confluence with the Des Plaines River ..............

Approximately 170 feet downstream of County LineRoad.

Approximately 250 feet upstream of 65th Drive ..........

Approximately 125 feet downstream of Colony Ave-nue.

At the Pike River confluence ........................................

Approximately 70 feet downstream of West Road ......

None

+729None+661+714NoneNoneNone

None

+657

None+583+586+614

None+738

None

+732

None+704

None+713

NoneNone

None

None

None

None

None

+670

+736

+781

+726+734+660+713+619+642+774

+789

+658

+688+584+587+617

+654+743

+771

+733

+742+705

+751+712

+730+710

+762

+710

+746

+720

+746

+671

+735





City of Racine, Village ofMount Pleasant.

City of Racine.

Village of Mount Pleasant,City of Racine.

Unincorporated Areas ofRacine County, Villageof Union Grove.

Unincorporated Areas ofRacine County, Villageof Mount Pleasant.






Village of Mount Pleasant,Village of Sturtevant.

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.+ North American Vertical Datum.#Depth in feet above ground.A Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the ref-

erenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) forexact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency,500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

ADDRESSESCity of RacineMaps are available for inspection at City Hall, 730 Washington Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin 53403.

21694





(MSL)

Effective Modified

Unincorporated Areas of Racine CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Racine County Planning and Development Department, 14200 Washington Avenue, Sturtevant, Wis-

consin 53177.Village of Mount PleasantMaps are available for inspection at the Mount Pleasant Village Hall, 6126 Durand Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin 53406.Village of SturtevantMaps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 2801 89th Street, Sturtevant, Wisconsin 53177.Village of Union GroveMaps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 925 15th Avenue, Union Grove, Wisconsin 53182.


Dated: April 8, 2011.Sandra K. Knight,Deputy Federal Insurance and MitigationAdministrator, Mitigation, Department ofHomeland Security, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.[FR Doe. 2011-9343 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 9110-12-P



44 CFR Part 67


Proposed Flood ElevationDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Comments are requested onthe proposed Base (1% annual-chance)Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposedBFE modifications for the communitieslisted in the table below. The purposeof this proposed rule is to seek generalinformation and comment regarding theproposed regulatory flood elevations forthe reach described by the downstreamand upstream locations in the tablebelow. The BFEs and modified BFEs area part of the floodplain managementmeasures that the community isrequired either to adopt or to showevidence of having in effect in order toqualify or remain qualified forparticipation in the National FloodInsurance Program (NFIP). In addition,these elevations, once finalized, will beused by insurance agents and others to

calculate appropriate flood insurancepremium rates for new buildings andthe contents in those buildings.DATES: Comments are to be submittedon or before July 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: The correspondingpreliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for eachcommunity is available for inspection atthe community's map repository. Therespective addresses are listed in thetable below.

You may submit comments, identifiedby Docket No. FEMA-B-1189, to LuisRodriguez, Chief, EngineeringManagement Branch, Federal Insuranceand Mitigation Administration, FederalEmergency Management Agency, 500 CStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20472,(202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LuisRodriguez, Chief, EngineeringManagement Branch, Federal Insuranceand Mitigation Administration, FederalEmergency Management Agency, 500 CStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20472,(202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheFederal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) proposes to makedeterminations of BFEs and modifiedBFEs for each community listed below,in accordance with section 110 of theFlood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed BFEs and modifiedBFEs, together with the floodplainmanagement criteria required by 44 CFR60.3, are the minimum that are required.They should not be construed to meanthat the community must change anyexisting ordinances that are morestringent in their floodplainmanagement requirements. Thecommunity may at any time enactstricter requirements of its own or

pursuant to policies established by otherFederal, State, or regional entities.These proposed elevations are used tomeet the floodplain managementrequirements of the NFIP and also areused to calculate the appropriate floodinsurance premium rates for newbuildings built after these elevations aremade final, and for the contents in thosebuildings.

Comments on any aspect of the FloodInsurance Study and FIRM, other thanthe proposed BFEs, will be considered.A letter acknowledging receipt of anycomments will not be sent.

National Environmental Policy Act.This proposed rule is categoricallyexcluded from the requirements of 44CFR part 10, EnvironmentalConsideration. An environmentalimpact assessment has not beenprepared.


Executive Order 12866, RegulatoryPlanning and Review. This proposedrule is not a significant regulatory actionunder the criteria of section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866, as amended.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.This proposed rule involves no policiesthat have federalism implications underExecutive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil JusticeReform. This proposed rule meets theapplicable standards of Executive Order12988.


Administrative practice andprocedure, Flood insurance, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 isproposed to be amended as follows:

21695


PART 67-[AMENDED] Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; § 67.4 [Amended]Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 2. The tables published under the

1. The authority citation for part 67 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, authority of § 67.4 are proposed to becontinues to read as follows: 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. amended as follows:

* Elevation in feet (NGVD)+ Elevation in feet (NAVD)

# Depth in feet above


(MSL)

Effective Modified

Madison County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas

Aldridge Creek Tributary 1 ....

Aldridge Creek Tributary 10





Barren Fork Creek ................

Big Cove Creek .....................

Big Cove Creek Tributary .....

Blue Spring Creek .................

Bradford C reek ......................

Bradford Creek Tributary ......

Broglan Branch .....................

Broglan Branch Tributary A

Broglan Branch Tributary B

Buckhorn Branch ..................

Approximately 1,700 feet downstream of ChaneyThompson Road.

At the downstream side of Chunn Road ......................Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Bailey Cove

Road Southeast.Approximately 270 feet downstream of Cross Creek

Road Southeast.At the downstream side of Airport Road ......................Approximately 1,400 feet downstream of Four Mile

Post Road.Approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Toney Drive

Southeast.Approximately 70 feet downstream of Deborah Drive

Southeast.Approximately 500 feet downstream of Bailey Cove

Road Southeast.At the downstream side of Box Canyon Road South-

east.Approximately 270 feet downstream of Bailey Cove

Road Southeast.At the upstream side of Vista Drive Southeast ............At the Indian Creek confluence ....................................

At the Betts Spring Branch and Bradford Creek con-fluence.

Approximately 700 feet downstream of the Hays Pre-serve Trail.

Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Dug Hill Road .....At the Big Cove Creek confluence ...............................

Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the Big CoveCreek confluence.

Approximately 400 feet downstream of TimbercrestDrive Northwest.

Approximately 110 feet upstream of Pulaski PikeNorthwest.

Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Palmer Road ...

Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Gillespie RoadAt the Bradford Creek confluence ................................

At the downstream side of Brownsville Ferry Road .....Approximately 630 feet downstream of Governors

Drive Southwest.Approximately 100 feet downstream of Mastin Lake

Road.Approximately 140 feet downstream of Oster Drive ....Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Commercial DriveApproximately 520 feet downstream of Nevel Drive ....At the downstream side of Kyle Lane ..........................Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of Shady Oak

Drive.Approximately 1,040 feet upstream of Maysville Road

None

NoneNone

None

NoneNone

None

None

None

None

None

NoneNone

None

+600

NoneNone

None

+666

+750

None

NoneNone

None+608

None

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone

None

+579 City of Huntsville.

+618+606

+691

+622+719

City of Huntsville.

City of Huntsville.


+891


+707


+700+569

+571

+599

+686+657

+677

+667

+751

+645

+705+676

+702+605

+728

+647+682+709+732+688

+766

City of Huntsville, Town ofTriana, UnincorporatedAreas of Madison Coun-ty.

City of Huntsville, Unincor-porated Areas of Madi-son County.


City of Huntsville.

City of Madison, Unincor-porated Areas of Madi-son County.

City of Madison, Unincor-porated Areas of Madi-son County.

City of Huntsville.

City of Huntsville.

City of Huntsville.

Unincorporated Areas ofMadison County.

21696



# Depth in feet aboveFlooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation** ground Communities affected

A Elevation in meters(MSL)

Effective Modified

Dallas Branch ........................

Dallas Branch Bypass ...........

Dallas Branch Tributary A .....

D ry C reek 1 ...........................

Dry Creek 1 Tributary A ........

Dry Creek 1 Tributary B ........

East Fork Pinhook Creek ......

East Fork Pinhook CreekTributary A.

Fagan Creek .........................

F lint R iv e r ..............................

Glover Cove Creek ...............

Huntsville Spring Branch ......

Hurricane Creek ....................

Indian C reek ..........................

Knox Creek ...........................

Limestone Creek ...................

Lollar B ranch .........................

Approximately 580 feet downstream of WashingtonStreet.

Approximately 210 feet upstream of Saddletree Bou-levard.

Approximately 1,800 feet downstream of ChurchStreet.

Approximately 540 feet upstream of Dickson StreetNortheast.

Approximately 370 feet downstream of Halsey Ave-nue Northeast.

Approximately 300 feet upstream of Vinyard StreetNortheast.

Approximately 1,680 feet downstream of BrandonTown Road.

At the downstream side of Blake Bottom Road North-west.

Approximately 500 feet downstream of SparkmanDrive Northwest.

Approximately 220 feet upstream of Campus Road ....Approximately 170 feet downstream of Dry Creek

Drive Northwest.Approximately 380 feet upstream of Terrell Drive

Northwest.Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of Medaris

Road.Approximately 450 feet upstream of Spragins Hollow

Road Northwest.Approximately 1,820 feet downstream of Ricky Road

Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Ricky Road .........Approximately 710 feet downstream of Monroe StreetApproximately 0.7 mile upstream of Telfair Drive

Southeast.Approximately 300 feet upstream of Winchester Road

Northeast.Approximately 3.0 miles upstream of Carriger Road ...Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Old Highway

431.

Approximately 750 feet upstream of Old Gurley PikeApproximately 890 feet downstream of Drake Avenue

At the downstream side of Williams Avenue South-west.

Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of Little CoveRoad.

Approximately 1,020 feet downstream of County LakeRoad.

Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of 1-565 ..............

Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Old MonroviaRoad Northwest.

At the upstream side of Dupree Worthey Road ...........

Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Wall TrianaHighway.

Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Lee Highway ......Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Capshaw RoadApproximately 0.8 mile downstream of Winchester

Road.Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Maysville Road

+629

None

+619

+641

None

None

+665

None

None

NoneNone

None

+680

None

None

None+610None

None

NoneNone

None+594

+609

None

None

None

None

None

+730

NoneNoneNone

None

City of Huntsville.


+642


City of Huntsville.


City of Huntsville.


+748


+738+608+719

+673

+767+587

+627+593

+608

+612

+663

+606

+712

+657

+732

+649+672+684

+786

City of Huntsville.


Town of Owens CrossRoads, UnincorporatedAreas of Madison Coun-ty.


Town of Gurley, Unincor-porated Areas of Madi-son County.



City of Huntsville.


21697





Effective Modified

McDonald Creek ................... Approximately 1,950 feet downstream of CentaurBoulevard Southwest.

Mill Creek Tributary ...............

Miller Branch .........................

Molder Branch .......................

Moore Branch .......................

Mountain Brook Branch ........

Mountain Fork .......................

Normal Branch ......................

Normal Branch Diversion ......

Normal Branch Tributary A ...

Oakland Spring Branch .........

Peevey Creek .......................

Pinhook Creek ......................

Pinhook Creek Tributary A ...

Pinhook Creek Tributary C ...

Sherwood Branch .................

Swan Pond ............................

Tributary 1 To Indian Creek ..

Tributary 1 to Dry Creek 2 ....

Approximately 70 feet upstream of Galaxy Way .........Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of Bridgefield

Road.At the downstream side of Millsford Drive ...................Approximately 1,700 feet downstream of Wall Triana

Highway.

Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of County Road127.

Approximately 2.2 miles downstream of Bob StilesRoad.

At the downstream side of Bob Stiles Road ................Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of Powell RoadApproximately 0.4 mile downstream of Powell RoadApproximately 1,100 feet downstream of Clermont

Drive.Approximately 1,700 feet upstream of Darnell Street

Southeast.Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Oscar Patter-son Road.

Approximately 470 feet upstream of Mountain ForkRoad.

Approximately 1,100 feet downstream of Max LutherDrive Northwest.

Approximately 130 feet upstream of Winchester RoadAt the Normal Branch confluence ................................At the Pinhook Creek confluence .................................Approximately 950 feet downstream of Mastin Lake

Road Northwest.

Approximately 910 feet upstream of Hi-Lo North Cir-cle.

At the upstream side of Powell Road ..........................At the downstream side of Ferry Road ........................Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Eastern

Bypass.

Approximately 600 feet downstream of Ripple Lane ...At the downstream side of Williams Avenue South-

west.Approximately 460 feet downstream of Winchester

Road Northwest.Approximately 800 feet downstream of Memorial

Parkway Northwest.At the downstream side of Pulaski Pike ......................Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Pulaski Pike ...Approximately 800 feet upstream of Pulaski Pike .......Approximately 800 feet downstream of Old Madison

Pike Northwest.

Approximately 300 feet downstream of Old MonroviaRoad Northwest.

Approximately 3.7 miles downstream of Zierdt Road

Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Zierdt Road ........Approximately 1,500 feet downstream of SlaughterRoad.

Approximately 600 feet upstream of Cherry Road ......Approximately 300 feet downstream of Johns Road

Northwest.

At the downstream side of Ralph Road .......................

None

NoneNone

None+571

None

None

NoneNoneNone+647

None

None

None

None

NoneNoneNoneNone

None

NoneNoneNone

None

+611

+703

None

NoneNoneNone+636

None

None

None+616

+712+708

+581

+692+677

+749+570

+574

+658

+680+590+603+651

+735

+692

+774


City of Madison.


Unincorporated Areas of

Madison County.

City of Madison.

City of Huntsville.


+643 1 City of Huntsville.

+737+637+643+667

+748

+612+631+606

+638

+610

+701

+639

+733+703+738+630

+707

+569

+571+619

+710+710

City of Huntsville.


City of Madison.


City of Huntsville.

City of Huntsville.

City of Huntsville.



City of Huntsville, City ofMadison, Unincor-porated Areas of Madi-son County.


21698





Effective Modified

Tributary 2 to Indian Creek ... At the Indian Creek confluence .................................... +674 +675 City of Huntsville, Unincor-porated Areas of Madi-son County.

Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the Indian Creek +699 +700confluence.

Tributary 3 to Indian Creek ... Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Jeff Road +699 +700 City of Huntsville, City ofNorthwest. Madison, Unincor-

porated Areas of Madi-son County.

At the downstream side of Woodland Trail .................. None +811Unnamed Tributary to Sher- Approximately 1,840 feet downstream of Enterprise None +687 City of Huntsville, Unincor-

wood Branch. Way. porated Areas of Madi-son County.

Approximately 730 feet upstream of Wayne Road None +706Northwest.

West Fork Pinhook Creek ..... Approximately 1,940 feet downstream of Medaris +678 +679 City of Huntsville.Road Northwest.

At the downstream side of Pulaski Pike ...................... None +767West Fork Pinhook Tributary Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Sturbridge None +732 City of Huntsville.

A. Drive.Approximately 110 feet upstream of Green Meadow None +799

Road Northwest.


+ North American Vertical Datum.#Depth in feet above ground.A Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the ref-

erenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) forexact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emer-gency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

ADDRESSES

City of HuntsvilleMaps are available for inspection at 320 Fountain Circle, 2nd Floor, Huntsville, AL 35801.City of MadisonMaps are available for inspection at 100 Hughes Road, Madison, AL 35758.Town of GurleyMaps are available for inspection at 235 Walker Street, Gurley, AL 35748.Town of Owens Cross RoadsMaps are available for inspection at 2965 Old Highway 431, Owens Cross Roads, AL 35763.Town of TrianaMaps are available for inspection at 640 6th Street, Madison, AL 35756.

Unincorporated Areas of Madison CountyMaps are available for inspection at the Madison County Engineering Building, 814 Cook Avenue, Huntsville, AL 35801.



Sandra K. Knight,

DeputyFederal Insurance and MitigationAdministrator, Mitigation, Department ofHomeland Security, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

[FR Doe. 2011-9345 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


21699

21700

Notices Federal Register

Vol. 76, No. 74


This section of the FEDERAL REGISTERcontains documents other than rules orproposed rules that are applicable to thepublic. Notices of hearings and investigations,committee meetings, agency decisions andrulings, delegations of authority, filing ofpetitions and applications and agencystatements of organization and functions areexamples of documents appearing in thissection.



[Doc. No. AMS-ST-11-0034]

Notice of Request for Extension andRevision of a Currently ApprovedCollection

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Notice and request forcomments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.S.C. Chapter 35), this noticeannounces that the AgriculturalMarketing Service (AMS) intends torequest approval from the Office ofManagement and Budget of a revision toa currently approved informationcollection "Laboratory ApprovalPrograms" in support of U.S.agricultural commodities.DATES: Comments received by June 17,2011.

Additional Information or Comments:Interested persons are invited to submitcomments on this proposal to Jane Ho,Technical Services Branch, Science andTechnology, Agricultural MarketingService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop0272, Washington, DC 20250-0272;Phone 202-690-0621, Fax 202-720-4631. Comments should be submitted intriplicate. Comments may also besubmitted electronically through http://www.regulations.gov. All commentsshould reference the docket number andpage number of this issue of the FederalRegister. All comments received will bemade available for public inspection atthe above address during regularbusiness hours and may be viewed athttp://www.regulations.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Laboratory Approval Programs.OMB Number: 0581-0251.Expiration Date of Approval:

December 30, 2011.

Type of Request: Extension andRevision of a Currently ApprovedCollection.

Abstract: Under the AgriculturalMarketing Act of 1946, as amended(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), AMS providesanalytical testing services that facilitatemarketing and allow products to obtaingrade designations or meet marketing orquality standards. Pursuant to thisauthority, AMS develops and maintainslaboratory certification, verification, andapproval programs (under the generalumbrella of laboratory approvalprograms) as needed by the agriculturalindustry, to support domestic andinternational marketing of U.S.products. The laboratory certification,verification, and approval programs willremain voluntary and fee for service.

To ensure that a laboratory is capableof accurately performing the specifiedanalyses, it must adhere to certain goodlaboratory practices and show technicalproficiency in the required areas.Checklists and forms have beendeveloped that ask the laboratory forinformation concerning procedures, thephysical facility, employees, and theirtraining. The laboratory must alsoprovide Standard Operating Procedures(SOPs) for the analyses and qualityassurance. Most of the laboratoryprograms will include an on-sitelaboratory review. AMS will notapprove a laboratory unless there isassurance that the laboratory is capableof performing accurate analyses.

The information collectionrequirements in this request areessential to examine laboratories forentrance into the following programs:

(1) Analyst and LaboratoryCertification Program for the Detectionof Trichinae in Pork (An export programrequested by Food Safety and InspectionService).

(2) Laboratory Verification Programfor Poultry and Pork Exported from theUnited States to Russia (An exportprogram requested by Food Safety andInspection Service). This programcontains the possibility of performing 12different analyses in support of theexportation of poultry and pork toRussia. Laboratories choose how manyand which analyses for which they wishto be approved. Each of microbiological/chemical analyses has its ownmethodology and time necessary toperform the analyses.

(3) Aflatoxin in Pistachios Program (AHigh Performance Liquid

Chromatography (HPLCJ method forexporting pistachios to European Unionrequested by the California PistachioCommittee) and the domestic programusing HPLC or a test kit analysis method(identified in the Pistachio MarketingOrder); Aflatoxin in Peanuts Program(7 CFR part 996); and Aflatoxin inAlmonds Program (requested by theAlmond Board of California). Theseprograms are single analyte, singlesubstrate programs, but the domesticpistachio, peanut, and almond programshave the option of using two differentmethods. The export pistachio programand export almond program must usethe specified method.

(4) Any additional programs whichmay be requested in the future tofacilitate the marketing of U.S.agricultural products.

All laboratory approval programs willfollow the same general pattern. Therewould be a letter of intent, a form foridentification of the analyses theyintend to perform, an on-site laboratoryreview, analysis of known samples, andanalysis of proficiency samples. Thelength of time required would dependon the complexity of the analysis, andthe time necessary to perform theanalysis.

The burden hours incurred for theselaboratories to submit the initial letterrequesting entrance, completion of ageneral laboratory checklist, andcorrectly analyzing the test samples is aone-time occurrence. Once a laboratoryis accepted, the burden will decreaseand is then based on the variouslaboratories analyzing test samplesthroughout the year to maintain itsprogram status.

Form ST-212 (Alternate PaymentForm) is an option for applicant/approved laboratories to pay for theservices. Interested parties can obtain acopy of the form (ST-212) by calling orwriting to the point of contact listedabove. The information collectionrequirements in this request areessential to examine laboratories forentrance into the programs.

Estimate of Burden: Public reportingburden for this collection of informationis estimated to average 9.14 hours perresponse.

Respondents: Laboratories.Estimated Number of Respondents:

83.Estimated Total Annual Responses:

653.

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 74/Monday, April 18, 2011/Notices

Estimated Number of Responses perRespondent: 7.87.

Estimated Total Annual Burden onRespondents: 6010.42.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whetherthe proposed collection of informationis necessary for the proper performanceof the functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) the accuracy of theagency's estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of informationincluding the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,and clarity of the information to becollected; and (4) ways to minimize theburden of the collection of informationon those who are to respond, includingthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.Comments may be sent to Jane Ho,Technical Services Branch, Science andTechnology, Agricultural MarketingService, U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop0272, Washington, DC 20250-0272;Phone 202-690-0621, Fax 202-720-4631. All comments received will beavailable for public inspection duringregular business hours at the sameaddress.

All responses to this notice will besummarized and included in the requestfor OMB approval. All comments willbecome a matter of public record.

Dated: April 12, 2011.David R. Shipman,Associate Administrator, AgriculturalMarketing Service.

[FR Doe. 2011-9317 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P



[Document No. AMS-ST-1 1-0028]

Plant Variety Protection Board; OpenMeeting

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,USDA.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice is intended tonotify the public of their opportunity toattend an open meeting of the PlantVariety Protection Board.DATES: May 11 and 12, 2011, 8 a.m. to5 p.m., open to the public.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held inthe United States Department ofAgriculture George Washington CarverCenter, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room4-2223, Beltsville, MD 20705.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Natalie Worku, Plant Variety ProtectionOffice, Science and TechnologyPrograms, Agricultural MarketingService, United States Department ofAgriculture, 10301 Baltimore Avenue,Beltsville, MD 20705. Telephonenumber (301) 504-5518, fax (301) 504-5291, or e-mail:natalie. worku@ams. usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuantto the provisions of section 10(a) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act (5U.S.C., Appendix 2), this notice is givenregarding an upcoming Plant VarietyProtection (PVP) Board meeting. ThePlant Variety Protection Act (PVPA)(7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.) provides legalprotection in the form of intellectualproperty rights to developers of newvarieties of plants, which arereproduced sexually by seed or aretuber-propagated. A Certificate of PlantVariety Protection is awarded to anowner of a crop variety after anexamination shows that it is new,distinct from other varieties, geneticallyuniform and stable through successivegenerations. The term of protection is 20years for most crops and 25 years fortrees, shrubs, and vines. The PVPA alsoprovides for a statutory Board (7 U.S.C.2327). The duties of the Board are to:(1) Advise the Secretary concerning theadoption of rules and regulations tofacilitate the proper administration ofthe Act; (2) provide advisory counsel tothe Secretary on appeals concerningdecisions on applications by the PVPOffice and on requests for emergencypublic-interest compulsory licenses; and(3) advise the Secretary on any othermatters under the Regulations and Rulesof Practice and on all questions underSection 44 of the Act, "Public Interest inWide Usage" (7 U.S.C. 2404).

The proposed agenda for the PVPBoard meeting will include a welcomeby Department officials followed by adiscussion focusing on programactivities that encourage thedevelopment of new plant varieties andappeals to the Secretary. The agendawill also include presentations on thefinancial status of the PVP Office,ongoing business process reengineeringproject, E-business update, internationaloutreach activities and other relatedtopics.

The meeting will be open to thepublic. Those wishing to attend themeeting are encouraged to pre-registerby May 9, 2011 with the person listedunder FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT. Visitors entering the GeorgeWashington Carver Center shouldinform security personnel that they areattending the PVP Board meeting.

Identification will be required to beadmitted to the building. Securitypersonnel will direct visitors to Room4-2223. If you require accommodations,such as sign language interpreter, pleasecontact the person listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Minutesof the meeting will be available forpublic review 30 days following themeeting at the address listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Theminutes will also be posted on theInternet Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv .O/pvpo.

Dated: April 12, 2011.David R. Shipman,Associate Administrator, AgriculturalMarketing Service.[FR Doe. 2011-9326 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P


Forest Service

Ravalli County Resource AdvisoryCommittee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Ravalli County ResourceAdvisory Committee will meet inHamilton, Montana. The purpose of themeeting is to have presentations ofprojects for 2011.DATES: The meeting will be held May24, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at1801 N. First Street. Written commentsshould be sent to Stevensville RD, 88Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870.Comments may also be sent via e-mailto [email protected] or via facsimile to406-777-5461.

All comments, including names andaddresses when provided, are placed inthe record and are available for publicinspection and copying. The public mayinspect comments received atStevensville Ranger District. Visitors areencouraged to call ahead to 406-777-5461 to facilitate entry into the building.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DanRitter or Nancy Trotter at 406-777-5461.

Individuals who usetelecommunication devices for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., MountainStandard Time, Monday through Friday.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Themeeting is open to the public. Councildiscussion is limited to Forest Servicestaff and Council members. However,persons who wish to bring any matters

21701


to the attention of the Council may filewritten statements with the Councilstaff before or after the meeting. Publicinput sessions will be provided andindividuals who made written requestsby May 23, 2011 will have theopportunity to address the Council atthose sessions.

Dated: April 8, 2011.Julie K. King,Forest Supervisor.[FR Doe. 2011-9245 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


ARCHITECTURAL ANDTRANSPORTATION BARRIERSCOMPLIANCE BOARD

Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural andTransportation Barriers ComplianceBoard.ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: The Architectural andTransportation Barriers ComplianceBoard (Access Board) plans to hold itsregular committee and Board meetingsin Washington, DC, Monday throughWednesday, May 9-11, 2011, at thetimes and location noted below.DATES: The schedule of events is asfollows:

Monday, May 9, 2011

10:45-11:15 a.m. Budget Committee11:15-Noon Technical Programs

Committee1:30-2:15 p.m. Planning and

Evaluation Committee2:30-4 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee

Meetings: Closed to Public

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

2:45-4 p.m. Ad Hoc CommitteeMeetings: Closed to Public

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

9:30-10:30 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee onOutdoor Developed Areas: Closedto Public

10:45-Noon Presentation on issues forpeople who are deaf/blind

1:30-3 p.m. Board MeetingADDRESSES: All meetings will be held atthe Access Board Conference Room,1331 F Street, NW., suite 800,Washington, DC 20004.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forfurther information regarding themeetings, please contact David Capozzi,Executive Director, (202) 272-0010(voice); (202) 272-0082 (TTY).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At theBoard meeting scheduled on theafternoon of Wednesday, May 11, 2011,

the Access Board will consider thefollowing agenda items:* Approval of the draft March 9, 2011

meeting minutes.* Budget Committee Report.* Technical Programs Committee

Report.* Planning and Evaluation Committee

Report.* Ad Hoc Committee Reports.

0 Medical Diagnostic Equipment-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(vote).

* Executive Director's Report.* Public Comment, Open Topics.

All meetings are accessible to personswith disabilities. An assistive listeningsystem, computer assisted real-timetranscription (CART), and sign languageinterpreters will be available at theBoard meeting and committee meetings.Persons attending Board meetings arerequested to refrain from using perfume,cologne, and other fragrances for thecomfort of other participants (seehttp://www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for moreinformation).

David M. Capozzi,Executive Director.

[FR Doe. 2011-9247 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 27-2011]

Foreign-Trade Subzone 124B;Application for Expansion; NorthAmerican Shipbuilding, LLC(Shipbuilding), Houma, LA

An application has been submitted tothe Foreign-Trade Zones Board (theBoard) by the South Louisiana PortCommission, grantee of FTZ 124, onbehalf of North American Shipbuilding,LLC (NAS), operator of Subzone 124B atNAS' shipbuilding facilities in Larose,Houma, and Port Fourchon, Louisiana,requesting authority to expand thesubzone include a new site in Houma.The application was submitted pursuantto the provisions of the Foreign-TradeZones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the Board's regulations (15CFR part 400). It was formally filed onApril 8, 2011.

Subzone 124B was approved by theBoard in 1991 with authority granted forthe construction and repair ofoceangoing vessels at NAS' shipyard(Site 1) (14 acres) located at 800Industrial Park Road on the IntercoastalWaterway in Larose (LaFourche Parish),

Louisiana (Board Order 539, 56 FR56627, 11-6-2001). The subzone wassubsequently expanded to include twoadditional shipbuilding facilities: Site 2(27 acres)-208 North American Court("North American Fabricators, LLC"),Houma (Terrebonne Parish); and, Site 3(26 acres)-106 9th Street ("C-Port,LLC"), Port Fourchon (LaFourcheParish) (Board Order 1021, 64 FR 7854,2-17-1999). The facilities (1,437employees) are used to construct,convert, and repair oceangoing vesselsfor commercial, research, andgovernment customers. Componentssourced from abroad include propulsionunits, controllable pitch propellers,dynamic positioning systems, safety andfirefighting equipment, centrifuges,compartment doors, electronicequipment, and guide rollers (duty raterange: Free-6.0%).

The applicant is now requestingauthority to expand the subzone toinclude a new shipbuilding facility(proposed Site 4) located at 352 DicksonRoad ("LaShip, LLC") in Houma. Theapplication indicates that the facilitywill conduct production activity similarto that which occurs at NAS' existingsubzone facilities. The applicant alsorequests that the scope of FTZmanufacturing authority be expanded toinclude additional foreign-sourcedcomponents to be used in FTZproduction activity. New components tobe sourced from abroad (representing45% of the value of the finished vessels)include: winches, steering gears, motors,generators, structural components ofiron, doors, tefrotex (ethylene-vinylacetate), floor coatings, rock wool/mineral wool, wooden furniture, sealrings, pressure reduction valves, manholes, ladders, pumps, and vibrationcontrol dampeners (duty rate range:Free-6.5%). The application indicatesthat the company will not admit anyforeign-origin steel mill products to theproposed subzone site for use in FTZmanufacturing activity. Expanded FTZprocedures could continue to exemptNAS from customs duty payments onthe additional foreign-origincomponents used in production forexport. On its domestic shipments, thecompany would be able to elect the dutyrate that applies to finished oceangoingvessels (free) for the additional foreign-origin inputs noted above. Customsduties also could possibly be deferred orreduced on foreign status productionequipment. NAS would also be exemptfrom duty payments on foreign inputsthat become scrap during theproduction process. The productionactivity under FTZ procedures wouldcontinue to be subject to the "standard

21702


shipyard restriction" applicable toforeign-origin steel mill products (e.g.,angles, pipe, plate), which requires thatall applicable duties be paid on suchitems.

In accordance with the Board'sregulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staffis designated examiner to evaluate andanalyze the facts and informationpresented in the application and caserecord and to report findings andrecommendations to the Board.

Public comment is invited frominterested parties. Submissions (originaland 3 copies) shall be addressed to theBoard's Executive Secretary at thefollowing address: Office of theExecutive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S.Department of Commerce, 1401Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,DC 20230-0002. The closing period forreceipt of comments is June 17, 2011.Rebuttal comments in response tomaterial submitted during the foregoingperiod may be submitted during thesubsequent 15-day period to July 5,2011.

A copy of the application will beavailable for public inspection at theOffice of the Foreign-Trade ZonesBoard's Executive Secretary at theaddress listed above and in the "ReadingRoom" section of the Board's Web site,which is accessible viahttp://www.trade.gov/ftz. For furtherinformation, contact Pierre Duy [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

Dated: April 8, 2011.Andrew McGilvray,Executive Secretary.[FR Doe. 2011-9325 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1748]

Approval for Extension of SubzoneStatus and Manufacturing Authority;Foreign-Trade Subzone 169A; AsoLLC; (Adhesive Bandages); SarasotaCounty, FL; Correction

The Federal Register notice (76 FR19746, 4/8/2011) describing theapproval of the application by theManatee County Port Authority, granteeof Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 169, toindefinitely extend subzone status andmanufacturing authority on behalf ofAso LLC, to perform adhesive bandagemanufacturing within FTZ Subzone169A in Sarasota County, Florida, iscorrected as follows:

Paragraph 1 should read: "WHEREAS,the Manatee County Port Authority,

grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ)169, has requested to indefinitelyextend subzone status andmanufacturing authority on behalf ofAso LLC (Aso) to perform adhesivebandage manufacturing within FTZSubzone 169A in Sarasota County,Florida, (FTZ Docket 55-2010, filed9/23/2010);"

Dated: April 8, 2011.Andrew McGilvray,Executive Secretary.[FR Doe. 2011-9324 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


International Trade Administration

U.S. Travel and Tourism AdvisoryBoard: Meeting of the U.S. Travel andTourism Advisory Board

AGENCY: International TradeAdministration, U.S. Department ofCommerce.ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth theschedule and agenda for an openmeeting of the U.S. Travel and TourismAdvisory Board (Board). The agendamay change to accommodate Boardbusiness. The final agenda will beposted on the Department of CommerceWeb site for the Board at http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/TTAB/TTAB Home.html.

DATES: May 23, 2011, 2 p.m.-4:30 p.m.Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Moscone Center, 747 Howard Street,San Francisco, California, Room 250-262.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jennifer Pilat, the U.S. Travel andTourism Advisory Board, Room 4043,1401 Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, e-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background: The Board was re-

chartered in September 2009, to advisethe Secretary of Commerce on mattersrelating to the U.S. travel and tourismindustries.

Topics to be considered: During themeeting, the Board will hear updatesfrom two Board subcommittees onTravel Facilitation and Research.Representatives from the Departments ofHomeland Security, State andTransportation will also provideupdates on their respective agencies'work relating to the U.S. travel andtourism industries, and updates on their

respective agencies' work relating to therecommendations of the TravelFacilitation subcommittee presented atthe last meeting and adopted by theBoard. The Marketing, Outreach andCoordination and Advocacysubcommittees will present theirrespective recommendations to theBoard.

Public Participation: The meeting willbe open to the public and will bephysically accessible to people withdisabilities. Seating is limited and willbe on a first come, first served basis.Because of building security andlogistics, all attendees must pre-registerno later than 5 p.m. Eastern DaylightTime (EDT) on Friday, May 13, 2011with Jennifer Pilat, the U.S. Travel andTourism Advisory Board, Room 4043,1401 Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202-482-4501, [email protected] specify any requests for signlanguage interpretation, other auxiliaryaids, or other reasonableaccommodation no later than 5 p.m.EDT on May 16, 2011, to Jennifer Pilatat the contact information above. Lastminute requests will be accepted, butmay be impossible to fill.

No time will be available for oralcomments from members of the publicattending the meeting. Any member ofthe public may submit pertinent writtencomments concerning the Board's affairsat any time before or after the meeting.Comments may be submitted to JenniferPilat at the contact informationindicated above. To be consideredduring the meeting, comments must bereceived no later than 5 p.m. EDT onMay 13, 2011, to ensure transmission tothe Board prior to the meeting.Comments received after that date willbe distributed to the members but maynot be considered at the meeting.

Copies of Board meeting minutes willbe available within 90 days of themeeting.

Dated: April 13, 2011.Jennifer Pilat,Executive Secretary, U.S. Travel and TourismAdvisory Board.[FR Doe. 2011-9355 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P


National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

RIN 0648-XA369

Marine Mammals; File No. 14326 and14329

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic and

21703


Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice; receipt of applicationsfor permit amendments.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given thatthe following permit holders haveapplied for amendments to ScientificResearch Permits for taking marinemammals: NMFS National MarineMammal Laboratory, Seattle, WA (FileNo. 14326) and North PacificUniversities Marine Mammal ResearchConsortium (NPUMMRC), University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.,Canada (File No. 14329).DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mailcomments must be received on or beforeMay 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: The application and relateddocuments are available for review byselecting "Records Open for PublicComment" from the Features box on theApplications and Permits for ProtectedSpecies home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selectingFile No. 14326 (NMML) or 14329(NPUMMRC) from the list of availableapplications.

These documents are also availableupon written request or by appointmentin the following offices: SeeSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Written comments on this applicationshould be submitted to the Chief,Permits, Conservation and EducationDivision, at the address listed above.Comments may also be submitted byfacsimile to (301) 713-0376, orby e-mail to [email protected] include the File No. in thesubject line of the e-mail comment.

Those individuals requesting a publichearing should submit a written requestto the Chief, Permits, Conservation andEducation Division at the address listedabove. The request should set forth thespecific reasons why a hearing on thisapplication would be appropriate.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Tammy Adams or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thesubject amendment to Permit No. 14326is requested under the authority of theMarine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), theregulations governing the taking andimporting of marine mammals (50 CFRpart 216), the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.), and the regulations governing thetaking, importing, and exporting ofendangered and threatened species (50CFR parts 222-226). The subjectamendment to Permit No. 14329 isbeing requested under the authority ofthe MMPA, the regulations governing

the taking and importing of marinemammals (50 CFR part 216), and the FurSeal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C.1151 et seq.).

File No. 14326. Permit No. 14326,issued on August 17, 2009 (74 FR44822), authorizes the permit holder tomeasure population status, vital rates,foraging ecology, habitat requirements,and effects of natural and anthropogenicfactors for Steller sea lions (Eumetopiasjubatus) in the North Pacific Ocean,including rookeries and haulouts in CA,OR, WA, and AK. Annually in thewestern Distinct Population Segment(DPS) sea lions may be exposed to aerialsurveys, rookery-based activities, andother incidental activities. Steller sealions that are captured will have blood,skin, and swab samples collected; behot-branded, have blubber and lesionsbiopsied, vibrissa removed; andstomach intubation. Instruments will beattached to some animals and otherswill receive a non-permanent mark ifnot hot-branded. Non-target species thatmay be harassed incidental to Steller sealion research include northern fur seals(Callorhinus ursinus) in AK, Californiasea lions (Zalophus californianus) andnorthern elephant seals (Miroungaangustrirostris) in WA, OR, and CA, andharbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in allStates. The permit also authorizesunintentional mortality of Steller sealions from the western DPS and theeastern DPS. The permit was amendedon October 26, 2010 (75 FR 67347), toallow takes of up to 20 adult femaleSteller sea lions annually by captureusing additional drug combinations inthe remotely delivered darts. Thepermit, as amended, is valid throughAugust 31, 2014.

The permit holder is requesting thepermit be amended to includeauthorization for the following in AK:(1) Double the number of non-pup sealions surveyed (from 10,000 to 20,000per year) to accommodate one winteraerial survey of the Aleutian Islands peryear; (2) shift some resight effort fromthe non-breeding season (August-May)to the breeding season (June-July) withincreased potential disturbance forJune-July (increase from 300 to 800pups and increase from 3,000 to 8,000non-pups per year) and for August-May(decrease from 20,000 to 15,000 non-pups per year); (3) visit additional sitesto supplement aerial surveys if logisticsprevent aircraft access to sites withincreased potential disturbance (from120 to 400 pups; and from 600 to 1,000non-pups per each permit year(previously 2011 and 2013 only)); (4)permanently mark (hot-brand) anadditional 300 pups per year atrookeries in the Aleutian Islands (west

of 170' W) in 2011 and 2013; and (5) fora subset of pups handled for permanentmarking, add collection of blubberbiopsies for fatty acid and toxicologyanalyses; collection of fecal loops fordetermination of parasites, disease, andhormone concentrations; collection ofmilk from stomach lavage; puling avibrissae; and external ultrasound.

The permit holder is also requestingthe permit be amended to includeauthorization for the following in CA,OR, WA: (1) Increase the number ofaerial surveys flown per year from 4 to12; (2) increase the number of vesselsurveys that may occur at any one siteper year (depending on funding,staffing, vessel availability, weather)from 12 to 24; and (3) increase thenumber of ground surveys that mayoccur at any one site per year(depending on funding, staffing, vesselavailability, weather) from 5 to 24.

File No. 14329. Permit No. 14329,issued on August 17, 2009 (74 FR44822), authorizes the permit holder totest hypotheses that might explain thedecline of northern fur seals in AK andoffer solutions for recovery. Theresearch includes studies on foragingecology, demographics, behavior, andchanges in body size. Research activitiesinvolve: Disturbance associated withcapture, observational studies, and scatcollection; and capture, restraint, tissuesampling, and marking. The permit alsoauthorizes research-related mortality ofnorthern fur seals.

The permit holder is requesting thepermit be amended to includeauthorization to conduct the followingon lactating female fur seals alreadyauthorized for capture: (1) Glue a smalltri-axial accelerometer to the fur on topof each female's head to detect prey-catching events at sea; (2) use gasanaesthesia (isoflurane); and (3) injectdoubly labelled water, with serial bloodsamples and holding for up to 3 hoursbetween blood draws. The permitholder also requests to capture andrecapture pups (up to 35 per year) of theabove mentioned lactating femalesfollowing suckling to takemorphometric measurement and assessenergy transfer. The pups would bephysically restrained and marked withflipper tags, hair dye, hair bleach,fluorescent paint, or a glued-on headmarker.

In compliance with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initialdetermination has been made that theactivities proposed are consistent withthe Preferred Alternative in the FinalProgrammatic Environmental ImpactStatement for Steller Sea Lion andNorthern Fur Seal Research (NMFS

21704


2007), and that issuance of the permitamendments would not have asignificant adverse impact on thehuman environment.

Concurrent with the publication ofthis notice in the Federal Register,NMFS is forwarding copies of theseapplications to the Marine MammalCommission and its Committee ofScientific Advisors.

Documents may be reviewed in thefollowing locations:

File Nos. 14326 and 14329: Permits,Conservation and Education Division,Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376.

File Nos. 14326 and 14329: AlaskaRegion, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221;fax (907) 586-7249.

File No. 14326 only: SouthwestRegion, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562)980-4018.

File No. 14326 only: NorthwestRegion, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way,NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax(206) 526-6426.

Dated: April 12, 2011.P. Michael Payne,Chief, Permits, Conservation and EducationDivision, Office of Protected Resources,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doe. 2011-9329 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

RIN 0648-XA361

Fisheries of the Exclusive EconomicZone Off Alaska; Catch Accounting inthe Longline Catcher/Processor PacificCod Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a workshopto solicit input from owners andoperators of longline catcher/processors(freezer longliners) engaged in thePacific cod fisheries off Alaska. Theworkshop concerns proposed changes toequipment and operationalrequirements for monitoring catchunder a voluntary cooperative. Theworkshop is open to the public, butNMFS is particularly seeking

participation by people who areknowledgeable about the operations ofPacific cod freezer longliners and whocan discuss with NMFS the potentialoperational impacts of proposedmonitoring requirements.

DATES: The public workshop will beheld on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, from10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Pacific daylightsavings time.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be heldat the Swedish Cultural Center, 1920Dexter Avenue, N., Seattle, WA 98109.Directions to the Swedish CulturalCenter are on its Web site at http://www.swedishculturalcenter.org/contacts.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Kinsolving, 928-774-4362 orJennifer Watson, 907-586-7537.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS isdeveloping proposed revisions toobserver and equipment and operationalrequirements for Pacific cod freezerlongliners in the Bering Sea andAleutian Islands to support differentcatch accounting methods for Pacificcod catch. NMFS is consideringproposed requirements related to theuse of motion-compensated flow scalesto weigh Pacific cod; additional workspace for observers; video monitoring ofareas where catch is sorted andweighed; and the use of electroniclogbooks to facilitate timely vesselreporting of the Pacific cod for eachhaul.

This workshop is open to the public,but NMFS is particularly seeking inputfrom those who work on Pacific codfreezer longliners, are familiar with thevessel operations, and have knowledgeof the potential impact of changes in thehandling of Pacific cod under theproposed monitoring requirements.

Special Accommodations

The workshop will be physicallyaccessible to people with disabilities.Requests for sign languageinterpretation or other auxiliary aidsshould be directed to Jennifer Watson,907-586-7537, at least 10 working daysprior to the meeting date.

Dated: April 13, 2011.Margo Schulze-Haugen,Acting Director, Office of SustainableFisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doe. 2011-9350 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Closed Meeting of the Department ofDefense Wage Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense.ACTION: Notice of closed meetings.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions ofsection 10 of Public Law 92-463, theFederal Advisory Committee Act, noticeis hereby given that closed meetings ofthe Department of Defense WageCommittee will be held on Tuesday,May 3, 2011, Tuesday, May 17, 2011,and Tuesday, May 31, 2011, at 10 a.m.at 1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, RoomA101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.

Under the provisions of section 10(d)of Public Law 92-463, the Departmentof Defense has determined that themeetings meet the criteria to closemeetings to the public because thematters to be considered are related tointernal rules and practices of theDepartment of Defense and the detailedwage data to be considered wereobtained from officials of privateestablishments with a guarantee that thedata will be held in confidence.

However, members of the public whomay wish to do so are invited to submitmaterial in writing to the chairmanconcerning matters believed to bedeserving of the Committee's attention.

Additional information concerningthe meetings may be obtained by writingto the Chairman, Department of DefenseWage Committee, 4000 DefensePentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

Dated: April 12, 2011.Morgan F. Park,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doe. 2011-9332 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Closed Meeting of the Defense ScienceBoard

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Boardwill meet in closed session on May 11-12, 2011; at the Pentagon, Arlington,VA.

The mission of the Defense ScienceBoard is to advise the Secretary ofDefense and the Under Secretary ofDefense for Acquisition, Technology &Logistics on scientific and technicalmatters as they affect the perceived

21705


needs of the Department of Defense. Atthis meeting, the Board will discussinterim finding and recommendationsresulting from ongoing Task Forceactivities. The Board will also discussplans for future consideration ofscientific and technical aspects ofspecific strategies, tactics, and policiesas they may affect the U.S. nationaldefense posture and homeland security.

In accordance with section 10(d) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act,Public Law 92-463, as amended (5U.S.C. App. 2) and 41 CFR 102-3.155,the Department of Defense hasdetermined that these Defense ScienceBoard Quarterly meetings will be closedto the public. Specifically, the UnderSecretary of Defense (Acquisition,Technology and Logistics), with thecoordination of the DoD Office ofGeneral Counsel, has determined inwriting that all sessions of thesemeetings will be closed to the publicbecause they will be concernedthroughout with matters listed in 5U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

Interested persons may submit awritten statement for consideration bythe Defense Science Board. Individualssubmitting a written statement mustsubmit their statement to the DesignatedFederal Official at the address detailedbelow, at any point, however, if awritten statement is not received at least10 calendar days prior to the meeting,which is the subject of this notice, thenit may not be provided to or consideredby the Defense Science Board. TheDesignated Federal Official will reviewall timely submissions with the DefenseScience Board Chairperson, and ensurethey are provided to members of theDefense Science Board before themeeting that is the subject of this notice.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Debra Rose, Executive Officer, DefenseScience Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon,Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at [email protected],or via phone at (703) 571-0084.

Dated: April 12, 2011.Morgan F. Park,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.[FR Doe. 2011-9334 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001-06-P



[Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0042]Privacy Act of 1974; System of

Records

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to amend a system ofrecords.

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agencyis proposing to amend a system ofrecords notice in its existing inventoryof record systems subject to the PrivacyAct of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: The proposed action will beeffective without further notice on May18, 2011 unless comments are receivedwhich would result in a contrarydetermination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,identified by docket number and/Regulatory Information Number (RIN)and title, by any of the followingmethods:

* Federal Rulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments.

* Mail: Federal Docket ManagementSystem Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon,OSD Mailroom 3C843, Washington, DC20301-1160.

Instructions: All submissions receivedmust include the agency name anddocket number or RegulatoryInformation Number (RIN) for thisFederal Register document. The generalpolicy for comments and othersubmissions from members of the publicis to make these submissions availablefor public viewing on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov as they arereceived without change, including anypersonal identifiers or contactinformation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045, orPrivacy Act Officer, HeadquartersDefense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA,8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644,Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheDefense Logistics Agency's system ofrecord notices subject to the Privacy Actof 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,have been published in the FederalRegister and are available from the FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT address

above.

The specific changes to the recordsystem being amended are set forthbelow followed by the notice, asamended, published in its entirety. Theproposed amendment is not within thepurview of subsection (r) of the PrivacyAct of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,which requires the submission of newor altered systems reports.


Morgan F. Park,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.

S510.30

SYSTEM NAME:

Freedom of Information Act/PrivacyAct Requests and AdministrativeAppeal Records (January 22, 2009, 74FR 4009).

CHANGES:* * *

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Delete entry and replace with "DLAFOIA/Privacy Act Office, Headquarters,Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA,8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644,Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 and theFOIA/Privacy Act Offices of the DLAPrimary Level Field Activities. Mailingaddresses for the DLA Primary LevelField Activities may be obtained fromthe system manager."

SAFEGUARDS:

Delete entry and replace with"Information in this system issafeguarded in accordance withapplicable laws, rules, and policies.Access is limited to those officers andemployees of the agency who have anofficial need for access in order toperform their duties. Access toelectronic media is further restricted bythe use of a two-factor authenticationprocess, Common Access Card andregistered login name. Physical entry isrestricted by the use of locks, guards,and administrative procedures.Employees are periodically briefed onthe consequences of improperlyaccessing restricted databases."

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

Delete entry and replace with "SeniorPrivacy and FOIA Officer, DLA FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Headquarters,Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA,8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644,Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221."

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

Delete entry and replace with"Individuals seeking to determinewhether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the DLAActivity to which the initial request wasaddressed and/or directed or you maysubmit your request to the DLA FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Headquarters,Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA,8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644,Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

21706


Written inquiry should contain thesubject individual's full name, currentaddress, telephone number, adescription of the records sought, andcorrespondence tracking number, ifknown."

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

Delete entry and replace with"Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system of records should addresswritten inquiries to the DLA Activity towhich the initial request was addressedand/or directed or you may submit yourrequest to the DLA FOIA/Privacy ActOffice, Headquarters, Defense LogisticsAgency, ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J.Kingman Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir,VA 22060-6221.

Written inquiry should contain thesubject individual's full name, currentaddress, telephone number, adescription of the records sought, andcorrespondence tracking number, ifknown."

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

Delete entry and replace with "TheDLA rules for accessing records, forcontesting contents, and appealinginitial agency determinations arecontained in 32 CFR part 323, or maybe obtained from the DLA FOIA/PrivacyAct Office, Headquarters, DefenseLogistics Agency, ATTN: DGA, 8725John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644, FortBelvoir, VA 22060-6221."

S510.30

SYSTEM NAME:

Freedom of Information Act/PrivacyAct Requests and AdministrativeAppeal Records.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

DLA FOIA/Privacy Act Office,Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency,ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J. KingmanRoad, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir, VA22060-6221 and the FOIA/Privacy ActOffices of the DLA Primary Level FieldActivities. Mailing addresses for theDLA Primary Level Field Activities maybe obtained from the System manager.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THESYSTEM:

Individuals who submit Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act(PA) requests, or FOIA/PAadministrative appeals; individualswhose requests and/or records havebeen referred to the Defense LogisticsAgency by other agencies; and in someinstances includes attorneysrepresenting individuals submittingsuch requests and appeals, or

individuals who are the subjects of suchrequests and appeals.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Records created or compiled inresponse to FOIA and Privacy Actrequests and administrative appeals andincludes the original requests andadministrative appeals; responses tosuch requests and administrativeappeals; all related memoranda,correspondence, notes, and other relatedor supporting documentation; and, insome instances, copies of requestedrecords and records underadministrative appeal.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

5 U.S.C. 301, DepartmentalRegulations; 5 U.S.C. 552, Freedom ofInformation Act, as amended; and 5U.S.C. 552a, The Privacy Act of 1974, asamended.

PURPOSE(S):

This system is maintained for thepurpose of processing access requestsand administrative appeals under theFOIA, access and amendment requestsand administrative appeals under thePrivacy Act; for the purpose ofparticipating in litigation regardingagency action on such requests andappeals; and for the purpose of assistingthe Defense Logistics Agency in carryingout any other responsibilities under theFOIA and the Privacy Act.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THESYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS ANDTHE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

In addition to those disclosuresgenerally permitted under 5 U.S.C.552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, theserecords contained therein mayspecifically be disclosed outside theDOD as a routine use pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

Information may be provided to otherFederal, State, and local agencies whenit is necessary to coordinate responsesor denials.

The DoD 'Blanket Routine Uses' alsoapply to this system of records.

Policies and practices for storing,retrieving, accessing, retaining anddisposing of records in the system:

STORAGE:

Records may be stored on paper and/or on electronic media.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Records are retrieved by the name ofthe requester or appellant; the casenumber assigned to the request orappeal; and in some instances may beretrieved by the name of the attorneyrepresenting the requester or appellant,or the name of an individual who is thesubject of such a request or appeal.

SAFEGUARDS:

Information in this system issafeguarded in accordance withapplicable laws, rules, and policies.Access is limited to those officers andemployees of the agency who have anofficial need for access in order toperform their duties. Access toelectronic media is further restricted bythe use of a two-factor authenticationprocess, Common Access Card andregistered login name. Physical entry isrestricted by the use of locks, guards,and administrative procedures.Employees are periodically briefed onthe consequences of improperlyaccessing restricted databases.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

Freedom of Information Act RequestsFull disclosure files are destroyed 2years after date of reply; FOIA requestdenial files are destroyed after 6 yearsif not appealed; FOIA appeal files aredestroyed 6 years after finaldetermination by agency, or 6 years afterthe time at which a requester could filesuit, or 3 years after adjudication bycourts, whichever is later.

Privacy Act Requests-Requeststotally granted are destroyed 2 yearsafter date of reply; requests totally orpartially denied and not appealed aredestroyed 5 years after date of reply;requests totally or partially denied andappealed are destroyed 4 years afterfinal determination by agency or 3 yearsafter final adjudication by courts,whichever is later.


Senior Privacy and FOIA Officer, DLAFOIA/Privacy Act Office, Headquarters,Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA,8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644,Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.


Individuals seeking to determinewhether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the DLAActivity to which the initial request wasaddressed and/or directed or you maysubmit your request to the DLA FOIA/Privacy Act Office, Headquarters,Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DGA,8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644,Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

Written inquiry should contain thesubject individual's full name, currentaddress, telephone number, adescription of the records sought, andcorrespondence tracking number, ifknown.


Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves contained

21707


in this system of records should addresswritten inquiries to the DLA Activity towhich the initial request was addressedand/or directed or you may submit yourrequest to the DLA FOIA/Privacy ActOffice, Headquarters, Defense LogisticsAgency, ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J.Kingman Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir,VA 22060-6221.

Written inquiry should contain thesubject individual's full name, currentaddress, telephone number, adescription of the records sought, andcorrespondence tracking number, ifknown.


The DLA rules for accessing records,for contesting contents, and appealinginitial agency determinations arecontained in 32 CFR part 323, or maybe obtained from the DLA FOIA/PrivacyAct Office, Headquarters, DefenseLogistics Agency, ATTN: DGA, 8725John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644, FortBelvoir, VA 22060-6221.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Data is provided by the record subject,the FOIA/Privacy Act staff, and programsoftware. Those individuals who submitinitial requests and administrativeappeals pursuant to the FOIA and thePrivacy Act; the agency recordssearched in the process of responding tosuch requests and appeals; otheragencies or entities that have referred tothe Defense Logistics Agency requestsconcerning Defense Logistics Agencyrecords, or that have consulted with theDefense Logistics Agency regarding thehandling of particular requests.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

During the course of a FOIA/PrivacyAct action, exempt materials from othersystems of records may become part ofthe case records in this system ofrecords. To the extent that copies ofexempt records from those othersystems of records are entered into theseFOIA/PA case records, Defense LogisticsAgency hereby claims the sameexemptions for the records as claimed inthe original primary systems of recordswhich they are a part.

An exemption rule for this system hasbeen promulgated in accordance withrequirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2),and (3), (c), and (e) and published in 32CFR part 323. For additionalinformation contact the Systemmanager.[FR Doe. 2011-9335 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




[Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0043]

Privacy Act of 1974; System ofRecords

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.ACTION: Notice to alter a system ofrecords.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary ofDefense proposes to alter a system ofrecords in its inventory of recordsystems subject to the Privacy Act of1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.DATES: This proposed action would beeffective without further notice on May18, 2011 unless comments are receivedwhich result in a contrarydetermination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,identified by docket number and/Regulatory Information Number (RIN)and title, by any of the followingmethods:

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments.

* Mail: Federal Docket ManagementSystem Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon,OSD Mailroom 3C843, Washington, DC20301-1160.

Instructions: All submissions receivedmust include the agency name anddocket number or RegulatoryInformation Number (RIN) for thisFederal Register document. The generalpolicy for comments and othersubmissions from members of the publicis to make these submissions availablefor public viewing on the Internet athttp://www.regulations.gov as they arereceived without change, including anypersonal identifiers or contactinformation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Cindy Allard at (703) 588-6830, orChief, OSD/JS Privacy Office, Freedomof Information Directorate, WashingtonHeadquarters Services, 1155 DefensePentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Officeof the Secretary of Defense notices forsystems of records subject to the PrivacyAct of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,have been published in the FederalRegister and are available from the FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT addressabove.

The proposed system report, asrequired by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of thePrivacy Act of 1974, as amended, wassubmitted on April 12, 2011, to theHouse Committee on Oversight andGovernment Reform, the SenateCommittee on Governmental Affairs,

and the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4cof Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, "Federal Agency Responsibilitiesfor Maintaining Records AboutIndividuals," dated February 8, 1996(February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

Dated: April 12, 2011.Morgan F. Park,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.

DPR 35

SYSTEM NAME:Defense Injury and Unemployment

Compensation System (November 14,2007, 72 FR 64056).

CHANGES:* * *


Delete and replace with "Individualsname, Social Security Number (SSN) oremployee ID, date of birth, gender,home phone number, component,occupation, assignment and dutylocation information, wages, benefits,entitlement data necessary to injury orunemployment claim management,Department of Labor/Office of WorkersCompensation Programs claim data,authorization for medical care, relatedDoD personnel records such as,timekeeping and payroll data, reportsdescriptive of the incident and extent ofinjury for use in Department of Labor/Office of Workers CompensationProgram (DOL/OWCP) adjudication ofthe claim, initial notification to agencysafety personnel for Occupational Safetyand Health Act (OSHA) reportingpurposes, reports related to payment ofbenefits through SESA offices, Statewhere the claim for unemploymentcompensation was filed andapproximate date filed with the SESA."


Delete entry and replace with "5U.S.C. Chapter 81, Compensation forWork Injuries; 10 U.S.C. 136, UnderSecretary of Defense for Personnel andReadiness; DoD Instruction (DoDI)1400.25-V810, DoD Civilian PersonnelManagement System: InjuryCompensation; DoDI 1400.25-V850,DoD Civilian Personnel ManagementSystem: Unemployment Compensation;DoD 1400.25-M, DoD CivilianPersonnel Manual; and E.O. 9397(SSN),as amended."


Delete entry and replace with "Inaddition to those disclosures generally

21708


permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of thePrivacy Act of 1974, these records mayspecifically be disclosed outside theDoD as a routine use pursuant to 5U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

To the Office of PersonnelManagement and Social SecurityAdministration for the purpose ofensuring appropriate payment ofbenefits.

The DoD "Blanket Routine Uses" setforth at the beginning of the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (OSD)compilation of systems of recordsnotices apply to this system of records."


Delete entry and replace with"Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system of records should addresswritten inquiries to the OSD/Joint Staff,Freedom of Information Act RequesterService Center, Office of Freedom ofInformation, 1155 Defense Pentagon,Washington, DC 20301-1155.

Requests should include the nameand number of this system of recordsnotice, include the individual's fullname, SSN, address, and be signed. Ifthe request involves unemploymentcompensation, it should include theState where the claim forunemployment compensation was filedand approximate date filed with theSESA."


Delete entry and replace with"Individual, Defense Civilian PersonnelData System profile and position data,Defense Civilian Pay System wage andearnings data, and DOL/OWCP claimrecords."

DPR 35

SYSTEM NAME:

Defense Injury and UnemploymentCompensation System.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Civilian Personnel ManagementServices, 1400 Key Blvd., Rosslyn, VA22209-5144.


Current and former DoD civilianappropriated fund employees and/ortheir survivors who have filed a claimfor workers compensation benefitsunder the Federal EmployeesCompensation Act (FECA) by reason ofinjuries sustained while in theperformance of civilian duty or whohave filed claims for unemployment

compensation through Stateemployment security agencies (SESAs).


Individuals name, Social SecurityNumber (SSN) or employee ID, date ofbirth, gender, home phone number,component, occupation, assignment andduty location information, wages,benefits, entitlement data necessary toinjury or unemployment claimmanagement, Department of Labor/Office of Workers CompensationPrograms claim data, authorization formedical care, related DoD personnelrecords such as, timekeeping andpayroll data, reports descriptive of theincident and extent of injury for use inDepartment of Labor/Office of WorkersCompensation Program (DOL/OWCP)adjudication of the claim, initialnotification to agency safety personnelfor Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA) reporting purposes, reportsrelated to payment of benefits throughSESA offices, State where the claim forunemployment compensation was filedand approximate date filed with theSESA.


5 U.S.C. Chapter 81, Compensationfor Work Injuries; 10 U.S.C. 136, UnderSecretary of Defense for Personnel andReadiness; DoD Instruction (DoDI)1400.25-V810, DoD Civilian PersonnelManagement System: InjuryCompensation; DoDI 1400.25-V850,DoD Civilian Personnel ManagementSystem: Unemployment Compensation;DoD 1400.25-M, DoD CivilianPersonnel Manual; and E.O. 9397 (SSN),as amended.

PURPOSE(S):

To process FECA claims seekingmonetary, medical, and similar benefitsfor injuries or deaths sustained whileperforming assigned duties.

Data is collected for incidentnotification to safety personnelresponsible for OSHA recording. Safetyclaim records are used to support DoDmanagement responsibilities under theapplicable regulations and to obtainappropriate injury compensationbenefits for qualifying employees ortheir dependents.

Records are maintained for thepurpose of auditing the State itemizedlistings of unemployment compensationcharges, identifying erroneous chargesand requesting credits from the SESAs,and tracking the charges to ensure thatcredits are received from theappropriate State jurisdictions.


In addition to those disclosuresgenerally permitted under 5 U.S.C.552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, theserecords may specifically be disclosedoutside the DoD as a routine usepursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) asfollows:

To the Office of PersonnelManagement and Social SecurityAdministration for the purpose ofensuring appropriate payment ofbenefits.

The DoD "Blanket Routine Uses" setforth at the beginning of the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (OSD)compilation of systems of recordsnotices apply to this system of records.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Electronic storage media.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Individual's name, SSN, and/or claimnumber.

SAFEGUARDS:

Records are maintained in acontrolled facility. Physical entry isrestricted by the use of locks, guards,and is accessible only to authorizedpersonnel. Access to records is limitedto person(s) responsible for servicing therecord in performance of their officialduties and who are properly screenedand cleared for a need-to-know. Accessto computerized data is restricted bypasswords, which are changedperiodically according to agencysecurity policy.


Disposition pending (until theNational Archives and RecordsAdministration approves retention anddisposal schedule, records will betreated as permanent).


Human Resources Specialist, Benefitsand Information Systems, CivilianPersonnel Management Services, Injuryand Unemployment CompensationDivision, 1400 Key Blvd, Rosslyn, VA22209-5144.


Individuals seeking to determinewhether information about themselvesis contained in this system shouldaddress written inquiries to the InjuryCompensation Program Administrator(ICPA) designated by their servicingHuman Resources office, or contact theBenefits and Information Systems,

21709


Civilian Personnel ManagementServices, Injury CompensationUnemployment Compensation Division,1400 Key Boulevard, Rosslyn, VA22209-5144 for assistance in identifyingthe Injury Compensation ProgramAdministrator.

Requests should be signed, includethe individual's full name, SSN, andaddress. It should include the Statewhere the claim for unemploymentcompensation was filed andapproximate date filed with the SESA.


Individuals seeking access toinformation about themselves containedin this system of records should addresswritten inquiries to the OSD/Joint Staff,Freedom of Information Act RequesterService Center, Office of Freedom ofInformation, 1155 Defense Pentagon,Washington, DC 20301-1155.

Requests should include the nameand number of this system of recordsnotice, include the individual's fullname, SSN, address, and be signed. Ifthe request involves unemploymentcompensation, it should include theState where the claim forunemployment compensation was filedand approximate date filed with theSESA.


The OSD rules for accessing records,for contesting contents and appealinginitial agency determinations arecontained in OSD AdministrativeInstruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or maybe obtained from the system manager.


Individual, Defense CivilianPersonnel Data System profile andposition data, Defense Civilian PaySystem wage and earnings data, andDOL/OWCP claim records.


None.[FR Doe. 2011-9338 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Renewal of Department of DefenseFederal Advisory Committees

AGENCY: Department of Defense.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 10U.S.C. 7102(d) and the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C.Appendix), the Government in theSunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b),

and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a), the Departmentof Defense gives notice that it isrenewing the charter for the Board ofVisitors, Marine Corps University(hereafter referred to as the Board).

The Board is a non-discretionaryFederal advisory committee that shallprovide the Secretary of Defensethrough the Secretary of the Navy andthe Commanding General, Marine CorpsCombat Development Command,independent advice andrecommendations on matters pertainingto:

a. U.S. Marine Corps ProfessionalMilitary Education;

b. All aspects of the academic andadministrative policies of the MarineCorps University (hereafter referred toas the University;

c. Higher education and standardsand cost effective operations of theUniversity; and

d. The operation and accreditation ofthe National Museum of the MarineCorps.

The Secretary of the Navy, unlessotherwise directed by statute, may actupon the Board's advice andrecommendations.

The Board shall be composed of atleast nine members, who are eminentauthorities in the field of education, andno more than six additional members,who are eminent authorities in thefields of study directly related to theUniversity's mission and goals.

Board members appointed by theSecretary of Defense, who are not full-time Federal officers or employees, shallbe appointed as experts and consultantsunder the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109,and these individuals shall serve asspecial government employees. Asspecial government employees, theseindividuals are appointed to provideadvice on behalf of the government onthe basis of their best judgment withoutrepresenting any particular point ofview and in a manner that is free fromconflict of interest.

Board members, unless otherwisedirected by the Secretary of Defense,shall be appointed by the Secretary ofDefense for four-year terms, and theirappointments shall be renewed on anannual basis. With the exception oftravel and per diem for official travel,Board members shall serve withoutcompensation.

The Secretary of Defense authorizesthe Board's voting membership to selectthe Board President. The BoardPresident is subject to annual renewalby the Secretary of Defense, shall servea two-year term as Board President.

With the exception of the President ofthe Marine Corps University, no full-time or permanent part-time University

employee shall serve on the Board. TheSecretary of Defense authorizes thePresident of the Marine CorpsUniversity to serve as a non-voting exofficio member of the Board, and hismembership shall not count toward thetotal membership.

With DoD approval, the Board isauthorized to establish subcommittees,as necessary and consistent with itsmission and these subcommittees shalloperate under the provisions of theFederal Advisory Committee Act of1972, the Government in the SunshineAct of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and otherappropriate Federal regulations. Inaddition, the Department of Defenseauthorizes the Board to maintain twostanding subcommittees-the NationalMuseum of the Marine CorpsSubcommittee and the ExecutiveSubcommittee.

Such subcommittees shall not workindependently of the chartered Board,and shall report all theirrecommendations and advice to theBoard for full deliberation anddiscussion. Subcommittees have noauthority to make decisions on behalf ofthe chartered Board, nor can they reportdirectly to the Department of Defense orany Federal officers or employees whoare not Board members.

The Board President, unless otherwisedirected by the Secretary of Defense,may select any Secretary of Defenseappointed member of the Board ofVisitors, Marine Corps University toserve on the Board's subcommittees. Ifadditional subcommittee members arerequired, then the Board president, inconsultation with the DesignatedFederal Officer, may request thatadditional members be appointed by theDepartment of Defense.

Subcommittee members, who are notBoard members, shall be appointed inthe same manner as the Board members.Such individuals, if not full-time orpart-time government employees, shallbe appointed to serve as experts andconsultants under the authority of 5U.S.C. 3109, and serve as specialgovernment employees, whoseappointments must be renewed by theSecretary of Defense on an annual basis.With the exception of the president ofthe Marine Corps University, no full-time or permanent part-time Universityemployees shall serve on anysubcommittee.

Subcommittee members, unlessotherwise directed by the Secretary ofDefense, shall be appointed by theSecretary for four-year terms, and theirappointments shall be renewed on anannual basis. With the exception oftravel and per diem for official travel,

21710


subcommittee members shall servewithout compensation.

The National Museum of the MarineCorps Subcommittee shall be composedof not more than five members who areeminent authorities in the fields relatedto museum management, including, butnot limited to, areas related to: Publictrust and accountability; mission andplanning; leadership and organization;collections stewardship; education andinterpretation; financial stability; andfacilities and risk management. Themembership of the National Museum ofthe Marine Corps Subcommittee shall bein addition to the Board's membership.

The Executive Subcommittee shall becomposed of not more than fourmembers, and these individuals shall beofficers or former officers of the Boardmembership. Specifically, they shall bethe Board's president, the President-elect, the past President, and theSecretary of the Board. The ExecutiveSubcommittee shall meet to discussonly administrative or preparatorymatters that may occur betweenregularly scheduled Board meetings,and do not require deliberation by thefull Board membership.

The Secretary of Defense authorizesthe President of the Marine CorpsUniversity to serve as a non-voting ex-officio member of the ExecutiveSubcommittee. In addition, theSecretary of Defense authorizes theDirector of the National Museum of theMarine Corps to serve as a non-voting exofficio member of the National Museumof the Marine Corps Subcommittee.These appointments shall not counttoward the subcommittee's totalmembership.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Boardshall meet at the call of the Board'sDesignated Federal Officer, inconsultation with the President of theMarine Corps University; theCommanding General, Marine CorpsCombat Development Command; andthe Board President. The Board shallmeet at least once per year.

The Designated Federal Officer,pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoDemployee, and shall be appointed inaccordance with established DoDpolicies and procedures. In addition, theDesignated Federal Officer is required tobe in attendance at all meetings,however, in the absence of theDesignated Federal Officer, theAlternate Designated Federal Officershall attend the meeting.

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and102-3.140, the public or interestedorganizations may submit writtenstatements to the Board of Visitors,

Marine Corps University membershipabout the Board's mission andfunctions. Written statements may besubmitted at any time or in response tothe stated agenda of planned meeting ofBoard of Visitors, Marine CorpsUniversity.

All written statements shall besubmitted to the Designated FederalOfficer for the Board of Visitors, MarineCorps University, and this individualwill ensure that the written statementsare provided to the membership fortheir consideration. Contact informationfor the Board of Visitors, Marine CorpsUniversity Designated Federal Officercan be obtained from the GSA's FACADatabase-https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/public.asp.

The Designated Federal Officer,pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, willannounce planned meetings of theBoard of Visitors, Marine CorpsUniversity. The Designated FederalOfficer, at that time, may provideadditional guidance on the submissionof written statements that are inresponse to the stated agenda for theplanned meeting in question.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy AdvisoryCommittee Management Officer for theDepartment of Defense, 703-601-6128.

Dated: April 12, 2011.Morgan F. Park,Alternate OSD Federal Register LiaisonOfficer, Department of Defense.[FR Doe. 2011-9333 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


Department of the Navy

Notice of Extension of PublicComment Period for the DraftSupplemental Environmental ImpactStatement for the Disposal and Reuseof Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, SanFrancisco, CA

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy(Navy) is extending the public commentperiod for the Draft SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement (SEIS)for the Disposal and Reuse of HuntersPoint Naval Shipyard (HPS), SanFrancisco, California until Friday, May6, 2011. A Notice of Availability (NOA)and Notice of Public Hearing (NOPH)for the Draft SEIS were published in theFederal Register on Wednesday,February 23, 2011 (Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 36, Pages 10012-10014/Wednesday, February 23, 2011/Notices).

Those notices announced the initialpublic comment period, including apublic hearing that took place onTuesday, March 15, 2011, and alsoprovided additional information on thebackground and scope of the Draft SEIS.The initial public comment periodrequested the submission of allcomments on the Draft SEIS to the Navyby Tuesday, April 12, 2011. In responseto a request from the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), the Navy is extending the publiccomment period until Friday, May 6,2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Director, BRAC PMO West, Attn: Mr.Ronald Bochenek, 1455 Frazee Road,Suite 900, San Diego, CA 92108-4310,telephone 619-532-0906, fax 619-532-9858, e-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Navy,as lead agency, has prepared and filedthe Draft SEIS for the Disposal andReuse of HPS, San Francisco, Californiain accordance with the requirements ofthe NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 etseq.) and its implementing regulations(40 CFR parts 1500-1508). The DraftSEIS evaluates the potentialenvironmental consequences associatedwith the disposal and reuse of HPS. TheDraft SEIS is a supplement to the Navy's2000 Final Environmental ImpactStatement for the Disposal and Reuse ofHPS (March 2000).

A NOA and NOPH for the Draft SEISwere published in the Federal Registeron Wednesday, February 23, 2011(Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 36, Pages10012-10014/Wednesday, February 23,2011/Notices), to solicit comments onthe Draft SEIS from Federal, State, andlocal agencies and interested membersof the public. In response to requestsfrom the EPA, the Navy is extending thepublic comment period for the DraftSEIS until Friday, May 6, 2011.

The purpose of the proposed action isthe disposal of HPS from Federalownership and its subsequent reuse bythe County and City of San Francisco ina manner consistent with the HuntersPoint Naval Shipyard RedevelopmentPlan as developed by the San FranciscoRedevelopment Agency in July 1997,and amended in August 2010. The DraftSEIS has identified and considered sixreuse alternatives and a no actionalternative. Navy disposal is assumed aspart of each reuse alternative.

More information of the Draft SEIScan be found in the previouslypublished NOA and NOPH (see FederalRegister/Vol. 76, No. 36, Pages 10012-10014/Wednesday, February 23, 2011/Notices).

21711


Federal, State, and local agencies, aswell as interested individuals, areinvited and encouraged to review andcomment on the Draft SEIS. Commentscan be made in the following ways:(1) Written comments mailed to theBRAC PMO address in this notice; or(2) written comments faxed to the BRACPMO fax number in this notice; or(3) comments submitted via e-mailusing the BRAC PMO e-mail address inthis notice.

The Draft SEIS has been distributed tovarious Federal, State, local agencies,and Native American Tribes, as well asother interested individuals andorganizations. In addition, copies of theDraft SEIS have been distributed to thefollowing libraries and publiclyaccessible facilities for public review:

1. San Francisco Main Library, 100Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

2. San Francisco State UniversityLibrary, 1360 Holloway Avenue, SanFrancisco, CA 94132.

3. Hastings Law Library, UC HastingsCollege of the Law, 200 McAllisterStreet, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA94102.

4. Jonsson Library of GovernmentDocuments, Cecil H. Green Library, BingWing, Stanford, CA 94305-6004.

5. Institute of Governmental StudiesLibrary, UC Berkeley, 109 Moses Hall,#2370, Berkeley, CA 94720.

6. San Francisco RedevelopmentAgency (By Appointment), One SouthVan Ness Avenue, Fifth Floor, SanFrancisco, CA 94103.

7. City Planning Department (ByAppointment), 1650 Mission Street,Fourth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.

An electronic copy of the Draft SEISis also available for public viewing athttp://www.bracpmo.navy.mil.

Comments can be submitted inwriting or e-mailed to: Director, BRACPMO West, Attn: Mr. Ronald Bochenek,1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900, San Diego,CA 92108-4310, fax 619-532-9858,e-mail: [email protected].

To be considered, all comments mustbe received by Friday, May 6, 2011.Such comments will become part of thepublic record and will be responded toin the Final SEIS.

Dated: April 11, 2011.D.J. Werner,Lieutenant Commander, Judge AdvocateGeneral's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal RegisterLiaison Officer.[FR Doe. 2011-9271 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P



Notice of Availability for Final PEA andDraft FONSI

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section(102)(2)(c) of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) (42 United States Code 4321), asimplemented by the Council onEnvironmental Quality regulations forimplementing the procedural provisionsof NEPA (40 Code of FederalRegulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508),and Marine Corps NEPA directives(Marine Corps Order P5090.2A), theDepartment of the Navy announces theavailability of, the Final ProgrammaticEnvironmental Assessment (PEA) anddraft Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI) for the development andoperation of small-scale wind energyprojects at United States Marine Corps(USMC) facilities throughout theContinental United States (CONUS). It isanticipated that site-specific NEPAanalysis may be tiered off thisdocument, as appropriate.

Dates and Addresses: The waitingperiod for the Final PEA and FONSIwill end 30 days after publication of aNotice of Availability in the FederalRegister.

The Final PEA and draft FONSI areavailable for electronic viewing athttp://marines.mil/unit/marforres/MFRHQ/FACILITIES/FACILITIES.aspx,or by sending a request to Alain Flexer,USMC Marine Forces Reserves(MARFORRES), by telephone 504-678-8489, by fax 504-678-6823, by e-mail [email protected] or by writing to:MARFORRES, Facilities, Attn: AlainFlexer, 4400 Dauphine Street, NewOrleans, Louisiana 70146-5400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:MARFORRES: Attn: Alain Flexer,telephone 504-678-8489 or by [email protected].


D.J. Werner,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge AdvocateGeneral's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal RegisterLiaison Officer.

[FR Doe. 2011-9359 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Notice of Intent To Grant a PartiallyExclusive Patent License; PopTestCortisol LLC

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navyhereby gives notice of its intent to grantto PopTest Cortisol LLC, a revocable,nonassignable, partially exclusivelicense to practice worldwide theGovernment owned inventionsdescribed in U.S. Patent ApplicationSerial No. 12/163,412 entitled"Fluorescence polarization instrumentsand methods for detection of exposureto biological materials by fluorescencepolarization immunoassay of saliva, oralor bodily fluids"; U.S. PatentApplication Serial No. 11/328,486,entitled "Method for the detection ofstress biomarkers including cortisol byfluorescence polarization"; and U.S.Patent Application Serial No. 11/726,203 entitled "Method for thedetection of target molecules byfluorescence polarization using peptidemimics" in the field of "Development ofa saliva based cortisol rapid responsedetection devices utilizing fluorescencepolarization"DATES: Anyone wishing to object to thegrant of this license must file writtenobjections along with supportingevidence, if any, not later than May 3,2011.ADDRESSES: Written objections are to befiled with the Office of TechnologyTransfer, Naval Medical ResearchCenter, 503 Robert Grant Ave., SilverSpring, MD 20910-7500.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Roxanne Charles, Office of Legal andTechnology Services, Naval MedicalResearch Center, 503 Robert Grant Ave.,Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500,telephone 301-319-9846.


D.J. Werner,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge AdvocateGeneral's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal RegisterLiaison Officer.

[FR Doe. 2011-9273 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Meeting of the Ocean Research andResources Advisory Industry Sub-Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

21712


ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The Ocean Research andResources Advisory Industry Sub-Panelwill hold a meeting. The meeting will beopen to the public.DATES: The meeting will be held onTuesday, May 24, 2011, from 8:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, May 25,2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Membersof the public should submit theircomments in advance of the meeting tothe meeting Point of Contact.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Consortium for Ocean Leadership,1201 New York Avenue, NW., 4th Floor,Washington, DC 20005.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.Charles L. Vincent, Office of NavalResearch, 875 North Randolph Street,Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995,telephone 703-696-4118.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisnotice of open meeting is provided inaccordance with the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).Featuring Federal agencies andmembers of industry, this meeting willfacilitate open discussions and creativeproblem-solving to overcomeimpediments to industry progresstoward deploying operational projects.


D.J. Werner,Lieutenant Commander, Office of the JudgeAdvocate General, U.S. Navy, FederalRegister Liaison Officer.[FR Doe. 2011-9275 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Submission for OMB Review

AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Comment Request.

SUMMARY: The Director, InformationCollection Clearance Division,Information Management and PrivacyServices, Office of Management, invitescomments on the submission for OMBreview as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before May 18,2011.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Education Desk Officer,Office of Management and Budget, 72517th Street, NW., Room 10222, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 ore-mailed tooira [email protected] with a

cc: to [email protected]. Please notethat written comments received inresponse to this notice will beconsidered public records.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requiresthat the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) provide interestedFederal agencies and the public an earlyopportunity to comment on informationcollection requests. The OMB isparticularly interested in commentswhich: (1) Evaluate whether theproposed collection of information isnecessary for the proper performance ofthe functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) Evaluate theaccuracy of the agency's estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) Minimize the burdenof the collection of information on thosewho are to respond, including throughthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.

Dated: April 13, 2011.Darrin A. King,Director, Information Collection ClearanceDivision, Information Management andPrivacy Services, Office of Management.

Institute of Education Sciences

Type of Review: Revision.Title of Collection: Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System(IPEDS) Web-based Data Collection2011-12 through 2013-14.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0582.Agency Form Number(s): N/A.Frequency of Responses: Annually.Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions;State, Local, or Tribal Government, StateEducation Agencies or LocalEducational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of AnnualResponses: 64,800.

Total Estimated Annual BurdenHours: 819,932.

Abstract: Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System (IPEDS) is asystem of surveys designed to collectbasic data from approximately 7,000Title IV postsecondary institutions inthe United States and otherjurisdictions. The IPEDS providesinformation on numbers of studentsenrolled, degrees completed, otherawards earned, dollars expended, staffemployed at postsecondary institutions,and cost and pricing information. The

amendments to the Higher EducationAct of 1998, Part C, Sec. 131, specify theneed for the "redesign of relevant datasystems to improve the usefulness andtimeliness of the data collected by suchsystems." As a consequence, in 2000IPEDS began to collect data through aWeb-based data collection system. Thedata collection is now entirely Web-based, and is required for thoseinstitutions participating in Title IVFederal student aid programs; otherinstitutions participate on a voluntarybasis. IPEDS data are available to thepublic through the College Navigatorand IPEDS Data Center Web sites. Thisclearance package seeks authorizationfrom OMB to continue IPEDS datacollection through 2014, describesrevisions to the currently approved(2010-11) IPEDS burden estimates, andincludes a number of proposed changesto the data collection.

Copies of the information collectionsubmission for OMB review may beaccessed from the RegInfo.gov Web siteat http://www.reginfo.gov/public/dolPRAMain or from the Department's Website at http://edicsweb.ed.gov, byselecting the "Browse PendingCollections" link and by clicking on linknumber 4507. When you access theinformation collection, click on"Download Attachments "to view.Written requests for information shouldbe addressed to U.S. Department ofEducation, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537.Requests may also be electronicallymailed to the Internet [email protected] or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the completetitle of the information collection andOMB Control Number when makingyour request.

Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.[FR Doe. 2011-9354 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Comment request.

SUMMARY: The Director, InformationCollection Clearance Division,Information Management and PrivacyServices, Office of Management, invitescomments on the submission for OMBreview as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).

21713


DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before May 18,2011.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Education Desk Officer,Office of Management and Budget, 72517th Street, NW., Room 10222, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 ore-mailed tooira [email protected] with acc: to [email protected]. Please notethat written comments received inresponse to this notice will beconsidered public records.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requiresthat the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) provide interestedFederal agencies and the public an earlyopportunity to comment on informationcollection requests. The OMB isparticularly interested in commentswhich: (1) Evaluate whether theproposed collection of information isnecessary for the proper performance ofthe functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) Evaluate theaccuracy of the agency's estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) Minimize the burdenof the collection of information on thosewho are to respond, including throughthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.


Office of Vocational and AdultEducation

Type of Review: Extension.Title of Collection: Adult Education

and Family Literacy Act State Plan (Pub.L. 105-220).

OMB Control Number: 1830-0026.Agency Form Number(s): N/A.Frequency of Responses: Annually.Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit; State, Local, or TribalGovernment, State EducationalAgencies or Local Educational Agencies.

Total Estimated Number of AnnualResponses: 57.


Abstract: The Adult Education andFamily Literacy Act (AEFLA), Title II ofthe Workforce Investment Act of 1998,Public Law 105-220 provides formulafunding to States to support adulteducation instruction at the State level.Section 224 of Public Law 105-220required States submit to theDepartment their plan for how theyaddress the requirements of the Act,including agreeing upon levels ofperformance identified in section 212.Congress did not enact new legislationprior to the expiration of the law in2003; however, it continued to extendprogram appropriations for eachadditional year in each subsequentannual appropriation law.

Section 211(b)(1) of Adult Educationand Family Literacy Act (AEFLA)requires that States have an approvedState plan on file in order to receivetheir allotments of Federal adulteducation funds. The Department istaking a targeted approach to ensureStates not duplicate their efforts insubmitting information. Office ofVocational and Adult Education's StatePlan Guide for AEFLA emphasizes thatthe information requested is simplyupdating current original plans to reflectperformance targets and any proposednew uses for program funds inupcoming years.

Copies of the information collectionsubmission for OMB review may beaccessed from the RegInfo.gov Web siteat http://www.reginfo.gov/public/dolPRAMain or from the Department's Website at http://edicsweb.ed.gov, byselecting the "Browse PendingCollections" link and by clicking on linknumber 4499. When you access theinformation collection, click on"Download Attachments" to view.Written requests for information shouldbe addressed to U.S. Department ofEducation, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537.Requests may also be electronicallymailed to the Internet [email protected] or faxed to 202-401-0920. Please specify the completetitle of the information collection andOMB Control Number when makingyour request.




Notice of Proposed InformationCollection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Comment request.

SUMMARY: The Department of Education(the Department), in accordance withthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),provides the general public and Federalagencies with an opportunity tocomment on proposed and continuingcollections of information. This helpsthe Department assess the impact of itsinformation collection requirements andminimize the reporting burden on thepublic and helps the public understandthe Department's information collectionrequirements and provide the requesteddata in the desired format. The Director,Information Collection ClearanceDivision, Information Management andPrivacy Services, Office of Management,invites comments on the proposedinformation collection requests asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995.DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before June 17,2011.ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burdenand/or the collection activityrequirements should be electronicallymailed to [email protected] ormailed to U.S. Department of Education,400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ,Washington, DC 20202-4537. Pleasenote that written comments received inresponse to this notice will beconsidered public records.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requiresthat Federal agencies provide interestedparties an early opportunity to commenton information collection requests. TheDirector, Information CollectionClearance Division, InformationManagement and Privacy Services,Office of Management, publishes thisnotice containing proposed informationcollection requests at the beginning ofthe Departmental review of theinformation collection. The Departmentof Education is especially interested inpublic comment addressing thefollowing issues: (1) Is this collectionnecessary to the proper functions of theDepartment; (2) will this information beprocessed and used in a timely manner;(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;(4) how might the Department enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and (5) howmight the Department minimize theburden of this collection on the

21714


respondents, including through the useof information technology.


Office of Postsecondary Education

Type of Review: Extension.Title of Collection: Talent Search and

Educational Opportunity CentersAnnual Performance Report.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0561.Agency Form Number(s): N/A.Frequency of Responses: Annually.Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions.Total Estimated Number of Annual

Responses: 596.Total Estimated Number of Annual

Burden Hours: 3,576.Abstract: Talent Search and

Educational Opportunity Centersgrantees must submit the reportannually. The reports provide theDepartment of Education withinformation needed to evaluate agrantee's performance and compliancewith program compliance with programrequirements and to award priorexperience points in accordance withthe program regulations. The datacollection is also aggregated to providenational information on projectparticipants and program outcomes.

Copies of the proposed informationcollection request may be accessed fromhttp://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the"Browse Pending Collections" link andby clicking on link number 4565. Whenyou access the information collection,click on "Download Attachments" toview. Written requests for informationshould be addressed to U.S. Departmentof Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-4537.Requests may also be electronicallymailed to [email protected] or faxedto 202-401-0920. Please specify thecomplete title of the informationcollection and OMB Control Numberwhen making your request.

Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

[FR Doe. 2011-9363 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Comment request.

SUMMARY: The Director, InformationCollection Clearance Division,Information Management and PrivacyServices, Office of Management, invitescomments on the submission for OMBreview as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before May 18,2011.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Education Desk Officer,Office of Management and Budget, 72517th Street, NW., Room 10222, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 ore-mailed [email protected] with acc: to [email protected]. Please notethat written comments received inresponse to this notice will beconsidered public records.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requiresthat the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) provide interestedFederal agencies and the public an earlyopportunity to comment on informationcollection requests. The OMB isparticularly interested in commentswhich: (1) Evaluate whether theproposed collection of information isnecessary for the proper performance ofthe functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) Evaluate theaccuracy of the agency's estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) Minimize the burdenof the collection of information on thosewho are to respond, including throughthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.



Type of Review: Revision.Title of Collection: Hispanic-Serving

Institutions Science TechnologyEngineering, Mathematics andArticulation Program.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0799.Agency Form Number(s): N/A.Frequency of Responses: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profitinstitutions.



Abstract: Collection of thisinformation is necessary so that theSecretary of Education can carry out theHispanic-Serving Institutions ScienceTechnology Engineering, Mathematicsand Articulation Program, authorizedunder section 371 of Part F of the HigherEducation Act of 1965, as amended(HEA). The information will be used inthe evaluation process to determinewhether proposed activities areconsistent with legislated activities andto determine the dollar share of theCongressional appropriation to beawarded to successful applicants.

This information collection is beingsubmitted under the StreamlinedClearance Process for DiscretionaryGrant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day publiccomment period notice will be the onlypublic comment notice published forthis information collection.


Individuals who use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

[FR Doe. 2011-9358 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




AGENCY: Department of Education.ACTION: Comment request.

SUMMARY: The Director, InformationCollection Clearance Division,

21715


Information Management and PrivacyServices, Office of Management, invitescomments on the submission for OMBreview as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).DATES: Interested persons are invited tosubmit comments on or before May 18,2011.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe addressed to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs,Attention: Education Desk Officer,Office of Management and Budget, 72517th Street, NW., Room 10222, NewExecutive Office Building, Washington,DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 ore-mailed tooira [email protected] with acc: to [email protected]. Please notethat written comments received inresponse to this notice will beconsidered public records.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requiresthat the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) provide interestedFederal agencies and the public an earlyopportunity to comment on informationcollection requests. The OMB isparticularly interested in commentswhich: (1) Evaluate whether theproposed collection of information isnecessary for the proper performance ofthe functions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (2) Evaluate theaccuracy of the agency's estimate of theburden of the proposed collection ofinformation, including the validity ofthe methodology and assumptions used;(3) Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and (4) Minimize the burdenof the collection of information on thosewho are to respond, including throughthe use of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology.



Type of Review: Extension.Title of Collection: College Access

Challenge Grant Program Applicationfor Formula Grants.

OMB Control Number: 1840-0800.Agency Form Number(s): N/A.Frequency of Responses: Annually.Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions; State, Local, or TribalGovernment, State EducationalAgencies or Local Educational Agencies.



Abstract: This collection instrumentis necessary because State agencies,designated by the governor of eachState, must submit an application eachyear funding is available under theCollege Access Challenge Grantprogram. Applicants are required bystatute to include information in theapplication, such as a description of theapplicant's capacity to administer thegrant, a plan for using grant funds, andproposed matching contributions. Statesmust submit a viable plan to increasecollege access and completion for low-income students and a comprehensiveoutline of proposed expenditures.





Record of Decision for Issuance ofLoan Guarantees to Solar Partners I,LLC; Solar Partners II, LLC; and SolarPartners VIII, LLC (Solar Partners) forIvanpah Solar Electric GeneratingSystem Units 1, 2, and 3

AGENCY: Loan Programs Office (LP), U.S.Department of Energy (DOE).ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) announces its decision toissue loan guarantees under Title XVIIof the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) to Solar Partners I, LLC; Solar

Partners II, LLC; and Solar Partners VIII,LLC (Solar Partners) for constructionand start-up of Units 1, 2, and 3 of the370 megawatt (MW) Ivanpah SolarElectric Generating System (ISEGS) on3,471.36 acres, all of which are managedby the U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management (BLM), inSan Bernardino County, California. Theenvironmental impacts of theconstruction and operation of thisproject were analyzed in the ProposedCalifornia Desert Conservation AreaPlan Amendment and FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for theIvanpah Solar Electric GeneratingSystem, San Bernardino County,California (75 FR 47592; 08/06/10)(Final EIS), prepared by the BLMNeedles Field Office with DOE as acooperating agency. DOE was consultedduring the preparation of the EIS andprovided comments, which BLMincorporated. DOE determined that theproject analyzed in the Final EIS wassubstantially the same as the project thatwould be covered by the DOE loanguarantees, and a notice of DOE'sadoption of the Final EIS as DOE/EIS-0416 was published by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)in the Federal Register on October 22,2010 (75 FR 65320).ADDRESSES: Copies of this ROD and theFinal EIS may be obtained by callingSharon Thomas, NEPA DocumentManager, Environmental ComplianceDivision, Loan Programs Office (LP-10),U.S. Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC, 20585; telephone202-586-5335; or [email protected], or byaccessing these documents on the DOENEPA Web site at http://www.nepa.energy.gov and at the LoanPrograms Web site at http://www.loanprograms.energy.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Sharon Thomas, NEPA DocumentManager, Environmental ComplianceDivision, Loan Programs Office (LP-10),U.S. Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC, 20585; telephone,202-586-5335; or [email protected]. Forgeneral information about the DOENational Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) process contact CarolBorgstrom, Director, Office of NEPAPolicy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S.Department of Energy, 1000Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC, 20585; telephone, 202-586-4600; leave a message at 800-472-2756; or e-mail [email protected] about DOE NEPA activities

21716


and access to DOE NEPA documents areavailable through the DOE NEPA Website at http://www.nepa.energy.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ISEGS Project will be on 3,471.36acres in the eastern part of SanBernardino County, California,approximately 40 miles southwest ofLas Vegas, Nevada. The applicant plansto develop three power plants inseparate and sequential phases togenerate 370 MW of electricity. Ivanpah1 will generate 120 MW, and Ivanpah 2and 3 will each generate 125 MW. Eachplant will be comprised of fields ofheliostats (elevated mirrors guided by atracking system) focusing solar energyon boilers located on centralized powertowers. Each heliostat in the field willtrack the sun throughout the day andreflect the solar energy to a power towerboiler. In each of the three plants, onesteam turbine will receive live steamfrom the power tower boiler for thegeneration of electricity.

On August 29, 2007, BLM receivedapplications from subsidiaries ofBrightSource Energy, Inc. (SolarPartners) pursuant to Title V of theFederal Land Policy and ManagementAct (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1761) for right-of-way (ROW) grants to construct,operate, maintain, and decommissionthe ISEGS project on public land in SanBernardino County, California. BLM'sCalifornia Desert Conservation Area(CDCA) Plan (1980, as amended), whilerecognizing the potential compatibilityof solar power generation facilities onpublic lands, requires that all sitesassociated with power generation ortransmission not identified in that planbe considered through the planamendment process. BrightSourceEnergy, Inc. applied to DOE for loanguarantees under Title XVII of EPAct 05,in November 2008 for ISEGS Phase 1and in February 2009 for ISEGS Phases2 and 3.

NEPA Review

BLM was the lead agency in thepreparation of the Final EIS. Pursuant toa February 2009, Memorandum ofUnderstanding between BLM and DOE,DOE participated as a cooperatingagency with BLM in preparation of thisEIS in order to consider the potentialenvironmental impacts of DOE'sproposed loan guarantees forconstruction and start-up of Units 1, 2,and 3 of the ISEGS project.

EPA published a Notice ofAvailability of the Draft EIS onNovember 13, 2009 (74 FR 58625), andBLM published a Notice of Availabilityof the Draft CDCA Plan Amendment in

the Federal Register on November 10,2009 (74 FR 58043). The Draft EIS wasavailable for a 90-day public commentperiod which closed on February 11,2010. After issuance of the Draft EIS forpublic review, BLM continued tocoordinate and consult regardingpossible refinements to avoid sensitiveresources, including wildlife and plantspecies, on the ISEGS project site. As aresult, two additional projectalternatives that could avoid or reduceimpacts were developed by theapplicant and were analyzed by BLM ina Supplemental Draft EIS. Thesealternatives included the MitigatedIvanpah 3 Alternative and the Modified1-15 Alternative. These alternativesincluded modification of the projectboundaries in order to avoid sensitiveresources, a reduction in overall projectacreage from 4,073 acres toapproximately 3,471 acres, a reductionin the number of heliostats, and aresulting reduction in the power outputfrom 400 MW in the proposed project to370 MW in each of the additionalalternatives. EPA published a Notice ofAvailability of the Supplemental DraftEIS in the Federal Register on April 16,2010 (75 FR 19992). The publiccomment period on the SupplementalDraft EIS closed on June 1, 2010.Comments received on the Draft EIS andthe Supplemental Draft EIS wereaddressed in the Final EIS announcedby EPA in the Federal Register onAugust 6, 2010 (75 FR 47591).Comments received on the Final EISwere addressed in Appendix 1 of theRecord of Decision for the Ivanpah SolarElectric Generating System Project andAssociated Amendment to theCalifornia Desert Conservation AreaPlan (BLM ROD), which is available athttp://www.blm.gov or by calling theBLM Needles Field Office at 760-326-7000.

On February 22, 2010, DOEannounced its decision to offerconditional commitments to SolarPartners to provide up to $1.37 billionin loan guarantees to support thefinancing of the ISEGS project. Theconditional commitments eachcontained a condition precedent whichrequired completion of the NEPAprocess before the loan guarantees couldbe closed. Notice of DOE's adoption ofthe Final EIS was published by EPA inthe Federal Register on October 22,2010 (75 FR 65320).

Alternatives Considered

BLM considered four alternatives,including the project as identified in theFinal EIS as the Proposed Action (theproject as proposed by Solar Partners),the Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative

(selected by BLM in their ROD andidentified in the Final EIS as thepreferred alternative), the Modified 1-15Alternative, and the No ActionAlternative. These alternatives weredescribed in detail and fully analyzed inthe Final EIS. The BLM decision toselect the Mitigated Ivanpah 3Alternative includes mitigationmeasures identified in the Final EISchapter 4, Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences. Theseinclude measures specified in Termsand Conditions in the BiologicalOpinion (see BLM ROD Appendix 2,U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceBiological Opinion), and Terms andConditions set out in the ProgrammaticAgreement between BLM, the SouthernCalifornia Edison Company, theCalifornia State Historic PreservationOfficer, and the Nevada State HistoricPreservation Officer (see Appendix 3,Programmatic Agreement, in BLMROD).

The complete language of thesemeasures, terms, and conditions isprovided in the Plan of Development forthe ISEGS project and is contained inAppendix 4 of BLM's ComplianceMonitoring Plan set out in the BLMROD. BLM has incorporated theserequirements as terms and conditionsinto the ROW grants. DOE's decision iswhether or not to issue loan guaranteesto Solar Partners for up to $1.37 billionto support construction and start-up ofthe ISEGS project. Accordingly, DOE'salternatives are (1) to issue loanguarantees to Solar Partners for theMitigated Ivanpah 3 Project alternativeselected in the BLM ROD, and (2) NoAction Alternative, i.e., no loanguarantees.

Consultation

BLM is the lead Federal agency forcompliance of the ISEGS project withSection 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act, Section 7 of theEndangered Species Act, and the Baldand Golden Eagle Protection Act, andfor Tribal consultation. The mitigationmeasures included in the BLM decisionresulted from these consultations andare addressed in the Final EIS and BLMROD. In addition, BLM has consultedwith the U.S. Army Corps of Engineerswho provided a written jurisdictionaldecision that the ISEGS project isunlikely to impact waters of the U.S.;and consulted and received requiredapprovals from the Federal AviationAdministration regarding aviationimpacts; the National Park Serviceregarding impacts on national parks;and the State of California and SanBernardino County regardingcompliance with State and local laws.

21717


Decision

On October 7, 2010, BLM issued itsROD and approved the Proposed PlanAmendment to the CDCA Plan to allowfor solar energy right-of-way grants toSolar Partners for the ISGES project tobe constructed on BLM-managed land.The Secretary of the Interior also issuedSecretarial Approval of these decisionson this date.

DOE has decided to select alternative(1) identified above: To issue loanguarantees for construction and start-upof the Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Project,which BLM selected in its ROD. TheMitigated Ivanpah 3 Project would bethe development of three solarconcentrating thermal power plants.Under alternative (2), the No ActionAlternative, DOE would not issue loanguarantees for the project, and it isunlikely that Solar Partners wouldimplement the project as currentlyplanned. While the direct and indirectenvironmental impacts of the ISEGSwould be avoided under the No ActionAlternative, the benefits of reducedgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and theopportunity to make use of newtechnology to reduce GHG emissionsand air pollutants would be lost.

Approval of the loan guarantees forthe ISEGS project responds to DOE'spurpose and need pursuant to Title XVIIof EPAct 05 (42 U.S.C. 16511-16514) foreligible projects under Section 1703 ofTitle XVII, which authorizes theSecretary of Energy to make loanguarantees for projects that (1) avoid,reduce, or sequester air pollutants oranthropogenic emissions of greenhousegases and (2) employ new orsignificantly improved technologies ascompared to commercial technologies inservice in the United States at the timethe guarantee is issued. Issuance of loanguarantees for projects under Section1703 of Title XVII of EPAct 05 facilitatesthe acceleration of thecommercialization of innovative,environmentally-friendly technologiesthat will have an impact on ensuringclean, affordable, and reliable suppliesof energy. The purpose and need forDOE's loan guarantee action is tocomply with DOE's mandate under TitleXVII of EPAct 2005 by selecting eligibleprojects that meet the goals of the Act.

In addition, approval of the loanguarantees for the ISEGS project alsoresponds to DOE's purpose and needpursuant to Title XVII of the EnergyPolicy Act of 2005, which authorizes theSecretary to make loan guarantees foreligible projects under Section 1705 ofTitle XVII (implemented pursuant toSection 406 of the American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act of 2009). Eligible

projects include renewable energyprojects and related manufacturingfacilities, electric power transmissionprojects, and leading edge biofuelsprojects. The primary purposes of theRecovery Act are job preservation andcreation, infrastructure investment,energy efficiency and science, assistanceto the unemployed, and State and localfiscal stabilization. Issuances of loanguarantees for eligible projects underSection 1705 are designed to address thecurrent economic conditions of thenation, in part, through renewableenergy, transmission, and leading edgebiofuels projects. Eligible projects mustcommence construction by September30, 2011.

Mitigation

The ISEGS project that will besupported by issuance of the DOE loanguarantees includes all mitigationconditions applied by BLM in its ROWgrants for this project. BLM is theFederal lead agency for the ISEGSproject under NEPA and is responsiblefor ensuring compliance with alladopted mitigation measures for theISEGS project set out in the Final EIS.The complete language of all themeasures is provided in the BLM RODand in Appendix 4, ComplianceMonitoring Plan. BLM has alsoincorporated these mitigation measuresinto the ROW grants as terms andconditions.

DOE's loan guarantee agreementsrequire the applicant to comply with allapplicable laws and the terms of theROW grants, including mitigationmeasures contained therein. Anapplicant's failure to comply withapplicable laws and the ROW grantswould constitute a default. Upon thecontinuance of a default, DOE wouldhave the right under the loan guaranteeagreement between it and the applicantto exercise usual and customaryremedies. To ensure that the applicantso performs, the DOE Loan ProgramsOffice proactively monitors all operativeloan guarantee transactions.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Following analysis and comparison ofthe alternatives in the SupplementalDraft and Final EISs, the 370 MWMitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative wasidentified by BLM as theEnvironmentally Preferred Alternativeand is the Selected Alternativeidentified in the BLM ROD.

DOE has decided that its alternative(1), to issue loan guarantees forconstruction and start-up of theMitigated Ivanpah 3 Project, isenvironmentally preferable. DOE hasdetermined that this alternative offers

substantial environmental benefits dueto reductions in GHG emissions and thatall practicable means to avoid orminimize environmental harm have, asdescribed in the BLM ROD andAppendices for the ISEGS project, beenadopted as mitigation measures by BLM.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 4,2011.

Jonathan M. Silver,Executive Director, Loan Programs Office.[FR Doe. 2011-9272 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYFederal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 12796-004]

City of Wadsworth, OH; Notice ofApplication Tendered for Filing Withthe Commission and SolicitingAdditional Study Requests

Take notice that the followinghydroelectric application has been filedwith the Commission and is availablefor public inspection.

a. Type of Application: Major OriginalLicense.

b. Project No.: P-12796-004.c. Date filed: March 28, 2011.d. Applicant: City of Wadsworth,

Ohio.e. Name of Project: R.C. Byrd

Hydroelectric Project.f. Location: On the Ohio River at the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps),R.C. Byrd Locks and Dam (river mile279.2), approximately 12.7 miles southof the confluence of the Ohio River andthe Kanawha River, nine miles south ofthe Town of Gallipolis, Gallia County,Ohio. The project would occupy 7.6acres of Federal land managed by theCorps.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal PowerAct 16 U.S.C., 791(a)-825(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. ChrisEaston, Director of Public Service, theCity of Wadsworth, Ohio, 120 MapleStreet, Wadsworth, OH 44281 (330-335-2777); Philip E. Meier, HydroDevelopment, American MunicipalPower, Inc., 1111 Schrock Road, Suite100, Columbus, OH (614-540-0913).

i. FERC Contact: Gaylord Hoisington,(202) 502-6032 [email protected].

j. Cooperating agencies: Federal,State, local, and Tribal agencies withjurisdiction and/or special expertisewith respect to environmental issuesthat wish to cooperate in thepreparation of the environmentaldocument should follow the

21718


instructions for filing such requestsdescribed in item 1 below. Cooperatingagencies should note the Commission'spolicy that agencies that cooperate inthe preparation of the environmentaldocument cannot also intervene. See, 94FERC 61,076 (2001).

k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18CFR of the Commission's regulations, ifany resource agency, Indian Tribe, orperson believes that an additionalscientific study should be conducted inorder to form an adequate factual basisfor a complete analysis of theapplication on its merit, the resourceagency, Indian Tribe, or person must filea request for a study with theCommission not later than 60 days fromthe date of filing of the application, andserve a copy of the request on theapplicant.

1. Deadline for filing additional studyrequests and requests for cooperatingagency status: May 27, 2011.

All documents may be filedelectronically via the Internet. See 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and theinstructions on the Commission's Website (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp). Commenters can submitbrief comments up to 6,000 characters,without prior registration, using theeComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

ecomment.asp. You must include yourname and contact information at the endof your comments. For assistance,please contact FERC Online Support [email protected] or tollfree at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,(202) 502-8659. Although theCommission strongly encourageselectronic filings, documents may alsobe paper-filed. To paper-file, mail anoriginal and seven copies to: KimberlyD. Bose, Secretary, Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 888 FirstStreet, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

m. The application is not ready forenvironmental analysis at this time.

n. The proposed project would utilizethe existing Corps' R.C. Byrd Locks andDam and would consist of the followingnew facilities: (1) A 1,200-foot longintake channel; (2) a trashrack located infront of each of the generating unitintakes, with a bar spacing ofapproximately 8 inches; (3) a reinforcedconcrete powerhouse measuringapproximately 258 feet long by 145 feetwide by 110 feet high, and housing twobulb-type turbine generator units with atotal installed capacity of 50 megawatts;(4) a 900-foot-long tailrace channel; (5)a 2.41-mile-long, 138-kilovolttransmission line; and (6) appurtenantfacilities. The proposed project would

have an average annual generation of266 gigawatt-hours.

o. A copy of the application isavailable for review at the Commissionin the Public Reference Room or may beviewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.gov using the "eLibrary"link. Enter the docket number excludingthe last three digits in the docketnumber field to access the document.For assistance, contact FERC OnlineSupport. A copy is also available forinspection and reproduction at theaddress in item h above.

You may also register online athttp://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified viae-mail of new filings and issuancesrelated to this or other pending projects.For assistance, contact FERC OnlineSupport.

p. With this notice, we are initiatingconsultation with the Ohio StateHistoric Preservation Officer (SHPO), asrequired by 106, National HistoricPreservation Act, and the regulations ofthe Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

q. Procedural schedule: Theapplication will be processed accordingto the following preliminary HydroLicensing Schedule. Revisions to theschedule will be made as appropriate.

Is s u e N o tic e o f A c c e p ta n c e ................................................................................................................................................Is s u e S c o p in g D o c u m e n t I ..................................................................................................................................................Comments on Scoping Document I ....................................................................................................................................R e v is e d S c o p in g D o c u m e n t ................................................................................................................................................Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis ...............................................................................................................C o m m is s io n iss u e s E A , d ra ft E A ........................................................................................................................................N o tic e o f th e a v a ila b ility o f th e E A ......................................................................................................................................

July 2011August 2011.September 2011.November 2011.November 2011.April 2012.June 2012.


Kimberly D. Bose,Secretay.

[FR Doe. 2011-9249 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

Take notice that the Commission hasreceived the following Natural GasPipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Docket Numbers: RP04-274-028.

Applicants: Kern River GasTransmission Company.

Description: Additional RefundReport of Kern River Gas TransmissionCompany.

Filed Date: 04/04/2011.

Accession Number: 20110404-5088.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Timeon Monday, April 18, 2011.

Docket Numbers: RP10-1152-002.Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission

Company, LLC.Description: Florida Gas Transmission

Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.203: Implement Settlementcorrection to be effective 4/1/2011.

Filed Date: 04/04/2011.Accession Number: 20110404-5080.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Monday, April 18, 2011.

Docket Numbers: RP11-1918-001.Applicants: Pine Needle LNG

Company, LLC.Description: Pine Needle LNG

Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.205(b): PN EP and Fuel TrackerAmended For Approved Stipulation andAgreement Rates to be effective 5/1/2011.

Filed Date: 04/06/2011.Accession Number: 20110406-5086.


Docket Numbers: RP11-1776-001.Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline

Company, L.L.C.Description: Nautilus Pipeline

Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per154.203: Nautilus Non-ConformingAgreements Refile to be effective 2/14/2011.


on Tuesday, April 19, 2011.Any person desiring to protest this

filing must file in accordance with Rule211 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR385.211). Protests to this filing will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Such protests must be filed on or before5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified

21719


comment date. Anyone filing a protestmust serve a copy of that document onall the parties to the proceeding.

The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests in lieuof paper using the "eFiling" link athttp://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable tofile electronically should submit anoriginal and 14 copies of the protest tothe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov, using the"eLibrary" link and is available forreview in the Commission's PublicReference Room in Washington, DC.There is an "eSubscription" link on theWeb site that enables subscribers toreceive e-mail notification when adocument is added to a subscribeddocket(s). For assistance with any FERCOnline service, please [email protected] or call(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call(202) 502-8659.

Dated: April 12, 2011.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doe. 2011-9297 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Combined Notice of Filings #2

Take notice that the Commissionreceived the following electric ratefilings:

Docket Numbers: ER11-2434-002.Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power

Company.Description: Wisconsin Electric Power

Company submits tariff filing per 35:FERC Rate Schedule 115 AmendedService Agreement Compliance Filing tobe effective 9/9/2010.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3290-000.Applicants: American Electric Power

Service Corporation, PJMInterconnection, L.L.C.

Description: American Electric PowerService Corporation submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii): AEPSC filed a 25threvision to the AEPSC & Buckeye ILDSAunder SA No. 1336 to be effective 3/8/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

Docket Numbers: ER11-3291-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,

L.L.C.Description: PJM Interconnection,

L.L.C. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii): Queue No. W4-030;Original Service Agreement No. 2804 tobe effective 3/7/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3292-000.Applicants: NSTAR Electric

Company.Description: NSTAR Electric

Company submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii): GenOn DieselsDistribution Service Agreement-Amendment to First Supplement to beeffective 6/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3293-000.Applicants: Southern California

Edison Company.Description: Southern California

Edison Company submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Amendment to IFAand Service Agreement with PAPCO tobe effective 4/16/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3294-000.Applicants: Sempra Generation.Description: Sempra Generation

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):Revision to Sempra Generation FERCElectric MBR Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3295-000.Applicants: El Dorado Energy, LLC.Description: El Dorado Energy, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):Revision to El Dorado Energy LLC FERCElectric MBR Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3296-000.Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.Description: Mesquite Power, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):Revision to Mesquite Power LLC FERCElectric MBR Tariff to be effective 4/5/2011.


Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Timeon Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

Docket Numbers: ER11-3297-000.Applicants: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC.Description: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):Revision to Termoelectrica U.S. LLCFERC Electric MBR Tariff to be effective4/5/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Take notice that the Commission

received the following qualifyingfacility filings:

Docket Numbers: QF11-207-000.Applicants: PowerSecure, Inc.Description: Form 556-Notice of self-

certification of qualifying cogenerationfacility status of PowerSecure, Inc.

Filed Date: 04/04/2011.Accession Number: 20110404-5079.Comment Date: None Applicable.Docket Numbers: QF11-208-000.Applicants: Cambridge Housing

Authority.Description: Form 556-Notice of self-

certification of qualifying cogenerationfacility status of Cambridge HousingAuthority- Lyndon B. JohnsonApartments.

Filed Date: 04/04/2011.Accession Number: 20110404-5105.Comment Date: None Applicable.Any person desiring to intervene or to

protest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Easterntime on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted onor before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.

As it relates to any qualifying facilityfilings, the notices of self-certification[or self-recertification] listed above, donot institute a proceeding regardingqualifying facility status. A notice ofself-certification [or self-recertification]simply provides notification that theentity making the filing has determinedthe facility named in the notice meetsthe applicable criteria to be a qualifying

21720


facility. Intervention and/or protest donot lie in dockets that are qualifyingfacility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking tochallenge such qualifying facility statusmay do so by filing a motion pursuantto 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Interventionand protests may be filed in response tonotices of qualifying facility docketsother than self-certifications and self-recertifications.

The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests andinterventions in lieu of paper, using theFERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronicservice, persons with Internet accesswho will eFile a document and/or belisted as a contact for an intervenormust create and validate aneRegistration account using theeRegistration link. Select the eFilinglink to log on and submit theintervention or protests.

Persons unable to file electronicallyshould submit an original and 14 copiesof the intervention or protest to theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First St., NE., Washington, DC20426.

The filings in the above proceedingsare accessible in the Commission'seLibrary system by clicking on theappropriate link in the above list. Theyare also available for review in theCommission's Public Reference Room inWashington, DC. There is aneSubscription link on the Web site thatenables subscribers to receive e-mailnotification when a document is addedto a subscribed docket(s). For assistancewith any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected] orcall (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY,call (202) 502-8659.







Docket Numbers: ER11-2882-001.Applicants: ReEnergy Sterling CT

Limited Partnership.Description: ReEnergy Sterling CT

Limited Partnership submits tariff filingper 35: Compliance Filing to SubmitRevised Market-Based Rate Tariff to be

effective 1/14/2011 under ERli-2882-001 Filing Type: 80.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3290-000.Applicants: American Electric Power

Service Corporation, PJMInterconnection, L.L.C.

Description: American Electric PowerService Corporation submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii: AEPSC filed a 25threvision to the AEPSC & Buckeye ILDSAunder SA No. 1336 to be effective3/8/2011 under ERl-3290-000 FilingType: 10.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3291-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,


L.L.C. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W4-030;Original Service Agreement No. 2804 tobe effective 3/7/2011 under ERli-3291-000 Filing Type: 10.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3292-000.Applicants: NSTAR Electric

Company.Description: NSTAR Electric

Company submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: GenOn DieselsDistribution Service Agreement-Amendment to First Supplement to beeffective 6/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3293-000.Applicants: Southern California

Edison Company.Description: Southern California

Edison Company submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendment to IFAand Service Agreement with PAPCO tobe effective 4/16/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3294-000.Applicants: Sempra Generation.Description: Sempra Generation

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:Revision to Sempra Generation FERCElectric MBR Tariff to be effective4/5/2011.



Docket Numbers: ER11-3295-000.Applicants: El Dorado Energy, LLC.Description: El Dorado Energy, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:Revision to El Dorado Energy LLC FERCElectric MBR Tariff to be effective4/5/2011.



Docket Numbers: ER11-3296-000.Applicants: Mesquite Power, LLC.Description: Mesquite Power, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:Revision to Mesquite Power LLC FERCElectric MBR Tariff to be effective4/5/2011.



Docket Numbers: ER11-3297-000.Applicants: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC.Description: Termoelectrica U.S., LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:Revision to Termoelectrica U.S. LLCFERC Electric MBR Tariff to be effective4/5/2011.



Docket Numbers: ER11-3298-000.Applicants: Louisville Gas and

Electric Company.Description: Louisville Gas and

Electric Company submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 04 05 11 Sec205 Rev Att C to be effective 4/1/2011.



Docket Numbers: ER11-3299-000.Applicants: Southwest Power Pool,

Inc.Description: Southwest Power Pool,

Inc. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Submission of Change toLoss Factor for Midwest Energy, Inc. tobe effective 9/1/2010.



Docket Numbers: ER11-3300-000.Applicants: Southern California

Edison Company.Description: Cancellation of letter

agreement with First Solar for 150 MWDesert Sunlight PV 1 Project bySouthern California Edison Company.


21721



Docket Numbers: ER11-3301-000.Applicants: Keystone Energy Partners,

LP.Description: Keystone Energy

Partners, LP submits tariff filing per35.1: Base Line Filing to be effective4/15/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3302-000.Applicants: Black Hills Wyoming,

LLC.Description: Black Hills Wyoming,

LLC submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Power PurchaseAgreement with Cheyenne Light, Fueland Power Co. to be effective 6/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3303-000.Applicants: PacifiCorp.Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff

filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Idaho PowerThree Mile Knoll Cap Bank O&MAgreement to be effective 4/6/2011.


on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Take notice that the Commission

received the following open accesstransmission tariff filings:

Docket Numbers: OA08-100-004.Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas,

LLC.Description: Annual Penalty filing of

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.Filed Date: 04/05/2011.Accession Number: 20110405-5092.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to

protest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Easterntime on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted on

or before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.

As it relates to any qualifying facilityfilings, the notices of self-certification[or self-recertification] listed above, donot institute a proceeding regardingqualifying facility status. A notice ofself-certification [or self-recertification]simply provides notification that theentity making the filing has determinedthe facility named in the notice meetsthe applicable criteria to be a qualifyingfacility. Intervention and/or protest donot lie in dockets that are qualifyingfacility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking tochallenge such qualifying facility statusmay do so by filing a motion pursuantto 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Interventionand protests may be filed in response tonotices of qualifying facility docketsother than self-certifications and self-recertifications.





Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretay.[FR Doe. 2011-9301 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]






Docket Numbers: ER1 0-2759-001,ERll-27-001, ERll-3320-001, ER10-2744-001, ER10-2740-001, ERll-3321-001.

Applicants: Bridgeport Energy, LLC,Riverside Generating Company, L.L.C.,Rocky Road Power, LLC, LSP SafeHarbor Holdings, LLC, LSP UniversityPark, LLC, WALLINGFORD ENERGYLLC.

Description: NOTIFICATION OFCHANGE IN STATUS of BridgeportEnergy, LLC, et al.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3317-000.Applicants: South Carolina Electric &

Gas Company.Description: South Carolina Electric &

Gas Company submits tariff filing per35: Section 23.1 to be effective 4/7/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3318-000.Applicants: Woodway Energy

Partners, LLC.Description: Woodway Energy

Partners, LLC submits tariff filing per35.12: Petition for Acceptance of InitialTariff, Waivers, and Blanket Authorityto be effective 6/7/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3319-000.Applicants: Troy Energy, LLC.Description: Troy Energy, LLC's

Notice of Cancellation of ReactivePower Rate Schedule.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3320 0-000.Applicants: PPL University Park, LLC.Description: PPL University Park, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):LSP University Park, LLC MBR Noticeof Succession to be effective 3/9/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.

21722


Docket Numbers: ER11-3321-000.Applicants: PPL Wallingford Energy

LLC.Description: PPL Wallingford Energy

LLC submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii): LSP Wallingford, LLCMBR Notice of Succession to beeffective 3/9/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3322-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,


L.L.C. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revisions to the Tariffand OA re Emerg. Load ResponseProgram "Reporting" to be effective6/1/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3323-000.Applicants: PPL University Park, LLC.Description: PPL University Park, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):LSP University Park, LLC Reactive RateSchedule Notice of Succession to beeffective 3/9/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3324-000.Applicants: Otter Tail Power

Company.Description: Notice of Cancellation of

Service Agreement of Otter Tail PowerCompany.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER97-324-023,

ER97-3834-030, EROO-1816-011,ER05-1469-008, ER07-415-008, ER01-2317-013, ER08-1418-006, ER10-663-005, ER09-1061-005.

Applicants: DTE Energy Trading, Inc.,The Detroit Edison Company, DTEStoneman, LLC, DTE Pontiac North,LLC, DTE East China, LLC, MetroEnergy, L.L.C., DTE Energy Supply, Inc.,Woodland Biomass Power Ltd., DTERiver Rouge No. 1, L.L.C.

Description: Notice of Change inStatus of The Detroit Edison Companyet al.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to

protest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Easterntime on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted onor before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.




The filings in the above proceedingsare accessible in the Commission'seLibrary system by clicking on theappropriate link in the above list. Theyare also available for review in theCommission's Public Reference Room inWashington, DC. There is aneSubscription link on the Web site thatenables subscribers to receive e-mail

notification when a document is addedto a subscribed docket(s). For assistancewith any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected] orcall (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY,call (202) 502-8659.






Take notice that the Commissionreceived the following exemptwholesale generator filings:

Docket Numbers: EGll-61-000.Applicants: Paulding Wind Farm II

LLC.Description: Amended Notice of Self-

Certification of EWG Status of PauldingWind Farm II LLC.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Take notice that the Commission

received the following electric ratefilings:

Docket Numbers: ER11-1981-001.Applicants: Alcan Power Marketing,

Inc.Description: Alcan Power Marketing,

Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: RevisedTariff Filing to be effective 4/8/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ERl -2574-002.Applicants: California Independent

System Operator Corporation.Description: California Independent

System Operator Corporation submitstariff filing per 35: 2011-04-08 CAISOTariff Clarifications Compliance to beeffective 2/28/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3013-001.Applicants: Coolidge Power LLC.Description: Coolidge Power LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.17(b):Coolidge Power LLC Market Based RateSchedule 1.1 to be effective 4/29/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.

21723


Docket Numbers: ER11-3262-001.Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC.Description: Trans Bay Cable LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): TariffVolume 1, Transmission Owner Tariff tobe effective4/8/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3277-001.Applicants: Sky River LLC.Description: Sky River LLC submits

tariff filing per 35.17(b): Errata toAttachment K of the Sky River OATT tobe effective 4/2/2011.


on Thursday, April 28, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3288-001.Applicants: Portland General Electric

Company.Description: Portland General Electric

Company submits tariff filing per35.17(b): Errata to Amendment to RateSchedule FERC No. 72 Docket No.ERll-3288 to be effective 6/1/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3325-000.Applicants: Whiting Clean Energy,

Inc.Description: Whiting Clean Energy,

Inc. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Corrected Baseline MBRTariff Filing of Whiting Clean Energy,Inc. to be effective 4/9/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3326-000.Applicants: Midwest Independent

Transmission System Operator, Inc.Description: Midwest Independent

Transmission System Operator, Inc.submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:G931 Amended GIA to be effective4/9/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3327-000.Applicants: Midwest Independent

Transmission System Operator, Inc.Description: Midwest Independent

Transmission System Operator, Inc.submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:G996 Amended GIA to be effective4/9/2011.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.

Docket Numbers: ER11-3328-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,


L.L.C. Notice of Cancellation of OriginalService Agreement No. 2555.


on Friday, April 29, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to




Persons unable to file electronicallyshould submit an original and 14 copies

of the intervention or protest to theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First St., NE., Washington, DC20426.






Combined Notice of Filings


Docket Numbers: RP11-1978-000.Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission,

LLC.Description: Texas Gas Transmission,

LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204:Quality of Gas Revision to be effective6/1/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1979-000.Applicants: Pine Needle LNG


Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.203: Implementation of ApprovedStipulation and Agreement in DocketNo. RP10-1284, to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1980-000.Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline

Company, LP.Description: Gulf South Pipeline

Company, LP submits tariff filing per154.204: Modify 90 Day Rule Filing tobe effective 5/6/2011.


21724



Docket Numbers: RP11-1981-000.Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline


Company, LP submits tariff filing per154.204: Amendment to QEP K376574/7/11 to be effective 4/5/2011.


on Tuesday, April 19, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1982-000.Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company,

LLC.Description: Trunkline Gas Company,

LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204:Non-Conforming Agreements to beeffective 5/8/2011.


on Tuesday, April 19, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1983-000.Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe

Line Company, LP.Description: Panhandle Eastern Pipe

Line Company, LP submits tariff filingper 154.204: Non-Conforming ServiceAgreements to be effective 5/8/2011.


on Tuesday, April 19, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1984-000.Applicants: Transcontinental Gas

Pipe Line Company.Description: Transcontinental Gas

Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: GT&C Section 25Monthly Imbalance Resolution &Section 35 Standards to be effective7/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 20, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to

protest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Easterntime on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted on

or before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.







Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission



Docket Numbers: RP11-1973-000.Applicants: Columbia Gas

Transmission, LLC.Description: Columbia Gas

Transmission, LLC submits tariff filingper 154.204: Negotiated Rate ServiceAgreement-CEMI to be effective4/1/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1974-000.Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company, LLC.

Description: CenterPoint Energy GasTransmission Company, LLC submitstariff filing per 154.204: CEGT LLCcleanup to be effective 5/6/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1975-000.Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission,

LLC.Description: Texas Gas Transmission,

LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204:Revise Types of Discounts to beeffective 5/5/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1976-000.Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate

Gas Transmission LLC.Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate

Gas Transmission LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Negotiated Rate2011-04-05 Mieco (A&R) to be effective4/5/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP 11-1977-000.Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering

Partners.Description: Dauphin Island

Gathering Partners submits tariff filingper 154.204: Negotiated Rates 2011-04-05 to be effective 4/6/2011.


on Monday, April 18, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to


The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests andinterventions in lieu of paper, using the

21725


FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronicservice, persons with Internet accesswho will eFile a document and/or belisted as a contact for an intervenormust create and validate aneRegistration account using theeRegistration link. Select the eFilinglink to log on and submit theintervention or protests.



Dated: April 06, 2011.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.






Docket Numbers: RP11-1960-000.Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.Description: ANR Pipeline Company

submits tariff filing per 154.601: NNSNegotiated Rate-Wisconsin Gas-Wisconsin Electric to be effective4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1961-000.Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits

tariff filing per 154.204: Equitrans, LPNegotiated Rate Service AgreementFiling to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.

Docket Numbers: RP11-1962-000.Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline


Company, LP submits tariff filing per154.204: Revise FSS-B Form of ServiceAgreement to be effective 5/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1963-000.Applicants: Texas Eastern

Transmission, LP.Description: Texas Eastern

Transmission, LP submits tariff filingper 154.204: Duke Energy negotiatedrates-to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1964-000.Applicants: Questar Pipeline

Company.Description: Questar Pipeline

Company submits tariff filing per154.204: Inactive Meters/Facilities to beeffective 5/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1965-000.Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate

Pipeline Company.Description: Williston Basin Interstate

Pipeline Company submits tariff filingper 154.204: Non-Conforming ServiceAgreement-Devlar Release to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1966-000.Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company, LLC.Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company, LLC submitstariff filing per 154.204: CEGT LLC-Negotiated Rate-April, 2011 to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1967-000.Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate


Pipeline Company submits tariff filingper 154.204: Non-Conforming ServiceAgreement-NSP Release to be effective4/1/2011.



Docket Numbers: RP11-1968-000.Applicants: CenterPoint Energy-

Mississippi River Transmission LLC.Description: CenterPoint Energy-

Mississippi River Transmission, LLCsubmits tariff filing per 154.204:Negotiated Rate Filing 4/1/2011 for 4226and 4100 to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1969-000.Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits

tariff filing per 154.204: ComplianceFiling to Implement NAESB Version 1.9under Order 587-U to be effective6/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1970-000.Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate


Gas Transmission LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Errata to RP11-1953(NRA Mieco and TMV on 3-31-11) tobe effective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1971-000.Applicants: Algonquin Gas

Transmission, LLC.Description: Algonquin Gas

Transmission, LLC submits tariff filingper 154.204: Con Ed-VPEM 2011-04-01Release to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP1-1 723-000.Applicants: Great Lakes Gas

Transmission Limited Par.Description: Great Lakes Gas

Transmission Limited Partnershipsubmits tariff filing per: RP11-1723Compliance to be effective N/A.



protest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Easterntime on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protests

21726


will be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted onor before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.










Docket Numbers: RP11-1985-000.Applicants: Horizon Pipeline

Company, L.L.C.Description: Penalty Revenue

Crediting Report of Horizon PipelineCompany, L.L.C.



Docket Numbers: RP11-1986-000.Applicants: Gas Transmission

Northwest Corporation.Description: Gas Transmission

Northwest Corporation submits tarifffiling per 154.204: GTN Name Change tobe effective 4/4/2011.



Docket Numbers: RP11-1987-000.Applicants: Gas Transmission

Northwest Corporation.Description: Gas Transmission

Northwest Corporation submits tarifffiling per 154.601: Powerex CorpNegotiated Rate to be effective4/11/2011.



Docket Numbers: RP11-1988-000.Applicants: Northwest Pipeline GP.Description: Northwest Pipeline GP

submits tariff filing per 154.204: NWPConsolidated Nominations to beeffective 6/1/2011.



Any person desiring to intervene or toprotest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Easterntime on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted onor before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.

The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests andinterventions in lieu of paper, using theFERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronicservice, persons with Internet accesswho will eFile a document and/or belisted as a contact for an intervenor

must create and validate aneRegistration account using theeRegistration link. Select the eFilinglink to log on and submit theintervention or protests.


The filings in the above proceedingsare accessible in the Commission'seLibrary system by clicking on theappropriate link in the above list. Theyare also available for review in theCommission's Public Reference Room inWashington, DC. There is aneSubscription link on the Web site thatenables subscribers to receive e-mailnotification when a document is addedto a subscribed docket(s). For assistancewith any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected]. orcall (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY,call (202) 502-8659.







Docket Numbers: RP 11-1674-001.Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission


Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.203: Service Agreements-Compliance to be effective N/A.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP 10-1152-001.Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission


Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.203: Implement RP10-21 RateSettlement to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1880-001.Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline

Company, LP.

21727


Description: Gulf South PipelineCompany, LP submits tariff filing per154.205(b): EnCana Amendment Filingto be effective 3/11/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP00-257-001.Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission,

L.L.C.Description: Ozark Gas Transmission,

L.L.C.'s Annual Actual Fuel Use Report.Filed Date: 04/01/2011.Accession Number: 20110401-5174.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP10-1398-002.Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas

Company.Description: El Paso Natural Gas

Company submits tariff filing per154.203: System-Wide Rate Case MotionFiling to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: CP11-5-001.Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage

Company LLC.Description: Rager Mountain Storage

Company LLC's application request forcertificate of public convenience andnecessity.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Docket Numbers: CP11-6-001.Applicants: Peoples Natural Gas

Company LLC.Description: Peoples Natural Gas

Company LLC's application request forcertificate of public convenience andnecessity.


on Wednesday, April 13, 2011.Any person desiring to protest this

filing must file in accordance with Rule211 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR385.211). Protests to this filing will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Such protests must be filed on or before5 p.m. Eastern time on the specifiedcomment date. Anyone filing a protestmust serve a copy of that document onall the parties to the proceeding.

The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests in lieuof paper using the "eFiling" link athttp://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to

file electronically should submit anoriginal and 14 copies of the protest tothe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line athttp://www.ferc.gov, using the"eLibrary" link and is available forreview in the Commission's PublicReference Room in Washington, DC.There is an "eSubscription" link on theWeb site that enables subscribers toreceive e-mail notification when adocument is added to a subscribeddocket(s). For assistance with any FERCOnline service, please [email protected], or call(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call(202) 502-8659.







Docket Numbers: RP08-350-005.Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas

Pipeline, Inc.Description: Southern Star Central

Gas Pipeline, Inc. Annual Report-Non-HCA Pipeline and Storage LateralIntegrity Expenses.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1907-001.Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline


Company, LP submits tariff filing per154.205(b): Amendment to RP11-1907-000 (QEP 37657-3) to be effective4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1908-001.Applicants: Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company.Description: Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company submits tarifffiling per 154.205(b): Negotiated RateService Agreement Errata-PXP to beeffective 5/1/2011.

Filed Date: 03/31/2011.

Accession Number: 20110331-5322.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1916-001.Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline


Company, LP submits tariff filing per154.205(b): Amendment to RP11-1916-000 (QEP 36601-4) to be effective4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Any person desiring to protest this

filing must file in accordance with Rule211 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR385.211). Protests to this filing will beconsidered by the Commission indetermining the appropriate action to betaken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Such protests must be filed on or before5 p.m. Eastern time on the specifiedcomment date. Anyone filing a protestmust serve a copy of that document onall the parties to the proceeding.

The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests in lieuof paper using the "eFiling" link athttp://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable tofile electronically should submit anoriginal and 14 copies of the protest tothe Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426.


Dated: April 1, 2011.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doe. 2011-9309 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]






21728


Docket Numbers: RP11-1940-000.Applicants: Chesapeake Energy

Marketing Inc, BHP Billiton Petroleum(Fayetteville) LL.

Description: Joint Petition of BHPBilliton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLCand Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc.for Temporary Waivers of CapacityRelease Regulations and RelatedPipeline Tariff Provisions.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1941-000.Applicants: Northern Natural Gas

Company.Description: Northern Natural Gas

Company submits tariff filing per154.204: 20110331 Negotiated Rate to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1942-000.Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Company.Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline

Company submits tariff filing per154.204: Quality Interchangeability tobe effective 5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1943-000.Applicants: Algonquin Gas


Transmission, LLC submits tariff filingper 154.203: AGT Gas Quality RP07-504Compliance Filing to be effective5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1944-000.Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.Description: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

submits tariff filing per 154.204: 2011Summer Auction Filing to be effective4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1945-000.Applicants: North Baja Pipeline, LLC.Description: North Baja Pipeline, LLC

submits tariff filing per 154.204:Imperial Irrigation District NegotiatedRates to be effective 4/1/2011.



Docket Numbers: RP11-1946-000.Applicants: Enbridge Offshore

Pipelines (UTOS) LLC.Description: Enbridge Offshore

Pipelines (UTOS) LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Negotiated Rate andNon-Conforming to be effective1/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1947-000.Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline

Company LLC.Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline

Company LLC submits tariff filing per154.204: Antero 2 to Tenaska CapacityRelease Negotiated Rate to be effective4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1948-000.Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline


Company LLC submits tariff filing per154.204: Newfield K18 Capacity ReleaseNegotiated Rate Agreement to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1949-000.Applicants: Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company.Description: Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company submits tarifffiling per 154.203: Gas QualityCompliance Filing to be effective5/27/2010.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1950-000.Applicants: TransColorado Gas

Transmission Company LLC.Description: TransColorado Gas

Transmission Company LLC submitstariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate2011-03-31 Enterprise to be effective3/31/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1951-000.Applicants: Horizon Pipeline

Company, L.L.C.Description: Horizon Pipeline

Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per154.204: Revisions to Form of ServiceAgreements to be effective 5/1/2011.

Filed Date: 03/31/2011.



Pipe Line Company, LLC.Description: Transcontinental Gas

Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: 85 NorthExpansion-Negotiated Rate and Non-Conforming Agreements to be effective5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1953-000.Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate


Gas Transmission LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Negotiated Rate3-31-11 Mieco and Tenaska to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1954-000.Applicants: Kern River Gas

Transmission Company.Description: Kern River Gas

Transmission Company submits itsAnnual Gas Compressor Fuel Report.




Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Update to List ofNon-Conforming Service Agreements tobe effective 5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1956-000.Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline

LLC.Description: Annual Sales Report of

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.Filed Date: 03/31/2011.Accession Number: 20110331-5261.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1957-000.Applicants: Stingray Pipeline

Company, L.L.C.Description: Stingray Pipeline

Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per154.312: Stingray General Section 4 RateCase to be effective 5/1/2011.

Filed Date: 03/31/2011.

21729



on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1958-000.Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast

Pipeline, L.L.C.Description: Maritimes & Northeast

Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per154.204: MNUS Negotiated Rate Filingto be effective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1959-000.Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits

tariff filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Agreement Filing-Equitable Gas Company, LLC to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to




The filings in the above proceedingsare accessible in the Commission's

eLibrary system by clicking on theappropriate link in the above list. Theyare also available for review in theCommission's Public Reference Room inWashington, DC. There is aneSubscription link on the Web site thatenables subscribers to receive e-mailnotification when a document is addedto a subscribed docket(s). For assistancewith any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected]. orcall (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY,call (202) 502-8659.

Dated: April 1, 2011.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretay.

[FR Doe. 2011-9308 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]






Docket Numbers: RP11-1917-000.Applicants: Algonquin Gas


Transmission, LLC submits tariff filingper 154.204: J-2 Lateral Description tobe effective 5/1/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1918-000.Applicants: Pine Needle LNG


Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.403(d)(2): PN 2011 Electric Powerand Fuel Tracker Filing to be effective5/1/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1919-000.Applicants: Williston Basin Interstate


Pipeline Company submits tariff filingper 154.204: Penalty Revenue CreditsTimeline to be effective 4/29/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1920-000.Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline


Company LLC submits tariff filing per

154.204: Enterprise K12 Negotiated RateAgreement Amendment Filing to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1921-000.Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.Description: Annual Fuel Use Report

of Vector Pipeline L.P.Filed Date: 03/30/2011.Accession Number: 20110330-5116.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1922-000.Applicants: Transcontinental Gas


Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Non-ConformingAgreement-Patriots Energy Group to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1923-000.Applicants: Transcontinental Gas


Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.204: Negotiated RateAgreement-Patriots Energy Group to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Monday, April 11, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1924-000.Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.Description: ANR Pipeline Company

submits tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2):DTCA 2011 to be effective 5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1925-000.Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline

Company.Description: Northern Border Pipeline

Company submits tariff filing per154.403(d)(2): CSU Fuel Filing to beeffective 5/1/2011.




Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tarifffiling per 154.203: 85 North ExpansionProject-Phase 2 Rate Filing to beeffective 5/1/2011.

21730



on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1927-000.Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply

Corporation.Description: National Fuel Gas Supply

Corporation submits tariff filing per154.204: 2011 April IG Filing to beeffective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1928-000.Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company, LLC.Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company, LLC submitstariff filing per 154.403: CEGT LLC-Revenue Crediting, to be effective5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1929-000.Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company.Description: CenterPoint Energy Gas

Transmission Company Amended 2010Penalty Crediting Report.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1930-000.Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline

Company of America.Description: Penalty Revenue

Crediting Report of Natural Gas PipelineCompany of America.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1931-000.Applicants: Texas Eastern

Transmission, LP.Description: Texas Eastern

Transmission, LP submits tariff filingper 154.204: TETLP Cleanup FilingMarch 2011 to be effective 5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1932-000.Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe


Line Company, LP submits tariff filingper 154.203: Annual Flow-Through ofCash-Out Revenues to be effective N/A.



Docket Numbers: RP11-1933-000.Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe


Line Company, LP submits tariff filingper 154.203: Annual Report of Flow-Through of Penalty Revenues to beeffective N/A.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1934-000.Applicants: Ozark Gas Transmission,

L.L.C.Description: Ozark Gas Transmission,

L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.204:Negotiated Rate-Southwestern-contract 820131 to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1935-000.Applicants: Bison Pipeline LLC.Description: Bison Pipeline LLC

submits tariff filing per 154.601:Amendments to Negotiated RateAgreements to be effective 4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1936-000.Applicants: Millennium Pipeline

Company, LLC.Description: Millennium Pipeline

Company, LLC submits tariff filing per154.204: RAM 2011 to be effective5/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1937-000.Applicants: East Tennessee Natural

Gas, LLC.Description: East Tennessee Natural

Gas, LLC's 2009-2010 Cashout Report.Filed Date: 03/31/2011.Accession Number: 20110331-5127.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RPl1-1938-000.Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.Description: Egan Hub Storage, LLC

submits tariff filing per 154.204: EganHub Contract 310448 to be effective4/1/2011.


on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.Docket Numbers: RP11-1939-000.Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline

Company LLC.

Description: Trailblazer PipelineCompany LLC submits tariff filing per154.403(d)(2): Tracking Filing to beeffective 5/1/2011.

Filed Date: 03/31/2011.

Accession Number: 20110331-5129.






21731


Dated: March 31, 2011.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doe. 2011-9306 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]





Take notice that the Commissionreceived the following electric corporatefilings:

Docket Numbers: ECll-62-000.Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power

III, LLC, Evergreen Gen Lead, LLC.Description: Application of Evergreen

Wind Power III, LLC, and Evergreen GenLead, LLC.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Take notice that the Commission


Docket Numbers: ER1 0-3323-002.Applicants: Indeck-Olean Limited

Partnership.Description: Indeck-Olean Limited

Partnership submits tariff filing per 35:Indeck-Olean Compliance File BaselineFERC Electric MBR Tariff No. 1 to beeffective 9/30/2010.



Docket Numbers: ER1 0-3326-002.Applicants: SESCO Enterprises LLC.Description: SESCO Enterprises LLC

submits tariff filing per 35: SESCOEnterprises, LLC Comp Filing tobaseline FERC Electric Tariff Sched No.1 to be effective 9/30/2010.



Docket Numbers: ER1 0-3328-002.Applicants: SESCO Enterprises

Canada Ltd.Description: SESCO Enterprises

Canada Ltd. submits tariff filing per 35:SESCO Enterpr Comp Filing to BaselineFERC Elec Tariff Sched No. 1 to beeffective 9/30/2010.



Docket Numbers: ER 1-5-002.Applicants: Great Bay Energy, LLC.Description: Great Bay Energy, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35: Great Bay

Energy Compliance File Baseline FERCElectric Tariff Schedule No. 1 to beeffective 9/30/2010.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-2580-002.Applicants: ISO New England Inc.Description: ISO New England Inc.

submits tariff filing per 35: Tie BenefitsCompliance Filing to be effective 3/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-2642-001.Applicants: FPL Energy South Dakota

Wind, LLC.Description: FPL Energy South Dakota

Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per 35:South Dakota Revision to Tariff to beeffective 1/6/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3304-000.Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.Description: Duke Energy Indiana,

Inc. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendments to RS No.253 to be effective 7/29/2010.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3305-000.Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric

Company.Description: Pacific Gas and Electric

Company submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Vaca-Dixon Solar StationWDT SGIA to be effective 4/28/2010.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3306-000;

ERli-3307-000.Applicants: Duke Energy Corporation,

Progress Energy, Inc.Description: Duke Energy Corporation

and Progress Energy, Inc. (Applicants)submitted for filing a pro forma jointOpen Access Transmission Tariff(OATT) between Duke Energy Carolinas,Inc., Florida Power Corporation andCarolina Power & Light Company inDocket No. ERl-3306-000 and a proforma Joint Dispatch Agreementbetween Duke Energy Carolinas LLCand Carolina Power and Light Companyin Docket No. ERli-3307-000.Applicants state that the pro formaOATT and the pro forma Joint DispatchAgreement are a companion filing to its

merger request in Docket No. ECll-60-000. Applicants propose to file anOATT and a Joint Dispatch Agreementto be effective on the date that themerger is consummated.

Filed Date: 04/04/2011.Accession Number: 20110404-5222;

20110404-5223.Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time

on Friday, June 3, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3308-000.Applicants: Louisville Gas and

Electric Company.Description: Louisville Gas and

Electric Company submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 04 06 11 EKPCNITSA to be effective 6/6/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3309-000.Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply

Company, LLC.Description: Allegheny Energy Supply

Company, LLC submits tariff filing per35: Allegheny Energy SupplyCompliance ERl-2817 to be effective3/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3310-000.Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply

Company, LLC.Description: Allegheny Energy Supply

Company, LLC submits tariff filing per35: Allegheny Energy Supply ERli-2633 Compliance to be effective 6/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3311-000.Applicants: Public Service Company

of New Mexico.Description: Public Service Company

of New Mexico submits tariff filing per35.1: PNM Cost Based Tariff Vol No. 7to be effective 4/7/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3312-000.Applicants: New York Independent

System Operator, Inc.Description: New York Independent

System Operator, Inc. submits tarifffiling per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO Filing-Data Sharing Framework with StatePSCs/ISOs/MMUs to be effective6/5/2011.



21732


Docket Numbers: ER11-3313-000.Applicants: Optim Energy Marketing

LLC.Description: Optim Energy Marketing

LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1: OptimCost Based Sales Tariff Vol No. 2 to beeffective 4/7/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3314-000.Applicants: Troy Energy, LLC.Description: Troy Energy, LLC

submits tariff filing per 35.1: Troy InitialReactive Power Rate Schedule PJM to beeffective 6/1/2011.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3315-000.Applicants: The Connecticut Light

and Power Company.Description: The Connecticut Light

and Power Company submits tariff filingper 35.13(a)(2)(iii: CTMEEC AgreementFor CONVEX Services Rate ScheduleNo. 582 to be effective 6/1/2011.



received the following electric securitiesfilings:

Docket Numbers: ES11-23-000.Applicants: The Detroit Edison

Company.Description: Application of The

Detroit Edison Company forAuthorization to Issue Short-term DebtSecurities.



received the following land acquisitionreports:

Docket Numbers: LA10-4-000.Applicants: NextEra Energy

Companies.Description: NextEra Energy

Companies Fourth Quarter 2010 SiteControl Quarterly Filing submitted Out-of-Time.


on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.Any person desiring to intervene or to

protest in any of the above proceedingsmust file in accordance with Rules 211and 214 of the Commission's Rules ofPractice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern

time on the specified comment date. Itis not necessary to separately interveneagain in a subdocket related to acompliance filing if you have previouslyintervened in the same docket. Protestswill be considered by the Commissionin determining the appropriate action tobe taken, but will not serve to makeprotestants parties to the proceeding.Anyone filing a motion to intervene orprotest must serve a copy of thatdocument on the Applicant. In referenceto filings initiating a new proceeding,interventions or protests submitted onor before the comment deadline neednot be served on persons other than theApplicant.




The filings in the above proceedingsare accessible in the Commission'seLibrary system by clicking on theappropriate link in the above list. Theyare also available for review in theCommission's Public Reference Room inWashington, DC. There is aneSubscription link on the Web site thatenables subscribers to receive e-mailnotification when a document is addedto a subscribed docket(s). For assistancewith any FERC Online service, please e-

mail [email protected] orcall (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY,call (202) 502-8659.






Take notice that the Commissionreceived the following electric corporatefilings:

Docket Numbers: ECll-60-000.Applicants: Progress Energy, Inc.,

Duke Energy Corporation.Description: Duke Energy Corporation

and Progress Energy, Inc. Applicationfor Authorization of Disposition ofJurisdictional Assets and Merger undersection 203 of the Federal Power Act.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ECll-61-000.Applicants: TPF Generation Holdings,

LLC, LS Power Development, LLC.Description: TPF Generation

Holdings, LLC, University Park Energy,LLC, and LSP

Park Generating, LLC, JointApplication for Authorization of

Transaction under section 203 of theFederal Power Act and Request forExpedited Consideration.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Take notice that the Commission


Docket Numbers: ER06-613-011.Applicants: ISO New England Inc.,

New England Power PoolDescription: ISO New England Inc's

Tenth Compliance Report RegardingPossible Implementation of a ForwardTen-Minute Spinning Reserve Marketunder ER06-613.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-2224-005.Applicants: New York Independent

System Operator, Inc.Description: New York Independent

System Operator, Inc. submits tarifffiling per 35: NYISO Errata to March 29,

21733


2011 ICAP Demand Curve Filing to beeffective 12/31/9998.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-2962-001.Applicants: Tropicana Manufacturing

Company Inc.Description: Tropicana Manufacturing

Company Inc. submits tariff filing per35.17(b): Amended Application forMarket-Based Rate Authority to beeffective 3/1/2011.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ERII-3283-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,


L.L.C. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: PJM Queue No. Wi-077ISA, Original Service Agreement No.2848 to be effective 3/4/2011.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3284-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,


L.L.C. submits tariff filing per35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. V3-070;Original Service Agreement No. 2803 tobe effective 3/4/2011.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ERll-3285-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,

L.L.C.Description: Application of PJM

Interconnection, L.L.C. under NewDocket for Limited Waiver Duke Accessto EMS Data.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3286-000.Applicants: Southwest Power Pool,

Inc.Description: Southwest Power Pool,

Inc.'s Notice of Cancellation of LargeGenerator Interconnection Agreement.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3287-000.Applicants: WSPP Inc.Description: WSPP Inc. submits tariff

filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revisions to

PSCo Schedule Q to be effective6/3/2011.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3288-000.Applicants: Portland General Electric

Company.Description: Portland General Electric

Company submits tariff filing per 35.1:General Transfer Agreement betweenPGE and BPA-FERC Rate Schedule 72to be effective 6/1/2011.


on Monday, April 25, 2011.Docket Numbers: ER11-3289-000.Applicants: PJM Interconnection,


L.L.C. submits notice of cancellation ofinterconnection service agreement.




As it relates to any qualifying facilityfilings, the notices of self-certification[or self-recertification] listed above, donot institute a proceeding regardingqualifying facility status. A notice ofself-certification [or self-recertification]simply provides notification that theentity making the filing has determinedthe facility named in the notice meetsthe applicable criteria to be a qualifyingfacility. Intervention and/or protest donot lie in dockets that are qualifyingfacility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking tochallenge such qualifying facility statusmay do so by filing a motion pursuantto 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention

and protests may be filed in response tonotices of qualifying facility docketsother than self-certifications and self-recertifications.








[Docket No. ER11-3318-000]

Woodway Energy Partners, LLC;Supplemental Notice That InitialMarket-Based Rate Filing IncludesRequest for Blanket Section 204Authorization

This is a supplemental notice in theabove-referenced proceeding ofWoodway Energy Partners, LLC'sapplication for market-based rateauthority, with an accompanying ratetariff, noting that such applicationincludes a request for blanketauthorization, under 18 CFR part 34, offuture issuances of securities andassumptions of liability.

Any person desiring to intervene or toprotest should file with the Federal

21734


Energy Regulatory Commission, 888First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,in accordance with Rules 211 and 214of the Commission's Rules of Practiceand Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and385.214). Anyone filing a motion tointervene or protest must serve a copyof that document on the Applicant.

Notice is hereby given that thedeadline for filing protests with regardto the applicant's request for blanketauthorization, under 18 CFR part 34, offuture issuances of securities andassumptions of liability, is May 2, 2011.


Persons unable to file electronicallyshould submit an original and 14 copiesof the intervention or protest to theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426.

The filings in the above-referencedproceeding are accessible in theCommission's eLibrary system byclicking on the appropriate link in theabove list. They are also available forreview in the Commission's PublicReference Room in Washington, DC.There is an eSubscription link on theWeb site that enables subscribers toreceive e-mail notification when adocument is added to a subscribeddocket(s). For assistance with any FERCOnline service, please [email protected] or call(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call(202) 502-8659.





[Docket Nos. RP03-398-018; RP04-155-009(Consolidated)]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Noticeof Petition for Approval of SettlementAmendment

Take notice that on March 28, 2011,Northern Natural Gas Company

(Northern) tendered for filing a Petitionfor Approval of Settlement Amendmentincluding a proposed Amendment toStipulation and Agreement ofSettlement.





Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Timeon Friday, April 15, 2011.


Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doe. 2011-9248 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




[Docket No. EL11-28-000]

Solutions for Utilities, lnc.v. PacificGas and Electric Company, SouthernCalifornia Edison Company, San DiegoGas & Electric Company, CaliforniaPublic Utilities Commission; Notice ofPetition

Take notice that on March 21, 2011,pursuant to section 210(h)(2) of thePublic Utility Regulatory Policies Act of1978 (PURPA),I Solutions for Utilities,Inc. filed a petition requesting that theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(Commission) enforce the requirementsof PURPA against Pacific Gas andElectric Company (PG&E), SouthernCalifornia Edison Company (SCE), SanDiego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E),and the California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC), and find that theCPUC failed to follow CommissionRules and Regulations for interstatewholesale sales of electricity and theCommission's Regulationsimplementing PURPA, in addition tofinding PG&E, SCE, & SD&E misleadrenewable energy developers regardinginterconnection to the electric grid;price to be paid to renewable generators;and non-price terms.

Any person desiring to intervene or toprotest this filing must file inaccordance with Rules 211 and 214 ofthe Commission's Rules of Practice andProcedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).Protests will be considered by theCommission in determining theappropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties tothe proceeding. Any person wishing tobecome a party must file a notice ofintervention or motion to intervene, asappropriate. The Respondent's answerand all interventions, or protests mustbe filed on or before the comment date.The Respondent's answer, motions tointervene, and protests must be servedon the Complainants.

The Commission encourageselectronic submission of protests andinterventions in lieu of paper using the"eFiling" link at http://www.ferc.gov.Persons unable to file electronicallyshould submit an original and 14 copies

116 U.S.C. 824a-3(h)(2) (2006).

21735


of the protest or intervention to theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC20426.


Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Timeon April 20, 2011.

Dated: April 5, 2011.Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,Deputy Secretary.[FR Doe. 2011-9298 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[FRL-9297-2; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0398]

Draft Toxicological Review of Methanol(Non-Cancer) in Support of SummaryInformation on the Integrated RiskInformation System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of public commentperiod and listening session.

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 60-daypublic comment period and listeningsession for the external review drafthuman health assessment titled,"Toxicological Review of Methanol(Non-Cancer): In Support of SummaryInformation on the Integrated RiskInformation System (IRIS)" (EPA/635/R-11/001). The draft assessment wasprepared by the National Center forEnvironmental Assessment (NCEA)within the EPA Office of Research andDevelopment (ORD). EPA is releasingthis draft assessment solely for thepurpose of pre-dissemination peerreview under applicable informationquality guidelines. This draftassessment has not been formallydisseminated by EPA. It does notrepresent and should not be construedto represent any Agency policy ordetermination.

In January 2010, EPA released anexternal peer review draft IRISToxicological Review for methanol(EPA/635/R-09/013), containing both

cancer and non-cancer analyses, andrequested that the Science AdvisoryBoard conduct a review of this humanhealth assessment. Following a reportfrom the National Toxicology Program,EPA placed the external peer review ofthe draft IRIS Methanol ToxicologicalReview on hold. The NationalToxicology Program reportrecommended that pathology reviews becarried out to resolve differences ofopinion in the diagnoses of certaintumors reported in a Ramazzini Institutemethanol research study, which wascited and used to support some of theconclusions in the draft IRISassessment. As a result, EPA and theNational Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences plan to jointly sponsoran independent Pathology WorkingGroup (PWG) review of select studiesconducted at the Institute. EPA is todayreleasing the draft IRIS MethanolToxicological Review (Non-Cancer) forpublic comment while continuing tohold the cancer assessment that waspreviously released in January 2010.The data and studies used in the draftIRIS Methanol Toxicological Review(Non-Cancer) are unrelated to the tumordiagnoses being re-examined by thePWG. The information, analyses andconclusions of the draft assessmentannounced in this notice are identical tothe non-cancer portions of the draftassessment previously released inJanuary 2010. Comments relevant to thenon-cancer methanol assessment thatwere received during the previouspublic comment period for the jointcancer and non-cancer assessment willbe considered along with newcomments.

An EPA listening session will be heldon May 26, during the public commentperiod for this draft assessment. Thepurpose of the listening session is toallow all interested parties to presentscientific and technical comments onthe draft IRIS health assessment to EPAand other interested parties attendingthe listening session. EPA welcomes thecomments that will be provided to theAgency by the listening sessionparticipants. The comments will beconsidered by the Agency as it revisesthe draft assessment after the externalpeer review. EPA will compile a list ofmeeting participants, including thename, principal affiliation, and sponsorof each person attending or calling in tothe meeting. The list of listening sessionparticipants as well as presentations andwritten materials given to NCEA will bemade a part of the public record.

After public review and comment, anEPA contractor will hold a meeting ofexpert panelists for independentexternal peer review of this draft

assessment. The public comment periodand external peer review meeting areseparate processes that provideopportunities for all interested parties tocomment on the assessment. Theexternal peer review meeting, to bescheduled at a later date, will be opento the public and announced in theFederal Register. Public commentssubmitted during the public commentperiod will be provided to the externalpeer reviewers before the panel meetingand considered by EPA in thedisposition of public comments. Publiccomments received after the publiccomment period closes will not besubmitted to the external peer reviewersand will only be considered by EPA iftime permits.DATES: The public comment periodbegins April 18, 2011, and ends June 17,2011. Comments should be in writingand must be received by EPA by June17, 2011.

The listening session on the draftassessment for methanol will be held onMay 26, beginning at 9 a.m. and endingat 4 p.m., Eastern Time. Interestedparties who wish to attend the listeningsession should register no later thanMay 19. If you wish to present at thelistening session, indicate in yourregistration that you would like to makeoral comments and provide the length ofyour presentation. To register to speakand/or listen send an e-mail [email protected] (subjectline: Methanol Listening Session); callChristine Ross at 703-347-8592; or faxa registration request to 703-347-8689.Please reference the "MethanolListening Session" and include yourname, title, affiliation, sponsorinformation, full address and contactinformation. Indicate if you will needaudio-visual equipment (e.g., laptopcomputer and slide projector). Ingeneral, each presentation should be nomore than 30 minutes. If, however, thereare more requests for presentations thanthe allotted time allows, then the timelimit for each presentation will beadjusted. A copy of the agenda for thelistening session will be available at themeeting. If no speakers have registeredby May 19, the listening session will becancelled, and EPA will notify thoseregistered of the cancellation.ADDRESSES: The draft "ToxicologicalReview of Methanol (Non-Cancer): InSupport of Summary Information on theIntegrated Risk Information System(IRIS)" is available primarily via theInternet on the NCEA home page underthe Recent Additions and Publicationsmenus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. Alimited number of paper copies areavailable from the Information

21736


Management Team (Address:Information Management Team,National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment (Mail Code: 8601P), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-8561; facsimile: 703-347-8691). Ifyou request a paper copy, pleaseprovide your name, mailing address,and the draft assessment title.

Comments may be submittedelectronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by e-mail, by mail,by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailedinstructions provided in theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section ofthis notice.

The listening session on the draftassessment for methanol will be held atthe EPA offices at Potomac Yard NorthBuilding, N-7100, 2733 South CrystalDrive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Pleasenote that to gain entrance to this EPAbuilding to attend the MethanolListening Session, you must have photoidentification and must register at theguard's desk in the lobby. The guardwill retain your photo identification andwill provide you with a visitor's badge.At the guard's desk, you should providethe name Christine Ross and thetelephone number 703-347-8592 to theguard on duty. The guard will contactMs. Ross who will meet you in thereception area to escort you to themeeting room. When you leave thebuilding, please return your visitor'sbadge to the guard and you will receiveyour photo identification.

A teleconference line will also beavailable for registered attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is866-299-3188, and the access code is926-378-7897, followed by the poundsign (#). The teleconference line will beactivated at 8:45 a.m., and you will beasked to identify yourself and youraffiliation and sponsors at the beginningof the call.

Information on Services forIndividuals with Disabilities: EPAwelcomes public attendance at theMethanol Listening Session and willmake every effort to accommodatepersons with disabilities. Forinformation on access or services forindividuals with disabilities, pleasecontact Christine Ross by phone at 703-347-8592 or by e-mail [email protected]. Torequest accommodation for a disability,please contact Ms. Ross, preferably atleast 10 days prior to the meeting, togive EPA as much time as possible toprocess your request.

Additional Information: Forinformation on the docket, http://

www.regulations.gov, or the publiccomment period, please contact theOffice of Environmental Information(OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1200Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,DC 20460; telephone: 202-566-1752;facsimile: 202-566-1753; or e-mail:[email protected].

For information on the MethanolListening Session, please contactChristine Ross, IRIS Staff, NationalCenter for Environmental Assessment(Mail Code: 8601P), U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;telephone: 703-347-8592; facsimile:703-347-8689; or e-mail:[email protected].

For information on the draftassessment, please contact Jeffrey Gift,PhD, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Mail CodeB243-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,Durham, NC 27711; telephone: 919-541-4828; facsimile: 919-541-0245 ore-mail: [email protected] INFORMATION:

I. Information About IRIS

EPA's IRIS is a human healthassessment program that evaluatesquantitative and qualitative riskinformation on effects that may resultfrom exposure to chemical substancesfound in the environment. Through theIRIS Program, EPA provides the highestquality science-based human healthassessments to support the Agency'sregulatory activities. The IRIS databasecontains information for more than 540chemical substances that can be used tosupport the first two steps (hazardidentification and dose-responseevaluation) of the risk assessmentprocess. When supported by availabledata, IRIS provides oral reference doses(RfDs) and inhalation referenceconcentrations (RfCs) for chronicnoncancer health effects and cancerassessments. Combined with specificexposure information, government andprivate entities use IRIS to helpcharacterize public health risks ofchemical substances in a site-specificsituation and thereby support riskmanagement decisions designed toprotect public health.

II. How to Submit Comments to theDocket at http://www.regulations.gov

Submit your comments, identified byDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0398 by one of the following methods:

e http://www.regulations.gov: Followthe on-line instructions for submittingcomments.

e E-mail: [email protected].

" Facsimile: 202-566-1753." Mail: Office of Environmental

Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code:2822T), U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460. The telephonenumber is 202-566-1752. If you providecomments by mail, please submit oneunbound original with pages numberedconsecutively, and three copies of thecomments. For attachments, provide anindex, number pages consecutively withthe comments, and submit an unboundoriginal and three copies.

e Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket islocated in the EPA Headquarters DocketCenter, EPA West Building, Room 3334,1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,Washington, DC. The EPA DocketCenter Public Reading Room is openfrom 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, excluding legalholidays. The telephone number for thePublic Reading Room is 202-566-1744.Deliveries are only accepted during thedocket's normal hours of operation, andspecial arrangements should be madefor deliveries of boxed information. Ifyou provide comments by handdelivery, please submit one unboundoriginal with pages numberedconsecutively, and three copies of thecomments. For attachments, provide anindex, number pages consecutively withthe comments, and submit an unboundoriginal and three copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments toDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0398. Please ensure that your commentsare submitted within the specifiedcomment period. Comments receivedafter the closing date will be marked"late," and may only be considered iftime permits. It is EPA's policy toinclude all comments it receives in thepublic docket without change and tomake the comments available online athttp://www.regulations.gov, includingany personal information provided,unless comments include informationclaimed to be Confidential BusinessInformation (CBI) or other informationwhose disclosure is restricted by statute.Do not submit information that youconsider to be CBI or otherwiseprotected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Thehttp://www.regulations.gov Web site isan "anonymous access" system, whichmeans that EPA will not know youridentity or contact information unlessyou provide it in the body of yourcomments. If you send e-mail commentsdirectly to EPA without going throughhttp://www.regulations.gov, your e-mailaddress will be automatically capturedand included as part of the commentsthat are placed in the public docket andmade available on the Internet. If you

21737


submit electronic comments, EPArecommends that you include yourname and other contact information inthe body of your comments and withany disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPAcannot read your comments due totechnical difficulties and cannot contactyou for clarification, EPA may not beable to consider your comments.Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters and any form ofencryption and be free of any defects orviruses. For additional informationabout EPA's public docket, visit the EPADocket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docketare listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Althoughlisted in the index, some information isnot publicly available, e.g., CBI or otherinformation whose disclosure isrestricted by statute. Certain othermaterial, such as copyrighted material,will be publicly available only in hardcopy. Publicly available docketmaterials are available eitherelectronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy atthe OEI Docket in the EPA HeadquartersDocket Center.

Dated: March 28, 2011.Darrell A. Winner,Acting Director, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment.

[FR Doe. 2011-9293 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

Notice of Public InformationCollection(s) Being Reviewed by theFederal Communications Commissionfor Extension Under DelegatedAuthority, Comments Requested

April 7, 2011.

SUMMARY: The Federal CommunicationsCommission, as part of its continuingeffort to reduce paperwork burdeninvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to take thisopportunity to comment on thefollowing information collection(s), asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.Comments are requested concerning:(a) Whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theCommission, including whether theinformation shall have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of the Commission'sburden estimate; (c) ways to enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection ofinformation on the respondents,including the use of automatedcollection techniques or other forms ofinformation technology, and (e) ways tofurther reduce the informationcollection burden for small businessconcerns with fewer than 25 employees.

The FCC may not conduct or sponsora collection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid controlnumber. No person shall be subject toany penalty for failing to comply witha collection of information subject to thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) thatdoes not display a currently valid OMBcontrol number.DATES: Written Paperwork ReductionAct (PRA) comments should besubmitted on or before June 17, 2011. Ifyou anticipate that you will besubmitting PRA comments, but find itdifficult to do so within the period oftime allowed by this notice, you shouldadvise the FCC contact listed below assoon as possible.ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments toNicholas A. Fraser, Office ofManagement and Budget, via fax at 202-395-5167 or via e-mail toNicholas A. [email protected] andto the Federal CommunicationsCommission via e-mail to [email protected] Cathy. [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional information, contact CathyWilliams on (202) 418-2918.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0061.Title: Annual Report of Cable

Television Systems, FCC Form 325.Form Number: FCC Form 325.Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.Respondents: Business or other for-

profit entities.Number of Respondents and

Responses: 1,200 respondents; 1,200responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.166hours.

Frequency of Response: Annualreporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required toobtain or retain benefits. The statutoryauthority for this information collectionis contained in Sections 4(i), 601 and602 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 2,599 hours.Total Annual Cost: None.Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No

impact(s).Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:

There is no need for confidentiality withthis collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The FederalCommunications Commission uses

Form 325 "Annual Report of CableTelevision Systems" to solicit basicoperational information from the cabletelevision industry. The informationrequested includes: the operator's nameand address; system-wide capacity andfrequency information; channel usage;and number of subscribers. The purposeof the form is to require operationalcable television systems to verify,correct and/or furnish the Commissionwith the most current information ontheir respective cable systems.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0178.Title: Section 73.1560, Operating

Power and Mode Tolerances.Form Number: N/A.Type of Review: Extension of a


profit entities.Number of Respondents and

Responses: 80 respondents; 80responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement.Obligation to Respond: Required to

obtain or retain benefits. The statutoryauthority for this collection ofinformation is contained in Section154(i) of the Communications Act of1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 80 hours.Total Annual Costs: $20,000.Privacy Impact Assessment: No



Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1560(d)requires that licensees of AM, FM or TVstations file a notification with the FCCwhen operation at reduced power willexceed ten consecutive days and uponrestoration of normal operations. Ifcauses beyond the control of thelicensee prevent restoration ofauthorized power within a 30-dayperiod, an informal written request mustbe made for any additional time as maybe necessary to restore normaloperations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0706.Title: Sections 76.952 and 76.990,

Cable Act Reform.Type of Review: Extension a currently

approved collection.Respondents: Business or other for-

profit entities; State, Local or TribalGovernment.

Number of Respondents andResponses: 70 respondents; 70responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-8hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasionreporting requirement; third partydisclosure requirement.

21738


Obligation to Respond: Required toobtain or retain benefits. The statutoryauthority for this collection ofinformation is contained in theTelecommunications Act of 1996,Public Law 104-104, Sections 301 and302, 110 Stat. 56, 114-124.

Total Annual Burden: 210 hours.Total Annual Cost: None.Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No



Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.952 statesthat all cable operators must provide tothe subscribers on monthly bills thename, mailing address and phonenumber of the franchising authority,unless the franchising authority inwriting requests that the cable operatoromits such information. The cableoperator must also provide subscriberswith the FCC community unit identifierfor the cable system in theircommunities.

47 CFR 76.990(b)(1) requires that asmall cable operator may certify inwriting to its franchise authority at anytime that it meets all criteria necessaryto qualify as a small operator. Uponrequest of the local franchisingauthority, the operator shall identify inwriting all of its affiliates that providecable service, the total subscriber base ofitself and each affiliate, and theaggregate gross revenues of its cable andnon-cable affiliates. Within 90 days ofreceiving the original certification, thelocal franchising authority shalldetermine whether the operatorqualifies for deregulation and shallnotify the operator in writing of itsdecision, although this 90-day periodshall be tolled for so long as it takes theoperator to respond to a proper requestfor information by the local franchisingauthority. An operator may appeal tothe Commission a local franchiseauthority's information request if theoperator seeks to challenge theinformation request as unduly orunreasonably burdensome. If the localfranchising authority finds that theoperator does not qualify forderegulation, its notice shall state thegrounds for that decision. The operatormay appeal the local franchisingauthority's decision to the Commissionwithin 30 days.

47 CFR 76.990(b)(3) requires thatwithin 30 days of being served with alocal franchising authority's notice thatthe local franchising authority intendsto file a cable programming services tierrate complaint, an operator may certifyto the local franchising authority that itmeets the criteria for qualification as asmall cable operator. This certification

shall be filed in accordance with thecable programming services ratecomplaint procedure set forth in§ 76.1402. Absent a cable programmingservices rate complaint, the operatormay request a declaration of CPST ratederegulation from the Commissionpursuant to § 76.7.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office ofManaging Director.[FR Doe. 2011-9250 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Notice of Public InformationCollection(s) Being Reviewed by theFederal Communications Commission,Comments Requested

April 7, 2011.

SUMMARY: The Federal CommunicationsCommission, as part of its continuingeffort to reduce paperwork burdeninvites the general public and otherFederal agencies to take thisopportunity to comment on thefollowing information collection(s), asrequired by the Paperwork ReductionAct (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.Comments are requested concerning: (a)Whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of the functions of theCommission, including whether theinformation shall have practical utility;(b) the accuracy of the Commission'sburden estimate; (c) ways to enhancethe quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation collected;(d) ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information on therespondents, including the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology,and (e) ways to further reduce theinformation collection burden on smallbusiness concerns with fewer than 25employees.

The FCC may not conduct or sponsora collection of information unless itdisplays a currently valid controlnumber. No person shall be subject toany penalty for failing to comply witha collection of information subject to thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA) thatdoes not display a currently valid OMBcontrol number.DATES: Written Paperwork ReductionAct (PRA) comments should besubmitted on or before June 17, 2011. Ifyou anticipate that you will besubmitting PRA comments, but find itdifficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you shouldadvise the FCC contact listed below assoon as possible.ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments tothe Federal CommunicationsCommission via e-mail to [email protected] Cathy. [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foradditional information, contact CathyWilliams on (202) 418-2918.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0214.Title: Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527,

Local Public Inspection Files; Sections76.1701 and 73.1943, Political Files.

Form Number: N/A.Type of Review: Extension of a


profit entities; Not for-profitinstitutions.

Number of Respondent andResponses: 52,285 respondents; 52,285responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.5-109 hours.

Frequency of Response:Recordkeeping requirement; third partydisclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required toobtain benefits. The statutory authorityfor this collection of information iscontained in Sections 154(i), 303 and308 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,831,706.Total Annual Cost: None.Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:


Privacy Impact Assessment: Noimpact(s).

Needs and Uses: The informationcollection requirements that are apart ofthis collection and are being extendedby the Commission are as follows:

47 CFR 73.3526(a) and 73.3527(a)

require that licensees and permittees ofcommercial and noncommercialeducational (NCE) broadcast stationsmaintain a local public inspection file.The contents of the file vary accordingto type of service and status. A separatefile shall be maintained for each stationfor which an application is pending orfor which an authorization isoutstanding. The public inspection filemust be maintained so long as anauthorization to operate the station isoutstanding.

47 CFR 73.3526(b) and 73.3527(b)require that the public inspection file bemaintained at the main studio of thestation. An applicant for a new stationor change of community shall maintainits file at an accessible place in theproposed community of license or at itsproposed main studio.

21739


47 CFR 73.3526(c) and 73.3527(c)require the licensee/permittee to makethe file available for public inspection atany time during regular business hours.All or part of this file may bemaintained in a computer database aslong as a computer terminal is madeavailable to members of the public.Materials in the public file must bemade available for review, printing orreproduction upon request.

Licensees that maintain their mainstudios and public file outside theircommunities of license are required tomail a copy of "The Public andBroadcasting" to anyone requesting acopy. Licensees shall be prepared toassist members of the public inidentifying the documents they maywant to be sent to them by mail.

47 CFR 73.3526(d) and 73.3527(d)require an assignor to maintain thepublic inspection file until such time asthe assignment is consummated. At thattime, the assignee is required tomaintain the file.

Under rule sections 47 CFR 73.3526(e)and 73.3527(e) the contents of thepublic inspection files are specified.The documents to be retained in thepublic inspection files are as follows:

(a) A copy of the current FCCauthorization to construct or operate thestation, as well as any other documentsnecessary to reflect any modificationsthereto or any conditions that the FCChas placed on the authorization;

(b) A copy of any applicationtendered for filing with the FCC,together with all related material, andcopies of Initial Decision and FinalDecisions in hearing cases. If petitionsto deny are filed against the application,a statement that such a petition has beenfiled shall be maintained in the filetogether with the name and address ofthe party filing the petition;

(c) For commercial broadcast stations,a copy of every written citizenagreement;

(d) A copy of any service contourmaps, submitted with any application,together with any other information inthe application showing servicecontours and/or main studio andtransmitter location;

(e) A copy of the most recent,complete Ownership Report (FCC Form323) filed with the FCC for the station,together with any statements filed withthe FCC certifying that the currentReport is accurate;

(f) A political file of records requiredby 47 CFR 73.1943 concerningbroadcasts by candidates for publicoffice;

(g) An Equal EmploymentOpportunity File required by 47 CFR73.2080;

(h) A copy of the most recent editionof the manual entitled "The Public andBroadcasting";

(i) For commercial broadcast stations,all written comments and suggestions(letters and electronic mail) receivedfrom the public regarding operation ofthe station;

(j) Material having a substantialbearing on a matter which is the subjectof an FCC investigation or complaint tothe FCC of which the applicant/permittee/licensee has been advised;

(k) For commercial radio and TVbroadcast stations and non-exempt NCEbroadcast stations, a list of programsthat have provided the station's mostsignificant treatment of communityissues. This list is kept on a quarterlybasis and contains a brief description ofhow each issue was treated;

For commercial TV broadcast stations,records sufficient to permitsubstantiation of the station'scertification, in its license renewalapplication, of compliance with thecommercial limits on children'stelevision programming. The recordsmust be placed in the public filequarterly. The FCC Form 398,Children's Television ProgrammingReports, reflecting efforts made by thelicensee during the preceding quarter,and efforts planned for the next quarter,to serve the educational andinformational needs of children must beplaced in the public file quarterly;

(1) For Commercial radio stations, alist of community issues addressed bythe station's programming. This list iskept on a quarterly basis and containsa brief description of how each issuewas treated;

(in) For NCE stations, a list of donorssupporting specific programs. The list isto be retained for two years from thedate of the broadcast of the specificprogram supported, and will be reservedfor sponsors/underwriters of specificprogramming;

(n) Each applicant for renewal oflicense shall place in the public file astatement certifying compliance withthe pre-filing and post-filing localpublic notice announcements. Thesestatements shall be placed in the publicfile within 7 days of the last day ofbroadcast;

(o) Commercial radio and TVlicensees who provide programming toanother licensee's station, pursuant totime brokerage agreements, are requiredto keep copies of those agreements intheir public inspection files, withconfidential information blocked outwhere appropriate; and

(p) Commercial TV stations mustmake an election betweenretransmission consent and must-carry

status once every three years. Televisionstations that fail to make an electionwill be deemed to have elected must-carry status. This statement must beplaced in the station's public inspectionfile. This rule codifies Section325(b)(3)(B) of the Communications Actof 1934, as amended.

(q) NCE television stations requestingmandatory carriage on any cable systempursuant to 47 CFR 76.56 shall place inits public file the request and relevantcorrespondence.

(r) Commercial radio and TV licenseeswho have entered into joint salesagreements must place the agreementsin the public inspection file, withconfidential and propriety informationblocked out where appropriate.

47 CFR 73.3526(e)(11)(iv) and73.3527(e)(13) contain recordkeepingrequirements for both full-powercommercial (see § 73.3526(e)(11)(iv))and noncommercial educational ("NCE")(see § 73.3527(e)(13)) TV broadcaststations (both analog and digital) for thecontents of their public inspection files.Stations must retain in their publicinspection file a copy of their FCC Form388-DTV Consumer EducationQuarterly Activity Report on a quarterlybasis. The Report for each quarter is tobe placed in the public inspection fileby the tenth day of the succeedingcalendar quarter. These Reports shall beretained in the public inspection file forone year. Broadcasters must publicize inan appropriate manner the existenceand location of these Reports.

47 CFR 76.1701 and 73.1943 requireevery cable television system andlicensees of broadcast stations to keepand permit public inspection of acomplete record (political file) of allrequests for cablecast time made by oron behalf of candidates for public office,together with an appropriate notationshowing the disposition made by thesystem of such requests, and the chargesmade, if any, if the request is granted.The disposition includes the scheduleof time purchased, when the spotsactually aired, the rates charged, and theclasses of time purchased. Also, whenfree time is provided for use by or onbehalf of candidates, a record of the freetime provided is to be placed in thepolitical file as soon as possible andmaintained for a period of two years. 47CFR 76.1701 also requires that, when anentity sponsors origination cablecastingmaterial that concerns a political matteror a discussion of a controversial issueof public importance, a list must bemaintained in the public file of thesystem that includes the sponsoringentity's chief executive officers, ormembers of its executive committee orof its board of directors.

21740


Federal Communications Commission.Marlene H. Dortch,Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office ofManaging Director.

[FR Doe. 2011-9251 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[DA 10-2318 and DA 11-55]

Emergency Access AdvisoryCommittee; Announcement ofEstablishment, and of Members andCo-Chairpersons, and Announcementof Date of First Meeting

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: The Federal CommunicationCommission published a document inthe Federal Register on December 15,2010 (75 FR 78244), announcing theestablishment of the Emergency AccessAdvisory Committee (hereinafter "theCommittee" or "EAAC") pursuant to TheTwenty-First Century Communicationsand Video Accessibility Act ("CVAA"),the date of the first meeting, and furtherannounced the membership of theCommittee. The Notice containedincorrect and/or omitted names ofmembers or their affiliations and did notdesignate alternates.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Cheryl King, Consumer andGovernmental Affairs Bureau, FederalCommunications Commission, 202-418-2284 (voice), 202-418-0416 (TTY),or [email protected] (e-mail).Correction

In the Federal Register of December15, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-31513, onpage 78244, column 2, correct the lastparagraph of the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION caption to read:

The Chairman of the Commission isappointing thirty-four (34) members of theEAAC. Of this number, eleven (11) representinterests of persons with disabilities andresearchers; seven (7) represent interests ofcommunication service providers; six (6)represent interests of State and localemergency responders and emergency subjectmatter technologies; three (3) representvenders, developers and manufacturers ofsystems, facilities and equipment; four(4)represent Federal agencies; and three (3)represent industry organizations. TheEAAC's membership is designed to berepresentative of the Commission's manyconstituencies, and the diversity achievedensures a balance among individuals withdisabilities and other stakeholders, asrequired by the CVAA. All appointments areeffective immediately and shall terminate

December 7, 2012, or when the Committee isterminated, whichever is earlier.

On page 78244, column 3, paragraph2 and continuing on page 78245,column 1, paragraph 1, correct the listof appointed members of the EAAC toread:

The membership of the EAAC,designated by organization or affiliationas appropriate, is as follows:

* American Foundation for theBlind-Brad Hodges

* AT&T-Brian Daly, alternate PeterMusgrove

* Avaya Labs-Paul Michaelis,alternate Mark Fletcher

* Center for Public Safety Innovation/National Terrorism PreparednessInstitute-Christopher Littlewood

* City of Los Angeles Department onDisability and National EmergencyNumber Association's AccessibilityCommittee-Richard Ray

* Comcast Cable-Angel Arocho* Communication Service for the

Deaf-Alfred Sonnenstrahl* CTIA, The Wireless Association-

Matthew Gerst* Fairfax County Emergency

Management-Bruce McFarlane* Gallaudet University-Norman

Williams* Hearing, Speech & Deafness

Center-Donna Platt* Intrado, Inc.-John Snapp* Livingston Parrish (Louisiana)

Communication District 911-RonnieCotton

* Microsoft-Bernard Aboba,alternate Laura Ruby

* National Association of the Deaf,Telecommunications for the Deaf Inc.and NorCal Center for Deaf and Hard ofHearing-Sheri A. Farinha, alternateClaude Stout

* Omnitor-Gunnar Hellstrom* Partners for Access, LLC-Joel Ziev* Purple Communications-Mark

Stern* RealTime Text Task Force (R3TF)-

Arnoud van Wijk* Research in Motion (RIM)-Cregory

Fields* Speech Communication Assistance

for the Telephone, Inc.-Rebecca Ladew* TeleCommunications Systems,

Inc.-Don Mitchell* Telecommunications Industry

Association and the MobileManufacturers Forum-David J. Dzumba

* Time Warner CableCommunications-Martha (Marte)Kinder

* T-Mobile, 911 Policy-Jim Nixon* Trace R&D Center, University of

Wisconsin (IT&Tel-RERC)--CreggVanderheiden

* U.S. Department of Commerce,NIST-Douglas Montgomery

* U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency-Marcie Roth

* U. S. Department of Justice, CivilRights Division/DRS-Robert Mather

* U. S. Department of Transportation,NHTSA-Laurie Flaherty

* Verizon Communications-KevinGreen, alternate Susan Sherwood

* Vonage Holding Corp.-BrendanKasper

* Washington Parish, LACommunications District-JamesColeman

Dated: April 8, 2011.Federal Communications Commission.Karen Peltz Strauss,Deputy Chief, Consumer and GovernmentalAffairs Bureau.[FR Doe. 2011-9337 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



[DA 11-428]

Twenty-First Century Communicationsand Video Programming AccessibilityAct; Announcement of Town HallMeeting

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In this document, theCommission announces that it held aTown Hall meeting on The Twenty-FirstCentury Communications and VideoProgramming Accessibility Act (the Actor CVAA) hosted by the California StateUniversity at Northridge (CSUN). TheTown Hall meeting provided anorientation to the Act, and discussed theadvanced communications and videoprogramming changes required by theAct.

DATES: The Town Hall meeting was heldon Thursday, March 17th, 2011 from9:20 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.ADDRESSES: The Manchester GrandHyatt Hotel, One Market Place, RoomH-I, San Diego, CA 92101.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PamGregory, Consumer and GovernmentalAffairs Bureau, 202-418-2498 (voice),202-418-1169 (TTY), orPam. [email protected] (e-mail); or JamalMazrui, Wireline Competition Bureau,202-418-0069, [email protected](e-mail).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OnOctober 8, 2010, President Obamasigned The Twenty-First CenturyCommunications and VideoProgramming Accessibility Act, Public

21741


Law 111-260, as amended by PublicLaw 111-265. The Commission hosted aTown Hall meeting at the 26th AnnualInternational Technology and Personswith Disabilities Conference, hosted byCSUN. The purpose of the Town Hallmeeting was to educate the public aboutthe Act's provisions, and answerconsumers' questions regarding the Act.The Town Hall meeting was one of themany steps that the Commission hastaken to obtain public feedback as itimplements the Act. The Town Hallmeeting at CSUN began with anorientation to the CVAA that focused onwhat the CVAA means to consumerswith disabilities. The FCC thenconducted an open dialogue on theAct's provisions, providing anopportunity for attendees to expresstheir opinions on ways the FCC can bestimplement the CVAA. For purposes ofthe Commission's ex parte rulesregarding permit-but-discloseproceedings (47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2) of theCommission's rules), any commentsmade at the Town Hall on theimplementation of the CVAA thatpertain to the Act's provisions onadvanced communications services,video description, the deaf-blindequipment distribution program, andTRS contributions by VolP providers,were deemed oral ex parte presentationsin the pending rulemaking proceedingsto which they relate. A writtentranscript of the Town Hall meeting(captured from computer-aided real-time transcription) was placed in thedockets of the relevant proceedings tocomply with the disclosurerequirements of the ex parte rules. Theevent was free and open to the public.

Synopsis

The CVAA is designed to ensure thatpeople with disabilities have access toemerging twenty-first centurycommunications and videoprogramming technologies. The Actseeks to implement manyrecommendations of the NationalBroadband Plan, and will ensure accessto advanced communicationsequipment and services, expand theavailability of hearing aid compatibletelephones used with those services,enhance the scope of and contributionsto the nation's telecommunicationsrelay services, and create an equipmentdistribution program for people who aredeaf-blind. In addition, the law will fillaccessibility gaps in video programmingthrough the provision of videodescription on television and closedcaptioning on television programmingre-shown on the Internet, ensure theaccessibility of video programmingdevices, and require televised

emergency programming to beaccessible by people who are blind orvisually impaired. As it works throughits implementation of the CVAA, theCommission is collaborating closelywith consumer and industrystakeholders through two mandatedadvisory committees.

Federal Communications Commission.Karen Peltz Strauss,Deputy Chief, Consumer and GovernmentalAffairs Bureau.[FR Doe. 2011-9339 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[WT Docket No. 11-35; DA 11-613]

Wireless Telecommunications BureauExtends Period for Filing Commentsand Reply Comments on Petition forDeclaratory Ruling Asking To Clarifythe Scope of Preemption of WirelessEntry Regulation

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Notice; extension of filing andreply comment period.

SUMMARY: In this document, theWireless Telecommunications Bureauextends the deadline for filingcomments and reply comments inresponse to the Public Notice seekingcomment on the December 3, 2010petition for declaratory ruling (Petition)filed by CTIA-The WirelessAssociation (Petitioners). ThePetitioners asked the FederalCommunications Commission(Commission) to clarify "the scope ofSection 332(c)(3)(A)'s ban on state andlocal entry regulation."DATES: Interested parties may filecomments on or before June 10, 2011,and reply comments on or before July11, 2011.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,identified by WT Docket No. 11-35, byany of the following methods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments.

* Federal CommunicationsCommission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments.

* People with Disabilities: Contact theFCC to request reasonableaccommodations (accessible formatdocuments, sign language interpreters,CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions forsubmitting comments and additionalinformation on the rulemaking process,see the supplementary informationsection of this document.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jennifer Salhus, Spectrum andCompetition Policy Division, WirelessTelecommunications Bureau, 202-418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asummary of the Commission's PublicNotice released on April 5, 2011. Thefull text of the public notice is availablefor public inspection and copyingduring business hours in the FCCReference Information Center, Portals II,445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257,Washington, DC 20554. It also may bepurchased from the Commission'sduplicating contractor at Portals II, 44512th Street, SW., Room CY-B402,Washington, DC 20554; the contractor'sWeb site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; orby calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile(202) 488-5563, or [email protected]. Additionally, thecomplete item is available on theFederal Communications Commission'sWeb site at http://www.fcc.gov.

On February 25, 2011, the WirelessTelecommunications Bureau (Bureau)released a Public Notice seekingcomment on the CTIA petition fordeclaratory ruling asking theCommission to clarify "the scope ofSection 332(c)(3)(A)'s ban on state andlocal entry regulation." The Petitionersstated that the Connecticut Departmentof Public Utility Control (ConnecticutPUC) "ordered that wireless providersmust apply for and obtain a Certificateof Public Convenience and Necessity(CPCN) from the [Connecticut PUC]before they can request permission toaccess public rights-of-way." ThePetitioners asked the Commission todeclare that Connecticut's CPCNrequirement is a form of entry regulationthat is prohibited by section332(c)(A)(3).

On April 1, 2011, the Petitionersalong with the Connecticut PUC(collectively, the "Parties") submitted ajoint request for a 60-day extension ofthe comment and reply commentdeadlines in this proceeding. TheParties state that the Connecticut PUCrecently published draft changes to therequirements at issue in this matter andthat a 60-day extension is "in the publicinterest because it will allowcommenters a meaningful period of timeto review, analyze, and respond to anyfinal actions the [Connecticut PUC]takes on the draft decision."

The Bureau finds that granting theParties' request and extending the

21742


comment and reply comment deadlinesby 60 days is in the public interest.Extending the comment period willensure that parties have sufficient timeto consider and address developmentsin this matter and the extent to whichthey moot the controversy at issue in thePetition. Therefore, interested partieswill now have until June 10, 2011 to filecomments and July 11, 2011 to file replycomments as opposed to the April 11,2011 and May 11, 2011 deadlines setforth in the Public Notice.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of theCommission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415,1.419, interested parties may filecomments and reply comments on orbefore the dates indicated above.Comments may be filed using: (1) TheCommission's Electronic CommentFiling System (ECFS), (2) the FederalGovernment's eRulemaking Portal, or(3) by filing paper copies. See ElectronicFiling of Documents in RulemakingProceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

* Electronic Filers: Comments may befiled electronically using the Internet byaccessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the FederaleRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

* Paper Filers: Parties who choose tofile by paper must file an original andfour copies of each filing. If more thanone docket or rulemaking numberappears in the caption of thisproceeding, filers must submit twoadditional copies for each additionaldocket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand ormessenger delivery, by commercialovernight courier, or by first-class orovernight U.S. Postal Service mail(although we continue to experiencedelays in receiving U.S. Postal Servicemail). All filings must be addressed tothe Commission's Secretary, Office ofthe Secretary, Federal CommunicationsCommission.

* All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for theCommission's Secretary must bedelivered to FCC Headquarters at 44512th St., SW., Room TW-A325,Washington, DC 20554. The filing hoursare 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveriesmust be held together with rubber bandsor fasteners. Any envelopes must bedisposed of before entering the building.

* Commercial overnight mail (otherthan U.S. Postal Service Express Mailand Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,MD 20743.

* U.S. Postal Service first-class,Express, and Priority mail must beaddressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To requestmaterials in accessible formats forpeople with disabilities (braille, largeprint, electronic files, audio format),send an e-mail to [email protected] or callthe Consumer & Governmental AffairsBureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Federal Communications Commission.Nese Guendelsberger,Chief, Spectrum and Competition PolicyDivision, Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau.[FR Doe. 2011-9199 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 11-06]

Indigo Logistics, LLC, Liliya Ivanenko,and Leonid Ivanenko-PossibleViolations of Section 19 of theShipping Act of 1984 and theCommission's Regulations; Order ofInvestigation and Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Order of Investigationand Hearing.

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 41302.

DATES: The Order of Investigation andHearing was served April 7, 2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April7, 2011 the Federal MaritimeCommission instituted an Order ofInvestigation and Hearing entitledIndigo Logistics, LLC; Liliya Ivanenko;and Leonid Ivanenko-PossibleViolations of Section 19 of the ShippingAct of 1984 and the Commission'sRegulations at 46 CFR part 515. Actingpursuant to Section 11 of the ShippingAct, 46 U.S.C. 41302, that investigationis instituted to determine:

(1) Whether Indigo Logistics, LLC,Liliya Ivanenko, and Leonid Ivanenkoviolated Section 19 of the Shipping Act,46 U.S.C. 40901, 40902, and theCommission's regulations at 46 CFR part515, by acting as an ocean freightforwarder without a license or evidenceof financial responsibility;

(2) Whether, in the event violations ofSection 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984are found, civil penalties should beassessed against Indigo Logistics, LLC,Liliya Ivanenko, and/or LeonidIvanenko, and, if so, the amount ofpenalties to be assessed; and

(3) Whether, in the event violationsare found, appropriate cease and desistorders should be issued.

The Order may be viewed in itsentirety at http://www.fmc.gov.

Karen V. Gregory,Secretary.

[FR Doe. 2011-9282 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


GENERAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0200; Docket 2011-0001; Sequence 1]

General Services AdministrationAcquisition Regulation; InformationCollection; Sealed Bidding

AGENCY: Office of the Chief AcquisitionOfficer, GSA.ACTION: Notice of request for commentsregarding a renewal to an existing OMBclearance.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.chapter 35), the Regulatory Secretariat(MVCB) will be submitting to the Officeof Management and Budget (OMB) arequest to review and approve anextension of a previously approvedinformation collection requirementregarding sealed bidding.

Public comments are particularlyinvited on: Whether this collection ofinformation is necessary and whether itwill have practical utility; whether ourestimate of the public burden of thiscollection of information is accurate andbased on valid assumptions andmethodology; and ways to enhance thequality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected.DATES: Submit comments on or before:June 17, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael 0. Jackson, ProcurementAnalyst, Contract Policy Branch, attelephone (202) 208-4949 [email protected].

ADDRESSES: Submit commentsidentified by Information Collection3090-0200 by any of the followingmethods:

e Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit commentsvia the Federal eRulemaking portal byinputting "Information Collection 3090-0200" under the heading "EnterKeyword or ID" and selecting "Search".Select the link "Submit a Comment" thatcorresponds with "InformationCollection 3090-0200". Follow theinstructions provided at the "Submit aComment" screen. Please include yourname, company name (if any), and"Information Collection 3090-0200" onyour attached document.

21743


* Fax: 202-501-4067.* Mail: General Services

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat(MVCB), 1275 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20417. Attn: HadaFlowers/IC 3090-0200.

Instructions: Please submit commentsonly and cite Information Collection3090-0200, in all correspondencerelated to this collection. All commentsreceived will be posted without changeto http://www.regulations.gov, includingany personal and/or businessconfidential information provided.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

The General Services Administrationis requesting that the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) reviewand approve information collection,3090-0200, Sealed Bidding. Theinformation requested regarding anofferor's monthly production capabilityis needed to make progressive awards toensure coverage of stock items.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Respondents: 10.Responses per Respondent: 1.Hours per Response: .5.Total Burden Hours: 5.Obtaining Copies of Proposals:

Requesters may obtain a copy of theinformation collection documents fromthe General Services Administration,Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20417,telephone (202) 501-4755. Please citeOMB Control No. 3090-0200, SealedBidding, in all correspondence.

Dated: April 11, 2011.Millisa Gary,Acting Director, Office of GovernmentwideAcquisition Policy.[FR Doe. 2011-9264 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Proposed Collection;Comment Request

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Researchand Quality, HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces theintention of the Agency for HealthcareResearch and Quality (AHRQ) to requestthat the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) approve the proposedinformation collection project: "Patient

Safety Organization Certification forInitial Listing and Related Forms,Patient Safety Confidentiality ComplaintForm, and Common Formats. Inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521,AHRQ invites the public to comment onthis proposed information collection.DATES: Comments on this notice must bereceived by June 17, 2011.ADDRESSES: Written comments shouldbe submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz,Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by e-mail at [email protected] of the proposed collection plans,data collection instruments, and specificdetails on the estimated burden can beobtained from the AHRQ ReportsClearance Officer.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ ReportsClearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or bye-mail at [email protected] INFORMATION:

Proposed Project

Patient Safety Organization Certificationfor Initial Listing and Related Forms,Patient Safety Confidentiality ComplaintForm, and Common Formats

The Patient Safety and QualityImprovement Act of 2005 (hereafter thePatient Safety Act), 42 U.S.C. 299b-21to 299b-26, was enacted in response togrowing concern about patient safety inthe United States and the Institute ofMedicine's 1999 report, To Err isHuman: Building a Safer Health System.The goal of the statute is to improvepatient safety by providing an incentivefor health care providers to workvoluntarily with experts in patientsafety to reduce risks and hazards to thesafety and quality of patient care. ThePatient Safety Act signifies the FederalGovernment's commitment to fosteringa culture of patient safety among healthcare providers; it offers a mechanism forcreating an environment in which thecauses of risks and hazards to patientsafety can be thoroughly and honestlyexamined and discussed without fear ofpenalties and liabilities. It provides forthe voluntary formation of PatientSafety Organizations (PSOs) that cancollect, aggregate, and analyzeconfidential information reportedvoluntarily by health care providers. Byanalyzing substantial amounts of patientsafety event information across multipleinstitutions, PSOs will be able toidentify patterns of failures and proposemeasures to eliminate or reduce patientsafety risks and hazards.

In order to implement the PatientSafety Act, the Department of Healthand Human Services (HHS) issued the

Patient Safety and Quality ImprovementFinal Rule (hereafter the Patient SafetyRule), 42 CFR part 3, which becameeffective on January 19, 2009. ThePatient Safety Rule establishes aframework by which hospitals, doctors,and other health care providers mayvoluntarily report information to PSOs,on a privileged and confidential basis,for the aggregation and analysis ofpatient safety events. In addition, thePatient Safety Rule outlines therequirements that entities must meet tobecome PSOs and the process by whichthe Secretary of HHS (hereafter theSecretary) will review and acceptcertifications and list PSOs.

In addition to the Patient Safety Actand the Patient Safety Rule, HHS issuedGuidance Regarding Patient SafetyOrganizations' Reporting Obligationsand the Patient Safety and QualityImprovement Act of 2005 (hereafterGuidance) on December 30, 2010. TheGuidance addresses questions that havearisen regarding the obligations of PSOswhere they or the organization of whichthey are a part are legally obligatedunder the Federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act (FDCA) and itsimplementing regulations to reportcertain information to the Food andDrug Administration (FDA) and toprovide FDA with access to its records,including access during an inspection ofits facilities. This Guidance applies toall entities that seek to be or are PSOsor component PSOs that havemandatory FDA-reporting obligationsunder the FDCA and its implementingregulations ("FDA-regulated reportingentities") or are organizationally relatedto such FDA-regulated reporting entities(e.g., parent organizations, subsidiaries,sibling organizations).

When PSOs meet the requirements ofthe Patient Safety Act, the informationcollected and the analyses anddeliberations regarding the informationreceive Federal confidentiality andprivilege protections under thislegislation. The Secretary delegatedauthority to the Director of the Office forCivil Rights (OCR) to enforce theconfidentiality protections of the PatientSafety Act. 71 Federal Register 28701-28702 (May 17, 2006). OCRisresponsible for enforcing protectionsregarding patient safety work product(PSWP), which generally includesinformation that could improve patientsafety, health care quality, or health careoutcomes and (1) is assembled ordeveloped by a provider for reporting toa PSO and is reported to a PSO or (2)is developed by a PSO for the conductof patient safety activities. Civil moneypenalties may be imposed for knowingor reckless impermissible disclosures of

21744


PSWP. AHRQ implements andadministers the rest of the Patient SafetyAct's provisions.

Pursuant to 42 CFR 3.102, an entitythat seeks to be listed as a PSO by theSecretary must certify that it meetscertain requirements and, upon listing,will meet other criteria. To remain listedfor renewable three-year periods, a PSOmust recertify that it meets theseobligations and will continue to meetthem while listed. The Patient SafetyAct and Patient Safety Rule also imposeother obligations, discussed below, thata PSO must meet to remain listed. Inorder for the Secretary to administer thePatient Safety Act and Rule, the entitiesseeking to be listed and to remain listedmust complete the proposed formsattached hereto.

Method of Collection

With this submission, AHRQ isrequesting approval of the followingproposed administrative forms:

1. PSO Certification for Initial ListingForm. This form, which is to becompleted by an entity seeking to belisted by the Secretary as a PSO for aninitial three-year period, containscertifications that the entity meets therequirements for listing as a PSO, inaccordance with 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(a)(1)and 42 CFR 3.102.

2. PSO Certification for ContinuedListing Form. In accordance with 42U.S.C. 299b-24(a)(2) and the PatientSafety Rule, this form is to be completedby a listed PSO seeking continuedlisting as a PSO by the Secretary for anadditional three year period.

3. PSO Two Bona Fide ContractsRequirement Certification Form. Toremain listed, a PSO must havecontracts with more than one provider,within successive 24 month periods,beginning with the date of its initiallisting. 42 U.S.C. 299(b)(1)(C). This formis to be used by a PSO to certify whetherit has met this requirement.

4. PSO Disclosure Statement Form. APSO must submit this form when it (i)has a Patient Safety Act contract with ahealth care provider and (ii) it hasfinancial, reporting, and contractualrelationships with that contractingprovider or is not independent of thatcontracting provider. 42 U.S.C. 299b-24;42 CFR 3.102(d)(2).

5. PSO Information Form. This formgathers information on PSOs and thetype of healthcare providers and settingsthat they are working with to conductpatient safety activities in order toimprove patient safety. It is designed tocollect a minimum level of datanecessary to develop aggregate statisticsrelating to the Patient Safety Act,including types of institutions

participating and their general locationin the US. This information will beincluded in AHRQ's annual qualityreport, as required by 42 U.S.C. 299b-2 3(c).

OCR is requesting approval of thefollowing administrative form:

Patient Safety ConfidentialityComplaint Form. The purpose of thiscollection is to allow OCR to collect theminimum information needed fromindividuals filing patient safetyconfidentiality complaints with ouroffice so that we have a basis for initialprocessing of those complaints.

In addition, AHRQ is requestingapproval for a set of common definitionsand reporting formats (hereafterCommon Formats). Pursuant to 42U.S.C. 299b-23(b), AHRQ coordinatesthe development of the CommonFormats that allow PSOs and health careproviders to voluntarily collect andsubmit standardized informationregarding patient safety events.

Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

While there are a number ofinformation collection forms describedbelow, they will be implemented atdifferent times and frequency due to thevoluntary nature of seeking listing as aPSO and using the Common Formats.Exhibit 1 shows the estimatedannualized burden hours for therespondent to provide the requestedinformation, and Exhibit 2 shows theestimated annualized cost burdenassociated with the respondents' time toprovide the requested information. Thetotal burden hours are estimated to be75,764 hours annually and the total costburden is estimated to be $2,538,852annually.

PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form

The average annual burden for thecollection of information requested bythe certification forms for initial listingis based upon a total average estimate of15 respondents per year and anestimated time of 18 hours per response.This collection of information takesplace on an ongoing basis.

Certification for Continued Listing Form

The average annual burden for thecollection of information requested bythe certification form for continuedlisting is based upon the estimate that90% of the listed PSOs during the3 years of this clearance, or 24 PSOsannually, will submit forms with anestimated time of eight hours perresponse. The Certification forContinued Listing Form will becompleted by any interested PSO atleast 75 days before the end of itscurrent three-year listing period.

Two Bona Fide Contracts RequirementCertification

The average annual burden for thecollection of information requested bythe two-contract requirement is basedupon an estimate of 40 respondents peryear and an estimated one hour perresponse. This collection of informationtakes place when the PSO notifies theSecretary that it has entered into twocontracts.

Disclosure Statement Form

AHRQ assumes that only a smallpercentage of entities will need to file adisclosure form. However, AHRQ isproviding a high estimate of 7respondents annually and thuspresumably overestimating respondentburden. The average annual burdenestimate of 21 hours for the collectionof information requested by thedisclosure form is based upon anestimated three hours per response. Thisinformation collection takes place whena PSO first reports having any of thespecified types of additionalrelationships with a health careprovider with which it has a contract tocarry out patient safety activities.

Information Form

The overall annual burden estimate of240 hours for the collection ofinformation requested by the PSOInformation Form is based upon anestimate of 80 respondents per year andan estimated three hours per response.This information collection will beginin 2011; newly listed PSOs will firstreport in the calendar year after theirlisting by the HHS Secretary.

Patient Safety ConfidentialityComplaint Form

The overall annual burden estimate of1 hour for the collection of informationrequested by the form is based on anestimate of two respondents per yearand an estimated 20 minutes perresponse. OCR's information collectionusing this form will not begin until afterthere is at least one PSO receiving andgenerating PSWP and there is anallegation of a violation of the statutoryprotection of PSWP.

Common Formats

AHRQ estimates that 5% FTE of aPatient Safety Manager at a hospital willbe spent to administer the CommonFormats, which is approximately 100hours a year. AHRQ estimates thenumber of hospitals using CommonFormats in the first year as 500, then750 in year 2, and 1000 in year 3, foran annual average of 750 over 3 years.

21745


EXHIBIT 1-ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Number of Number of Hours per Total burdenForm respondents responses per response hoursrespondent rsos o r

Patient Safety Organization Certification for Initial Listing Form ..................... 15 1 18 270Certification for Continued Listing Form .......................................................... 24 1 8 192Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Form ................................................. 40 1 1 40D isclosure S tatem ent Form ............................................................................. 7 1 3 2 1Info rm a tio n F o rm ............................................................................................. 8 0 1 3 2 4 0Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form ................................................ 2 1 20/60 1C om m on Fo rm ats ............................................................................................ 750 1 100 75 ,000

T otal ........................................................................................................ 918 N A N A 75,764

EXHIBIT 2-ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN

Number of Total burden Average Total burdenForm respondents hours hourly wage costrate *

Certification for Initial Listing Form .................................................................. 15 270 $33.51 $9,048Certification for Continued Listing Form .......................................................... 24 192 33.51 6,434Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Form ................................................. 40 40 33.51 1,340D isclosure Statem ent Form ............................................................................. 7 21 33.51 704Info rm atio n Fo rm ............................................................................................. 80 240 33 .5 1 8 ,042Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form ................................................ 2 1 33.51 34C om m on Form ats ............................................................................................ 750 75,000 33.51 2,513,250

T ota l .......................................................................................................... 9 18 7 5 ,7 6 4 N A 2 ,5 3 8 ,8 5 2

* Based upon the mean of the hourly wages for healthcare practitioner and technical occupation, National Compensation Survey, May 2009,"U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics."

Estimated Annual Costs to the FederalGovernment

a. AHRQ

The total cost to the FederalGovernment for the PSO forms andCommon Formats is $1,737,390 peryear, including project management andsupport for the review andadministration of the PSO forms and thedevelopment and maintenance of theCommon Formats.

b. OCR

Through an interagency agreement(IAA), OCR provides management forand support of the enforcement of theconfidentiality protections of the PatientSafety Act and the Patient Safety Rule.The cost of this IAA is approximately$300,000 annually.

Request for Comments

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act, comments on AHRQ'sinformation collection are requestedwith regard to any of the following: (a)Whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of AHRQ healthcareresearch and healthcare informationdissemination functions, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy ofAHRQ's estimate of burden (includinghours and costs) of the proposed

collection(s) of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; and(d) ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information upon therespondents, including the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response tothis notice will be summarized andincluded in the Agency's subsequentrequest for OMB approval of theproposed information collection. Allcomments will become a matter ofpublic record.


Carolyn M. Clancy,Director.[FR Doe. 2011-9252 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-90-M


Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality

Agency Information CollectionActivities: Proposed Collection;Comment Request; Generic Clearancefor the Collection of QualitativeFeedback on Agency Service Delivery

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Researchand Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As part of a FederalGovernment-wide effort to streamlinethe process to seek feedback from thepublic on service delivery, AHRQ [hassubmitted a Generic InformationCollection Request (Generic ICR):"Generic Clearance for the Collection ofQualitative Feedback on Agency ServiceDelivery" to OMB for approval underthe Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

This proposed information collectionwas previously published in the FederalRegister on December 22nd, 2010 (75FR 80542) and allowed 60 days forpublic comment. No comments werereceived. The purpose of this notice isto allow an additional 30 days for publiccomment.

DATES: Comments must be submittedMay 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may besubmitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officerby fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention:AHRQ's desk officer) or by e-mail [email protected](attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torequest additional information, pleasecontact: Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ ReportsClearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or bye-mail [email protected].

21746


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Title: Generic Clearance for the

Collection of Qualitative Feedback onAgency Service Delivery.

Abstract: The information collectionactivity will gamer qualitative customerand stakeholder feedback in an efficient,timely manner, in accordance with theAdministration's commitment toimproving service delivery. Byqualitative feedback we meaninformation that provides usefulinsights on perceptions and opinions,but are not statistical surveys that yieldquantitative results that can begeneralized to the population of study.This feedback will provide insights intocustomer or stakeholder perceptions,experiences and expectations, providean early warning of issues with service,or focus attention on areas wherecommunication, training or changes inoperations might improve delivery ofproducts or services. These collectionswill allow for ongoing, collaborative andactionable communications between theAgency and its customers andstakeholders. It will also allow feedbackto contribute directly to theimprovement of program management.

Feedback collected under this genericclearance will provide usefulinformation, but it will not yield datathat can be generalized to the overallpopulation. This type of genericclearance for qualitative informationwill not be used for quantitativeinformation collections that aredesigned to yield reliably actionableresults, such as monitoring trends overtime or documenting programperformance. Such data uses requiremore rigorous designs that address: Thetarget population to whichgeneralizations will be made, thesampling frame, the sample design(including stratification and clustering),the precision requirements or powercalculations that justify the proposedsample size, the expected response rate,methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for datacollection, and any testing proceduresthat were or will be undertaken prior tofielding the study. Depending on thedegree of influence the results are likelyto have, such collections may still beeligible for submission for other genericmechanisms that are designed to yieldquantitative results.

Below we provide AHRQ's projectedaverage annual estimates for the nextthree years:

Current Actions: New collection ofinformation.

Type of Review: New Collection.Affected Public: Individuals and

Households, Businesses and

Organizations, State, Local or TribalGovernment.

Average Expected Annual Number ofActivities: 10.

Respondents: 10,900.Annual Responses: 10,900.Frequency of Response: Once per

request.Average Minutes per Response: 19.Burden Hours: 3,383.An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required torespond to, a collection of informationunless it displays a currently validOffice of Management and Budgetcontrol number.

Request for Comments

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act, comments on AHRQ'sinformation collection are requestedwith regard to any of the following: (a)Whether the proposed collection ofinformation is necessary for the properperformance of AHRQ healthcareresearch and healthcare informationdissemination functions, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy ofAHRQ's estimate of burden (includinghours and costs) of the proposedcollection(s) of information; (c) ways toenhance the quality, utility, and clarityof the information to be collected; and(d) ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information upon therespondents, including the use ofautomated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response tothis notice will be summarized andincluded in the Agency's subsequentrequest for OMB approval of theproposed information collection. Allcomments will become a matter ofpublic record.

Dated: March, 31 2011.Carolyn M. Clancy,Director.

[FR Doe. 2011-9253 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDHUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and

Prevention

[30 Day-11-11 CC]

Agency Forms Undergoing PaperworkReduction Act Review

The Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) publishes a list ofinformation collection requests underreview by the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.Chapter 35). To request a copy of theserequests, call the CDC Reports ClearanceOfficer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to [email protected]. Send writtencomments to CDC Desk Officer, Office ofManagement and Budget, Washington,DC or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Writtencomments should be received within 30days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Development and Evaluation of EagleBooks and Youth Eagle Books forAmerican Indians and Alaska Natives(AI/ANs)-New-National Center forChronic Disease Prevention and HealthPromotion (NCCDPHP), Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Background and Brief Description

The development of effective diabetesprevention programs targeting Al/ANyouth is a compelling priority ineducation and public health. Al/ANindividuals develop type 2 diabetes atyounger ages, experience more years ofdisease burden and have a highprobability of developing diabetes-related complications. However,research shows that type 2 diabetes canbe prevented or delayed with healthyfoods and nutrition, moderate physicalactivity, and social support. A numberof health communication products havebeen developed specifically for Al/ANyouth. These include the Eagle Books,the Youth Books, and the DiabetesEducation in Tribal Schools (DETS)curriculum.

The Eagle Books are a series of fourbooks that have been incorporated intothe lesson plans for the Kindergarten (K)through fourth grades of the DETScurriculum. The materials are a result ofa project that engaged eight TribalColleges and Universities, NIH, CDC,and IHS to develop culturally-grounded,scientifically sound lessons to promoteawareness about diabetes and lifestyleadaptations. CDC is currentlydeveloping additional books for NativeAmerican youth ages nine to thirteen(the "Youth Books").

CDC plans to conduct a descriptiveevaluation of the Eagle Books and theDETS curriculum. Data collection willinvolve discussion groups and in-depthinterviews conducted during site visitsto 12 selected American Indiancommunities. Each site visit will consistof: (i) Interviews with up to 3community health representatives; (ii)Interviews with up to 2 schooladministrators from a local elementaryschool and a middle school; (iii) Onediscussion (focus) group with teachersfrom a local elementary school and onediscussion group with teachers from a

21747


local middle school; (iv) Two discussion(focus) groups with children: One groupwith younger children (grades K-i) andone group with older children (grades2-4); (v) Two discussion (focus) groupswith parents: one group with parents ofyounger children and one group withparents of older children; and (vi)Observational tours of the community.

During the site visits, respondentswill be asked to provide generalfeedback about the Eagle Books and howthe Eagle Books have affectedknowledge, attitudes, and behaviors;

how materials currently support orcould be used to support other localdiabetes prevention efforts; and how theplanned Youth Books could support theDETS curriculum. De-identifiedinformation will be collected andanalyzed by staff from CDC's NativeDiabetes Wellness Program (NDWP),with the assistance of a data collectioncontractor.

Findings will be used to identify "bestpractices" with regard toimplementation and use of the EagleBooks and DETS curriculum; to inform

the development of similar materials;and to enhance current and futurecommunity outreach and technicalassistance efforts aimed at preventing orcontrolling diabetes in Al/AN youth.

Information will be collected in anaverage of four communities per yearover three years. Participation isvoluntary and there are no costs torespondents other than their time. Thetotal estimated annualized burden hoursare 132.

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Average bur-

Type of respondent Form name Number of responses per den per re-respondents respondent (isponse

responent (n hours)

Community Health Represent- Interview Guide for Community Health Representatives ....... 12 1 1atives.

Administrators ......................... Interview Guide for Administrators Grades K-4 ..................... 4 1 1Interview Guide for Administrators Grades 5-8 ..................... 4 1 1

Teachers ................................ Discussion Guide for Teachers Grades K-4 .......................... 16 1 75/60Discussion Guide for Teachers Grades 5-8 .......................... 16 1 75/60

Parents ................................... Discussion Guide for Parents Grades K-4 ............................ 48 1 1Children .................................. Discussion Guide for Children Grades K-1 ........................... 16 1 45/60

Discussion Guide for Children Grades 2-3-4 ........................ 16 1 45/60

Daniel Holcomb,Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention.[FR Doe. 2011-9280 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Centers for Disease Control andPrevention

Health Disparities Subcommittee(HDS), Advisory Committee to theDirector, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (ACD, CDC)

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92-463), CDC announces thefollowing meeting of theaforementioned subcommittee:

Time and Date: 12 p.m.-1 p.m., April 27,2011.

Place: Teleconference. To participate,please dial 1-866-816-2692 and enterpasscode 9011361 for access.

Status: Open to the public; teleconferenceaccess limited only by the availability oftelephone ports. The public is welcome toparticipate during the public commentperiod, which is tentatively scheduled from12:55 p.m., until 1 p.m.

Purpose: The Subcommittee will provideadvice to the CDC Director through the ACDon strategic and other health disparities andhealth equity issues and provide guidance onopportunities for CDC.

Matters To Be Discussed: The agenda willinclude the following: (1) A review of thecharge and membership status of the HealthEquity Workgroup; (2) an overall HealthEquity activities update including the CDCHealth Disparities and Inequalities Report,U.S. 2011; the National Prevention Strategy;Healthy People 2020; and SocialDeterminants of Health Strategy Brief

The agenda is subject to change aspriorities dictate.

Contact Person for More Information:Leandris Liburd, PhD, M.P.H., M.A.,Designated Federal Officer, HDS, ACD, CDC,1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-67,Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404)498-2320, E-mail: LELltcdc.gov.

The Director, Management Analysis andServices Office, has been delegated theauthority to sign Federal Register noticespertaining to announcements of meetings andother committee management activities, forboth the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry.


Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and ServicesOffice, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention.[FR Doe. 2011-9241 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Disease, Disability, and InjuryPrevention and Control SpecialEmphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

The meeting announced belowconcerns Conducting Public HealthResearch in Kenya, Request forApplication (RFA) GH10-003, Panel B,initial review.

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act(Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC)announces the aforementioned meeting:

Time and Date: 12 p.m.-4 p.m., June 23,2011 (Closed).

Place: Teleconference.Status: The meeting will be closed to the

public in accordance with provisions setforth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director,Management Analysis and Services Office,CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting willinclude the initial review, discussion, andevaluation of applications received inresponse to "Conducting Public HealthResearch in Kenya, RFA GH10-003, Panel B,initial review."

Contact Person for More Information: LataKumar, M.B.A., M.P.H., Scientific ReviewOfficer, Center of Global Health ScienceOffice, Center for Global Health, CDC, 1600

21748


Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D69, Atlanta,

Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 553-8311.The Director, Management Analysis and

Services Office, has been delegated the

authority to sign Federal Register noticespertaining to announcements of meetings andother committee management activities, forboth the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry.


Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and ServicesOffice, Centers for Disease Control andPrevention.

[FR Doe. 2011-9240 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Disease, Disability, and InjuryPrevention and Control SpecialEmphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

The meeting announced belowconcerns Conducting Public HealthResearch in Kenya, Request forApplication (RFA) GH10-003, Panel A,initial review.


Time and Date: 12 p.m.-4 p.m., June 21,

2011 (Closed).Place: Teleconference.

Status: The meeting will be closed to the


Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting willinclude the initial review, discussion, andevaluation of applications received inresponse to "Conducting Public HealthResearch in Kenya, RFA GH10-003, Panel A,initial review."

Contact Person for More Information: LataKumar, M.B.A., M.P.H., Scientific ReviewOfficer, Center of Global Health ScienceOffice, Center for Global Health, CDC, 1600Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D69, Atlanta,Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 553-8311.

The Director, Management Analysis and

Services Office, has been delegated theauthority to sign Federal Register noticespertaining to announcements of meetings andother committee management activities, forboth the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry.


Elaine L. Baker,


[FR Doe. 2011-9239 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




Disease, Disability, and InjuryPrevention and Control SpecialEmphasis Panel (SEP): FundingOpportunity Announcement (FOA)CK11-0010101PPHF11, Initial Review

The meeting announced belowconcerns "Public Health PreventionFund: Streamlined Surveillance forVentilator-Associated Pneumonia:Reducing Burden and DemonstratingPreventability," FOA CK11-0010101PPHF11, initial review.


Time and Date: 12 p.m.-2 p.m., May 26,2011 (Closed).

Place: Teleconference.Status: The meeting will be closed to the


Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting willinclude the initial review, discussion, andevaluation of applications received inresponse to "Public Health Prevention Fund:Streamlined Surveillance for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Reducing Burdenand Demonstrating Preventability," FOACK11-0010101PPHF11, initial review.

Contact Person for More Information:Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., ScientificReview Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE.,Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333,Telephone: (404) 498-2293.

The Director, Management Analysis andServices Office, has been delegated theauthority to sign Federal Register noticespertaining to announcements of meetings andother committee management activities, forboth the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention and the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry.


Elaine L. Baker,


[FR Doe. 2011-9242 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Administration for Children andFamilies

Proposed Information CollectionActivity; Comment Request

Title: Evaluation of Tribal HealthProfession Opportunity Grants (HPOG).

OMB No.: New Collection.Billing Accounting Code (BAC):

418408.Description: The Administration for

Children and Families (ACF) isproposing information collectionactivities as part of the Evaluation of theTribal Health Profession OpportunityGrants (HPOG) (HHS-2010-ACF-OFA-FY-0124). Through this informationcollection, ACF seeks to conduct acomprehensive process and outcomeevaluation to provide documentationand lessons learned about diverseprogrammatic approaches to healthprofessions trainings for Tribalpopulations.

The goals of the Tribal HPOGevaluation are to: (1) Provide an in-depth, systematic analysis of programstructure, implementation and outcomesof the sites served by the five TribalHPOG grantees funded in FFY 2010,and (2) compare these data within andacross grantees to generate hypothesesabout the effectiveness of differentprogram approaches for Tribalpopulations.

Both of these goals require collectinginformation from Tribal HPOG granteesand other program stakeholders on anannual basis for three years. Theinformation collection will include datagathered through in-person andtelephone interviews and focus groups.Program operations data related to thiseffort will be collected through a Web-based performance management systemunder a separate information collection(the Federal Register Notice for thisinformation collection was published inVol. 76, No. 18, January 27, 2011, page4912).

Respondents

Respondents to the Grantee andPartner Administrative Staff interviewwill be the administrators of the TribalHPOG program, workforce developmentand TANF agencies, public and privateuniversity-based partners, and not-forprofit organizations.

Respondents to the ProgramImplementation Staff interview will beinstructors, trainers, and providers ofprogram or supportive services.

Respondents to the ProgramParticipant focus groups or interviews

21749


will be current program participants. Respondents to the Employers Respondents to the ProgramInterviews will be conducted in lieu of interview will be local or regional Completers interview will be programfocus groups with program participants employers at public or private completers.at secondary implementation sites companies or organizations that are Respondents to the Program Non-(additional locations where the Tribal partnering with the Tribal HPOG completers interview will beHPOG program are being implemented) program or have employed program individuals who did not complete thein Year 2. participants. programs.

ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES

Annual num- Number of Average burden Total annualInstrument ber of responses per hours per burden hours

respondents respondent response

Grantee and partner administrative staff interview ........................................ 35 1 1 35Program im plem entation staff interview ........................................................ 120 1 1.5 180Program participant focus groups ................................................................. 108 1 1.5 162E m ploye r inte rv ie w ........................................................................................ 60 1 .7 5 4 5P rogram com pleters interview ....................................................................... 67 1 1 67Program non-com pleters interview ................................................................ 20 1 .30 6

T ota l E stim ate d A n n u a l B u rd e n ............................................................. ........................ ... ..................... . .......................... 4 9 5

In compliance with the requirementsof Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995, theAdministration for Children andFamilies is soliciting public commenton the specific aspects of theinformation collection described above.Copies of the proposed collection ofinformation can be obtained andcomments may be forwarded by writingto the Administration for Children andFamilies, Office of Planning, Researchand Evaluation, 370 L'EnfantPromenade, SW., Washington, DC20447, Attn: OPRE Reports ClearanceOfficer. E-mail address:[email protected]. Allrequests should be identified by the titleof the information collection.

The Department specifically requestscomments on (a) Whether the proposedcollection of information is necessaryfor the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information shall havepractical utility; (b) the accuracy of theagency's estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information;(c) the quality, utility, and clarity of theinformation to be collected; and(d) ways to minimize the burden of thecollection of information onrespondents, including through the useof automated collection techniques orother forms of information technology.Consideration will be given tocomments and suggestions submittedwithin 60 days of this publication.


Seth F. Chamberlain,

Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doe. 2011-9222 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Administration for Children andFamilies

State Median Income Estimate for aFour-Person Family: Notice of theFederal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 StateMedian Income Estimates for UseUnder the Low Income Home EnergyAssistance Program (LIHEAP)

AGENCY: Administration for Childrenand Families, Office of CommunityServices, Division of Energy Assistance,HHS.

ACTION: Notice of State median incomeestimates for FFY 2012.

SUMMARY: This notice announces toLIHEAP grantees the estimated medianincome of four-person families in eachState and the District of Columbia forFFY 2012 (October 1, 2011, toSeptember 30, 2012). LIHEAP granteesthat choose to base their incomeeligibility criteria on these State medianincome (SMI) estimates may adopt theseestimates (up to 60 percent) on theestimates' date of publication in theFederal Register or on a later date asdiscussed below. This enables thesegrantees to implement this notice duringthe period between the heating andcooling seasons. However, by October 1,2011, or the beginning of the grantees'fiscal years, whichever is later, thesegrantees must adjust their incomeeligibility criteria so that such criteriaare in accord with the FFY 2012 SMI.

This listing of 60 percent of SMIprovides one of the maximum incomecriteria that LIHEAP grantees may use indetermining a household's incomeeligibility for LIHEAP.

LIHEAP appropriations for FFY 2009through FFY 2010 raised this criterionfrom 60 percent of SMI to 75 percent ofSMI for those years. The ContinuingResolutions covering FFY 2011 throughthe date of this publication havemaintained this criterion at 75 percentof SMI. This criterion will remain at 75percent SMI for FFY 2011 unlessCongress acts otherwise after the date ofthis publication. This criterion willreturn to 60 percent of SMI for FFY2012 unless Congress acts otherwise inproviding FFY 2012 appropriations afterthe publication of this notice. This isbecause no change to the LIHEAPauthorizing statute has been made.DATES: Effective Date: For each LIHEAPgrantee, these estimates becomeeffective at any time between their dateof publication in the Federal Registerand the later of October 1, 2011, or thebeginning of that grantee's fiscal year.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peter Edelman, Office of CommunityServices, Division of Energy Assistance,5th Floor West, 370 L'EnfantPromenade, SW., Washington, DC20447, Telephone: (202) 401-5292,E-Mail: [email protected] INFORMATION: Under theprovisions of section 2603(11) of TitleXXVI of the Omnibus BudgetReconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law(Pub. L.) 97-35, as amended, HHSannounces the estimated medianincome of four-person families for eachState, the District of Columbia, and theUnited States for FFY 2012 (October 1,2011, through September 30, 2012).

Section 2605(b)(2)(B)(ii) of this Actprovides that 60 percent of the medianincome of four-person families for eachState and the District of Columbia (Statemedian income, or SMI), as annually

21750


established by the Secretary of Healthand Human Services, is one of theincome criteria that LIHEAP granteesmay use in determining a household'seligibility for LIHEAP.

LIHEAP was last authorized by theEnergy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law109-58, which was enacted on August8, 2005. This authorization expired onSeptember 30, 2007, and reauthorizationremains pending.

The SMI estimates that HHSpublishes in this notice are three-yearestimates derived from the AmericanCommunity Survey (ACS) conducted bythe U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.Department of Commerce (CensusBureau). HHS obtained these estimatesdirectly from the Census Bureau. Foradditional information about the ACSState median income estimates, seehttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index.html.For additional information about theACS in general, see http://

www.census.gov/acs/www/ or contactthe Census Bureau's Housing andHousehold Economic Statistics Divisionat (301) 763-3243.

Under the advice of the CensusBureau, HHS switched to three-yearestimates rather than single-yearestimates to reduce the large year-to-year fluctuations that the single-yearestimates tend to generate for certainStates and the District of Columbia.HHS plans to use the Census Bureau'sACS-derived SMI three-year estimatesfor all fiscal years after 2010. For furtherinformation about ACS one-year andthree-year estimates, see http://factfin der.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp? content=acsguidance.html.

The SMI estimates, like those derivedfrom any survey, are subject to twotypes of errors: (1) Nonsampling Error,which consists of random errors thatincrease the variability of the data andnon-random errors that consistently

direct the data into a specific direction;and (2) Sampling Error, which consistsof the error that arises from the use ofprobability sampling to create thesample. For additional informationabout the accuracy of the ACS SMIestimates, see http://www.census.govlacs/www/Downloads/data documentation/AccuracyMultiyearACSAccuracyofData2OO9.pdf.

A State-by-State listing of SMI and 60percent of SMI for a four-person familyfor FFY 2012 follows. The listingdescribes the method for adjusting SMIfor families of different sizes asspecified in regulations applicable toLIHEAP, at 45 CFR 96.85(b), which werepublished in the Federal Register onMarch 3, 1988, at 53 FR 6824 andamended on October 15, 1999, at 64 FR55858.

Dated: March 22, 2011.Yolanda J. Butler,Acting Director, Office of CommunityServices.

ESTIMATED STATE MEDIAN INCOME FOR A FOUR-PERSON FAMILY, BY STATE, FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2012,FOR USE IN THE Low INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP)

Estimated State 60 percent of esti-median income for mated State me-

States foeo dian income forfou r-person forpsnfamilies

1 four-personfamilies 23

A la b a m a .......................................................................................................................................................A la s k a ..........................................................................................................................................................A riz o n a .........................................................................................................................................................A rk a n s a s ......................................................................................................................................................C a lifo rn ia ......................................................................................................................................................C o lo ra d o ......................................................................................................................................................C o n n e c tic u t ..................................................................................................................................................D e la w a re ......................................................................................................................................................D is tric t o f C o lu m b ia .....................................................................................................................................F lo rid a ..........................................................................................................................................................G e o rg ia ........................................................................................................................................................H a w a ii ..........................................................................................................................................................Id a h o ............................................................................................................................................................Illin o is ...........................................................................................................................................................In d ia n a .........................................................................................................................................................Io w a .............................................................................................................................................................K a n s a s .........................................................................................................................................................K e n tu c k y ......................................................................................................................................................L o u is ia n a ......................................................................................................................................................M a in e ...........................................................................................................................................................M a ry la n d ......................................................................................................................................................M a s s a c h u s e tts .............................................................................................................................................M ic h ig a n .......................................................................................................................................................M in n e s o ta ....................................................................................................................................................M is s is s ip p i ....................................................................................................................................................M is s o u ri ........................................................................................................................................................M o n ta n a .......................................................................................................................................................N e b ra s k a ......................................................................................................................................................N e v a d a .........................................................................................................................................................N e w H a m p s h ire ...........................................................................................................................................N e w J e rs e y ..................................................................................................................................................N e w M e x ic o .................................................................................................................................................N e w Y o rk .....................................................................................................................................................N o rth C a ro lin a ..............................................................................................................................................N o rt h D a k o ta ................................................................................................................................................O h io .............................................................................................................................................................O k la h o m a .....................................................................................................................................................O re g o n .........................................................................................................................................................

$63,88886,51569,11956,21978,66680,717

102,12783,60269,55867,70568,90887,46362,07980,60769,43473,41371,84263,82566,10968,237

101,997100,05873,43386,09955,80970,23266,07970,66571,23091,832

101,84154,50082,53167,96674,17772,81761,88172,093

$38,33351,90941,47133,73147,20048,43061,27650,16141,73540,62341,34552,47837,24748,36441,66044,04843,10538,29539,66540,94261,19860,03544,06051,65933,48542,13939,64742,39942,73855,09961,10532,70049,51940,78044,50643,69037,12943,256

21751


ESTIMATED STATE MEDIAN INCOME FOR A FOUR-PERSON FAMILY, BY STATE, FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2012,FOR USE IN THE Low INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP)-Continued

Estimated State 60 percent of esti-median income for mated State me-

States four- e o dian income forfour-person four-personfamilies 2 3

P e n n sy lv a n ia ................................................................................................................................................ 7 8 ,2 8 7 4 6 ,9 7 2R h o d e Is la n d ................................................................................................................................................ 8 7 ,6 6 9 5 2 ,6 0 1S o u th C a ro lin a ............................................................................................................................................. 6 4 ,2 2 8 3 8 ,5 3 7S o u th D a ko ta ............................................................................................................................................... 6 8 ,0 6 4 4 0 ,8 3 8T e n n e s s e e ................................................................................................................................................... 6 3 ,4 8 0 3 8 ,0 8 8T e x a s ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 5 ,5 0 8 3 9 ,3 0 5U ta h ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 0 ,3 2 2 4 2 ,1 9 3V e rm o n t ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 4 ,8 7 7 4 4 ,9 2 6V irg in ia ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 5 ,5 4 6 5 1 ,3 2 8W a s h in g to n .................................................................................................................................................. 8 1 ,7 8 8 4 9 ,0 7 3W e st V irg in ia ................................................................................................................................................ 5 8 ,7 3 9 3 5 ,2 4 3W is c o n s in ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 7 ,9 4 6 4 6 ,7 6 8W y o m in g ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 5 ,9 9 8 4 5 ,5 9 9

Note: FFY 2012 covers the period of October 1,2011, through September 30, 2012. The estimated median income for four-person families liv-ing in the United States for this period is $74,985. These estimates become effective for LIHEAP at any time between the date of this publicationand October 1, 2011, or the beginning of a LIHEAP grantee's fiscal year, whichever is later.

1 Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Census Bureau), from three-year estimates from the 2007, 2008 and2009 American Community Surveys (ACSs). These estimates, like those derived from any survey, are subject to two types of errors: (1) Non-sampling Error, which consists of random errors that increase the variability of the data and non-random errors that consistently direct the datainto a specific direction; and (2) Sampling Error, which consists of the error that arises from the use of probability sampling to create the sample.2 These figures were calculated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office ofCommunity Services, Division of Energy Assistance (DEA) by multiplying the estimated State median income for a four-person family for eachState by 60 percent.3 To adjust for different sizes of family, 45 CFR 96.85 calls for multiplying 60 percent of a State's estimated median income for a four-personfamily by the following percentages: 52 percent for one person, 68 percent for two persons, 84 percent for three persons, 100 percent for fourpersons, 116 percent for five persons, and 132 percent for six persons. For each additional family member above six persons, 45 CFR 96.85calls for adding 3 percentage points to the percentage for a six-person family (132 percent) and multiply the new percentage by 60 percent of aState's estimated median income for a four-person family.

[FR Doe. 2011-8993 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0214]

Guidance for Industry on How To Writea Request for Designation; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) is announcing theavailability of a guidance for industryentitled "How to Write a Request forDesignation (RFD)." This guidance isintended to clarify the type ofinformation the Office of CombinationProducts (OCP) recommends that asponsor include in a Request forDesignation (RFD). This final guidancesupersedes the previous RFD guidancedocument issued August 2005.DATES: Submit either electronic orwritten comments on Agency guidancesat any time.ADDRESSES: Submit written requests forsingle copies of this guidance to the

Office of Combination Products, Foodand Drug Administration, 10903 NewHampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5129,Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Sendone self-addressed adhesive label toassist that office in processing yourrequests. See the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section for electronicaccess to the guidance document.

Submit electronic comments on theguidance to http://www.regulations.gov.Submit written comments to theDivision of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Kristina Lauritsen, Office ofCombination Products, Food and DrugAdministration, Bldg. 32, rm. 5132,10903 New Hampshire Ave., SilverSpring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8936.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability ofa guidance for industry entitled "How toWrite a Request for Designation (RFD)."This guidance addresses 21 CFR 3.7 andis intended to clarify the type ofinformation OCP recommends that asponsor include in an RFD. The goal ofthis guidance is to help a sponsorunderstand what information FDA

needs to determine the regulatoryidentity or classification of a product asa drug, device, biological product, orcombination product, and to assign theproduct to the appropriate Agencycomponent for review and regulation.This final guidance supersedes thepreviously issued RFD guidancedocument which was published onFDA's Web site on August 2005.

This guidance is being issuedconsistent with FDA's good guidancepractices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).The guidance represents the Agency'scurrent thinking on how to write anRFD. It does not create or confer anyrights for or on any person and does notoperate to bind FDA or the public. Analternative approach may be used ifsuch approach satisfies therequirements of the applicable statutesand regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This guidance refers to previouslyapproved collections of informationfound in FDA regulations. Thesecollections of information are subject toreview by the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) under the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in21 CFR part 3 have been approvedunder OMB control number 0910-0523.

21752


III. Comments

Interested persons may submit to theDivision of Dockets Management (seeADDRESSES) either electronic or writtencomments regarding this document. It isonly necessary to send one set ofcomments. It is no longer necessary tosend two copies of mailed comments.Identify comments with the docketnumber found in brackets in theheading of this document. Receivedcomments may be seen in the Divisionof Dockets Management between 9 a.m.and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internetmay obtain the document at eitherhttp://www.fda.govlRegulatorylnformation/Guidances/ucm122047.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

Dated: April 11, 2011.Leslie Kux,Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doe. 2011-9261 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-201 1 -N-0240]

Site Tours Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,HHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Food and DrugAdministration (FDA), Center forTobacco Products (CTP) is announcinga notice for participation in its SiteTours Program. This program isintended to give CTP staff anopportunity to visit facilities involvedin the growing, processing, ormanufacturing of tobacco or tobaccoproducts. These visits are intended toprovide CTP staff with the opportunityto gain a better understanding of thetobacco industry and its operations. Thepurpose of this notice is to alert partiesinterested in participating in the SiteTours Program to submit requests toCTP.

DATES: Interested parties should submiteither an electronic or written requestfor participation by June 17, 2011. Therequest should include a description ofyour facility, including as applicable, alist of all tobacco products processedand/or manufactured there. Pleasespecify the physical address(es) of thesite(s) for which you are submitting a

request along with a proposed 1-daytour agenda.ADDRESSES: If your facility is interestedin offering a site visit, you shouldsubmit a request to participate in theprogram either electronically to http://www.regulations.gov or in writing to theDivision of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,MD 20852.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Lucinda Miner, Center for TobaccoProducts, Food and DrugAdministration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,Rockville, MD 20850, 877-287-1373,e-mail: lucinda.minerifda.hhs.gov.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 22, 2009, the FamilySmoking Prevention and TobaccoControl Act (Pub. L. 111-31; 123 Stat.1776) was signed into law, amendingthe Federal Food, Drug, and CosmeticAct (the FD&C Act) and giving FDAauthority to regulate tobacco productmanufacturing, distribution, andmarketing. This includes, among otherthings, the authority to issue regulationsrelated to health warnings, tobaccoproduct standards, good manufacturingpractices, as well as tobacco productconstituents, ingredients, and additives.

CTP is instituting the Site ToursProgram to provide its scientific andregulatory staff the opportunity to gaina better understanding of the tobaccoindustry and its operations, includingtobacco product manufacturing andaspects of tobacco growing, processing,and storage that may affect the physicaland chemical properties of tobacco.Although FDA generally does notregulate tobacco farms and tobaccowarehouses, the Agency believes thatgaining a better understanding of theoperations performed at these facilitiesmay be helpful. The goals of the SiteTours Program are to: (1) Provide CTPfirsthand exposure to industry'smanufacturing processes; (2) learn aboutcontrol measures used by tobaccoproduct manufacturers to ensureproduct consistency; (3) understand theprocessing of different forms of tobaccoand the manufacturing processes usedfor various types of tobacco productsand their influences on productconstituents; and (4) understand howgrowing conditions, curing, storage, andmanufacturing processes mightinfluence the levels of tobacco ortobacco smoke constituents.

II. Description of Site Tours Program

In the Site Tours Program, smallgroups of CTP staff plan to observe the

operations of tobacco growers, tobaccowarehouses, and manufacturingfacilities of cigarette, roll-your-own, andsmokeless tobacco companies. Pleasenote that the Site Tours Program is notintended to include official FDAinspections of facilities to determinecompliance with the FD&C Act; rather,the program is meant to educate CTPstaff and improve their understanding ofthe tobacco industry and its operations.

III. Site Selection

CTP plans to select one or more ofeach of the following types of facilities:A large cigarette manufacturing facility,a small cigarette manufacturing facility,a smokeless tobacco manufacturingfacility, a burley tobacco farm, a flue-cured tobacco farm, a tobacco rollingpaper facility, and a tobacco warehouse.All travel expenses associated with thesite tours will be the responsibility ofCTP. Final site selections will be basedon the availability of CTP funds andresources for the relevant fiscal year, aswell as the following factors:(1) Compliance status of the requestingfacility and affiliated firm, if applicable;(2) whether the requesting facility is inarrears for user fees; (3) whether therequesting facility or affiliated firm, ifapplicable, has a significant request ormarketing application or submissionpending with FDA; and (4) whether therequesting facility will be engaged inactive manufacturing or processingduring the proposed time of the visit.

IV. Requests for Participation

Requests are to be identified with thedocket number found in brackets in theheading of this document. Requestsreceived by the Agency are available forpublic examination in the Division ofDockets Management (see ADDRESSES)between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday.

Dated: April 11, 2011.Leslie Kux,Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doe. 2011-9260 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



Health Resources and ServicesAdministration

Noncompetitive Program ExtensionSupplemental Awards

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services

Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

21753


SUMMARY: The Health Resources andServices Administration (HRSA) will beissuing non-competitive supplementalfunding to the Maternal Child andHealth Bureau's (MCHB)Comprehensive Hemophilia Diagnosticand Treatment Centers. MCHB'sDivision of Children with SpecialHealth Needs and the Genetic ServicesBranch are currently undergoing astrategic planning process. This willprovide feasible time for the MCHB to

align fiscal resources and programmaticgoals as determined by this strategicplanning process with the leastdisruption to the States, communities,and constituencies that currentlyreceive assistance and services fromthese grantees.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IntendedRecipient of the Award: ComprehensiveHemophilia Diagnostic and TreatmentCenters-12 Regional Centers (see tablebelow).

Amount of the Award: 12 awardsranging from $184,846 to $595,453.

CFDA Number: 93.110.Project Period: The period of

supplemental support is from June 1,2011, to May 31, 2012.

Authority: This activity is under theauthority of Section 501(a) (2) of the SocialSecurity Act, the Maternal and Child HealthFederal Set-Aside Program: Special Projectsof Regional and National Significance(SPRANS) (42 U.S.C. 701).

REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE HEMOPHILIA DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT CENTERS

FY 2010Grantee Grant No. Region Funding

Level

University of Massachusetts ............................................... H30 MC00037- Region 1 ............ . ............................ $312,47212-00.

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine .............................................. H30 MC00019- Region 2 .............................................................. 595,45320-00.

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ..................................... H30 MC09625- Region 3 .............................................................. 530,80802-00.

University of North Carolina ................................................ H30 MC05053- Region 4-N ......................................................... 329,98007-01.

H em ophilia of G eorgia ........................................................ H 30 M C 0001 1- R egion 4-S ......................................................... 228,85720-00.

Hemophilia Foundation of Michigan .................................... H30 MC00015- Region 5-E ......................................................... 365,25620-00.

Great Lakes Hemophilia Foundation .................................. H30 MC00032- Region 5-W ........................................................ 446,52021-02.

University of Texas HSC at Houston .................................. H30MC00029-20- Region 6 .............................................................. 455,87106.

C hildren's M ercy H ospital ................................................... H 30 M C 00040- R egion 7 .............................................................. 371,22810-00.

U nive rsity of C olo rado ......................................................... H 30 M C 00008- R egion 8 .............................................................. 32 1,92 120-00.

Children's Hospital of Orange County ................................ H30 MC00036- Region 9 .............................................................. 714,83212-00.

Oregon Health and Science University ............................... H30 MC00025- Region 10 ............................................................ 184,84620-00.

Justification for the Exception toCompetition

Since the inception of HRSA's geneticservices program, the landscape of ourhealth care system has changeddramatically. In addition, ourknowledge base for genetic medicine ingeneral and blood disorders inparticular has expanded. Unfortunately,the changes in our knowledge base andstandards of care are not currentlyreflected in what we measure throughthis program nor how they areintegrated into day to day activities thatinfluence the health of individuals withhemophilia, thrombophilia and vonWillebrand Disease and other congenitalbleeding disorders.

To better reflect the currentlandscape, the MCHB is undertaking astrategic planning process this year. Atthe end of the process, we hope to havebetter defined measures that will reflectour new plan and the goals for the next10 years. This will provide us with thebasis to expand the applicant pool as

well as improve the evidence base forthe utility of the National HemophiliaProgram.

MCHB proposes this course of actionfor three reasons: (1) To appropriatelyrespond to the directions that will beoutlined after the strategic planningprocess, (2) to provide for sufficientfiscal resource to continueprogrammatic activities at currentlevels, and (3) to maintain MCHprogrammatic support with the leastdisruption to the State, community, andMCH constituencies who are currentlyreceiving assistance and services fromthese grantees and the granteesthemselves. Without this approach, theprogrammatic changes indicatedthrough the strategic planning processwill not be outlined nor implementedfor another 3 years when the nextcompetitive process will begin. Delayingthe competition into mid fiscal year2011 ensures continuity of funding forall eligible entities, with no eligibleentity being harmed by the extension.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara

Copeland, M.D., Maternal and ChildHealth Bureau, Health Resources andServices Administration, Room 18A-19,Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane,Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone(301) 443-8860, [email protected].


Mary K. Wakefield,Administrator.[FR Doe. 2011-9269 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy andInfectious Diseases; Notice of ClosedMeetings

Pursuant to section 10(d) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, as

21754


amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice ishereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to thepublic in accordance with theprovisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,as amended. The grant applications andthe discussions could discloseconfidential trade secrets or commercialproperty such as patentable material,and personal information concerningindividuals associated with the grantapplications, the disclosure of whichwould constitute a clearly unwarrantedinvasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute ofAllergy and Infectious Diseases SpecialEmphasis Panel; Preclinical Services for theDevelopment of Biopharmaceutical Productsfor Infectious Diseases.

Date: May 11, 2011.Time: 12 p.m. to 6 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate contract

proposals.Place: National Institutes of Health, 6610

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.Contact Person: Yong Gao, PhD, Scientific

Review Officer, Scientific Review Program,DHHS/NIH/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive,Room 3246, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-8115, [email protected].

Name of Committee: National Institute ofAllergy and Infectious Diseases SpecialEmphasis Panel; Immune Response to ViralInfections.

Date: May 12, 2011.Time: 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.Agenda: To review and evaluate grant

applications.Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817.(Telephone Conference Call.)

Contact Person: Richard W. Morris, PhD,Scientific Review Officer, Scientific ReviewProgram, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room2217, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616,Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-2550,rmorrisdniaid.nih.gov.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology,and Transplantation Research; 93.856,Microbiology and Infectious DiseasesResearch, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 12, 2011.Jennifer S. Spaeth,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doe. 2011-9322 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Office of the Director, NationalInstitutes of Health; Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to section 10(a) of theFederal Advisory Committee Act, asamended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is

hereby given of a meeting of theDirector's Council of PublicRepresentatives.

The meeting will be open to thepublic, with attendance limited to spaceavailable. Individuals who plan toattend and need special assistance, suchas sign language interpretation or otherreasonable accommodations, shouldnotify the Contact Person listed belowin advance of the meeting.

Name of Committee: Director's Council ofPublic Representatives.

Date: May 6, 2011.Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.Agenda: The Council will discuss issues

related to how best to gather input from thepublic as well as how COPR can assist inpromoting K-12 education. Furtherinformation will be available on the COPRWeb site.

Place: National Institutes of Health,Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 CenterDrive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Contact Person: Sheria Washington,Executive Secretary/Outreach ProgramSpecialist, Office of Communications andPublic Liaison, Office of the Director,National Institutes of Health, 1 Center Drive,Room 331, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4837, Sheria.Washingtontnih.gov.

Any interested person may file writtencomments with the committee by forwardingthe statement to the Contact Person listed onthis notice. The statement should include thename, address, telephone number and whenapplicable, the business or professionalaffiliation of the interested person.

In the interest of security, NIH hasinstituted stringent procedures for entranceonto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles,including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttleswill be inspected before being allowed oncampus. Visitors will be asked to show oneform of identification (for example, agovernment -issued photo ID, driver's license,or passport) and to state the purpose of theirvisit.

Information is also available on theInstitute's/Center's home page: http://www.copr.nih.gov, where an agenda and anyadditional information for the meeting willbe posted when available.(Catalogue of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Nos. 93.14, Intramural ResearchTraining Award; 93.22, Clinical ResearchLoan Repayment Program for Individualsfrom Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232,Loan Repayment Program for ResearchGenerally; 93.39, Academic ResearchEnhancement Award; 93.936, NIH AcquiredImmunodeficiency Syndrome Research LoanRepayment Program; 93.187, UndergraduateScholarship Program for Individuals fromDisadvantaged Backgrounds, NationalInstitutes of Health, HHS.)

Dated: April 12, 2011.Jennifer S. Spaeth,Director, Office of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Policy.[FR Doe. 2011-9320 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



[DHS Docket No. DHS-2009-0032]

Guidance to Federal FinancialAssistance Recipients Regarding TitleVI Prohibition Against National OriginDiscrimination Affecting LimitedEnglish Proficient Persons

AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights and CivilLiberties, DHS.ACTION: Notice; final policy guidance.

SUMMARY: The Department of HomelandSecurity is finalizing guidance torecipients of Federal financial assistanceregarding Title VI's prohibition againstnational origin discrimination affectingpersons with limited English proficientpersons. This guidance is issuedpursuant to Executive Order 13166 andis consistent with government-wideguidance previously issued by theDepartment of Justice.DATES: This guidance is effective May18, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Rebekah Tosado, Senior Advisor to theOfficer for Civil Rights and CivilLiberties, Office for Civil Rights andCivil Liberties, Department of HomelandSecurity, 245 Murray Lane, SW.,Building 410, Washington, DC 20528,Mail Stop 0190. Toll free: 1-866-644-8360 or TTY 1-866-644-8361. Local:202-401-1474 or TTY: 202-401-0470.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ExecutiveOrder 13166 directs each Federal agencythat extends assistance subject to therequirements of Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, etseq., to publish guidance for itsrespective recipients clarifying thatobligation. Executive Order 13166,Improving Access to Services forPersons with Limited EnglishProficiency, 65 FR 50121 (August 11,2000). Executive Order 13166 furtherdirects that all such guidancedocuments be consistent with thecompliance standards and frameworkdetailed by the Department of Justice(DOJ). See Enforcement of Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964-NationalOrigin Discrimination Against Personswith Limited English Proficiency, 65 FR50123 (August 16, 2000) (DOJ AgencyLEP Guidance).

The Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS) adopts guidance thatadheres to the Government-widecompliance standards and frameworkdetailed in the DOJ Agency LEPGuidance and in the DOJ's ownguidance to its financial assistancerecipients. Guidance to FederalFinancial Assistance Recipients

21755


Regarding Title VI Prohibition AgainstNational Origin DiscriminationAffecting Limited English ProficientPersons, 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002)(DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). TheDepartments of Commerce, Education,Energy, Health and Human Services,Housing and Urban Development,Interior, Justice, Labor, State,Transportation, Treasury, and VeteransAffairs, the Environmental ProtectionAgency, and several other independentand Executive Branch agencies haveissued similar guidance. DHS solicitedcomments on the nature, scope, andappropriateness of the DHS-specificexamples set out in this guidanceexplaining and/or highlighting howthose Federal-wide guidelines areapplicable to recipients of DHS financialassistance.

This guidance does not constitute aregulation subject to the rulemakingrequirements of the AdministrativeProcedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553. Thisguidance was published for publiccomment in the Federal Registerpursuant to the instructions inExecutive Order 13166.

A. Response to Comments

The DHS draft guidance on DHSrecipients' obligations to take reasonablesteps to ensure access by LEP personswas published on June 17, 2010. See 75FR 34465. The comment period wasclarified to extend to July 17, 2010. See75 FR 38821 (July 6, 2010). DHSreceived 9 comments representing atleast 24 organizations in response to itspublication of draft guidance on DHSrecipients' obligations to take reasonablesteps to ensure access to programs andactivities by LEP persons. Thecomments reflected the views ofindividuals, organizations serving LEPpopulations, national civil rightsorganizations, a public policy and lawinstitute, and several legal serviceproviders.

The comments were generallysupportive of DHS's effort to issue thisguidance, and all provided constructivecomments for amplifying specificexamples, strengthening certainlanguage, and better ensuring theeffectiveness of the guidelines. Nocomments generally unfavorable to theguidance were received, and sevencomments endorsed or applauded theguidance as a general matter. Nearly allcomments noted that failure tocommunicate with or understand anLEP person can pose a risk to life, limb,and property in cases of emergency,disaster, or law enforcement activity.DHS agrees; the final guidance informsrecipients that if they provide benefitsand services or operate in the context of

emergency preparedness, response andrecovery, health and safety, or lawenforcement they should be prepared toprovide language services to LEPpersons in the jurisdictions in whichthey operate. DHS looks forward tocontinued progress, in partnership withrecipients and beneficiaries, on ensuringmeaningful access to LEP persons.

One comment urged DHS's Office forCivil Rights and Civil Liberties toprovide technical assistance torecipients on meeting theirresponsibilities under Title VI asoutlined in the guidance and to serve asa centralized resource center on modelplans and promising practices forrecipients to better serve LEP persons.As noted in the guidance, CRCL will beavailable to provide such technicalassistance and will continue to workwith the U.S. Department of Justice andother agencies to make resourcesavailable through LEP.gov (http://www.lep.gov), the Web site of theFederal Interagency Working Group,with information for recipients, Federalagencies, and the communities beingserved. Two comments urged that DHSproceed to issuance of LEP guidance forFederally conducted activities as well,as required by Executive Order 13166. Aplan for DHS is forthcoming; in themeantime, this guidance recognizes, infootnote 4, that Departmental activitiesare subject to the same four-factorframework for providing LEP access asare recipients. One comment proposedrevising draft LEP guidance prepared bythe Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) in 2002, prior to itstransfer into DHS, and consider issuingLEP guidance by other DHScomponents. DHS disagrees, andbelieves uniform department-wide LEPguidance will provide a clearerframework for recipients of assistancethan potentially conflicting guidancefrom different components. Thisguidance to recipients will apply to allDHS components.

The comments received on morespecific subjects are summarized andaddressed below.

1. Motor Vehicle Departments and MassTransit Providers

Three comments recommendedexpress mention of motor vehicledepartments, and two recommendedinclusion of mass transit providers, asrecipients with high rates of contactwith, and potential obstacles tomeaningful participation by, LEPpersons. Mass transit authorities werealready included in the draft guidance.The guidance now includes motorvehicle departments as well.

2. Detention

Five comments urged revisions to theguidance to discuss alien detentionprograms operated by U.S. Immigrationsand Customs Enforcement (ICE).Federally conducted activity, includingICE's immigration detention, is notregulated by Title VI and is not withinthe scope of this guidance. We noteagain, however, that Executive Order13166 governs DHS's own Federallyconducted activity. DHS and ICE takevery seriously the need to strengthen theprovision of language access for all ICEdetainees who are LEP. ICE detentionstandards, including detentionstandards related to health care,grievances, searches, sexual abuseprevention, and staff-detaineecommunication, require that detaineesbe provided information in a languagethey can understand. Among othersteps, ICE has increased the number oftranslated forms available andcommercial interpreter lines are used tofacilitate communication withdetainees. ICE has provided training todetention managers on Executive Order13166, and on how to providemeaningful access to LEP persons whoare detained and will continue to maketraining and resources available topersonnel that interact with LEPdetainees. In addition, LEP persons inICE detention will be covered by theforthcoming LEP plan for DHSactivities. Similarly, ICE's immigrationenforcement activities and itsalternatives to detention programs,which were addressed by severalcomments, are Federally conductedactivities that fall outside the scope ofthis guidance but will be covered by theLEP plan. Several other commentsreferred to "detention" generally, withone comment suggesting greaterincorporation of language included inthe DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance withrespect to conditions of confinementand provision of health services. Asexplained below, where DOJ is theprimary provider of Federal assistanceto recipients-as it is with recipientsthat operate non-immigrationdetention-recipients will generally bewell served by referring directly to thatguidance, which these guidelinesincorporate by reference. Because Stateand local jails and prisons are primarilyassisted by DOJ, additional references tothe unique issues presented bydetention would not clarify theguidance for recipients of Departmentalassistance.

21756


3. State and Local Law Enforcement andOther Specific Recipients

At least four comments suggestedmore expansive discussion of local lawenforcement agencies, with particularattention to programs through whichState and local law enforcement entitiespartner with ICE through a jointmemorandum of agreement (MOA) toperform certain functions of animmigration officer in the enforcementof Federal immigration law within theirjurisdiction. Immigration andNationality Act, as amended (INA),section 287(g), 8 U.S.C. 1357(g). TheMOA between ICE and participatingagencies states that Title VI, includingthe necessity of providing access forLEP persons, applies to all participatingState and local law enforcementpersonnel. The agreements alreadymake clear that law enforcementagencies have obligations to providelanguage services to LEP personsencountered in exercising the authorityunder the INA and the guidance alreadylists State and local police departmentsas examples of DHS recipients to whichthe guidance applies. Nevertheless, theguidance has been revised in severalplaces to emphasize aspects pertinent toState and local law enforcementagencies receiving assistance from DHS.

Four comments suggested that theguidance should expressly referrecipients to guidance by other agencies,including DOJ and HHS, that concludethat LEP assistance must be provided incertain critical environments. Recipientsshould look chiefly to the guidancepromulgated by the agency that is theprimary source of Federal assistance toan entity-as, for example, DOJ is forState and local law enforcement. Thus,the guidance refers to DOJ's and otheragencies' guidance. In addition, theguidance notes that it is (and isintended to be) consistent with otheragencies' LEP guidance. For that reason,DHS has concluded that specificreference to particular DHS programs,such as those related to INA section287(g), would not provide anyadditional clarity to entities covered bythis guidance. The guidance has beenrevised to direct recipients to otheragency guidance where appropriate.

In addition to revisions to theguidance, two comments proposedsubstantive revisions to all memorandaof agreement implementing INA section287(g) agreements pertaining to issuesthat may involve LEP persons includingdomestic abuse and human trafficking.While these agreements fall outside thescope of this publication, DHS iscommitted to strengthening its technicalassistance to and oversight of these law

enforcement partners in meeting theirobligations toward LEP persons underTitle VI. For example, in remindingState and local partners about theirobligations with LEP persons, ICE hasshared a host of resources, including thefollowing materials developed by DOJand available online at LEP.gov:Planning Tool for Creating a LanguageAssistance Policy and Plan for a LawEnforcement Agency, and Lost inTranslation: Limited English ProficientPopulations and the Police by BharathiA. Venkatraman, Attorney, Civil RightsDivision, U.S. Department of Justice.ICE has also made languageinterpretation resources available to itsINA section 287(g) partners.

Two comments urged that State,county, and municipal courts beexpressly included among entitiessubject to the guidance. As DHS is notthe principal source of Federalassistance to such entities, and rarely asignificant source of assistance, anysuch recipients will comply with theirLEP obligations by adhering to theguidance promulgated by the primarysource of such assistance. DOJ recentlyaddressed LEP issues in State andmunicipal courts in a letter fromAssistant Attorney General Thomas E.Perez to State chief justices and courtadministrators, available at http://www.LEP.gov.

4. Application of the Four Factors

Several comments recommendedadditional language guiding applicationof the four factors used in determiningthe extent of a recipient's LEPobligations with regard to particularrecipients or activities. With theexception of areas already discussed asimplicating only DHS conductedactivity, such as ICE detention, thesehelpful comments have generally beenincorporated into the guidance. Forexample, part V.3. of the guidance nowdiscusses the importance of beingprepared to provide language access forrecipients that provide services andbenefits or operate in the context ofemergency preparedness; response andrecovery; health and safety; and lawenforcement. encountering LEP persons.

5. Interpretation and Translation

Three comments provided suggestionsregarding forms, methods, and practicesin interpretation and translation. Thefinal guidance better reflects therelevance of accreditation andcertification of interpreters andtranslators, and to make clear thatsummarization is not an acceptable formof interpretation. The guidance suggeststhat certification of interpreters may berequired (when possible) when legal

rights are at stake. The guidance alsoreflects one comment's suggestions thatlegal advocates, civil rights groups, andsimilar associations can play a valuablerole in determining how best to providelanguage assistance services whenimportant rights are at stake. Othersuggestions, though well taken, arealready reflected in the guidance, suchas one comment's observation thatbilingual staff may not necessarily haveappropriate skills to translatedocuments.

One comment suggested DHSrecognize "back-translation" as a safeharbor practice; two others suggestedcooperation with legal and othercommunity organizations as a safeharbor. While back-translation is anexcellent technique for verifying atranslation, DHS declines to depart fromother agencies' guidance by creatingnew safe harbors. The guidance issufficiently flexible to ensure thatrecipients can readily incorporatecommunity organizations and other bestpractices to create an appropriate LEPpolicy. DHS incorporated onecomment's suggestion that recipients beurged to develop a systemic process fordetermining which documents totranslate.

DHS disagrees with one comment'ssuggestion that the guidance demandhigh-quality interpretation in allcircumstances. A rigid requirement thatdenies recipients the ability tointelligently allocate LEP resourceswould be counter-productive. Similarly,DHS disagrees with a comment'sargument that in-person oralinterpretation is always preferable totelephonic interpretation. Recipientsshould consider which interpretativetechniques are best-suited to a givenprogram or situation; one size does notfit all. Likewise, DHS does not agreewith a comment urging it to mandatethat all language services for LEPpersons be provided in the same mannerand timeframe as they are for Englishspeakers. Nevertheless, the guidanceexplains that it is more likely that arecipient is providing meaningful accessin certain cases when there isimmediate access to competentbilingual staff or on-site or telephonicinterpretation. DHS agrees with, and hasadopted, one comment'srecommendation that recipients ensurestaff are suitably trained in, and haveappropriate equipment to utilize,telephonic interpretation services.

The guidance has been revised inlight of multiple comments concerninguse of informal interpretation orinterpretation by family members, orfriends. The use of such informalinterpreters is strongly discouraged in

21757


certain situations, such as in mostmedical encounters where recipientsshould make regular use of competentinterpreters. DHS disagrees with acomment suggesting that documentationnecessarily be kept whenever an LEPperson wishes to provide his or her owninterpreter, but the guidance nowsuggests that any such choice be fullyinformed and voluntary. In addition, theguidance makes clear that recipientsneed not agree to using an LEP person'sinterpreter as the sole means ofinterpretation. In response to severalcomments, the guidance now rejectsusing minor children as interpretersexcept in temporary, emergencysituations when other options are notreadily available, and it makes clear thatwhen interpreters are provided byrecipients, they must be free of charge.

6. Language Assistance Plans

Five comments concerned writtenLanguage Assistance Plans. The DHSguidance now suggests that allappropriate staff receive a copy of theLEP plan; includes DHS's processes forreceiving complaints; encouragesinvolvement with civil rights groupsand similar associations in developingand revising a plan; and encourages thetracking of encounters with LEP personsby, among other things, languagesspoken. While many, or even most,recipients would be well advised todevelop a written plan, DHS disagreeswith comments advocating that suchplans be mandatory; however, theguidance suggests that recipients thatare likely to encounter LEP personshave a policy for providing languageaccess and that recipients communicatethe policy with staff and LEP persons.One comment suggested the guidanceencourage recipients to partner withgroups in the community to helpdetermine whether a language accessplan is necessary and in the creation oflanguage access plans. DHS recognizesthe value of this and has added languageto this guidance to encourage suchpartnerships.

Finally, this guidance suggests thatrecipients have a policy as well as animplementation plan to address theidentified language needs of the LEPpopulations they serve. Having such apolicy, however simple, can serve toguide the recipient in its services to LEPpersons and be a starting point fromwhich to plan the delivery of servicesand benefits in a manner designed toensure equal access to LEP individualsin the service area who are entitled toreceive them.

7. Enforcement and Monitoring

DHS takes seriously its obligationunder 6 CFR part 21 and 44 CFR 7.5(b)to enforce the non-discriminatoryrequirements of Title VI. The DHSOffice for Civil Rights and CivilLiberties, along with FEMA's Office ofEqual Rights and other componentoffices, will enforce and monitor efforts.As noted in the Guidance, the DHSOffice for Civil Rights and CivilLiberties and FEMA's Office of EqualRights accept complaints or inquiresrelated to a recipient's provision ofmeaningful access to LEP persons and isprepared to take enforcement action inany case in which a violation has beenestablished.

Guidance to Federal FinancialAssistance Recipients Regarding TitleVI Prohibition Against National OriginDiscrimination Affecting LimitedEnglish Proficient Persons

I. Introduction

Most individuals living in the UnitedStates read, write, speak, andunderstand English. Many individuals,however, do not read, write, speak, orunderstand English as their primarylanguage. Based on the 2000 census,over 28 million individuals speakSpanish and almost 7 millionindividuals speak an Asian or PacificIsland language at home. If theseindividuals have a limited ability toread, write, speak, or understandEnglish, they are limited Englishproficient, or LEP. The 2000 censusindicates that 28.1 percent of allSpanish-speakers, 28.2 percent of allChinese-speakers, and 32.3 percent ofall Vietnamese-speakers reported thatthey spoke English "not well" or "not atall." More recent data from the 2008American Community Survey estimatesthat 24.4 million individuals inAmerica, or 8.6 percent of thepopulation 5 years and older, speakEnglish less than "very well."

For LEP individuals, language can bea barrier to accessing important benefitsor services, understanding andexercising important rights, providingtimely and critical information to firstresponders in times of emergency,complying with applicableresponsibilities, or understanding otherinformation provided by Federallyfunded programs and activities. DHS,like other Federal agencies and theFederal Government as a whole, iscommitted to improving theaccessibility of these programs andactivities to eligible LEP persons, a goalthat reinforces its equally importantcommitment to promoting programs andactivities designed to help individuals

learn English. Recipients should notoverlook the long-term positive impactsof incorporating or offering English as aSecond Language (ESL) programs inparallel with language assistanceservices. ESL courses can serve as animportant adjunct to a proper LEP plan.However, the fact that ESL classes aremade available does not obviate thestatutory and regulatory requirement toprovide meaningful access for thosewho are not yet English proficient.Recipients of Federal financialassistance have an obligation to reducelanguage barriers that can precludemeaningful access by LEP persons toimportant government services. I

In certain circumstances, failure toensure that LEP persons can effectivelyparticipate in or benefit from Federallyassisted programs and activities mayviolate the prohibition under Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.2000d, and DHS Title VI regulationsagainst national origin discrimination, 6CFR part 21. The purpose of this policyguidance is to assist DHS recipients infulfilling their responsibilities toprovide meaningful access to LEPpersons under existing law. This policyguidance clarifies existing legalrequirements for LEP persons byproviding a description of the factorsDHS recipients should consider infulfilling their responsibilities to LEPpersons. 2 These are the same criteriaDHS uses in evaluating whetherrecipients are in compliance with TitleVI and its regulations.

Consistency among agencies of theFederal Government is particularlyimportant. Inconsistency orcontradictory guidance could confuserecipients of Federal funds andneedlessly increase costs withoutrendering the meaningful access for LEPpersons that this guidance is designed toaddress. This guidance is consistentwith both the 2000 DOJ Agency LEPGuidance and the 2002 DOJ Recipient

1 DHS recognizes that many recipients hadlanguage assistance programs in place prior to theissuance of Executive Order 13166. This policyguidance provides a uniform framework for DHSrecipients to integrate, formalize, and assess thecontinued vitality of these existing and possiblyadditional reasonable efforts based on the nature ofits program or activity, the current needs of the LEPpopulation it encounters, and its prior experiencein providing language services in the community itserves.

2 The policy guidance is not a regulation but

rather a guide. Title VI and its implementingregulations require that recipients take responsiblesteps to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons.This guidance provides an analytical frameworkthat recipients may use to determine how best tocomply with statutory and regulatory obligations toprovide meaningful access to the benefits, services,information, and other important portions of theirprograms and activities for individuals who arelimited English proficient.

21758


LEP Guidance. This guidance,moreover, includes additionalinformation, resources, and guidancethat have been developed by the FederalGovernment in the years that havefollowed the publication of ExecutiveOrder 13166 and the DOJ guidance.

As with most government initiatives,providing meaningful access for LEPpersons requires balancing severalprinciples. While this guidancediscusses that balance in some detail, itis important to note the basic principles.First, we must ensure that Federallyassisted programs aimed at theAmerican public do not leave somebehind simply because they facechallenges communicating in English.This is of particular importancebecause, in many cases, LEP individualsform a substantial portion of thoseindividuals encountered in Federallyassisted programs. Second, we mustachieve this goal while findingconstructive methods to reduce thecosts of LEP requirements on smallbusinesses, small local governments, orsmall non-profits that receive Federalfinancial assistance.

There are many productive steps thatthe Federal Government, eithercollectively or as individual grantagencies, can take to help recipientsreduce the costs of language serviceswithout sacrificing meaningful accessfor LEP persons. Without these steps,certain smaller grantees may wellchoose not to participate in Federallyassisted programs, threatening thecritical functions that the programsstrive to provide. DHS is committed toworking with its recipients to provideinformation on language assistancemeasures, resources, and activities thatcan effectively be shared or otherwisemade available to recipients. Inaddition, the Federal InteragencyWorking Group on LEP has developed aWeb site, http://www.lep.gov, whichassists in disseminating this informationto recipients, Federal agencies, and thecommunities being served.

II Legal Authority

Section 601 of Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d,provides that no person shall "on theground of race, color, or national origin,be excluded from participation in, bedenied the benefits of, or be subjectedto discrimination under any program oractivity receiving Federal financialassistance." Section 602 authorizes anddirects Federal agencies that areempowered to extend Federal financialassistance to any program or activity "toeffectuate the provisions of [section 601]* * * by issuing rules, regulations, or

orders of general applicability." 42U.S.C. 2000d-1.

DHS regulations promulgatedpursuant to section 602 forbid recipientsfrom "utiliz[ing] criteria or methods ofadministration which have the effect ofsubjecting persons to discriminationbecause of their race, color, or nationalorigin, or have the effect of defeating orsubstantially impairing accomplishmentof the objectives of the program withrespect to individuals of a particularrace, color, or national origin." 6 CFR21.5(b)(2).

The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols,414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted aregulation promulgated by the formerDepartment of Health, Education, andWelfare, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), which issimilar to the DHS Title VI interimregulation, 6 CFR part 21, to hold thatTitle VI prohibits conduct that has adisproportionate effect on LEP personsbecause such conduct constitutesnational-origin discrimination. In Lau, aSan Francisco school district that had asignificant number of non-Englishspeaking students of Chinese origin wasrequired to take reasonable steps toprovide them with a meaningfulopportunity to participate in Federallyfunded educational programs.

On August 11, 2000, the Presidentsigned Executive Order 13166,Improving Access to Services forPersons with Limited EnglishProficiency, 65 FR 50121 (August 11,2000). Under that order, every Federalagency that provides financialassistance to non-Federal entities mustpublish guidance on how theirrecipients can provide meaningfulaccess to LEP persons and thus complywith Title VI regulations forbiddingfunding recipients from "restrict[ing] anindividual in any way in the enjoymentof any advantage or privilege enjoyed byothers receiving any service, financialaid, or other benefit under the program"or from "utiliz[ing] criteria or methodsof administration which have the effectof subjecting individuals todiscrimination because of their race,color, or national origin, or have theeffect of defeating or substantiallyimpairing accomplishment of theobjectives of the program as respectsindividuals of a particular race, color, ornational origin."

At the same time, DOJ providedfurther guidance to Executive Agencycivil rights officers, setting forth generalprinciples for agencies to apply indeveloping guidance documents forrecipients pursuant to the ExecutiveOrder. Enforcement of Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964 National OriginDiscrimination Against Persons WithLimited English Proficiency, 65 FR

50123 (August 16, 2000) (DOJ AgencyLEP Guidance).

Subsequently, the Supreme Courtdecided that Title VI does not create aprivate right of action to enforceregulations promulgated under Section602. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S.275, 293 (2001). Federal agencies raisedquestions regarding the requirements ofthe Executive Order, in light of theSupreme Court's decision in Alexanderv. Sandoval. On October 26, 2001, DOJ'sAssistant Attorney General for the CivilRights Division advised agency GeneralCounsels and civil rights directors,clarifying and reaffirming the DOJAgency LEP Guidance in light ofSandoval.3 The Assistant AttorneyGeneral stated that because Sandovaldid not invalidate any Title VIregulations that proscribe conduct thathas a disparate impact on coveredgroups-the types of regulations thatform the legal basis for the part ofExecutive Order 13166 that applies toFederally assisted programs andactivities-the Executive Order remainsin force. Mindful of the limitations onbringing a private action to enforce TitleVI regulations addressing disparateimpact, DHS is committed to vigorouslyenforcing the requirements of Title VIand its implementing regulations onbehalf of LEP beneficiaries and otherLEP persons encountered by DHSassisted agencies and entities.

DOJ developed further guidance forrecipients of financial assistance fromthat agency. Guidance to FederalFinancial Assistance RecipientsRegarding Title VI Prohibition AgainstNational Origin DiscriminationAffecting Limited English ProficientPersons, 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002)(DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance).

This guidance document is publishedpursuant to Executive Order 13166 andreflects the Assistant Attorney General's

3 The memorandum noted that some commentershave interpreted Sandoval as impliedly strikingdown the disparate-impact regulations promulgatedunder Title VI that form the basis for the part ofExecutive Order 13166 that applies to Federallyassisted programs and activities. See, e.g.,Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286, 286 n.6 ("[W]e assumefor purposes of this decision that § 602 confers theauthority to promulgate disparate-impactregulations;. * * * We cannot help observing,however, how strange it is to say that disparate

-

impact regulations are 'inspired by, at the serviceor, and inseparably intertwined with' § 601 * * *when § 601 permits the very behavior that theregulations forbid."). The memorandum, however,made clear that DOJ disagreed with thecommenters' interpretation. Sandoval holdsprincipally that there is no private right of actionto enforce Title VI disparate-impact regulations.The court explicitly stated in Sandoval that it didnot address the validity of those regulations orExecutive Order 13166 or otherwise limit theauthority and responsibility of Federal grantagencies to enforce their own implementingregulations. 532 U.S. at 279.

21759


October 26, 2001, clarifyingmemorandum.

III. Covered Recipients

DHS regulations, 6 CFR 21.5(b)(2) and44 CFR 7.5(b), require all recipients ofFederal financial assistance from DHS toprovide meaningful access to LEPpersons. 4 Federal financial assistanceincludes grants, training, use ofequipment, donations of surplusproperty, and other assistance.Examples of recipients of DHSassistance include, but are not limitedto:

a. State and local fire departments;b. State and local police departments;c. State and local emergency

management agencies;d. State and local governments,

together with certain qualified privatenon-profit organizations, when theyreceive assistance pursuant to aPresidential declaration of disaster oremergency;

e. Certain non-profit agencies thatreceive funding under the EmergencyFood and Shelter Program;

f. Mass transit authorities;g. Community Emergency Response

Teams (CERT), which conduct trainingand other activities to enhanceindividual, community, family, andworkplace preparedness;

h. State and local departments thatoperate jails and prisons;

i. Coast Guard assisted boating safetyprograms;

j. Entities that receive specializedtraining through the Federal LawEnforcement Training Center (FLETC);

k. Intercity bus programs; and1. State motor vehicle departments.The Catalogue of Federal Domestic

Assistance (CFDA) contains currentinformation on DHS Federal financialassistance and can be found at http://www.cfda.gov/. Sub-recipients likewiseare covered when Federal funds arepassed through from one recipient to asub-recipient.

Coverage extends to a recipient'sentire program or activity, i.e. to allparts of a recipient's operations. This istrue even if only one part of therecipient receives the Federalassistance. 5 For example, if DHSprovides assistance to a particulardivision of a State emergency

4 Pursuant to Executive Order 13166, themeaningful access requirement of the Title VIregulations and the four-factor analysis set forth inthe DOJ Agency LEP Guidance are to additionallyapply to the programs and activities of Federalagencies, including DHS.

5 If, however, a Federal agency were to decide toterminate Federal funds based on noncompliancewith Title VI or its regulations, this result wouldaffect only funds directed to the particular non-compliant program or activity.

management agency to improveplanning capabilities in that division,all of the operations of the entire Stateemergency management agency-notjust the particular division-arecovered.

Finally, some recipients operate injurisdictions in which English has beendeclared the official language.Nonetheless, DHS recipients continue tobe subject to Federal non-discriminationrequirements including those applicableto access to and provision of Federallyassisted programs and activities topersons with limited Englishproficiency.

IV. Limited English ProficientIndividual

Individuals who do not speak Englishas their primary language and those whohave a limited ability to read, write,speak, or understand English can belimited English proficient, or "LEP," andentitled to language assistance withrespect to a particular type of service,benefit, or encounter.

Examples of populations likely toinclude LEP persons who areencountered and/or served by DHSrecipients and should be consideredwhen planning language servicesinclude but are not limited to:

a. Persons who require the aid of alocal or State police or fire department,or other emergency services;

b. Persons who seek assistance atairports that receive TSA funds;

c. Persons who are applying forassistance under a FEMA or Statedisaster relief program;

d. Persons who seek to enroll in a safeboating course that is offered by a Statereceiving funds;

e. Persons who use mass transitservices such as buses or subways thatreceive DHS financial assistance;

f. Persons subject to or serviced bylaw enforcement activities, including forexample, suspects, violators, witnesses,victims, those subject to immigration-related investigations by recipient lawenforcement agencies, agencies, andcommunity members seeking toparticipate in crime prevention andawareness activities; or

g. Parents and family members of LEPindividuals.

V. Recipient Determination of theExtent of Its Obligation To Provide LEPServices

Recipients are required to takereasonable steps to ensure meaningfulaccess to their programs and activitiesby LEP persons. While designed to be aflexible and fact-dependent standard,the starting point is an individualized

assessment that balances the followingfour factors:

1. The number or proportion of LEPpersons eligible to be served or likely tobe encountered by the program orgrantee;

2. The frequency with which LEPindividuals come in contact with theprogram;

3. The nature and importance of theprogram, activity, or service provided bythe program to people's lives; and

4. The resources available to thegrantee/recipient and costs.

As indicated above, the intent of thisguidance is to suggest a balance thatensures meaningful access by LEPpersons to critical services while notimposing undue burdens on smallbusiness, small local governments, orsmall non-profits.

After applying the above four-factoranalysis, a recipient may conclude thatdifferent language assistance measuresare sufficient for the different types ofprograms or activities in which itengages. For instance, some of arecipient's activities will be moreimportant than others and/or havegreater impact on or contact with LEPpersons, and thus may require more inthe way of language assistance. Theflexibility that recipients have inaddressing the needs of the LEPpopulations they serve does notdiminish, and should not be used tominimize, the obligation that thoseneeds be addressed. DHS recipientsshould apply the four factors to thevarious kinds of contacts that they havewith the public to assess language needsand decide what reasonable steps theyshould take to ensure meaningful accessfor LEP persons.

1. The Number or Proportion of LEPPersons Served or Encountered in theEligible Service Population

One factor in determining whatlanguage services recipients shouldprovide is the number or proportion ofLEP persons from a particular languagegroup served or encountered in theeligible service population. The greaterthe number or proportion of these LEPpersons, the more likely languageservices are needed. Ordinarily, persons"eligible to be served, or likely to bedirectly affected, by" a recipient'sprogram or activity are those who areserved or encountered in the eligibleservice population. This population willbe program-specific, and includespersons who are in the geographic areathat has been approved by a Federalgrant agency as the recipient's servicearea. However, where, for instance, afire station serves a large LEPpopulation, the appropriate service area

21760


is most likely the area served by thatstation, and not the entire populationserved by the agency. Where no servicearea has previously been approved, therelevant service area may be that whichis approved by State or local authoritiesor designated by the recipient itself,provided that these designations do notthemselves discriminatorily excludecertain populations. When consideringthe number or proportion of LEPindividuals in a service area, recipientsshould consider LEP parent(s) whentheir English-proficient or LEP minorchildren and dependents access orencounter the recipients' services.

Recipients should first examine theirprior experiences with LEP encountersand determine the breadth and scope oflanguage services that were needed. Inconducting this analysis, it is importantto include language minoritypopulations that are eligible for theirprograms or activities but may beunderserved because of existinglanguage barriers. Other data should beconsulted to refine or validate arecipient's prior experience, includingthe latest census data for the areaserved, and data from school systems,community organizations, and State andlocal governments. 6 Communityagencies, school systems, religiousorganizations, legal aid entities, andothers can often assist in identifyingpopulations for whom outreach isneeded and who would benefit from therecipients' programs and activities iflanguage services were provided.

2. The Frequency With Which LEPIndividuals Come in Contact With theProgram

Recipients should assess, asaccurately as possible, the frequencywith which they have or should havecontact with an LEP individual fromdifferent language groups seekingassistance. The more frequent thecontact with a particular languagegroup, the more likely that enhancedlanguage services in that language areneeded. The steps that are reasonablefor a recipient that serves an LEP personon a one-time basis will be verydifferent than those expected from a

6 The focus of the analysis is on lack of Englishproficiency, not the ability to speak more than onelanguage. Note that demographic data may indicatethe most frequently spoken languages other thanEnglish and the percentage of people who speakthat language who speak or understand English lessthan well. Some of the most commonly spokenlanguages other than English may be spoken bypeople who are also overwhelmingly proficient inEnglish. Thus, they may not be the languagesspoken most frequently by limited Englishproficient individuals. When using demographicdata, it is important to focus in on the languagesspoken by those who are not proficient in English.

recipient that serves LEP persons daily.Many police departments and masstransit authorities, for example, mayexpect high rates of contact with LEPindividuals. It is also advisable toconsider the frequency of different typesof language contacts. Frequent contactswith Spanish-speaking people who areLEP, for example, may require certainassistance in Spanish. Less frequentcontact with different language groupsmay suggest a different and lessintensified solution. If an LEPindividual accesses a program or serviceon a daily basis, a recipient has greaterduties than if the same individual'sprogram or activity contact isunpredictable or infrequent. But evenrecipients that serve LEP persons on anunpredictable or infrequent basis shoulduse this balancing analysis to determinewhat to do if an LEP individual seeksservices under the program in question.This plan need not be intricate. It maybe as simple as being prepared to use acommercially available telephonicinterpretation service to obtainimmediate interpreter services. Inapplying this standard, recipientsshould take care to consider whetherappropriate outreach to LEP personscould increase the frequency of contactwith LEP language groups.

3. The Nature and Importance of theProgram, Activity, or Service Providedby the Program

The more important the activity,information, service, or program, or thegreater the possible consequences of thecontact to the LEP individuals, the morelikely language services are needed. Theobligations to communicate withindividual disaster applicants or toprovide fire safety information toresidents of a predominantly LEPneighborhood differ, for example, fromthose to provide recreationalprogramming on the part of a municipalparks department receiving disaster aid.A recipient needs to determine whetherdenial or delay of access to services orinformation could have serious or evenlife-threatening implications for the LEPindividual. In particular, recipients thatprovide services and benefits or operatein the context of emergencypreparedness; response and recovery;health and safety; and law enforcementshould be prepared to provide languageservices whenever serving orencountering LEP persons. In addition,decisions by a Federal, State, or localentity to make an activity compulsory,such as the requirement to complete anapplication to receive certain Statedisaster assistance benefits, can serve asstrong evidence of the program'simportance.

4. The Resources Available to theRecipient and Costs

A recipient's level of resources andthe costs that would be imposed on itmay have an impact on the nature of thesteps it should take. Smaller recipientswith more limited budgets are notexpected to provide the same level oflanguage services as larger recipientswith larger budgets. In addition,"reasonable steps" may cease to bereasonable where the costs imposedsubstantially exceed the benefits.

Resource and cost issues, however,can often be reduced by technologicaladvances; the sharing of languageassistance materials and services amongand between recipients, advocacygroups, and Federal grant agencies; andreasonable business practices. Whereappropriate, training bilingual staff toact as interpreters and translators,information sharing through industrygroups, telephonic and videoconferencing interpretation services,pooling resources and standardizingdocuments to reduce translation needs,using qualified translators andinterpreters to ensure that documentsneed not be "fixed" later and thatinaccurate interpretations do not causedelay or other costs, centralizinginterpreter and translator services toachieve economies of scale, or theformalized use of qualified communityvolunteers may, for example, helpreduce costs. 7 Recipients shouldcarefully explore the most cost-effectivemeans of delivering competent andaccurate language services beforelimiting services due to resourceconcerns. Large entities and thoseentities serving a significant number orproportion of LEP persons shouldensure that their resource limitations arewell-substantiated before using thisfactor as a reason to limit languageassistance. Such recipients may find ituseful to be able to articulate, throughdocumentation or in some otherreasonable manner, their process fordetermining that language serviceswould be limited based on resources orcosts.

This four-factor analysis necessarilyimplicates the "mix" of LEP servicesrequired. Recipients have two mainways to provide language services: oraland written.

Oral interpretation either in person orvia telephone interpretation service(hereinafter "interpretation"): Oralinterpretation can range from on-siteinterpreters for critical services

7 Small recipients with limited resources mayfind that entering into a bulk telephonicinterpretation service contract will prove costeffective.

21761


provided to a high volume of LEPpersons to access through commerciallyavailable telephonic interpretationservices.

Written translation (hereinafter"translation"): Written translation,likewise, can range from translation ofan entire document to translation of ashort description of the document.

In some cases, language servicesshould be made available on anexpedited basis while in others the LEPindividual may be referred to anotheroffice of the recipient for languageassistance.

The correct mix should be based onwhat is both necessary and reasonablein light of the four-factor analysis. Forinstance, a fire department in a largelyHispanic community may need oralinterpreters immediately available andshould give serious consideration tohiring some bilingual staff. (Of course,many fire departments have alreadymade such arrangements). In contrast,there may be circumstances where theimportance and nature of the activityand number or proportion andfrequency of contact with LEP personsmay be low and the costs and resourcesneeded to provide language servicesmay be high, such as in the case of avoluntary general public tour of afirehouse, in which pre-arrangedlanguage services for the particularservice may not be necessary.Regardless of the type of languageservice provided, quality and accuracyof those services can be critical in orderto avoid serious consequences to theLEP person and to the recipient.Recipients have substantial flexibility indetermining the appropriate mix, solong as the fundamental obligation ofproviding meaningful access to LEPpersons is met.

VI. Selecting Language AssistanceServices

Recipients have two main ways toprovide language services, namely, oraland written language services. Qualityand accuracy of the language service iscritical in order to avoid seriousconsequences to the LEP person and tothe recipient.

A. Oral Language Services(Interpretation)

Interpretation is the act of listening tosomething in one language (sourcelanguage) and orally translating it intoanother language (target language).Where interpretation is needed and isreasonable, recipients should considersome or all of the following options forproviding competent interpreters in atimely manner.

Competence of Interpreters. Whenproviding oral assistance, recipientsshould ensure competency of thelanguage service provider, no matterwhich of the strategies outlined beloware used. Competency requires morethan self-identification as bilingual.Some bilingual staff and communityvolunteers, for instance, may be able tocommunicate effectively in a differentlanguage when communicatinginformation directly in that language,but not be competent to interpret in andout of English. Likewise, they may notbe able to do written translations.

Competency to interpret, however,does not necessarily mean formalcertification as an interpreter, althoughcertification is helpful. When usinginterpreters, recipients should ensurethat they:

* Demonstrate proficiency in, andability to communicate informationaccurately in, both English and in theother language, and identify and employthe appropriate mode of interpreting(e.g., consecutive, simultaneous, or sighttranslation);

* Have knowledge in both languagesof any specialized terms or conceptspeculiar to the entity's program oractivity and of any particularizedvocabulary and phraseology used by theLEP person; 8 and understand and followappropriate confidentiality andimpartiality rules; and

* Understand and adhere to their roleas interpreters without deviating into arole as a counselor, legal advisor, orother roles (particularly during theassistance application process, inadministrative hearings, or public safetycontexts).

Some recipients, such as certainprivate nonprofit organizations oradministrative courts, may haveadditional self-imposed requirementsfor interpreters. Where individual rightsdepend on precise, complete, andaccurate interpretation or translations,such as in the context of lawenforcement encounters, application fordisaster or food and shelter assistance,or administrative hearings, the use ofcertified interpreters is strongly

8 Many languages have "regionalisms," ordifferences in usage. For instance, a word that maybe understood to mean something in Spanish forsomeone from Cuba may not be so understood bysomeone from Mexico. In addition, because theremay be languages which do not have an appropriatedirect interpretation of some disaster-specific,nautical or legal terms, for example, the interpretershould be so aware and be able to provide the mostappropriate interpretation. The interpreter shouldlikely make the recipient aware of the issue and theinterpreter and recipient can then work to developa consistent and appropriate set of descriptions ofthese terms in that language that can be used again,when appropriate.

encouraged. 9 Where the process islengthy, the interpreter will likely needbreaks and team interpreting may beappropriate to ensure accuracy and toprevent errors caused by mental fatigueof interpreters.

While the quality and accuracy oflanguage services is critical, the qualityand accuracy of language services isnonetheless part of the appropriate mixof LEP services required. The qualityand accuracy of language services at aState-operated emergency assistancecenter, for example, must beextraordinarily high, while the qualityand accuracy of language services inrecreational programs sponsored by aDHS recipient need not meet the sameexacting standards.

Finally, when interpretation is neededand is reasonable, it should be providedin a timely manner. To be meaningfullyeffective, language assistance should betimely. While there is no singledefinition for "timely" applicable to alltypes of interactions at all times by alltypes of recipients, one clear guide isthat the language assistance should beprovided at a time and place that avoidsthe effective denial of the service,benefit, or right at issue or theimposition of an undue burden on ordelay in important rights, benefits, orservices to the LEP person. For example,when the timeliness of services isimportant, such as with certainactivities of DHS recipients providingevacuation coordination, food andshelter, medical care, fire and rescueservices, and when important legalrights are at issue, a recipient wouldmore likely be providing meaningfulaccess if it has immediate access tocompetent bilingual staff or on-site ortelephonic interpreters, since theseservices can prevent delays for LEPpersons that would be significantlygreater than those for English proficientpersons. Conversely, where access to orexercise of a service, benefit, or right isnot effectively precluded by areasonable delay, language assistancecan likely be delayed for a reasonableperiod.

e Hiring Bilingual Staff. Whenparticular languages are encounteredoften, hiring bilingual staff offers one ofthe best, and often most economical,options. Recipients can, for example, fillpublic contact and other positionsinvolving potential contact with LEPindividuals, such as 911 operators, lawenforcement officers, fire safetyeducators, or application takers, with

9 For those languages or interpretation settings forwhich no formal accreditation or certificationcurrently exists, recipients should consider a formalprocess for establishing the credentials of theinterpreter.

21762


staff who are bilingual and competent tocommunicate directly with LEP personsin their language. If bilingual staff arealso used to interpret between Englishspeakers and LEP persons, or to orallyinterpret written documents fromEnglish into another language, theyshould be competent in the skill ofinterpreting. Being bilingual does notnecessarily mean that a person has theability to interpret. In addition, theremay be times when the role of thebilingual employee may conflict withthe role of an interpreter. Effectivemanagement strategies, including anyappropriate adjustments in assignmentsand protocols for using bilingual staff,can ensure that bilingual staff are fullyand appropriately utilized. Whenbilingual staff cannot meet all of thelanguage service obligations of therecipient, the recipient should turn toother options.

0 Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiringinterpreters may be most helpful wherethere is a frequent need for interpretingservices in one or more languages.Depending on the facts, sometimes itmay be necessary and reasonable toprovide such on-site interpreters inorder to assure accurate and meaningfulcommunication with an LEP person.

* Contracting for Interpreters.Contract interpreters may be a cost-effective option when there is no regularneed for interpreters in a particularlanguage. In addition to commercial andother private providers, manycommunity-based organizations andmutual assistance associations provideinterpretation services for particularlanguages. Contracting with andproviding training regarding therecipient's programs and processes tothese organizations can be a cost-effective option for providing languageservices to LEP persons from thoselanguage groups.

* Using Telephone Interpreter Lines.Telephone interpreter service lines oftenoffer speedy interpreting assistance inmany different languages. They may beparticularly appropriate where the modeof communicating with an Englishproficient person would also be over thephone. Although telephonicinterpretation services are useful inmany situations, it is important toensure that, when using such services,the interpreters used are competent tointerpret any technical or legal termsspecific to a particular program that maybe important parts of the conversation.Nuances in language and non-verbalcommunication can often assist aninterpreter and cannot be recognizedover the phone. Video teleconferencingmay sometimes help to resolve thisissue where necessary. In addition,

where documents are being discussed, itis important to give telephonicinterpreters adequate opportunity toreview the document prior to thediscussion and any logistical problemsshould be addressed. It is also importantto ensure that the equipment used isadequate and works appropriately andthat staff have training or knowledge inthe use of such services.

* Using Community Volunteers. Inaddition to consideration of bilingualstaff, staff interpreters, or contractinterpreters (either in person or bytelephone) as options to ensuremeaningful access by LEP persons, useof recipient-coordinated communityvolunteers, working with, for instance,community-based organizations, mayprovide a cost-effective supplementallanguage assistance strategy underappropriate circumstances. They may beparticularly useful in providinglanguage access for a recipient's lesscrucial programs and activities. To theextent the recipient relies oncommunity volunteers, it is often best touse volunteers who are trained in theinformation or services of the programand can communicate directly with LEPpersons in their language. Just as withall interpreters, community volunteersused to interpret between Englishspeakers and LEP persons, or to orallytranslate documents, should becompetent in the skill of interpretingand knowledgeable about applicableconfidentiality and impartiality rules.Recipients should consider formalarrangements with community-basedorganizations that provide volunteers toaddress these concerns and to helpensure that services are available moreregularly.

* Use of Family Members, Friends, orOther Applicants as Interpreters.Although recipients should not plan torely on an LEP person's familymembers, friends, or other informalinterpreters to provide meaningfulaccess to important programs andactivities, in some situations LEPpersons, if they so desire, should bepermitted to use, at their own expense,an interpreter of their own choosing(whether a professional interpreter,family member, friend, acquaintance, orother applicant), in place of or as asupplement to the free language servicesexpressly offered by the recipient. LEPpersons may feel more comfortablewhen a trusted family member, friend,fellow inmate, or other applicant acts asan interpreter. In addition, in exigentcircumstances that are not reasonablyforeseeable, temporary use ofinterpreters not provided by therecipient may be necessary. However,with proper planning and

implementation, recipients should beable to avoid most such situations.

Recipients, however, should takespecial care to ensure that family, legalguardians, caretakers, and otherinformal interpreters are appropriate inlight of the circumstances and subjectmatter of the program, service oractivity, including protection of therecipient's own administrative ormission-related interests in accurateinterpretation. In many circumstances,family members, friends, or otherapplicants are not competent to providequality and accurate interpretations.Issues of confidentiality, privacy, orconflict of interest may also arise. LEPindividuals may feel uncomfortablerevealing or describing sensitive,confidential, or potentially embarrassingmedical, law enforcement, family orfinancial information to a familymember, friend, acquaintance, ormember of the local community. 10 Inaddition, such informal interpreters mayhave a personal connection to the LEPperson or an undisclosed conflict ofinterest, such as the desire to obtaingreater assistance than the LEP personfrom a locally administered mitigationprogram. For these reasons, when orallanguage services are necessary,recipients should offer competentinterpreter services free of cost to theLEP person. For some DHS recipients,such as those carrying out lawenforcement and public safetyoperations and those performingdisaster assistance functions, this isparticularly true. The same is true inprocessing applications; conductingadministrative hearings; managingsituations in which health, safety, oraccess to important benefits andservices are at stake; or when credibilityand accuracy are important to protect anindividual's rights and access toimportant services. An example of sucha case is when fire service officersinvestigate an alleged case of arson. Insuch a case, use of family members orneighbors to interpret for the allegedvictim, perpetrator, or witnesses mayraise serious issues of competency,confidentiality, and conflict of interestand is thus inappropriate. Similarly,

10 For example, special circumstances ofconfinement may raise additional serious concernsregarding the voluntary nature, conflicts of interest,and privacy issues surrounding the use of inmatesas interpreters, particularly where an importantright, benefit, service, disciplinary concern, oraccess to personal or law enforcement informationis at stake. In some situations, inmates couldpotentially misuse information they obtained ininterpreting for other inmates. In addition toensuring competency and accuracy of theinterpretation, recipients should take these specialcircumstances into account when determiningwhether an inmate makes a knowing and voluntarychoice to use another inmate as an interpreter.

21763


where an emergency medical technicianresponds to the scene of reporteddomestic violence, care must be taken toavoid using a family member forinterpretation who is the allegedperpetrator.

The use of children is stronglydiscouraged except in very limited andtemporary situations involving anemergency impacting life and safetywhen appropriate language services arenot otherwise readily available.

While issues of competency,confidentiality, and conflict of interestin the use of family members, friends,or other applicants often make their useinappropriate, the use of theseindividuals as interpreters may be anappropriate option where properapplication of the four factors wouldlead to a conclusion that recipient-provided services are not necessary. Anexample of this is a voluntaryeducational tour of a firehouse offeredto the general public. There, theimportance and nature of the activitymay be relatively low and unlikely toimplicate issues of confidentiality,conflict of interest, or the need foraccuracy. In addition, the resourcesneeded and costs of providing languageservices may be high. In such a setting,an LEP person's use of family (exceptchildren), friends, or others may beappropriate.

If the LEP person voluntarily choosesto provide his or her own interpreter, arecipient should consider whether arecord of that choice, the recipient'soffer of assistance, and the recipient'sexplanation of the risks of declining theoffer of interpretation and the benefits ofaccepting such services is appropriate.Where precise, complete, and accurateinterpretations or translations ofinformation and/or testimony arecritical for law enforcement,adjudicatory or legal reasons, or wherethe competency of the LEP person'sinterpreter is not established, a recipientmight decide it must provide its own,independent interpreter, even if an LEPperson wants to use his or her owninterpreter as well. When the recipientallows an individual to use his or herown interpreter and the recipient doesnot provide its own, the recipientshould take care to ensure that the LEPperson's choice is voluntary andinformed and that the LEP personknows that the recipient at no costwould provide a competent interpreterin a timely manner.

B. Written Language Services(Translation)

Translation is the replacement of awritten text from one language (source

language) into an equivalent written textin another language (target language).

What Documents Should BeTranslated? After applying the four-factor analysis, a recipient maydetermine that an effective LEP plan forits particular program or activityincludes the translation of vital writtenmaterials into the language of eachfrequently encountered LEP groupeligible to be served and/or likely to beaffected by the recipient's program.Such written materials could include,for example:

" Complaint forms;" Intake forms with the potential for

important consequences;* Written notices of rights, denial,

loss, or decreases in benefits or services,and other hearings;

" Notices of disciplinary action;" Notices advising LEP persons of

free language assistance;" Procedural guidebooks; and" Applications to participate in a

recipient's program or activity or toreceive recipient benefits or services.

Whether or not a document (or theinformation it solicits) is "vital" maydepend upon the importance of theprogram, information, encounter, orservice involved, and the consequenceto the LEP person if the information inquestion is not provided accurately or ina timely manner. For instance,applications for recreational programswould not generally be considered vital,whereas applications for disasterassistance could be considered vital.Where appropriate, recipients areencouraged to create a plan forconsistently determining, over time andacross its various activities, whatdocuments are "vital" to the meaningfulaccess of the LEP populations theyserve.

Classifying a document as vital ornon-vital is sometimes difficult,especially in the case of outreachmaterials like brochures or otherinformation on rights and services.Awareness of rights or services is animportant part of "meaningful" access.Lack of awareness that a particularprogram, right, or service exists mayeffectively deny LEP individualsmeaningful access. Thus, where arecipient is engaged in communityoutreach activities in furtherance of itsactivities, it should regularly assess theneeds of the populations frequentlyencountered or affected by the programor activity to determine whether certaincritical outreach materials should betranslated. Organizations such as civilrights and immigrant groups, legalservice providers, and religiousorganizations are a few examples ofentities that can provide information to

recipients that may be helpful indetermining what outreach materialsmay be most helpful to translate. Inaddition, the recipient should considerwhether translations of outreachmaterial may be made more effectivewhen done in tandem with otheroutreach methods, including utilizingthe ethnic media, schools, religious, andcommunity organizations to spread amessage.

Sometimes a document includes bothvital and non-vital information. Thismay be the case when the document isvery large. It may also be the case whenthe title and a phone number forobtaining more information on thecontents of the document in frequently-encountered languages other thanEnglish is critical, but the document issent out to the general public andcannot reasonably be translated intomany languages. Thus, vital informationmay include, for instance, the provisionof information in appropriate languagesother than English regarding where aLEP person might obtain aninterpretation or translation of thedocument.

Into What Languages ShouldDocuments Be Translated? Thelanguages spoken by the LEPindividuals with whom the recipienthas contact determine the languagesinto which vital documents should betranslated. A distinction should bemade however, between languages thatare frequently encountered by arecipient and less commonlyencountered languages. Many recipientsserve communities in large cities oracross the country. They regularly serveLEP persons who speak dozens andsometimes over 100 different languages.To translate all written materials into allof those languages is unrealistic.Although recent technological advanceshave made it easier for recipients tostore and share translated documents,such an undertaking would incursubstantial costs and require substantialresources. Nevertheless, well-substantiated claims of lack of resourcesto translate all vital documents intodozens of languages do not necessarilyrelieve the recipient of the obligation totranslate those documents into at leastseveral of the more frequently-encountered languages and to setbenchmarks for continued translationsinto the remaining languages over time.As a result, the extent of the recipient'sobligation to provide writtentranslations of documents should bedetermined by the recipient on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality ofthe circumstances in light of the four-factor analysis. Because translation isoften a one-time expense, consideration

21764


should be given to whether the upfrontcosts of translating a document (asopposed to oral interpretation) shouldbe amortized over the likely lifespan ofthe document when applying this four-factor analysis. Recipients may benefitfrom developing a systemic process foridentifying and prioritizing documentsfor translation.

Safe Harbor. Many recipients wouldlike to ensure with greater certainty thatthey comply with their obligations toprovide written translations inlanguages other than English.Paragraphs (a) and (b) outline thecircumstances that can provide a "safeharbor" for recipients regarding therequirements for translation of writtenmaterials. A "safe harbor" means that ifa recipient provides written translationsunder these circumstances, such actionwill be considered strong evidence ofcompliance with the recipient's written-translation obligations.

The failure to provide writtentranslations under the circumstancesoutlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) doesnot mean there is non-compliance.Rather, those paragraphs provide acommon starting point for recipients toconsider whether and at what point theywill provide written translations. Theseparagraphs merely provide a guide forrecipients that would like greatercertainty of compliance than can beprovided by a fact-intensive, four-factoranalysis.

Even if the safe harbors are not used,if written translation of a certaindocument(s) would be so burdensomeas to defeat the legitimate objectives ofits program, the translation of thewritten materials is not necessary. Otherways of providing meaningful access,such as effective oral interpretation ofcertain vital documents, might beacceptable under such circumstances.

Pursuant to the safe harborprovisions, the following actions will beconsidered strong evidence ofcompliance with the recipient's written-translation obligations:

a. The DHS recipient provides writtentranslations of vital documents for eacheligible LEP language group thatconstitutes five percent or 1,000,whichever is less, of the population ofpersons eligible to be served or likely tobe affected or encountered. Translationof other documents, if needed, can beprovided orally; or,

b. If there are fewer than 50 personsin a language group that reaches the fivepercent trigger in the above, therecipient does not translate vital writtenmaterials but provides written notice inthe primary language of the LEPlanguage group of the right to receive

competent oral interpretation of thosewritten materials, free of cost.

These safe harbor provisions apply tothe translation of written documentsonly. They do not affect the requirementto provide meaningful access to LEPindividuals through competent oralinterpreters where oral languageservices are needed and are reasonable.

Competence of Translators. As withoral interpreters, translators of writtendocuments should be competent. Manyof the same considerations apply.However, the skill of translating is verydifferent from the skill of interpreting,and a person who is a competentinterpreter may or may not becompetent to translate.

Particularly where legal or other vitaldocuments are being translated,competence can often be achieved byuse of certified translators. Certificationor accreditation may not always bepossible or necessary." Having asecond, independent translator "check"the work of the primary translator canoften ensure competence.' 2

Alternatively, one translator cantranslate the document, and a second,independent translator could translate itback into English to check that theappropriate meaning has beenconveyed. This is called "backtranslation."

Translators should understand theexpected reading level of the audienceand, where appropriate, havefundamental knowledge about the targetlanguage group's vocabulary andphraseology. Sometimes directtranslation of material results in atranslation that is written at a muchmore difficult level than the Englishlanguage version or has no relevantequivalent meaning.' 3 Communityorganizations may be able to helpconsider whether a document is writtenat a good level for the audience.Likewise, consistency in the words andphrases used to translate terms of art,legal, or other technical concepts helpsavoid confusion by LEP individuals and

"For those languages in which no formalaccreditation currently exists, a particular level ofmembership in a professional translationassociation can provide some indicator ofprofessionalism.

12 Indeed, it is a recommended practice to have

all translated documents proofread by a secondprofessional translator and many companiesoffering translations do this as part of their qualityreview process.

13 For instance, there may be languages which donot have an appropriate direct translation of somelegal or program-specific terms and the translatorshould be able to provide an appropriatetranslation. The translator should likely also makethe recipient aware of this. Recipients can thenwork with translators to develop a consistent andappropriate set of descriptions of these terms in thatlanguage that can be used again, when appropriate.

may reduce costs. Creating or usingalready-created glossaries of commonlyused terms may be useful for LEPpersons and translators and costeffective for the recipient. Providingtranslators with examples of previousaccurate translations of similar materialby the recipient, other recipients, orFederal agencies may be helpful.

While quality and accuracy oftranslation services is critical, thequality and accuracy of translationservices is nonetheless part of theappropriate mix of LEP servicesrequired. For instance, documents thatare simple and have no legal or otherconsequence for LEP persons who relyon them may use translators that are lessskilled than important documents withlegal or other information upon whichreliance has important consequences(including, e.g., information ordocuments of DHS recipients regardingcertain law enforcement, health, andsafety services and certain legal rights).The permanent nature of writtentranslations, however, imposesadditional responsibility on therecipient to ensure that the quality andaccuracy permit meaningful access byLEP persons.

VII. Elements of an Effective Plan onLanguage Assistance for LEP Persons

After deciding what languageassistance services are appropriate, arecipient should develop policies andan implementation plan to address theidentified needs of the LEP populationsthey serve. Recipients have considerableflexibility in developing both the planand the policy. The development andmaintenance of a periodically-updatedwritten plan on language assistance forLEP persons ("LEP plan") for use byrecipient employees serving the publicwill likely be the most appropriate andcost-effective means of documentingcompliance and providing a frameworkfor the provision of timely andreasonable language assistance.Moreover, such written plans wouldlikely provide additional benefits to arecipient's managers in the areas oftraining, administration, planning, andbudgeting. These benefits should leadmost recipients to document in awritten LEP plan their languageassistance services, and how staff andLEP persons can access those services.Despite these benefits, certain DHSrecipients, such as recipients servingvery few LEP persons and recipientswith very limited resources, may choosenot to develop a written LEP plan.However, the absence of a written LEPplan does not obviate the underlyingobligation to ensure meaningful accessby LEP persons to a recipient's program

21765


or activities. Accordingly, in the eventthat a recipient elects not to develop awritten plan but may encounter LEPpersons, it should have a policyexplaining that it is committed toproviding meaningful access to LEPpersons, and should consider alternativeways to articulate in some otherreasonable manner a plan for providingmeaningful access, including informingstaff and LEP persons of how languageservices will be provided. Entitieshaving significant contact with LEPpersons, such as schools, religiousorganizations, community groups, andgroups working with new immigrantscan be very helpful in providingimportant input into this planningprocess from the beginning. Thefollowing five steps may be helpful indesigning an LEP plan and are typicallypart of effective implementation plans:

1. Identifying LEP Individuals WhoNeed Language Assistance

The first two factors in the four-factoranalysis require an assessment of thenumber or proportion of LEPindividuals eligible to be served orencountered and the frequency ofencounters. This requires recipients toidentify LEP persons with whom it hascontact.

One way to determine the language ofcommunication is to use languageidentification cards (or "I speak" cards),which invite LEP persons to identifytheir language needs to staff. Suchcards, for instance, might say, "I speakSpanish" in both Spanish and English,"I speak Vietnamese" in both Englishand Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs ofcompliance, the Federal Governmenthas made a set of these cards availableon the Internet. The Census Bureau "Ispeak" card can be found anddownloaded at http://www.lep.gov. TheDHS Office for Civil Rights and CivilLiberties (CRCL) also makes "I speak"booklets available to recipients uponrequest. (Contact information isprovided below). Recipients will also beable to download a PDF of the "I speak"booklet and a poster from the CRCL Website (http:www.dhs.gov/CRCL) andLEP.gov (http://www.lep.gov), whichcan be printed and posted. Whenrecords are normally kept of pastinteractions with members of the public,the language of the LEP person can beincluded as part of the record. Inaddition to helping employees identifythe language of LEP persons theyencounter, this process will help infuture applications of the first twofactors of the four-factor analysis. Inaddition, posting notices in commonlyencountered languages notifying LEP

persons of language assistance willencourage them to self-identify.

2. Language Assistance Measures

An effective LEP plan would likelyinclude establishing policies forinteractions between the recipient andLEP persons and information about theways in which language assistance willbe provided. For instance, recipientsmay want to include information on atleast the following:

* Types of language servicesavailable;

* How staff can obtain those services;* How to respond to LEP callers;* How to respond to written

communications from LEP persons;* How to respond to LEP individuals

who have in-person contact withrecipient staff; and

* How to ensure competency ofinterpreters and translation services.

3. Distribution of Plan and Training forStaff

Staff should know their obligations toprovide meaningful access toinformation and services for LEPpersons. Thus, recipients shoulddistribute the plan to all appropriatestaff. An effective LEP plan would alsolikely include training to ensure that:

* Staff knows about LEP policies andprocedures; and

* Staff having contact with thepublic, or with individuals in therecipient's custody, is trained to workeffectively with in-person and telephoneinterpreters.

Recipients may want to include thistraining as part of the orientation fornew employees. It is important toensure that all employees in publiccontact positions, as well as employeeswho potentially interact withindividuals in the recipient's custody,are properly trained. Recipients haveflexibility in deciding the manner inwhich the training is provided. Themore frequent the contact with LEPpersons, the greater the need will be forin-depth training. Staff with little or nocontact with LEP persons may onlyneed to be aware of an LEP plan.However, management staff, even if theydo not interact regularly with LEPpersons, should be fully aware of andunderstand the plan so they canreinforce its importance and ensure itsimplementation by staff.

4. Providing Notice to LEP Persons

Once an agency has decided, based onthe four factors, that it will providelanguage services, it is important for therecipient to let LEP persons know thatthose services are available and thatthey are free of charge. Recipients

should provide this notice in a languageLEP persons will understand. Examplesof notification that recipients shouldconsider include:

* Posting signs in intake areas andother entry points. When languageassistance is needed to ensuremeaningful access to information andservices, it is important to providenotice in appropriate languages inintake areas or at initial points ofcontact so that LEP persons can learnhow to access those language services.This is particularly true in areas withhigh volumes of LEP persons seekingaccess to certain assistance, such asdisaster, law enforcement, medical, orother critical assistance from DHSrecipients. For instance, signs in intakeoffices could state that free languageassistance is available. The signs shouldbe translated into the most commonlanguages encountered. They shouldexplain how to get the language help. 14

* Stating in outreach documents thatlanguage services are available from theagency. Announcements could be in, forinstance, brochures, booklets, andoutreach and recruitment information.These statements should be translatedinto the most common languages andcould be "tagged" onto the front ofcommon documents.

* Working with community-basedorganizations and other stakeholders toinform LEP individuals of therecipients' services, including theavailability of language assistanceservices.

* Using a telephone voice mail menu.The menu could be in the most commonlanguages encountered. It shouldprovide information about availablelanguage assistance services and how toget them.

* Including notices in localnewspapers in languages other thanEnglish.

* Providing notices on non-English-language radio and television stationsabout the available language assistanceservices and how to get them.

* Presentations and/or notices atschools and religious organizations.Moreover, it is important for recipientsto provide notice of its complaintprocedures, including how to file

14 The Social Security Administration has madesuch signs available at http://www.ssa.govlmultilanguage/langlistl.htm. The FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) has madea similar sign available at Disaster Recovery Centersfor disaster assistance applicants to identify thelanguage they speak. Once the applicants for FEMAbenefits identify their language preference they canaccess simultaneous interpretation services whenregistering for assistance or requesting the status ofthe disaster assistance application over the phone.These signs could, for example, be modified forapplicant's use.

21766


complaints with the DHS Office forCivil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)and FEMA's Office of Equal Rights. 15

Complaints alleging that a recipient hasfailed to provide meaningful access tothe recipient's programs and services orin its encounters with LEP persons maybe sent to CRCL in any language asfollows:

Mailing Address: Department ofHomeland Security, Office for CivilRights and Civil Liberties, Review andCompliance, 245 Murray Lane, SW.,Building 410, Mail Stop #0190,Washington, DC 20528.

Telephone/Fax: Local: 202-401-1474,Toll Free: 1-866-644-8360, Local TTY:202-401-0470, Toll Free TTY: 1-866-644-8361, Fax: 202-401-4708.

E-mail Address: [email protected].

5. Monitoring and Updating the LEPPlan.

Recipients should, where appropriate,have a process for determining, on anongoing basis, whether new documents,programs, services, and activities needto be made accessible for LEPindividuals. Additionally, they maywant to provide notice of any changesin services to the LEP public and toemployees. DHS encourages recipientsto keep updated disaggregated data onLEP persons encountered and thelanguages spoken. In addition,recipients should consider whetherchanges in demographics, types ofservices, or other needs require annualreevaluation of their LEP plan. Lessfrequent reevaluation may be moreappropriate where demographics,services and needs are more static. Onegood way to evaluate the LEP plan is toseek feedback from the community,including civil rights groups andimmigrant organizations. In theirreviews recipients may want to considerassessing changes in the following:

* Current LEP populations in servicearea or population affected orencountered;

* Frequency of encounters with LEPlanguage groups;

* Nature and importance of activitiesto LEP persons;

* Availability of resources, includingtechnological advances and sources ofadditional resources, and the costsimposed;

15 Per 6 CFR part 21 and 44 CFR 7.5(b),complaints involving recipients of financialassistance from FEMA can be sent directly to FEMAat: FEMA Office of Equal Rights; 300 D St., SW.,Washington, DC 20472-3505. FEMA complaintsreceived by the Office for Civil Rights and CivilLiberties will be forwarded to FEMA for responseand/or investigation. Information on FEMA grantand assistance programs may be found at http://www'FEMA.gav/gavemient/grant/index.

* Whether existing assistance ismeeting the needs of LEP persons;

* Whether staff knows andunderstands the LEP plan and how toimplement it; and

* Whether identified sources forassistance are still available and viable.In addition to these five elements,effective plans set clear goals,management accountability, andopportunities for community input andplanning throughout the process.

Recipients are encouraged to partnerwith or consult with community basedorganizations in assessing the need tohave written plans, and in developingand implementing these LEP plans.

VIII. Voluntary Compliance Effort

The goal for Title VI regulatoryenforcement is to achieve voluntarycompliance. The requirement to providemeaningful access to LEP persons isenforced and implemented by DHSthrough the procedures identified in theTitle VI regulations. These proceduresinclude complaint investigations,compliance reviews, efforts to securevoluntary compliance, and technicalassistance.

The Title VI regulations provide thatDHS will investigate when it receives acomplaint, report, or other informationthat alleges or indicates possiblenoncompliance with Title VI or itsregulations.16 If the investigation resultsin a finding of compliance, DHS willinform the recipient in writing of thisdetermination, including the basis forthe determination. However, if acomplaint is fully investigated andresults in a finding of noncompliance,DHS must inform the recipient of thenoncompliance through a Letter ofFindings that sets out the areas ofnoncompliance and the steps that mustbe taken to correct the noncompliance.It must attempt to secure voluntarycompliance through informal means. Ifthe matter cannot be resolvedinformally, DHS must securecompliance through the termination ofFederal assistance after the DHSrecipients have been given anopportunity for an administrativehearing and/or by referring the matter tothe Department of Justice Civil RightsDivision to seek injunctive relief orother enforcement proceedings. DHSengages in voluntary compliance effortsand provides technical assistance torecipients at all stages of aninvestigation. During these efforts, DHSproposes reasonable timetables forachieving compliance and consults withand assists recipients in exploring cost-

16 Id.

effective ways of coming intocompliance. In determining a recipient'scompliance with the Title VIregulations, DHS's primary concern is toensure that the recipient's policies andprocedures provide meaningful accessfor LEP persons to the recipient'sprograms and activities.

While all recipients must worktoward building systems that willensure access for LEP individuals, DHSacknowledges that the implementationof a comprehensive system to serve LEPindividuals is a process and that asystem will evolve over time as it isimplemented and periodicallyreevaluated. As recipients takereasonable steps to provide meaningfulaccess to Federally assisted programsand activities for LEP persons, DHS willlook favorably on intermediate stepsrecipients take that are consistent withthis guidance, and that, as part of abroader implementation plan orschedule, move their service deliverysystem toward providing full access toLEP persons. This does not excusenoncompliance but instead recognizesthat full compliance in all areas of arecipient's activities and for all potentiallanguage minority groups mayreasonably require a series ofimplementing actions over a period oftime. However, in developing anyphased implementation schedule, DHSrecipients should ensure that theprovision of appropriate assistance forsignificant LEP populations or withrespect to activities having a significantimpact on the health, safety, legal rights,or livelihood of beneficiaries isaddressed first. To facilitate complianceefforts, recipients are encouraged todocument their efforts to provide LEPpersons with meaningful access to theseand other Federally assisted programsand activities.

IX. Application to Specific Types ofRecipients

This guidance is issued for recipientsthat receive Federal funds and otherFederal assistance from DHS. There maybe cases in which entities receiveFederal funds from other Federalagencies as well as from DHS. Entitiesthat receive funding from other Federalagencies may also look to the LEPguidance issued by those agencies,which are consistent with the DHSGuidance. Other Federal agencies thathave issued similar guidance withregard to limited English proficientpersons include the Departments ofCommerce, Education, Energy, Healthand Human Services, Housing andUrban Development, Justice, Interior,Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury,and Veterans Affairs, and the

21767


Environmental Protection Agency. Anupdated listing of Federal agencies thathave published LEP Guidance can befound at http://www.lep.gov/. The DOJRecipient LEP Guidance in particularprovides many helpful examples of howto apply the four-factor analysis whenmaking decisions about the need fortranslating documents, obtaininginterpreter, and hiring bilingual staff.See 67 FR 41466 (June 18, 2002).Recipients may also benefit fromlearning about the enforcement actionsof several agencies since the DOJGuidance was first issued in 2002. Forexample, DOJ has entered into severalagreements that are available online athttp://www.lep.gov. In addition, HHShas resolved several LEP enforcementactions against health service providers.Those resolution agreements areavailable at http://www.hhs.gov/ocrlcivilrights/activities/examples/LEP/index.html. In any compliance andenforcement activity, DHS will reviewthe facts and circumstances pertainingto the recipient to determine whetherthe recipient has complied with itsobligations under this guidance.

Area-specific guidance and LEPplanning tools for a number of types ofrecipients, including municipalgovernments, law enforcement agencies,and recipients engaged in emergencypreparedness can be found at http://www.lep.gov/resources/resources.htm].Recipients are encouraged to availthemselves of these resources. Inaddition, the Office for Civil Rights andCivil Liberties is available to providetechnical assistance to recipients on theprovision of language services to LEPpersons served or encountered in arecipient's program.

As explained in this guidance, allrecipients of Federal financial assistancefrom DHS must meet the obligation totake reasonable steps to ensure access toprograms and activities by LEP persons.This guidance clarifies the Title VIregulatory obligation to address thelanguage needs of LEP persons, inappropriate circumstances and in areasonable manner by applying the four-factor analysis. In the context ofemergency planning and response,health and safety, and law enforcementoperations, where the potential forgreater consequences are at issue, DHSwill look for strong evidence thatrecipients have taken reasonable stepsto ensure access.

Margo Schlanger,Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.[FR Doe. 2011-9336 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P



Privacy Act of 1974; Consolidation ofSystem of Records

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.ACTION: Notice to consolidate onePrivacy Act system of records notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePrivacy Act of 1974, the Department ofHomeland Security is giving notice thatit proposes to consolidate one PrivacyAct system of records notice from itsinventory of record systems titled,Department of Homeland Security/Directorate of Science andTechnology-.0001 Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering EffectiveTechnologies Act of 2002, September26, 2003, into the existing Departmentof Homeland Security system of recordsnotice titled, Department of HomelandSecurity/ALL-002 Mailing and OtherLists System, November 25, 2008.DATES: Effective Date: May 18, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief PrivacyOfficer, Department of HomelandSecurity, Washington, DC 20528, bytelephone (703) 235-0780 or facsimile1-866-466-5370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inaccordance with the Privacy Act of1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and as part of itsongoing integration and managementefforts, the Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS) is giving notice that itproposes to consolidate one Privacy Actsystem of records notice (SORN) fromits inventory of record systems titled,DHS/Directorate of Science andTechnology (S&T)-.0001 Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering EffectiveTechnologies Act of 2002, (68 FR 55642,September 26, 2003), into the existingDHS SORN titled, DHS/ALL-002Mailing and Other Lists System, (73 FR71659, November 25, 2008).

DHS originally created the DHS/S&T-.0001 Support Anti-Terrorism byFostering Effective Technologies Act of2002 SORN in September 2003. Thissystem was originally established inorder to maintain records on individualswho submit applications fortechnologies seeking liability protectionunder provisions of the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering EffectiveTechnologies Act. Given that theserecords are limited to contactinformation of individuals (businessphone number, mailing address, e-mailaddress), DHS has determined thissystem can be covered under the DHS/

ALL-002 Mailing and Other ListSystems SORN.

Consolidating this SORN will have noadverse impact on individuals, but willpromote the overall streamlining andmanagement of DHS Privacy Act recordsystems.

Dated: April 12, 2011.Mary Ellen Callahan,Chief Privacy Officer, Department ofHomeland Security.[FR Doe. 2011-9330 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P


SECURITY


[Docket No. DHS-2011-0013]

Privacy Act of 1974; Department ofHomeland Security/Office of HealthAffairs-001 Contractor OccupationalHealth and Immunization RecordsSystem of Records

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.ACTION: Notice of Privacy Act system ofrecords.

SUMMARY: In accordance with thePrivacy Act of 1974 the Department ofHomeland Security proposes toestablish a new Department ofHomeland Security system of recordsnotice titled, "Department of HomelandSecurity/Office of Health Affairs-001Contractor Occupational Health andImmunization Records System ofRecords." This system collectsoccupational health and immunizationmanagement records. These records arecollected as part of the Directorate ofScience and Technology's Laboratoriesand field sites occupational healthsurveillance operations, in support ofthe Office of Health Affair'sresponsibilities for medical and healthmatters. This newly established systemwill be included in the Department ofHomeland Security's inventory ofrecord systems.DATES: Submit comments on or beforeMay 18, 2011. This new system will beeffective May 18, 2011.ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,identified by docket number DHS-2011-0013 by one of the followingmethods:

* Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments.

* Fax: 703-483-2999.* Mail: Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief

Privacy Officer, Privacy Office,Department of Homeland Security,Washington, DC 20528.

21768


* Instructions: All submissionsreceived must include the agency nameand docket number for this rulemaking.All comments received will be postedwithout change to http://www.regulations.gov, including anypersonal information provided.

e Docket: For access to the docket toread background documents orcomments received go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general questions please contact: ChiefMedical Officer (202-254-6479),[email protected]. Gov, Office ofHealth Affairs, Department of HomelandSecurity, Washington, DC 20520. Forprivacy issues please contact: MaryEllen Callahan (703-235-0780), ChiefPrivacy Officer, Privacy Office, U.S.Department of Homeland Security,Washington, DC 20528.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In accordance with the Privacy Act of1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, theDepartment of Homeland Security(DHS) Office of Health Affairs (OHA)proposes to establish a new system ofrecords titled, DHS/OHA-001Contractor Occupational Health andImmunization Records System ofRecords. This system, under theauthority of the Chief Medical Officer,collects occupational health andimmunization management records aspart of the Directorate of Science andTechnology's (S&T's) Laboratories andFederally Funded Research andDevelopment Centers (FFRDC)occupational health surveillanceoperations.

DHS/S&T Office of NationalLaboratories (ONL) develops, sustainsand expands a coordinated network ofS&T Laboratories and other FFRDC tohelp deliver critical homeland securitycapabilities. These S&T entities include:Chemical Security Analysis Center(CSAC), National Urban Science andTechnology Laboratory (NUSTL),National Biodefense Analysis andCountermeasures Center (NBACC),Plum Island Animal Disease Center(PIADC), and Transportation SecurityLaboratory (TSL). ONL provides acoordinated, enduring core ofproductive science, technology, andengineering laboratories, organizations,and institutions, which can provide theknowledge and technology required tosecure the Nation. In support of thiseffort, occupational health andimmunization records are managed andmaintained by a contracted, designatedCompetent Medical Authority (CMA).The CMA ensures verification of staff

immunization status and generaloccupational health and safety, allowingthem to work with specific material anduse certain personal protectiveequipment in designated laboratoryareas.

Occupational health surveillanceprograms are typically in place atinstitutions conducting biologicalresearch involving potentially high-riskagents to ensure occupational health ofall personnel. As such, occupationalhealth surveillance for contractors iscommonly practiced at the S&TLaboratories and FFRDCs to ensure thehealth and safety of these individuals. Aportion of the research conducted at theS&T Laboratories and FFRDCs involveworking with biological threats andselect agents and toxins. During suchresearch, there is always a possibilitythat DHS contractors could becomeexposed to hazardous materials. It ispart of biological laboratory bestpractices to maintain contractor'soccupational health and immunizationrecords to ensure that appropriate andtimely medical care is provided in thecase of any potential risk of exposure. Inthe event of individual exposure,maintenance of occupational health andimmunization records will facilitateappropriate mitigation and treatment ofthe individual.

In conjunction with occupationalhealth surveillance, during the course ofresearch conducted at the laboratories,contractors are often required to wearcertain articles of personal protectiveequipment, such as respirators, in orderto access and work in specific areas ofthe laboratory. Maintainingoccupational health records helps verifythat the contractor meets the healthrequirements to use such equipment.Additionally, DHS contractorsconducting foreign travel as part of theirduties at DHS have to ensure that theyreceive all appropriate immunizationsand vaccinations prior to their travels.Managing contractor immunizationrecords will facilitate recordkeeping ofthis information.

The purpose of this system is tomanage, quantify, monitor, and trackoccupational health and immunizationrecords of contractors working at S&TLaboratories or FFRDCs, and employeesand contractors from other Federalagencies assigned to those S&T entitiescreated in support of S&T researchmission and occupational healthsurveillance operations. TheDepartment's authority for thiscollection is 6 U.S.C. 321e whichauthorizes the DHS Chief MedicalOfficer to ensure "internal and externalcoordination of all medicalpreparedness and response activities of

the Department." The Chief MedicalOfficer serves as the Department'sprimary point of contact on medical andhealth issues, and performs such otherduties relating to the Chief MedicalOfficer's responsibilities as theSecretary may require. DHS Delegation5001 (to the Assistant Secretary forHealth Affairs (ASHA) and ChiefMedical Officer) builds upon the ChiefMedical Officer's statutory authority in6 U.S.C. 321e by granting the ChiefMedical Officer "the authority toexercise oversight over all medical andpublic health activities of' DHS. SectionII, DHS Delegation 5001.

This system collects occupationalhealth and immunization managementrecords as part of S&T's Laboratoriesand FFRDC occupational healthsurveillance operations. Efforts havebeen made to safeguard records inaccordance with applicable rules andpolicies, including all applicable DHSautomated systems security and accesspolicies. Strict controls have beenimposed to minimize risk ofcompromising the information that isbeing stored. Access to the computersystem containing the records in thissystem is limited to those individualswho have a need to know theinformation for the performance of theirofficial duties and who have appropriateclearances or permissions. Routine usescontained in this notice include somefrom the Department's library of routineuses. Those include sharing with theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) for legaladvice and representation; to acongressional office at the request of anindividual; to the National Archives andRecords Administration (NARA) forrecords management; to contractors insupport of their contract assignment toDHS; to an agency, organization, orindividual for audit; to agencies,entities, or individuals in the event of asecurity or information risk orcompromise; to Federal, State, local andother governmental partners to enforceand prosecute laws and regulations; andto the news media where there exists alegitimate public interest. Routine UseH. is unique to this system and is forsharing with the Department of Energywhen conducting research incollaboration with DHS under aninteragency agreement or Memorandumof Understanding. There is no sharingwith any other agencies or medicalteams. This system of records willcollect information under thePaperwork Reduction Act using thefollowing forms: OMB No. 0579-0213/0920-0576, APHIS/CDC Form-1Application for Registration forPossession, Use and Transfer of Select

21769


Agents and Toxins, Expires 12/31/2011;OMB No. 1110-0039, FBI Form FD-961Bioterrorism Preparedness Act: Entity!Individual Information, Expires 10/31/2012; OMB No. 1117-0012, DEA Form225 Application for Registration Underthe Controlled Substance Act, Expires03/31/2012.

It is important to note that neitherOHA or S&T are subject to theprovisions of the Health InsurancePortability and Accountability Act of1996 (HIPAA) privacy regulation,"Standards for Privacy of IndividuallyIdentifiable Health Information"(Privacy Rule), 45 CFR Parts 160 and164. OHA/S&T do not meet the statutorydefinition of a covered entity underHIPAA, 42 U.S.C. 1320d-1. BecauseOHA/S&T are not covered entities, therestrictions proscribed by the HIPAAPrivacy Rule are not applicable.

This newly established system will beincluded in the Department ofHomeland Security's inventory ofrecord systems.

II. Privacy Act

The Privacy Act embodies fairinformation principles in a statutoryframework governing the means bywhich the United States governmentcollects, maintains, uses, anddisseminates individuals' records. ThePrivacy Act applies to information thatis maintained in a "system of records."A "system of records" is a group of anyrecords under the control of an agencyfor which information is retrieved bythe name of an individual or by someidentifying number, symbol, or otheridentifying particular assigned to theindividual. In the Privacy Act, anindividual is defined to encompassUnited States citizens and lawfulpermanent residents. As a matter ofpolicy, DHS extends administrativePrivacy Act protections to allindividuals where systems of recordsmaintain information on U.S. citizens,lawful permanent residents, andvisitors. Individuals may request accessto their own records that are maintainedin a system of records in the possessionor under the control of DHS bycomplying with DHS Privacy Actregulations, 6 CFR part 5.

The Privacy Act requires each agencyto publish in the Federal Register adescription denoting the type andcharacter of each system of records thatthe agency maintains, and the routineuses that are contained in each systemin order to make agency record keepingpractices transparent, to notifyindividuals regarding the uses to theirrecords are put, and to assist individualsto more easily find such files within theagency. Below is the description of the

DHS/OHA-001 Contractor OccupationalHealth and Immunization RecordsSystem of Records.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r),DHS has provided a report of thissystem of records to the Office ofManagement and Budget and toCongress.

System of Records

DHS/OHA-001.

SYSTEM NAME:

Office of Health Affairs-ContractorOccupational Health and ImmunizationRecords System of Records.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

Unclassified, sensitive, and classified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Records may be maintained at theDirectorate of Science and Technology(S&T) Headquarters in Washington, DCat S&T Laboratories or Federally FundedResearch and Development Centers(FFRDC), or by the contractedCompetent Medical Authority,collecting the records on behalf of S&T.


Categories of individuals covered bythis system include: S&T contractorsworking at S&T Laboratories (and othersites); FFRDC contractors; andcontractors from other Federal agenciesassigned to these S&T entities, whoseoccupational health and immunizationrecords are created in support of theS&T's Laboratory research mission andoccupational health surveillanceoperations. To note, Federal employeesare specifically not covered by thissystem because they are covered by theOffice of Personnel Management OPM/GOVT-10 Employee Medical FileSystem Records system (June 19, 2006,71 FR 35360).


Categories of records in this systeminclude:

" Individual's full name;" Date of birth and age;" Gender;" Work e-mail address;" Work phone number;" Work address;" Organizational affiliation;" Blood type;" Immunization record;" Other relevant occupational health

records.


The DHS Chief Medical Officer, under6 U.S.C. 321e is authorized to ensure"internal and external coordination ofall medical preparedness and response

activities of the Department", to serve asthe Department's primary point ofcontact on medical and health issues,and to perform such other dutiesrelating to the Chief Medical Officer'sresponsibilities as the Secretary mayrequire. DHS Delegation 5001 (to theAssistant Secretary for Health Affairs(ASHA) and Chief Medical Officer)builds upon the Chief Medical Officer'sstatutory authority in 6 U.S.C. 321e bygranting the Chief Medical Officer "theauthority to exercise oversight over allmedical and public health activities of'DHS. Section II, DHS Delegation 5001.Additionally, the Delegation authorizesthe Chief Medical Officer to assure aneffective coordinated medical responseto natural or man-made disasters or actsof terrorism, including "[s]upporting theNational Operations Center, NationalResponse Coordination Center, andComponent leadership to ensure thatoperations have appropriate medicalsupport, to specifically includecoordination of medical activities forany level of incident with biological ormedical consequences."

PURPOSE(S):

The purpose of this system is tomanage, quantify, monitor, and trackoccupational health and immunizationrecords of contractors working at S&TLaboratories or FFRDCs, and employeesand contractors from other Federalagencies assigned to those S&T entitiescreated in support of S&T researchmission and occupational healthsurveillance operations.


In addition to those disclosuresgenerally permitted under 5 U.S.C.552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or aportion of the records or informationcontained in this system may bedisclosed outside DHS as a routine usepursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) asfollows:

A. To the Department of Justice(including United States AttorneyOffices) or other Federal agencyconducting litigation or in proceedingsbefore any court, adjudicative oradministrative body, when it isnecessary to the litigation and one of thefollowing is a party to the litigation orhas an interest in such litigation:

1. DHS or any component thereof;2. Any employee of DHS in his/her

official capacity;3. Any employee of DHS in his/her

individual capacity where DOJ or DHShas agreed to represent the employee; or

4. The United States or any agencythereof, is a party to the litigation or has

21770


an interest in such litigation, and DHSdetermines that the records are bothrelevant and necessary to the litigationand the use of such records iscompatible with the purpose for whichDHS collected the records.

B. To a congressional office from therecord of an individual in response toan inquiry from that congressional officemade at the request of the individual towhom the record pertains.

C. To the National Archives andRecords Administration or other Federalgovernment agencies pursuant torecords management inspections beingconducted under the authority of 44U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

D. To an agency, organization, orindividual for the purpose of performingaudit or oversight operations asauthorized by law, but only suchinformation as is necessary and relevantto such audit or oversight function.

E. To appropriate agencies, entities,and persons when:

1. DHS suspects or has confirmed thatthe security or confidentiality ofinformation in the system of records hasbeen compromised;

2. The Department has determinedthat as a result of the suspected orconfirmed compromise there is a risk ofharm to economic or property interests,identity theft or fraud, or harm to thesecurity or integrity of this system orother systems or programs (whethermaintained by DHS or another agency orentity) or harm to the individual thatrely upon the compromisedinformation; and

3. The disclosure made to suchagencies, entities, and persons isreasonably necessary to assist inconnection with DHS's efforts torespond to the suspected or confirmedcompromise and prevent, minimize, orremedy such harm.

F. To contractors and their agents,grantees, experts, consultants, andothers performing or working on acontract, service, grant, cooperativeagreement, or other assignment for DHS,when necessary to accomplish anagency function related to this system ofrecords. Individuals providedinformation under this routine use aresubject to the same Privacy Actrequirements and limitations ondisclosure as are applicable to DHSofficers and employees.

G. To an appropriate Federal, State,Tribal, local, international, or foreignlaw enforcement agency or otherappropriate authority charged withinvestigating or prosecuting a violationor enforcing or implementing a law,rule, regulation, or order, where arecord, either on its face or inconjunction with other information,

indicates a violation or potentialviolation of law, which includescriminal, civil, or regulatory violationsand such disclosure is proper andconsistent with the official duties of theperson making the disclosure.

H. To the Department of Energy whenconducting research in collaborationwith DHS under an interagencyagreement, a Memorandum ofUnderstanding, or Memorandum ofAgreement.

I. To the news media and the public,with the approval of the Chief PrivacyOfficer in consultation with counsel,when there exists a legitimate publicinterest in the disclosure of theinformation or when disclosure isnecessary to preserve confidence in theintegrity of DHS or is necessary todemonstrate the accountability of DHS'sofficers, employees, or individualscovered by the system, except to theextent it is determined that release ofthe specific information in the contextof a particular case would constitute anunwarranted invasion of personalprivacy.

DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTINGAGENCIES:

None.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING,RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, ANDDISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

STORAGE:

Records in this system are storedelectronically or on paper in securefacilities in a locked drawer behind alocked door. The records are stored onmagnetic disc, tape, digital media, andCD-ROM.

RETRIEVABILITY:

Records may be retrieved by anindividual's name, date of birth, e-mailaddress, and/or work telephone number.

SAFEGUARDS:

Records in this system aresafeguarded in accordance withapplicable rules and policies, includingall applicable DHS automated systemssecurity and access policies. Strictcontrols have been imposed to minimizethe risk of compromising theinformation that is stored. Access to thecomputer system containing the recordsin this system is limited to thoseindividuals who have a need to knowthe information for the performance oftheir official duties and who haveappropriate clearances or permissions.


Records will be maintained inaccordance with the National Archivesand Records Administration (NARA)approved General Records System 1,

Item 19, which covers forms,correspondence, and other records,including summary recordsdocumenting an individual employee'smedical history, physical condition, andvisits to the Government health-facilities, for non-work related purposes.Occupational health and immunizationrecords maintained at field sites will beretained by the laboratories contractoperators. Records are deleted/destroyed when S&T or laboratorycontract operators determine that theyare no longer needed for administrative,legal, audit, or other operationalpurposes.

SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

Directorate of Science andTechnology Laboratory Operations andOversight Manager (202-254-6400),Directorate of Science and Technology,Department of Homeland Security,Washington, DC 20520.


Individuals seeking notification ofand access to any record contained inthis system of records, or seeking tocontest its content, may submit arequest in writing to S&T's FOIAOfficer, whose contact information canbe found at http://www.dhs.gov/foiaunder "contacts."

When seeking records about yourselffrom this system of records your requestmust conform with the Privacy Actregulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5.You must first verify your identity,meaning that you must provide your fullname, current address and date andplace of birth. You must sign yourrequest, and your signature must eitherbe notarized or submitted under 28U.S.C. 1746, a law that permitsstatements to be made under penalty ofperjury as a substitute for notarization.While no specific form is required, youmay obtain forms for this purpose fromthe Chief Privacy Officer and ChiefFreedom of Information Act Officer,http://www.dhs.gov or 1-866-431-0486.In addition you should provide thefollowing:

* An explanation of why you believethe Department would have informationon you;

* Identify which component(s) of theDepartment you believe may have theinformation about you;

* Specify when you believe therecords would have been created;

* Provide any other information thatwill help the FOIA staff determinewhich DHS component agency mayhave responsive records; and

* If your request is seeking recordspertaining to another living individual,you must include a statement from that

21771


individual certifying his/her agreementfor you to access his/her records.

Without this bulleted information thecomponent(s) may not be able toconduct an effective search, and yourrequest may be denied due to lack ofspecificity or lack of compliance withapplicable regulations.


See "Notification procedure" above.


See "Notification procedure" above.


Records are obtained by the subjectindividual.


None.


Mary Ellen Callahan,Chief Privacy Officer, Department ofHomeland Security.

[FR Doe. 2011-9331 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-9F-P


SECURITY

Coast Guard


Navigation Safety Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.ACTION: Notice of Federal AdvisoryCommittee Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Navigation SafetyAdvisory Council (NAVSAC) will meeton May 4-5, 2011, in Arlington,Virginia. The meeting will be open tothe public.DATES: NAVSAC will meet Wednesday,May 4, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., andThursday, May 5, 2011, from 8 a.m. to5 p.m. Please note that the meeting mayclose early if the committee hascompleted its business. Pre-registrationand written comments are due April 29,2011.ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held atthe Navy League Building, Coast GuardRecruiting Command, 5th floorconference room, 2300 WilsonBoulevard, Suite 500, Arlington,Virginia 20598. All visitors to the NavyLeague Building must pre-register to beadmitted to the building. You may pre-register by contacting the person listedin FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTbelow.

For information on facilities orservices for individuals with disabilitiesor to request special assistance at themeeting, contact Mr. Dennis Fahr assoon as possible.

To facilitate public participation, weare inviting public comment on theissues to be considered by thecommittee as listed in the "Agenda"section below. You may submit writtencomments no later than April 25, 2011,and must be identified by USCG-2011-0204 using one of the followingmethods:

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions for submitting comments(preferred method to avoid delays inprocessing)." Fax:202-493-2251.* Mail: Docket Management Facility

(M-30), U.S. Department ofTransportation, West Building GroundFloor, Room W1 2-140, 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

* Hand Delivery: Same as mailaddress above, between 9 a.m. and 5p.m., Monday through Friday, exceptFederal holidays. The telephone numberis 202-366-9329.

Instructions: All submissions receivedmust include the words "Department ofHomeland Security" and the docketnumber for this action. Commentsreceived will be posted withoutalteration at http://www.regulations.gov,including any personal informationprovided. You may review a Privacy Actnotice regarding our public dockets inthe January 17, 2008, issue of theFederal Register (73 FR 3316).

Docket: For access to the docket toread documents or comments related tothis notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

A public comment period will be heldduring the meeting on May 4, 2011,from 3 to 4 p.m., and May 5, at the closeof the meeting. Speakers are requestedto limit their comments to 10 minutes.Please note that the public commentperiod may end before the timeindicated, following the last call forcomments. Contact the individual listedbelow to register as a speaker.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions about this meeting,please contact Mr. Mike Sollosi, theNAVSAC Alternate Designated FederalOfficer (ADFO), at telephone 202-372-1545 or e-mail [email protected],or Mr. Dennis Fahr, at telephone 202-372-1531 or [email protected]. If you havequestions on viewing or submittingmaterial to the docket, call Renee V.Wright, Program Manager, DocketOperations, telephone 202-366-9826.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ofthis meeting is given under the FederalAdvisory Committee Act (FACA), 5U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

The NAVSAC is an advisorycommittee authorized in 33 U.S.C. 2073and chartered under the provisions ofthe FACA. NAVSAC provides adviceand recommendations to the Secretary,through the Commandant of the U.S.Coast Guard, on matters relating toprevention of maritime collisions,rammings, and groundings; includingthe Inland and International Rules of theRoad, navigation regulations andequipment, routing measures, marineinformation, diving safety, and aids tonavigation systems.

Agenda

The NAVSAC will meet to review,discuss and formulate recommendationson the following topics:

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

(1) Coastal Marine Spatial Planning(CMSP)

Executive Order 13547 directedFederal Agencies to take a newapproach to stewardship of the oceans,coasts, and Great Lakes. CMSP is onefacet of that initiative. This topic willaddress the Coast Guard's plans forimplementing CMSP.

(2) Navigation Rules Regulatory Project

This topic will address the CoastGuard's progress toward implementingNAVSAC approved changes to theInland Navigation Rules.

(3) E-Navigation Strategy

Under the auspices of the Committeeon the Marine Transportation System,the Coast Guard and other agencies aredeveloping a National e-NavigationStrategy that will establish a frameworkfor data exchange between and amongships and shore facilities. This topicwill update the Council on that effort.

(4) Electronic Chart Display andInformation System (ECDIS)

Mandatory carriage of ECDIS will bephased in beginning in 2012. This seriesof presentations will inform the Councilof developments and difficultiesencountered in deploying ECDIS,including accuracy of charted positions,the range of vessels to be impacted, andtraining requirements for ECDIS.

(5) Virtual Aids to Navigation

Aids to Navigation authorities areconsidering deploying virtual aids tonavigation as an alternative to physicallights, daybeacons and buoys undercertain circumstances. This topic willinform the Council on virtual aids anddiscuss their possible use in U.S.waters.

21772


The following tasks will also bediscussed and recommendationsformulated:

(1) NAVSAC Task 11-01 Sky Sails

The use of Sky Sails to augmentpropulsion on vessels is a realpossibility. This task will addresswhether there should be restrictions ontheir use.

(2) NAVSAC Task 11-02 Proximity ofOffshore Energy Installations toEstablished Ships Routing Measures

The Council will be asked if thereshould be regulated "buffer zones"around offshore renewable energyinstallations and if so, what the size ofthe zones should be.

(3) NAVSAC Task 08-07 AutonomousUnmanned Vessels

The Council will continue itsdiscussion of autonomous unmannedvessels and discuss their implicationsfor the Inland Navigation Rules.

A public comment period will be heldfrom 3 to 4 p.m. Speakers commentslimited to 10 minutes each. Publiccomments or questions will be taken atthe discretion of the DFO during thediscussion and recommendation portionof the meeting.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

(1) Working Group Discussionscontinue from May 4.

(2) Working Group Reports.(3) New Business.a. IMO Safety Navigation Sub

Committee.The Coast Guard will update the

Council on recent decisions andplanned outputs of the IMO SafetyNavigation Subcommittee.

b. Summary of NAVSAC ActionItems.

c. Schedule Next Meeting Date-Spring 2012.

d. Committee discussion/acceptanceof new tasks.

A public comment period will be heldafter the discussion/acceptance of newtasks. Speaker's comments limited to 10minutes each. Public comments orquestions will be taken at the discretionof the DFO during the discussion andrecommendations, and new businessportion of the meeting.

Dated: April 12, 2011.Dana A. Goward,Director, Marine Transportation SystemsManagement, U.S. Coast Guard.[FR Doe. 2011-9356 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3318-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

North Dakota; Emergency and RelatedDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is a notice of thePresidential declaration of anemergency for the State of North Dakota(FEMA-3318-EM), dated April 7, 2011,and related determinations.DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Miller, Office of Response andRecovery, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ishereby given that, in a letter dated April7, 2011, the President issued anemergency declaration under theauthority of the Robert T. StaffordDisaster Relief and EmergencyAssistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207(the Stafford Act), as follows:

I have determined that the emergencyconditions in certain areas of the State ofNorth Dakota resulting from floodingbeginning on April 5, 2011, and continuing,are of sufficient severity and magnitude towarrant an emergency declaration under theRobert T. Stafford Disaster Relief andEmergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 etseq. ("the Stafford Act"). Therefore, I declarethat such an emergency exists in the State ofNorth Dakota.

You are authorized to provide appropriateassistance for required emergency measures,authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act,to save lives and to protect property andpublic health and safety, and to lessen oravert the threat of a catastrophe in thedesignated areas. Specifically, you areauthorized to provide assistance foremergency protective measures (Category B),limited to direct Federal assistance, underthe Public Assistance program. Thisassistance excludes regular time costs forsubgrantees' regular employees.

Consistent with the requirement thatFederal assistance is supplemental, anyFederal funds provided under the StaffordAct for Public Assistance will be limited to75 percent of the total eligible costs. In orderto provide Federal assistance, you are herebyauthorized to allocate from funds availablefor these purposes such amounts as you findnecessary for Federal emergency assistanceand administrative expenses.

Further, you are authorized to makechanges to this declaration for the approvedassistance to the extent allowable under theStafford Act.

The Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) hereby gives notice thatpursuant to the authority vested in theAdministrator, Department of HomelandSecurity, under Executive Order 12148,as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMAis appointed to act as the FederalCoordinating Officer for this declaredemergency.

The following areas of the State ofNorth Dakota have been designated asadversely affected by this declaredemergency:

Barnes, Cass, Richland, and Traill foremergency protective measures (Category B),limited to direct Federal assistance, underthe Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be usedfor reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, CoraBrown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance toIndividuals and Households in PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Areas; 97.049,Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance-Disaster Housing Operations for Individualsand Households; 97.050, PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Assistance to Individualsand Households-Other Needs; 97.036,Disaster Grants-Public Assistance(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,Administrator, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

[FR Doe. 2011-9347 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]




[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1967-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Hawaii; Major Disaster and RelatedDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is a notice of thePresidential declaration of a majordisaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-1967-DR), dated April 8, 2011, andrelated determinations.DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Miller, Office of Response andRecovery, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

21773


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ishereby given that, in a letter dated April8, 2011, the President issued a majordisaster declaration under the authorityof the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act, 42U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the "Stafford Act"),as follows:

I have determined that the damage incertain areas of the State of Hawaii resultingfrom tsunami waves on March 11, 2011, is ofsufficient severity and magnitude to warranta major disaster declaration under the RobertT. Stafford Disaster Relief and EmergencyAssistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the"Stafford Act"). Therefore, I declare that sucha major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii.

In order to provide Federal assistance, youare hereby authorized to allocate from fundsavailable for these purposes such amounts asyou find necessary for Federal disasterassistance and administrative expenses.

You are authorized to provide PublicAssistance in the designated areas andHazard Mitigation throughout the State.Consistent with the requirement that Federalassistance is supplemental, any Federalfunds provided under the Stafford Act forPublic Assistance and Hazard Mitigation willbe limited to 75 percent of the total eligiblecosts.


The Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) hereby gives notice thatpursuant to the authority vested in theAdministrator, under Executive Order12148, as amended, Michael L. Karl, ofFEMA is appointed to act as the FederalCoordinating Officer for this majordisaster.

The following areas of the State ofHawaii have been designated asadversely affected by this major disaster:

Hawaii County, Maui County, and the Cityand County of Honolulu for PublicAssistance.

All counties within the State of Hawaii areeligible to apply for assistance under theHazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be usedfor reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, CoraBrown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance toIndividuals and Households In PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Areas; 97.049,Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance-Disaster Housing Operations for Individualsand Households; 97.050, PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Assistance to Individualsand Households-Other Needs; 97.036,Disaster Grants-Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.

[FR Doe. 2011-9348 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]





Wisconsin; Major Disaster and RelatedDeterminations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, DHS.ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is a notice of thePresidential declaration of a majordisaster for the State of Wisconsin(FEMA-1966-DR), dated April 5, 2011,

and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 5, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Miller, Office of Response andRecovery, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ishereby given that, in a letter dated April5, 2011, the President issued a majordisaster declaration under the authorityof the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act, 42U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the "Stafford Act"),as follows:

I have determined that the damage incertain areas of the State of Wisconsinresulting from a severe winter storm andsnowstorm during the period of January 31,to February 3, 2011, is of sufficient severityand magnitude to warrant a major disasterdeclaration under the Robert T. StaffordDisaster Relief and Emergency AssistanceAct, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the "StaffordAct"). Therefore, I declare that such a majordisaster exists in the State of Wisconsin.

In order to provide Federal assistance, youare hereby authorized to allocate from fundsavailable for these purposes such amounts asyou find necessary for Federal disasterassistance and administrative expenses.

You are authorized to provide PublicAssistance in the designated areas andHazard Mitigation throughout the State. Youare further authorized to provide emergencyprotective measures, including snowassistance, under the Public Assistanceprogram for any continuous 48-hour periodduring or proximate to the incident period.You may extend the period of assistance, aswarranted. This assistance excludes regulartime costs for the sub-grantees' regular

employees. Consistent with the requirementthat Federal assistance is supplemental, anyFederal funds provided under the StaffordAct for Public Assistance and HazardMitigation will be limited to 75 percent of thetotal eligible costs.


The Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) hereby gives notice thatpursuant to the authority vested in theAdministrator, under Executive Order12148, as amended, Gregory W. Eaton,of FEMA is appointed to act as theFederal Coordinating Officer for thismajor disaster.

The following areas of the State ofWisconsin have been designated asadversely affected by this major disaster:

Dane, Dodge, Grant, Iowa, Kenosha,Lafayette, Milwaukee, Racine, Walworth,and Washington Counties for PublicAssistance.

Dane, Dodge, Grant, Iowa, Kenosha,Lafayette, Milwaukee, Racine, Walworth,and Washington Counties for emergencyprotective measures (Category B),including snow assistance, under thePublic Assistance program for anycontinuous 48-hour period during orproximate to the incident period.

All counties within the State of Wisconsinare eligible to apply for assistance underthe Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be usedfor reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, CoraBrown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance toIndividuals and Households in PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Areas; 97.049,Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance-Disaster Housing Operations for Individualsand Households; 97.050, PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Assistance to Individualsand Households-Other Needs; 97.036,Disaster Grants-Public Assistance(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.[FR Doe. 2011-9346 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]


21774





Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Noticeof a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the noticeof a major disaster declaration for theState of Missouri (FEMA-1961-DR),dated March 23, 2011, and relateddeterminations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Peggy Miller, Office of Response andRecovery, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The noticeof a major disaster declaration for theState of Missouri is hereby amended toinclude the following area among thoseareas determined to have been adverselyaffected by the event declared a majordisaster by the President in hisdeclaration of March 23, 2011.

Camden County for Public Assistance.Camden County for emergency protectivemeasures (Category B), including snowassistance, under the Public Assistanceprogram for any continuous 48-hour periodduring or proximate to the incident period.The following Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be usedfor reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, CoraBrown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034,Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance toIndividuals and Households In PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Areas; 97.049,Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance-Disaster Housing Operations for Individualsand Households; 97.050 PresidentiallyDeclared Disaster Assistance to Individualsand Households-Other Needs; 97.036,Disaster Grants-Public Assistance(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,Administrator, Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.[FR Doe. 2011-9351 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]



U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Notice of Issuance of FinalDetermination Concerning CertainOffice Workstations

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and BorderProtection, Department of HomelandSecurity.ACTION: Notice of final determination.

SUMMARY: This document providesnotice that U.S. Customs and BorderProtection ("CBP") has issued a finaldetermination concerning the country oforigin of certain office workstations.Based upon the facts presented, CBP hasconcluded in the final determinationthat the U.S. is the country of origin ofthe office workstations for purposes ofU.S. government procurement.DATES: The final determination wasissued on April 11, 2011. A copy of thefinal determination is attached. Anyparty-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR177.22(d), may seek judicial review ofthis final determination on or beforeMay 18, 2011.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ElifEroglu, Valuation and Special ProgramsBranch: (202) 325-0277.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice ishereby given that on April 11, 2011,pursuant to subpart B of part 177,Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177,subpart B), CBP issued a finaldetermination concerning the country oforigin of the Vivo and Ethospace officeworkstations which may be offered tothe U.S. Government under anundesignated government procurementcontract.

This final determination,Headquarters Ruling Letter ("HQ")H134536, was issued at the request ofHerman Miller, Inc. under proceduresset forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B,which implements Title III of the TradeAgreements Act of 1979, as amended(19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the finaldetermination, CBP has concluded that,based upon the facts presented, theassembly of the Vivo and Ethospaceoffice workstations in the U.S., fromparts made in China, Mexico, and theU.S., constitutes a substantialtransformation, such that the U.S. is thecountry of origin of the finished articlefor purposes of U.S. governmentprocurement.

Section 177.29, Customs Regulations(19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice offinal determinations shall be publishedin the Federal Register within 60 daysof the date the final determination isissued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations

(19 CFR 177.30), provides that anyparty-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR177.22(d), may seek judicial review of afinal determination within 30 days ofpublication of such determination in theFederal Register.

Dated: April 11, 2011.Sandra L. Bell,Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings,Office of International Trade.

Attachment

HQ H134536

April 11, 2011OT:RR:CTF:VS H134536 EECATEGORY: MarkingLisa A. Crosby, Sidley Austin, LLP, 1501 K

Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005RE: U.S. Government Procurement; Title III,

Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C.§ 2511); Subpart B, Part 177, CBPRegulations; Office Workstations

Dear Ms. Crosby: This is in response toyour correspondence of November 15, 2010,supplemented by your letter of March 10,2011, requesting a final determination onbehalf of Herman Miller, Inc. ("HermanMiller"), pursuant to subpart B of part 177,U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP")Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 177.21 et seq.).Under the pertinent regulations, whichimplement Title III of the Trade AgreementsAct of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2511 etseq.), CBP issues country of origin advisoryrulings and final determinations as towhether an article is or would be a productof a designated country or instrumentality forthe purpose of granting waivers of certain"Buy American" restrictions in U.S. law orpractice for products offered for sale to theU.S. Government.

This final determination concerns thecountry of origin of the Vivo and Ethospaceoffice workstations. We note that HermanMiller is a party-at-interest within themeaning of 19 C.F.R. § 177.22(d)(1) and isentitled to request this final determination.

FACTS:

Herman Miller is a U.S. supplier offurniture products and accessories for home,office, healthcare and learning environments.The merchandise at issue is Herman Miller'sVivo and Ethospace office workstations. Youstate that Herman Miller engineered anddesigned the office workstations whollywithin the U.S. The assembly andinstallation of the office workstations, fromU.S. and imported components, occurs in theU.S.

You state that the Vivo and Ethospaceoffice workstations both feature "frame-and-tile" construction, which consists of a sturdysteel frame on which a variety of componentscan be hung, including shelving, storageunits, drawer units, work surfaces, lighting,decorative tiles/panels, etc. The open framealso has a large capacity to house wiring andcable, permitting a workstation toaccommodate computers, printers and otheroffice equipment.

You state that the Vivo and Ethospaceoffice workstations can be assembled in a

21775

EIN NLINE - Regulations.gov

Documents

Transcript of EIN NLINE - Regulations.gov